Plane attack story is a joke

[DogOnPorch]

For sure...like Mos Eisley on the planet Tatooine.

Pretty much...minus Sir Alec Guinness, of course. 90%+ of the men in Yemen are addicted to qat which is the poor man's coca leave high. Only half the women are on it...but the kids also get involved. Family values, afterall.

[Moonlight Graham]

Guardian:"US plots retaliatory strikes against al-Qaida in Yemen over plane bomber"

CBC:"Dutch to use body scanners for U.S.-bound flights"

now the real intentions behind the badly orchestrated plane attack scenario are starting to unfold. A new American invasion; this time, it is Yemen, extremely strategic for world domination. but Yemen doesn't have WMD and we need a reasonable excuse for the invasion, so we have to invent one. the Yemeni government is losing control over many territories and is asking for American intervention. the "foiled Attack" is supposed to be a sufficient justification for massive air strikes, very possibly ,an invasion.

the introduction of body scanners is another bird knocked by the same stone, the wave of fear that that grabbed the hearts of the population is an important objective in this event. whenever the common citizen gets some sense of security becomes relaxed, stronger dose of fear is needed to renew his fears.

You are a complete and utter fool, why bother posting this crap.

Take off the tin foil hat and go see a shrink.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what 'SOMEONE' says isn't completely out of the question. The fact the bomber comes from Yemen is just weird to me. A few weeks ago, in Obama's big primetime address about the US's plans for Afghanistan, he mentions Yemen and Somalia. That's the first time i've personally ever heard Yemen and al-Qaeda mentioned together. I realize there's been a bit of talk this year in news about it & the U.S. has had some operations there via the Yemeni gov't, but this speech certainly put the al-Qaeda/Yemen link in the public & MSM sphere.

Then a few weeks later a terror attack is foiled involving a guy with Yemeni al-Qaeda links. The timing is weird.

Now there is certainly an excuse for the U.S. to ramp up operations in Yemen, and with Iraq "winding down", is an invasion completely out of the question?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and a likely eventual military operation against Iran against its nuke program. Add very strong ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. seems to be spreading itself across the whole region.

There very likely isn't any conspiracy, but considering the world in which we live in, is it completely out of the question? Would you be completely shocked if it were true?

Edited December 31, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[Alta4ever]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what 'SOMEONE' says isn't completely out of the question. The fact the bomber comes from Yemen is just weird to me. A few weeks ago, in Obama's big primetime address about the US's plans for Afghanistan, he mentions Yemen and Somalia. That's the first time i've personally ever heard Yemen and al-Qaeda mentioned together. I realize there's been a bit of talk this year in news about it & the U.S. has had some operations there via the Yemeni gov't, but this speech certainly put the al-Qaeda/Yemen link in the public & MSM sphere.

Then a few weeks later a terror attack is foiled involving a guy with Yemeni al-Qaeda links. The timing is weird.

Now there is certainly an excuse for the U.S. to ramp up operations in Yemen, and with Iraq "winding down", is an invasion completely out of the question?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and a likely eventual military operation against Iran against its nuke program. Add very strong ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. seems to be spreading itself across the whole region.

There very likely isn't any conspiracy, but considering the world in which we live in, is it completely out of the question? Would you be completely shocked if it were true?

Its not the first time we have heard yemen and al-Qaeda, Yemen is where the attack against the USS Cole was conducted.

[Guest American Woman]

kimmy, on 30 December 2009 - 11:51 AM, said: btw, I've got a prediction. I bet that a lot of people who are ridiculing US security and intelligence efforts for not putting this guy on a no-fly list based on one report from a worried parent are probably people who are really, really offended that the US won't give Maher Arar the benefit of the doubt.

While I agree with you on a general principle here, I disagree with the Arar example.

The US doesn't need to give Arar the benefit of the doubt. An inquiry found him not only not guilty (which is sufficient, by the way) but actually innocent. It was a total exoneration.

From everything I've read, Arar was found "not guilty," which is different from being found "innocent." If he was actually found to be innocent, I would appreciate a link to that information.

Justice O'Connor said:

I have heard evidence concerning all of the information gathered by Canadian investigators in relation to Mr. Arar. This includes information obtained in Canada, as well as any information received from American, Syrian or other foreign authorities. I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

Evidently the U.S. still feels that there's evidence to suggest he may constitute a threat to the security of the U.S.

I just read in another thread that someone charged with a DUI, not even convicted, was kept out of Canada. If that is reason enough to keep someone out of Canada, I would say the U.S. has reason enough to keep Arar out of the States. The fact that there was enough evidence to charge him should be enough reason not to take a chance by letting him in when it involves the security of our country.

Edited December 31, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

From everything I've read, Arar was found "not guilty," which is different from being found "innocent." If he was actually found to be innocent, I would appreciate a link to that information.

Justice O'Connor said:

I have heard evidence concerning all of the information gathered by Canadian investigators in relation to Mr. Arar. This includes information obtained in Canada, as well as any information received from American, Syrian or other foreign authorities. I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

Evidently the U.S. still feels that there's evidence to suggest he may constitute a threat to the security of the U.S.

I just read in another thread that someone charged with a DUI, not even convicted, was kept out of Canada. If that is reason enough to keep someone out of Canada, I would say the U.S. has reason enough to keep Arar out of the States. The fact that there was enough evidence to charge him should be enough reason not to take a chance by letting him in when it involves the security of our country.

I am having trouble finding the proper links to substantiate the innocence claim. I will keep trying, since your request is reasonable...I brought it up, after all.

However, like I said, it's unneccessary anyway, as in our type of societies we are not to consider "not guilty" to be an implied blemish.

If the US "feels" there's evidence that he may constitute a threat, that doesn't sound very profound nor enlightening.

Further, if they have such evidence, why wouldn't they share it with one of their closest allies, who is also a bordering nation...since fighting and preventing terrorism is, ostensibly, a primary goal of the enhanced Security partnership.

Further, O'Connor stated baldly that EVERY bit of evidence they could find was perused, and that every mode of investigaiton was thorough.

Including, he writes, information obtained from US authorities.

Meaning that the informaiton US authorities used to KNOWINGLY send a man to be tortured (which is unethical AND illegal no matter WHAT the circumstances) was faulty.

Unless the Americans are lying to Canadian officials.

If the US does feel as you speculate (and it is pure speculation), then why not share any evidence that would explain their concerns?

Either the US is being negligent in sharing terrorist information with its friendly, bordering ally--about a man living free and clear in Canada--or they are covering their behinds.

If it's the first--unwillingness to share--then the United States is knowingly allowing a suspected, dangerous terrorist to operate freely within the borders of its close ally. That ain't too friendly.

If it's the second, then they are liars more concerned with the reputation of people who made an error, than the reputaiton of the man accused.

I profoundly suspect it's the second.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If it's the first--unwillingness to share--then the United States is knowingly allowing a suspected, dangerous terrorist to operate freely within the borders of its close ally. That ain't too friendly.

..and if the US took any measures to stop Arar (or any of numerous other known perps) from "operating" in Canada, the hue and cry would be even louder. Mr. Arar remains a banished perp in the US for reasons that Canada has no right to question just because of self imposed guilt and liability.

If it's the second, then they are liars more concerned with the reputation of people who made an error, than the reputaiton of the man accused.

No worse that the reputation of the RCMP....or associated ass covering. Very friendly!

[bloodyminded]

..and if the US took any measures to stop Arar (or any of numerous other known perps) from "operating" in Canada, the hue and cry would be even louder. Mr. Arar remains a banished perp in the US for reasons that Canada has no right to question just because of self imposed guilt and liability.

No worse that the reputation of the RCMP....or associated ass covering. Very friendly!

But I'm not defending the RCMP, nor defending the Canadian actions.

Pantywaisted nationalist tantrum number 679 by little bush-cheney.

I'm sorry you're having difficulty in basic literacy.

[bush_cheney2004]

But I'm not defending the RCMP, nor defending the Canadian actions.

Nobody said you were....a man without a nation....just like Arar.

[bloodyminded]

Nobody said you were....a man without a nation....just like Arar.

Ah, I forgot. One doesn't rightfully belong to a nation unless he's a hyperpatriotic, knuckledragging coward.

Awesome.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah, I forgot. One doesn't rightfully belong to a nation unless he's a hyperpatriotic, knuckledragging coward.

Awesome.

...or leaves without fulfilling mandatory government service.

[bloodyminded]

...or leaves without fulfilling mandatory government service.

Yeah, what kind of horrible human being would wish to leave the Syrian paradise for North America? Unforgiveable.

[Guest American Woman]

...or leaves without fulfilling mandatory government service.

What about Germans who left without 'fulfilling mandatory government service' under Hitler? Do you have the same disdain for them? Do you think they should have blindly fulfilled their government service?

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, what kind of horrible human being would wish to leave the Syrian paradise for North America? Unforgiveable.

And there is the question. What kind? Unfortunately all kinds...

[bush_cheney2004]

What about Germans who left without 'fulfilling mandatory government service' under Hitler? Do you have the same disdain for them? Do you think they should have blindly fulfilled their government service?

Yes....building the Autobahn for my Porsche.

Edited December 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

I am having trouble finding the proper links to substantiate the innocence claim. I will keep trying, since your request is reasonable...I brought it up, after all.

However, like I said, it's unneccessary anyway, as in our type of societies we are not to consider "not guilty" to be an implied blemish.

Yet Canada is, by not allowing someone who was simply charged with a DUI to enter your country. So why should the U.S. have different standards regarding who we allow into our country than your country does?

If the US "feels" there's evidence that he may constitute a threat, that doesn't sound very profound nor enlightening.

It's not meant to be profound or enlightening. The U.S. has the act to right on how it "feels" when deciding who to let into the country.

Further, if they have such evidence, why wouldn't they share it with one of their closest allies, who is also a bordering nation...since fighting and preventing terrorism is, ostensibly, a primary goal of the enhanced Security partnership.

Who says they haven't shared it? What Canada sees as a threat to Canada may differ from what the U.S. sees as a threat to the U.S. Canada evidently feels threatened by letting anyone in who's been charged with a DUI. The U.S. doesn't. Would it make you any happier if Arar were denied entry because he was charged with a DUI rather than with being a terrorist threat?

Further, O'Connor stated baldly that EVERY bit of evidence they could find was perused, and that every mode of investigaiton was thorough.

Including, he writes, information obtained from US authorities.

How Canada interprets that information may be different from how the U.S. interprets it.

Meaning that the informaiton US authorities used to KNOWINGLY send a man to be tortured (which is unethical AND illegal no matter WHAT the circumstances) was faulty.

At the time even Canada wasn't saying that it was "faulty." Furthermore, Canada's actions knowingly played into his being sent, and kept, there.

If the US does feel as you speculate (and it is pure speculation), then why not share any evidence that would explain their concerns?

Who says they haven't shared it? As I said earlier, the U.S. isn't going to see everything the same way Canada does, any more than Canada is going to see everything the way the U.S. does.

Either the US is being negligent in sharing terrorist information with its friendly, bordering ally--about a man living free and clear in Canada--or they are covering their behinds.

See above.

If it's the first--unwillingness to share--then the United States is knowingly allowing a suspected, dangerous terrorist to operate freely within the borders of its close ally. That ain't too friendly.

Again, see above.

If it's the second, then they are liars more concerned with the reputation of people who made an error, than the reputaiton of the man accused.

Why should the U.S. care any more about Arar's reputation than Canada cares about the reputation of those that aren't allowed into Canada?

I profoundly suspect it's the second.

All I can say to that is -- it's "pure speculation."

[Guest American Woman]

Yes....building the Autobahn for my Porsche.

So building the Autobahn was "mandatory government service," eh?

Your non-answer clearly answers the question. Perhaps you should have 'remained quiet' and merely thought a fool ....

[bloodyminded]

Yet Canada is, by not allowing someone who was simply charged with a DUI to enter your country. So why should the U.S. have different standards regarding who we allow into our country than your country does?

First of all, I agree with you completely about the absurdity of a mere, unindicted DUI charge being rational grounds to disallow entry. I think it's stupid as hell.

As usual, you are turning this into a US vs. Canada issue, as if we're going to have some sort of patriotic duel.

Well, I"m not interested, Patriotism isn't even a moral virtue--in this sense, it's utterly amoral at best.

Second, this is not an international tit-for-tat matter; Canada and the US aren't behaving in these abusrd ways out of revenge for similar behaviors on the part of the other. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

It's not meant to be profound or enlightening. The U.S. has the act to right on how it "feels" when deciding who to let into the country.

It has every legal right. So ok, anything legal immediately trumps all other arguments under any capacity. I suppose you and I will have to go back and delete our remarks about Tiger Woods' behavior. It was completely legal, and he has every "right" to behave as he did.

Who says they haven't shared it? What Canada sees as a threat to Canada may differ from what the U.S. sees as a threat to the U.S. Canada evidently feels threatened by letting anyone in who's been charged with a DUI. The U.S. doesn't. Would it make you any happier if Arar were denied entry because he was charged with a DUI rather than with being a terrorist threat?

The non sequiter aside, Arar isn't a terrorist threat.

How Canada interprets that information may be different from how the U.S. interprets it.

This is meaningless unless you can at least propose a hypothesis that would explain it: how could they interpret the information in such a radically different way? (I know you can't actually know...I'm only asking for a decent suggestion, a plausible hypothesis.)

At the time even Canada wasn't saying that it was "faulty." Furthermore, Canada's actions knowingly played into his being sent, and kept, there.

Exactly. Since he was Canadian, it was MORE a Canadian fault than an American one. The difference is in the full admission and the official apology by the Prime Minister himself...not a common occurrence, but a civilized one.

Who says they haven't shared it? As I said earlier, the U.S. isn't going to see everything the same way Canada does, any more than Canada is going to see everything the way the U.S. does.

There's differences in worldviews or political opinions...and there's differences in looking at the same information and coming to the directly opposite conclusions.

Why should the U.S. care any more about Arar's reputation than Canada cares about the reputation of those that aren't allowed into Canada?

Because Canada wasn't complicit in falsely accusing the man of a DUI, and then sending him off to be harshly punished for it; only for (years later) people in the Canadian media and on public forums like this one still claiming that he "might be" a criminal, after the US fully exonerated him. The insult added to the injury of his being tortured for a year on behalf of the Canadians, who still express doubts about him, simply because their officials say so, and they're wise and just.

Quite a difference.

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

As usual, you are turning this into a US vs. Canada issue, as if we're going to have some sort of patriotic duel.

No, I'm not. Every time I bring Canada up, it's not a "patriotic duel." You brought Canada up, you said Canada absolved Arar of any wrongdoing, and therefore the U.S. should go along with Canada's findings. You seem to think that since Canada found him 'not guilty,' the U.S. shouldn't have any remaining doubt. So it was in that regard that I mentioned Canada.

Well, I"m not interested, Patriotism isn't even a moral virtue--in this sense, it's utterly amoral at best.

As I said, you brought Canada up. You have to recognize the fact that every time an American mentions Canada, it's not by virtue of some sort of Patriotism. As I said, you brought Canada up, you seem to think since Canada is fine with Arar, that the U.S. should be too. I simply responded that Canada doesn't base who they are fine with letting in their country on what the U.S. thinks of them, or whether or not they have been cleared of the charge in the U.S.

Second, this is not an international tit-for-tat matter; Canada and the US aren't behaving in these abusrd ways out of revenge for similar behaviors on the part of the other. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

They do as I presented them.

It has every legal right. So ok, anything legal immediately trumps all other arguments under any capacity. I suppose you and I will have to go back and delete our remarks about Tiger Woods' behavior. It was completely legal, and he has every "right" to behave as he did.

I didn't say "legal" right, I simply said "right." A nation has the right to do what they see as in the best interest of their nation, one could go further and say they have the obligation to do that, and that's not based on another nation's decision/actions. The U.S. didn't make any vows to be true to Arar, or to look out for his best interests. As a Canadian citizen, Canada may have that obligation, but the U.S. doesn't.

The non sequiter aside, Arar isn't a terrorist threat.

That's your opinion and your government's opinion. It's obviously not my government's opinion. And in light of the terrorist threat my nation faces, it has the right to stand by its opinions and would be foolish to do otherwise.

This is meaningless unless you can at least propose a hypothesis that would explain it: how could they interpret the information in such a radically different way? (I know you can't actually know...I'm only asking for a decent suggestion, a plausible hypothesis.)

Having no idea what the information is, I can't even give a plausible hypothesis. But as I said, Canada concluding that he is no threat to Canada is not to say he doesn't present a possible threat to the U.S. If the U.S. wants to play it safe, so be it. As I said, they don't owe Arar the right to enter this country and I don't understand how you can argue otherwise.

Since he was Canadian, it was MORE a Canadian fault than an American one. The difference is in the full admission and the official apology by the Prime Minister himself...not a common occurrence, but a civilized one.

As I said, since Arar is a Canadian citizen, Canada has an obligation to look out for his best interests, so the "difference" is that the U.S. has no such obligation to a non-American.

There's differences in worldviews or political opinions...and there's differences in looking at the same information and coming to the directly opposite conclusions.

People often look at the same information and come to opposite conclusions. Canada doesn't think Arar poses any threats. The U.S. evidently doesn't feel the same way. What one perceives as a threat, someone else may not and vice versa. That's not so strange.

...Canada wasn't complicit in falsely accusing the man of a DUI, and then sending him off to be harshly punished for it; only for (years later) people in the Canadian media and on public forums like this one still claiming that he "might be" a criminal, after the US fully exonerated him. The insult added to the injury of his being tortured for a year on behalf of the Canadians, who still express doubts about him, simply because their officials say so, and they're wise and just.

The U.S. fully exonerated him? I take it that's a typo, as to my knowledge, the U.S. has not exonerated him.

But for the record, not allowing Arar into the country and sending him off to Syria are two very different things. I never supported his deportation to Syria. Fact is, I wrote to my Congressman about it.

But again, the U.S. has to act on its instincts regarding who can, and cannot, enter the country. They don't 'owe' it to non-Americans to clear their name and allow them in. The U.S. does not have the obligation to Canadian citizens that Canada has. And that's what my comment was strictly in regards to; letting Arar into the States.

[bloodyminded]

No, I'm not. Every time I bring Canada up, it's not a "patriotic duel." You brought Canada up, you said Canada absolved Arar of any wrongdoing, and therefore the U.S. should go along with Canada's findings. You seem to think that since Canada found him 'not guilty,' the U.S. shouldn't have any remaining doubt. So it was in that regard that I mentioned Canada.

Fair enough. I perhaps got a bit flummoxed through my "debates" with bush-cheney, whose derision for Canada is matched only by...well, by nothing. That's not your fault, however.

I didn't say "legal" right, I simply said "right." A nation has the right to do what they see as in the best interest of their nation, one could go further and say they have the obligation to do that, and that's not based on another nation's decision/actions. The U.S. didn't make any vows to be true to Arar, or to look out for his best interests. As a Canadian citizen, Canada may have that obligation, but the U.S. doesn't.

I understand this, but the issue goes a lot further; Arar's primary complaint isn't with being disallowed into the US. It's with the fact that they sent him to Syria to be tortured. The US has no "right"--legal or ethical--to do this to anyone. Especially a "suspected" criminal.

[edit: I see you address this later, and you're correct that they're two different issues.]

Having no idea what the information is, I can't even give a plausible hypothesis. But as I said, Canada concluding that he is no threat to Canada is not to say he doesn't present a possible threat to the U.S. If the U.S. wants to play it safe, so be it. As I said, they don't owe Arar the right to enter this country and I don't understand how you can argue otherwise.

But AW, you were quite clearly offended by the American DUI-charge case. Surely you think that Canada owes nothing more to American citizens than vice versa.

The U.S. fully exonerated him? I take it that's a typo, as to my knowledge, the U.S. has not exonerated him.

No, no, i was using a hypothetical analogy; you had compared the Arar case to the DUI-charge case (the latter which bothers you, the former which you defend)--I said they would be analogous only IF Canada had sent the man to be tortured, then the US had exonerated him, but Canada chose to ignore the American exoneration..because they "viewed the info differently"...somehow.)

But for the record, not allowing Arar into the country and sending him off to Syria are two very different things. I never supported his deportation to Syria. Fact is, I wrote to my Congressman about it.

Ah. Then we are, as often, in agreement over the REALLY serious matters. It's in the margins that we dispute.

[kimmy]

However, like I said, it's unneccessary anyway, as in our type of societies we are not to consider "not guilty" to be an implied blemish.

And this is all I was getting at. How many of the people ridiculing US security officials for not putting Abdulmuttalab on the no-fly list on the basis of one (1) report from a worried parent with no supporting evidence would be howling with outrage if the US operated that way in regard to a Canadian?

"Miley? ... Bubber Miley? I'm sorry, Mr Miley, we can't allow you into the United States. There has been an anonymous report that you may be involved with the marijuana trade in some capacity."

-k

[kimmy]

Guardian:"US plots retaliatory strikes against al-Qaida in Yemen over plane bomber"

CBC:"Dutch to use body scanners for U.S.-bound flights"

now the real intentions behind the badly orchestrated plane attack scenario are starting to unfold. A new American invasion; this time, it is Yemen, extremely strategic for world domination. but Yemen doesn't have WMD and we need a reasonable excuse for the invasion, so we have to invent one. the Yemeni government is losing control over many territories and is asking for American intervention. the "foiled Attack" is supposed to be a sufficient justification for massive air strikes, very possibly ,an invasion.

AAAHHHH it's all part of a US scam to invade Yemen AAAHHHH Yemen is crucial to world domination AAAAHHH Yemen has vital supplies of 3rd-rate narcotics and rocks AAAAAHHHHH

The US won't invade Yemen. The US will take a carrot and brick approach. They'll offer a carrot, financial assistance in dealing with terrorist camps. And if they decline, the US will hit them in the face with a brick, or at least a bunch of cruise missiles aimed at suspected training camps.

the introduction of body scanners is another bird knocked by the same stone, the wave of fear that that grabbed the hearts of the population is an important objective in this event. whenever the common citizen gets some sense of security becomes relaxed, stronger dose of fear is needed to renew his fears.

AAAAHHHH it's part of a massive plot to get body scanning technology in airports so that security staff can look at low quality porn AAAAAHHHH the security staff will see peoples' hoo-hoos AHAAAHHH

-k

[Wilber]

AAAAHHHH it's part of a massive plot to get body scanning technology in airports so that security staff can look at low quality porn AAAAAHHHH the security staff will see peoples' hoo-hoos AHAAAHHH

It's all part of the process which will eventually result in everyone flying in their underwear with their baggage traveling UPS surface. It's a giant plot by courier companies.

[bush_cheney2004]

So building the Autobahn was "mandatory government service," eh?

Your non-answer clearly answers the question. Perhaps you should have 'remained quiet' and merely thought a fool ....

It sure as hell was....even if you are ignorant of such matters. Foolish comparisons like yours only prove Godwin's Law...again and again. My answer was "Yes"....what part don't you understand, the "Y", "E", or "S" ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough. I perhaps got a bit flummoxed through my "debates" with bush-cheney, whose derision for Canada is matched only by...well, by nothing. That's not your fault, however.

No, it's your fault. LOL!

....O Canada!...(sing along with me)...Terre de nos aïeux (all together now).....

[Moonlight Graham]

Its not the first time we have heard yemen and al-Qaeda, Yemen is where the attack against the USS Cole was conducted.

You're right. wow how'd i miss that one.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Moonlight Graham