Page 2 of another successful "credibility" thread



[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2009 1:53:15 PM

I don't get it.

12/29/2009 2:25:30 PM

12/29/2009 6:11:04 PM

Not So Scary "Terror"
Dec 26th, 2009

Quote :

"Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat."

--Matthew Yglesias, Center for American Progress

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php

Just wow.

1/5/2010 3:27:11 PM

what exactly is "just wow" about that?

1/5/2010 3:39:22 PM

^ Your question answers itself. And, FTR, I don't appreciate you posting that giant stupid image in this thread.

1/5/2010 3:41:23 PM

i also don't think blowing up a plane is a first-order national security threat and also think it is a serious crime and would be a great tragedy.

1/5/2010 3:54:23 PM

Without the bogeyman that is communism terrorism, the GOP doesn't have much to run on.

So when someone indicates that it seemingly isn't the single greatest threat to the existence of our species, their apologists naturally need to overreact.


I found this insightful:

Quote :

"Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures. [...] There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html

1/5/2010 3:59:48 PM

^^ Yes, horrifically murdering hundreds of people in a violent explosion over U.S. soil on Christmas Day is not "first-order national security." Again, just wow.

^

Quote :

"MAN CAUSED DISASTER"

1/5/2010 4:07:10 PM

when i hear "first-order national security threat" i think invasion, or organized attack, or some kind of major mass casualty situation. sure a terrorist attack on a plane is horrible, but i don't think it qualifies as a "first-order national security threat."

I also don't like that designation because it tends to lead to pointless security measures that do little to actually make us safer and instead placate us into not being aware. the only thing so far to make us any safer on airplanes is a new mentality for other passengers who will now instead fight back against potential hijackers/ terrorists. (well stronger cockpit doors are good too)

1/5/2010 4:09:47 PM

^ You've pinpointed the problem--your "thinking." But I do agree the measures that are often taken after these incidents are ridiculously ineffective.

1/5/2010 4:13:43 PM

i think anyone who takes a step back from the histrionics would agree with me

1/5/2010 4:14:49 PM

^ No, not really--I think only fools would do so. Again, horrifically murdering hundreds of people in a violent explosion over U.S. soil on Christmas Day is definitely "first-order national security."

Have you given any thought whatsoever to where such a catastrophically damaged plane might land?

1/5/2010 4:21:13 PM

Subjective semantics debate ITT

1/5/2010 4:27:38 PM

Quote :

"or some kind of major mass casualty situation"

So at what point does it cross from crime into mass casualty situation?

The point of terrorism is, well, to inspire terror. In that it can effect massive societal change I think that terrorism is a legitimate national security threat. OTOH, our response to it has pretty much played right into the hands of AQ.

So.

. . .

1/5/2010 4:29:00 PM

So Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists?

We should torture them as well.

1/5/2010 4:30:33 PM

Quote :

"MAN CAUSED DISASTER"

Alright. Car crashes, then. Drug abuse. Domestic homicides. Suicides. Falling off the roof while cleaning your gutters. Falling asleep with a lit cigarette in your hand. Whatever, really.

If an underwear bomber is a "first-order national security threat," then what are these other things?

1/5/2010 4:54:14 PM

not intentional? I dunno, tell me.

1/5/2010 4:55:02 PM

First-order national security disasters are things that cause me to shit myself in fear.

I guess we all have different thresholds.

1/5/2010 5:16:50 PM

Quote :

"So Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists? We should torture them as well."

don't forget most organized crime

1/5/2010 5:55:41 PM

Quote :

"Alright. Car crashes, then. Drug abuse. Domestic homicides. Suicides. Falling off the roof while cleaning your gutters. Falling asleep with a lit cigarette in your hand. Whatever, really."

And ^

As far as I know, the United States is not targeting any of these groups with Predator drones.

1/6/2010 12:18:15 PM

What does that have to do with its threat level?

If I were to attack a puppy with a UAV, would puppies become a "first-order national security threat?"


If anything, you're highlighting the disparity of attention between terrorism and much more serious threats to our well being. We'll spend a billion on Predators before we spend a million on any of the more lethal problems listed above.

1/6/2010 1:09:43 PM

^ Incorrect. The difference is that the United States is killing al Qaeda combatants on the spot if they're caught in the act of wrongdoing or other appropriate circumstances--we're not immediately killing without a trial those belonging to any of the groups you loons listed.

1/6/2010 1:41:06 PM

CIRCULAR LOGIC FAIL

1/6/2010 3:42:28 PM

^ Incorrect. It's simply acknowledging facts.

1/6/2010 3:50:17 PM

It's true that you're stating facts. How on earth these facts lend any credibility to your claim is lost on us.


"They're a first order security threat because we shoot them with drones. And we shoot them with drones because they're a first order security threat."

That's circular logic if I ever saw it.

1/6/2010 4:08:35 PM

^ Astonishingly stupid.

No, al-Qaeda has been designated a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" by the U.S. State Department because its members and affiliates have attacked and continue to attack civilian and military targets in various countries--including the United States. This is why they are attacked with Predator drones and by other means--and this is part of what separates the organization in question and its members and affiliates from those you loons listed.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305074732/www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf

I won't address this further--you're just trolling.

1/6/2010 4:26:00 PM

^Everyone understands that. What they're saying is that your post of:

Quote :

"As far as I know, the United States is not targeting any of these groups with Predator drones."

...implies the logic-circle that Boone posted.

1/6/2010 4:28:13 PM

^ Incorrect. The statement simply denotes the difference.

1/6/2010 4:32:56 PM

no, you used it as an explanation. i called you the fuck out. you backpedaled.

1/6/2010 4:34:03 PM

So now a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" necessarily equals a "first-order national security threat?"

So the IRA and various Latin American leftist groups are also a "first order national security threats" to America, too?


Why won't you just explain how the underpants bomber was a first order national security threat? It's a simple question that shouldn't require you to run in circles.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 4:42:05 PM

Quote :

"I won't address this further--you're just trolling."

1/6/2010 4:45:15 PM

But you just did.

And the fact that you chose to reply in this way indicates that you have no argument.

1/6/2010 4:48:17 PM

Quote :

"I won't address this further--you're just trolling."

1/6/2010 4:50:48 PM

hooksaw has been called the fuck out

1/6/2010 4:54:09 PM

the current threat level is LOW (Green).



just kidding. it will never be green.

Quote :

"horrifically murdering hundreds of people in a violent explosion over U.S. soil on Christmas Day is definitely "first-order national security.""

would the attempt be any less significant or horrific had it occurred on ground-hog's day? st. patrick's day? mother's day?

the problem with this hysteria is that the terms "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" are intentionally void of the precision in language used to describe murderers, drug-dealers, rapists, and jay-walkers. they're blanket terms, tossed around willy-nilly to any person of "suspicious behavior."


nobody can define the term "terrorist" because no definitions exists that don't venture into the abstract.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 5:52:21 PM

Please suspend hooksaw.

1/6/2010 6:19:59 PM

Incorrect--on all points.

1. Concerning the "first-order national security threat":

Obama says al Qaeda still greatest threat to U.S.
Nov 16, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AF1PS20091116

2. Despite the efforts of some, Christmas is still a high holy day for many Christians in the United States--and it is a general feel-good time for everyone else. A "successful" attack on the United States on this day--more than others--would be psychologically devastating.

The terrorist in question has even come to be known as the "Christmas Day bomber." This title currently gets 8,260,000 results in a Google search.

3. And Obama has defined terrorism--he's at least smart enough to recognize that the Christmas Day bomber is one glaring example of this:

Obama Calls Bomb Attempt on Plane 'Serious Reminder' of Terrorist Threat
12/28/09

Quote :

"'A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,' said Obama, speaking in Hawaii where he is vacationing with his family."

http://tinyurl.com/y8hrbph

Obama seen weathering fallout from failed plane attack
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - National security has jumped to the top of President Barack Obama's agenda, but it is unlikely to distract him from overhauling healthcare and tackling double-digit unemployment over the long term.
Jan 6, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60548820100106

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ^ STFU. ]

1/6/2010 6:24:36 PM

Quote :

"i also don't think blowing up a plane is a first-order national security threat and also think it is a serious crime and would be a great tragedy. "

If he would have succeeded, which i’m skeptical was even possible with the method he was using, then it would seem more of a “first order” (whatever that really means) national security threat.

A guy trying to light his home-made “explosive” underwear on fire is pretty comical i think. I’m glad no one got hurt, and it looks like somewhere along the way, he caught a well-deserved beating.

But, it seems odd that they don’t have a way to correlate which passengers aren’t carrying any luggage with them on such a long, distant flight, because this would be a dead giveaway that something was up.

I don’t see the need for the fear and panic hooksaw is apparently calling for, because among many things, this is what the terrorists want.

Quote :

"U.S. officials say a suspicious material found in a passenger's bag that triggered a security scare at a California airport on Tuesday actually turned out to be bottles of honey. … Two Transportation Security Administration officers were also treated and released from the hospital after being exposed to what were described as "fumes" from the bottles. "

It looks liek TSA “administration” officers were treated at a hospital for exposure to honey fumes… LOL, i think we can all agree THAT’S funny, right?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 6:39:44 PM

^^he doesn't get a pass at using ambiguous terms either. he was better off when he was referring to the guy as a suspect. i'd rather him continue on with that than buckling to the hysteria of the angry loons rabbling on about a term they have no clear grasp on.

i really just don't know what it would take to make people on the right happy. if obama uses his law background, he's "soft on terrorism." if he rules with an iron fist, he's still not gonna get your approval. i honestly don't even know why he bothers. being a centrist is getting him nowhere.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 6:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Obama says al Qaeda still greatest threat to U.S."

Why can't you just explain why it's a first order national security threat.

Believe it or not, but I don't take Obama's word as Gospel.

Quote :

"would be psychologically devastating. "

Well heck, if it'll be a first order psychological threat, then I'm pissing my pants right now. America is screwed.

Quote :

"Obama Calls Bomb Attempt on Plane 'Serious Reminder' of Terrorist Threat"

And it was. This doesn't do anything to bolster your case, though.

1/6/2010 7:50:51 PM

Obama Orders Air Marshal Surge by Feb. 1: 'Race Against Time'
U.S. Fears More Airplane Bombers Are in the Terrorist Pipeline.
Jan. 6, 2010

Quote :

"President Barack Obama has ordered a 'surge' of federal air marshals to be in place by Feb.1 in what officials said was a 'race against time,' with other suicide bombers believed to be in the terrorist pipeline, although there is no specific imminent threat, federal officials told ABC News. Under a preliminary plan, the officials said the already existing federal air marshal force of more than 3,200 personnel would be deployed almost exclusively to overseas flights flown by U.S. carriers. Domestic high-risk flights will be covered by agents from other federal law enforcement agencies who were trained as air marshals in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

Quote :

"Officials said the augmented force of air marshals would include agents from other departments within the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs, Border Patrol, ICE and the Secret Service."

Quote :

"The officials said intelligence reports and the debriefing of the accused underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated that there could be more than a dozen other young men trained for suicide missions against U.S. aircraft."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323

Yeah, the government does this sort of thing when the threat is no big deal, you buffoons.[/sarcasm] And as if I am the one calling for "fear and panic."

If some of you had an ounce of intellectual consistency, you'd call Obama a "fear monger"--you know, just like you did Bush. You'd feel better.

1/7/2010 7:08:21 AM

That's not fear-mongering.

1/7/2010 8:24:12 AM

^ That's the point. You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

1/7/2010 8:26:13 AM

I'll call Obama out when he starts raising the ridiculous terror alert color a month before elections and solely campaigns for his reelection on fear and terrorism. Until then...

1/7/2010 8:29:05 AM

Here is how this topic has gone: Hooksaw gave something they rolley eyes, I asked what was rolley eyes about it, he says its because the way I think is stupid, I explain my point some more and ask what was so crazy about the statement, he says I am stupid, others ask him the same question, he says we are all trolling, hooksaw gets called the fuck out, hooksaw posts what other people think, people still ask what was so crazy about the statement, hooksaw posts what someone else says about a related topic

Look Hooksaw, you got called the fuck out. You are incapable of coming up with an original thought, idea or point. When questioned you resort to name calling or quote spamming. How about you explain, in your own words, what is so crazy about the statement.

1/7/2010 9:00:06 AM

The air marshall “surge” is pretty rational, and is what someone here said should be done.

It’s a far better idea than the bottle size ban they put into place a few years ago. They should have forgone the ban, and just went with the marshall surge. Hopefully this means at least someone there is marginally more competent than in the past few years.

1/7/2010 9:10:13 AM

I don't buy the air marshall surge. How would an air marshall have prevented this? Air marshalls were a response to the 9/11 hijackings. They can't prevent a would be terrorist from igniting his dick-bomb. It's a useless feel-good measure that in reality could never prevent the next iteration of the shoe/underwear bomb.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM. Reason : Z]

1/7/2010 9:32:22 AM

As soon as Obama leverages the underpants bomber to get the healthcare bill or cap and trade through Congress, then he'll be a fear-monger a la Bush.

1/7/2010 10:03:09 AM

It's "air marshal," you dolts. And I see that at long last some of you have found a surge you can support.

1/7/2010 10:43:43 AM