Islamists To Blow Up Sears Tower?

[kyser_soze]

If I read this correctly you state that *because* they happen to be *not Muslim* they can't possibly be dangerous or in any case they must be "nutters"?

I wonder how you come to this rapid conclusion.

salaam.

Well you haven't read it correctly. At all.

I never even mention whether or not they are Muslim, more that they are potentially joining a long, long list of domestic 'terrorists' in the US such as McVeigh, Unabomber and the disproportionate number of mass murderers the US seems to produce. Same point I made, in fact, on another thread on this topic, that US society produces a LOT of screwed up people whose actions could easily be classified as 'terrorist' whereas 10 or 15 years ago they'd have been called 'random bombers' or something similar.

So no, I say NONE of the things you're saying.

 

[Aldebaran]

So no, I say NONE of the things you're saying.

I was only asking, because I wonder how reactions would be - also more in general - if they happened to be Muslim. Would you for example then also classify them under the same label as you do now? (honestly)

By the way: How many of such "home grown" terrorists or terrorist groups are there in the USA? (You sound almost as if it is there some daily business.) Related to that subject: If such types of people can so easily pop up *inside' the US itself as reaction to their own society, don't you think it to be logically expected that they pop up outside the USA as (at least partially) a reaction to what the USA does to their societies and hence their lives?

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Heh...while I'm not completely up to date on internal 'threats', from memory there haven't really been any committed, national terr groups in the US - it's tended to be individuals (McVeigh), and groups like David Coresh and the Davidians (the ones whom Madeline Albright set fire too). The most recent stuff (again, from memory) has tended to be related to eco-protesting (for example, embedding steel spikes in redwoods to stop them being cut down)

As for it being daily business...well, not quite daily, but events like spree killings (aka 'going postal' because apparently USPO workers are most likley to bring a gun to work and shoot their colleagues!), and the general level of violence in US society makes the process of deciding what constitues 'terrorist' in the US and what consitutes 'normal state of affairs'

And hell, I've never argued that the US wouldn't ever get it's comeuppance for being a global bully/primary imperialist over the last 60 years or so - but instead of seeing it as some kind of unique US-centric phenomena, in 100 years when the global hegemony is shared between China and India, they too will be engaged in assymetric warfare with one or more combatants.

 

[spring-peeper]

I believe that for America to put off half the stuff they do, they have to keep their population in a state of fear. This "war on terrorism" is just like their "war on drugs" or any other one of their campaigns.

This time, it backfired. Their "war on terrorism" and all their pr about stopping the evil muslims or whatever the name of the current boogie man is, is starting to crumble.

The term "terrorist" is going to have to be more clearly defined.

 

[kyser_soze]

Jesus, what is this singling out of America as some kind of ultimate bogeyman for using fear propaganda and divide and rule as a means of regulating it's society - ALL societies do it to a greater or lesser degree depending on the situation it finds itself in. The only reason you can see it now is because it's

1. Been discussed endlessly by Chomsky
2. Media saturation has reached the point where to many it's utterly transparent.

Once the USSR and communism went as the big bogey the US needed something to replace it (the EU went on a huge navel gazing project for a few years) and after trialling some posisble (drug cartels, home grown nutters) the original WTC bombing, coupled with the upsurge in 'fundamentalist' Islam (inverted commas for you there Alders...) in places like Egypt gave US strategists a new enemy to focus on. The funniest thing is until 9/11 Bush was largely committed to being a domestic Prez who during his initial (s)election campaign made a big deal about shifting FP emphasis to the Pacific away from the Atlantic and being a generally less FP focussed prez. (And one of the reasons the immediate linking of PNAC to 9/11 as a conspiracy is false logic...unless the neo-cons have a far longer and more subtle gameplan than anyone gives them credit for and had Bush run on an isolationist ticket to lull everyone into a false sense of security)

Human societies have always been governed on a combination of fear and wonder - the only real difference is that today it's far clearer to see it happening.

 

[spring-peeper]

1984

 

[kyser_soze]

Not especially - way back in pre-industrial times when the Catholic Church was the centre of power it ruled on a combination of wonder (God made the world) with fear (don't worship or obey His(our) laws and you'll be condemned to eternal pain) - even Kings and Queens were subject to God's law. Indeed, in many parts of the world (the US Bible Belt) the appeal to fear God to obey rather then behaving because it's a good thing to do is still as strong.

Maybe it's down to the puritans who settled the US - while they were faithful my understanding of them is that they tended toward the 'fear' rather than 'love' variant on faith (which in turn may have been the result of their persecution - if you take on board the idea that religion and faith are external manifestations of intenal mental processes, the environment,both political and environmental, that forms a religious group will have a massive impact on the course that religion takes in how it relates to other faiths, it's deity relationship etc...whole other thread idea there in fact)...anyhoo...

 

[Aldebaran]

Human societies have always been governed on a combination of fear and wonder - the only real difference is that today it's far clearer to see it happening.

In addition, today the world is massively over-populated. To that comes a massive shift (still in progress) in the amount of people getting or having access to all that media influence and at a speed former generations couldn't imagine possible.

As for the PNAC lunatics: They are bloody (take that literally) seriously putting their ideologies in practice.

salaam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And your point is still irrelevant to your specious claim that "...all they'd need to take it to the next level, are some bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of gas, and a delivery truck", a claim that is wildly inaccurate.

Whatever irrelevancies you care to introduce (and most people know you're a past-master at doing so), the fact that you were talking bollocks doesn't change.

It's not irrelevant. McVeigh was able to get ahold of those things, and didn't seem to have too much trouble figuring out or learning how to use them.

Why would it be different with this bunch?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Heh...while I'm not completely up to date on internal 'threats', from memory there haven't really been any committed, national terr groups in the US - it's tended to be individuals (McVeigh), and groups like David Coresh and the Davidians (the ones whom Madeline Albright set fire too). The most recent stuff (again, from memory) has tended to be related to eco-protesting (for example, embedding steel spikes in redwoods to stop them being cut down).

Er, wasn't it Janet Reno? Why would the Secretary of State be burning people in Texas?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not irrelevant. McVeigh was able to get ahold of those things, and didn't seem to have too much trouble figuring out or learning how to use them.

Thing is, oh wise one, that your claim was that "..all they'd need to take it to the next level, are some bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of gas, and a delivery truck".

Nothing written about the further processing they'd need to undertake, just the fertiliser, gas and a truck. Those three elements alone do not allow you to "take it to the next level.

Any point you introduce about what McVeigh did or was able to do is specious and irrelevant because it's outside of your original (inaccurate) claim.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thing is, oh wise one, that your claim was that "..all they'd need to take it to the next level, are some bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of gas, and a delivery truck".

Nothing written about the further processing they'd need to undertake, just the fertiliser, gas and a truck. Those three elements alone do not allow you to "take it to the next level.

Any point you introduce about what McVeigh did or was able to do is specious and irrelevant because it's outside of your original (inaccurate) claim.

Ok, you're right. They'd also have to learn how to combine those things in the correct mixture.

So, 'fertilizer, gasoline, truck, plus the appropriate knowledge'

Happy now?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok, you're right. They'd also have to learn how to combine those things in the correct mixture.

So, 'fertilizer, gasoline, truck, plus the appropriate knowledge'

Happy now?

Yeah.

I'm glad you profess not to be a lawyer. With attention to detail like yours your clients would have suffered horrifically.

 

[kyser_soze]

Er, wasn't it Janet Reno? Why would the Secretary of State be burning people in Texas?

Whoops! Yeah, Janet Reno...apols cult watchers...

 

[zArk]

time for a news report

dailyshow style, enjoy

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/

btw is TomUS gonna change the thread title to summit like

"Booga booga booga, Government creates terrorist cell to scare people?"

 

[Jessiedog]

Entrapment.



Woof

For propaganda purposes.



Woof