Car Bomb found in Times Square

[Sir Bandelot]

You're right, DoP; reasoning is lost on those who want to believe the worst regardless of the reality.

You were the one who attacked me personally, and incessantly, even when I tried to concede to your view that it's reasonable to be cautious under these circumstances. When people attack me personally, I choose to be more aloof and not engage in their bullshit. So I gave you some stupid replies. You got what you deserve, as far as I'm concerned.

So when you're ready to be more polite, and not bitchy about everything, we can continue.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Sir Bandelot]

More to the point I was trying to make...

False-alarms up after Times Square plot

NEW YORK - Police cleared the streets around Times Square on Friday and called in the bomb squad to dismantle what turned out to be a cooler full of water bottles. Earlier in the day, police were called in to check a suspicious package that turned out to be someone's lunch.

More than 600 calls came in since Saturday's attempted car bombing of a busy street near Times Square — about 30 percent higher than normal, police said.

...

"It was exciting, but it seemed a little silly, after all — a cooler that somebody left there," said psychiatrist Thor Bergersen, of Newton, Mass., who watched the drama from the eighth floor of the Marriott Marquis hotel.

But Times Square vendor Walter "Candyman" Wells said the constant scares aroused more suspicion.

"I think they're testing us, whoever is doing this," Wells said Friday, sitting on a stool near his table of T-shirts. "They're playing chess with us right now, but they ain't gonna win."

...

New Yorkers who spend every day in Times Square said the recent headlines and bomb scares had made them jumpy, though not enough to switch up their routines.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[August1991]

Normal life went on for Russians in WWII? Who are you kidding dude? Was starving in Leningrad for almost 900 days "normal"? Is having almost 1/4 of the male population of a country killed off within a few years "normal"? Is being evacuated to refugee camps in Siberia and losing half your family on the way normal? Is dieing among endless heaps of other soldiers in the streets of Stalingrad normal? Sorry but that comment just stuck in my craw, I have family that went through WWII there and it was anything but normal.

Yes, "normal" life went on for Russians during WWII. I have talked to many of them about this.

I'll even add that it was "normal" compared to the 1930s.

No, political correctness is not an overextension of the scientific method. And no, the scientific method is not what you say it is. The scientific method is a specific step by step process. What you are referring to could at best be called a part of "critical thinking". That is still not the basis of political correctness, however. Anyone who speaks "politically correctly" has their real opinion under the surface, they simply do not speak it for fear of ostracism or reprisal.

I simply meant that political correctness, at its origins, was to question established truth. The scientific method does the same. I call this generically to be an "intelligent skeptic".

Do you really think that's true?

Here...read of but one normal day in the Ukraine in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar

You are describing the life of Jews under Nazi Germany. I recently read this diary. What is striking is how much "normal" life carried on.

In the case of Russia, I have spoken to Orthodox Russians who lived through an invasion, Nazi occupation and then Soviet liberation. Once again, it is astonishing how much "normal" life continues.

If you want an extreme example of my point, it is the Dutch Jews who arrived in eastern Poland in Pullman wagons and gave tips to the receiving commandos at Treblinka.

----

My point is that people in the West (Canada) perceive war as a black-and-white affair. We live in peace, other places are at war. What Canadians don't understand is that war is like a snowfall - there are big storms, and little storms. In general, winter arrives by steps.

==========

With all of that said, I am astonished reading debates in the 1930s (and even 1940s) among German and Polish Jews about whether the Bolsheviks or Democratic Socialists offered the better route to justice and the ideal society.

For us in the West, we face a specific threat. We should deal with it. What is the threat? Medieval religious beliefs that Galileo, Voltaire and Newton refuted centuries ago.

Edited May 8, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

Yes, "normal" life went on for Russians during WWII. I have talked to many of them about this.

Well I've talked to them too. Specifically my grandfather and my grandmother, quite extensively. I'll take their description over yours.

Anyways, I understand what you are saying, once you've been living in a warzone for a while, it seems "normal". Or if you are living under a regime where you can barely survive even in peacetime, it may seem "normal" when there is war since it's all the same. But, for example, life in Leningrad during the siege was far from normal, and certainly not the same as life in Leningrad during the 1930s was. Unless you would consider eating soup made from glue and boot leather, and scavenging from the piles of corpses in the streets, to be normal.

I also have my own experience of living as a civilian in a warzone. Rushing to the underground shelters and putting on the gas masks every few hours/days when the air raid sirens were ringing was not "normal" either, at least not compared to life in peacetime.

I simply meant that political correctness, at its origins, was to question established truth.

Not really. Being "politically correct" means to submit your very way of thinking and speaking to an "established truth". Being politically correct is not speaking what you perceive to be the truth in order not to offend others. It is pretty much the opposite of being scientific - in science (ideally) you report your observations whether they are controversial or not. In being PC, any observations that do not fit within the politically correct framework are to be suppressed.

[Guest American Woman]

You were the one who attacked me personally, and incessantly, even when I tried to concede to your view that it's reasonable to be cautious under these circumstances.

I must have missed the part where you "conceded to [my] view."

When people attack me personally, I choose to be more aloof and not engage in their bullshit. So I gave you some stupid replies.

If you consider what I said a "personal attack," I suggest you grow a thicker skin. I find it interesting, though, that your reaction when you feel as if you'd been attacked is to purposely come across as "stupid." Furthermore, that doesn't explain your posts before my so called attacks.

You got what you deserve, as far as I'm concerned.

Ohhhh my. I got what I deserved.

I'm not the one whining about personal attacks, just pointing out the stupidity of your responses. But if you coming across as stupid is what I deserve, then I guess I got what I deserve in spades.

So when you're ready to be more polite, and not bitchy about everything, we can continue.

No, thank you. In case you you missed it, I've already chosen not to continue with your nonsense in this thread. Furthermore, I always treat you with the respect you deserve, and so I'll continue to respond to your posts when and how I choose to.

Now once again, as I already said, carry on .......

[Guest American Woman]

AW said: I don't think that's an example of being a "bleeding heart," it's more an example of being PC, as you also said, which I believe are two different things.

Fair enough, but I'm sure we can agree that there is a degree of overlap between the two concepts.

For some there is; for some "bleeding heart" types, being PC is a product of their thinking. But for others, they are PC not because of any "bleeding heart" feelings, but for fear of being accused of being biased or insensitive. So for those people, I don't see any degree of "overlap" between being a bleeding heart and being PC.

There's also people on the extreme fringes who misrepresent criticism that the rational among us have about phenomenons that have become strongly associated with particular minority groups are "racist" or "prejudice".

There is a perfect example of this problem in this very thread - read JB Globe's response to my post. He misrepresents my statement that to the rational among us, the Major Nidal Hassan story early on was obviously an example of "home-grown" Islamic fundamentalism is an example of me describing all Muslims as terrorists. Many of the early facts, combined with but not entirely based on Major Nidal Hassan's ethnicity and background, painted a pretty clear picture of a religious extremist.

I have to agree with you. There are people who misrepresent criticism as "racist" or "prejudice," which really confirms my view, I think; that people are PC for fear of being accused of these things, not because of any bleeding heart feelings towards Hassan and/or Muslims; and I think this fear is especially prominent in the media and in the political world. The way people can (and sometimes do) latch on to one comment and misrepresent it and repeat it over and over until it blows up could cost people a career. So I think they become PC and say/don't say what they do, not out of a bleeding heart, but out of fear of what it could cost them if they weren't.

Upon reviewing August1991's reply to my post, I'm afraid that my comments are again being misrepresented as a generalization of all Muslims. It's very frustrating that this happens when I've said nothing even remotely resembling a generalization of this massive group of people. I made a very common-sense statement, and I'm responded to with posts suggesting that I am prejudiced and stereotyping.

Again proving my point. If you were in a position where your comments could cost you, it would be more than frustrating. As such, don't you think you would be more careful as to what you say?

My mistake, allow me to clarify - I meant to say a SIGNIFICANT and VOCAL group of Americans and American organization are anti-border security pro-open borders. If the government has no qualms about tightening border security, why has so little progress been achieved? It's not a complex issue like managing the economy where outcomes are difficult to anticipate. It's the exact opposite - patrol heavily, punish severely, and build effective barriers. Perhaps not cheap, but definitely not too complicated.

I think the government has done a lot more of that in recent years. And with no fear of being seen as prejudiced or biased. I honestly believe being PC/bleeding hearts has absolutely nothing to do with how the government has handled patrolling our borders. Even a great number of people who support the illegal immigrants staying in the U.S. do so because of the cheap labor they supply, not because they "care" about the illegals themselves.

I think it's the result of a little from column A, and a little from column B.

Hasn't it always been that way, though? There have always been "bleeding hearts" and always will be. I think the preponderance of the PC mindset isn't based on a bleeding heart mentality, though, and that's been my only point.

[WIP]

I have to agree with you. There are people who misrepresent criticism as "racist" or "prejudice," which really confirms my view, I think; that people are PC for fear of being accused of these things, not because of any bleeding heart feelings towards Hassan and/or Muslims; and I think this fear is especially prominent in the media and in the political world. The way people can (and sometimes do) latch on to one comment and misrepresent it and repeat it over and over until it blows up could cost people a career. So I think they become PC and say/don't say what they do, not out of a bleeding heart, but out of fear of what it could cost them if they weren't.

From what I'm seeing of the way most of your media is playing this story, concern over "bleeding hearts" is not the problem. From the information so far, this bomb wouldn't have led to mass casualties even if the bomber got the right type of fertilizer to put in because he used the wrong type of propane tanks...but you won't hear that on CNN or Foxnews. It was an amateurish job if he really was trained by the Taliban! So, building this story up as a potential 9/11 is total crap to begin with. This would have been as successful as a mass casualty attack as the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building...BTW why wasn't that one called a terrorist attack? If his name was Muhammed, I'm sure flying even a small plane into a building would have started all of the wags talking about terrorism.

Also, I noticed a story last night about a West African vendor was the first to notice the smoking Nissan Pathfinder, since his stand was closest to the vehicle. But the two guys who called the police are getting all of the attention and accolades, even a phone call from the President. If political correctness is the problem you are claiming it to be, why has most of the media chasing this story ignored the contribution of a Senegalese Muslim immigrant to alerting others of danger? I see more evidence that most mainstream U.S. media is feeding the hysteria that Arabs are coming in to plant bombs, than acting PC. The only politician I heard make a statement warning against hostility towards Pakistanis or other Muslims was Mayor Bloomberg, and he didn't seem to win accolades for admonishing New Yorkers not to target an entire community because of the attempted bombing.

I think the government has done a lot more of that in recent years. And with no fear of being seen as prejudiced or biased. I honestly believe being PC/bleeding hearts has absolutely nothing to do with how the government has handled patrolling our borders. Even a great number of people who support the illegal immigrants staying in the U.S. do so because of the cheap labor they supply, not because they "care" about the illegals themselves.

Did it occur to you that the employers of illegal immigrants don't want immigration reform, since the lack of proper documentation makes it possible for employers to rip them off and keep workers who will work in substandard conditions?

[Guest American Woman]

From what I'm seeing of the way most of your media is playing this story, concern over "bleeding hearts" is not the problem.

So you're agreeing with me, then.

From the information so far, this bomb wouldn't have led to mass casualties even if the bomber got the right type of fertilizer to put in because he used the wrong type of propane tanks...but you won't hear that on CNN or Foxnews.

I never heard any claims in the media that it would have led to "mass" causalities, but I'm sure that would have been of no comfort to the causalities it did cause. So I'm not sure of your point at all. Hamas/suicide bombers usually don't kill civilians by the thousands in Israel, either, yet it doesn't lessen the terrorism aspect of the attacks/threat of attacks.

It was an amateurish job if he really was trained by the Taliban! So, building this story up as a potential 9/11 is total crap to begin with.

Who do you see as "building up the story as a potential 9/11?" If it's not of the same intensity as 9/11 it's no big deal?

This would have been as successful as a mass casualty attack as the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building...

So you're an expert now, capable of determining that only two people would have been killed had the bomb detonated as planned?

As I pointed out, not all terrorist attempts are "mass casualty attacks," so I don't understand how you think that enters into play regarding the threat of terrorist attacks.

BTW why wasn't that one called a terrorist attack? If his name was Muhammed, I'm sure flying even a small plane into a building would have started all of the wags talking about terrorism.

It wasn't called a terrorist attack because he wasn't acting on behalf of a group that declared the intention to 'kill as many [iRS workers] as possible' and who have been doing just that. He was an individual who snapped, acting solely on his own behalf.

Also, I noticed a story last night about a West African vendor was the first to notice the smoking Nissan Pathfinder, since his stand was closest to the vehicle. But the two guys who called the police are getting all of the attention and accolades, even a phone call from the President.

If he merely "noticed" the smoke and did nothing, ie: wasn't the one who called the police, why should he be getting any attention and/or "accolades?"

I see more evidence that most mainstream U.S. media is feeding the hysteria that Arabs are coming in to plant bombs, than acting PC.

*sigh* There is no "hysteria," other than in a select fews' minds, and I include your mindset among that group. Furthermore, some extremist Muslims are coming to plant bombs, in case that fact has truly escaped you.

The only politician I heard make a statement warning against hostility towards Pakistanis or other Muslims was Mayor Bloomberg, and he didn't seem to win accolades for admonishing New Yorkers not to target an entire community because of the attempted bombing.

Just because you didn't "hear" any others doesn't mean it didn't happen, but perhaps other politicians had faith in New Yorkers not to "target an entire community" because of this attempt. Furthermore, I haven't heard of any such incidents occurring. But I trust you have similar criticism for the moderate Muslim leaders who don't speak out against Islamic terrorism every time an attempt is made? Because I don't recall hearing any such thing happening in regards to this incident.

Did it occur to you that the employers of illegal immigrants don't want immigration reform, since the lack of proper documentation makes it possible for employers to rip them off and keep workers who will work in substandard conditions?

Repeating what I said, what you are responding to: "... a great number of people who support the illegal immigrants staying in the U.S. do so because of the cheap labor they supply, not because they "care" about the illegals themselves."

So ... ummmmm .... yeah, I think in light of what I said, it obviously has occurred to me.

Edited May 8, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Ohhhh my. I got what I deserved.

I'm not the one whining about personal attacks, just pointing out the stupidity of your responses. But if you coming across as stupid is what I deserve, then I guess I got what I deserve in spades.

I'm never "whined", but I don't care to engge in spitefullness, as you seem to enjoy doing.

In case you you missed it, I've already chosen not to continue with your nonsense in this thread.

Good, so I can continue making the point I was trying to make.

[Sir Bandelot]

Seriously, I know there's been an attempted attack and so everyone needs to be more vigilant. Perhaps threats have even been made, which the authorities know about and that's why they're reacting this way. Being very careful is better than being lax and allowing an actual attack to take place. But despite that being true, to me this just underlines the very insidious nature of terrorism. They don't even need to be successful in the attack, once they whip the nation into a frenzy of fear. I know I wouldn't want to be the one who has to step off a bus and face a whole squad of cops with guns drawn at me...

Back to the point I was trying to make, about fear and the insidious nature of terrorism. Americans (or anyone under threat of terrorism for that matter) need to be vigilant but at the same time not allow fear to misguide them into paralysis. When we are attacked there is a tendency to have an emotional response. Part of what the terrorists want is to undermine our society and values, things like liberty. It doesn't matter to them but for the fact that they cause chaos and force us to change in response to their threats. So in that way yes, they do hate us for our freedoms. I think after 9/11 things like that were happening.

Some argue that the threat of terrorism, and the real danger it holds is frequently being overblown.

Because statistically the casualty rate is lower than car accidents, etc. But these are purposeful events, directed to create harm, and they make for big media headlines.

Dangerous media explosion

Times Square car bomb: Don’t let our fear give terrorists a victory

As I tried to say earlier, there's a danger of being too relaxed. So, tough to know where to draw the line between liberty and security.

The other problem is avoiding an extreme (?) reaction by some US leaders who want to make drastic changes that threaten everyones liberty. I think these people are going too far... there needs to be a more measured response.

With Joe Lieberman suggesting we strip suspected terrorists of their citizenship...

"'My feeling is that if they make a judgment that this was a terrorist act, the person should be turned over to the military,' Lieberman said. ... That's not allowed under current law. U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions - the 2006 law that outlines guidelines for the commissions authorizes them only for 'alien unprivileged enemy belligerent

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/huffpost-hill---may-4-201_n_563443.html

And in the same article...

"Bloomberg is upset about a federal loophole that, amazingly enough, allows people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist to legally buy guns and explosives... Despite what would appear to be an easy vote, members of Congress, at least in part due to fear of the gun lobby, have consistently bucked requests from both the Bush and Obama administrations to close what Bloomberg calls the 'terror gap.'"

Is NRA protecting potential terrorists rights? That's insane.

[WIP]

So you're an expert now, capable of determining that only two people would have been killed had the bomb detonated as planned?

Who knows how many would have been killed! But according to bomb making experts this device was not anything on the scale of the car bombs and roadside bombs that go off on regular basis over in Iraq and Pakistan. The bomber bought fertilizer that doesn't ignite and used a propane tank that was tested on a Mythbusters episode two years agowhere the Mythbusters team found you needed to use high explosives to penetrate and detonate the gas inside a propane tank...and even then the resulting explosion, while impressive, is far more concerned with fast-burning flames than the serious damaging percussive power of destructive explosions If the bomber was indeed trained by the Taliban, what were they teaching him? Maybe they sent him off with these plans as a practical joke then!

It wasn't called a terrorist attack because he wasn't acting on behalf of a group that declared the intention to 'kill as many [iRS workers] as possible' and who have been doing just that. He was an individual who snapped, acting solely on his own behalf.

His plane was fueled up and he believed that it would crash through into the building, so his intention was to kill as many IRS staff as possible, not just commit suicide. Why then is a Muslim military psychologist who snaps and goes on a shooting spree, a terrorist incident, while a white, middle aged American man who flies is plane into an office building is not?

If he merely "noticed" the smoke and did nothing, ie: wasn't the one who called the police, why should he be getting any attention and/or "accolades?"

So the guy he alerted, who flagged down the police gets cards and flowers, congratulations from the mayor and the president, and the first to notice the smoke gets ignored:

“I didn’t see the car pull up or notice the driver because I was busy with customers. But when I looked up I saw that smoke appeared to be coming from the car. This would have been around 6.30pm.”

“I thought I should call 911, but my English is not very good and I had no credit left on my phone, so I walked over to Lance, who has the T-shirt stall next to mine, and told him. He said we shouldn’t call 911. Immediately he alerted a police officer near by,” said Mr Niasse, who is originally from Senegal and who has been a vendor in Times Square for about eight years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7114495.ece

*sigh* There is no "hysteria," other than in a select fews' minds, and I include your mindset among that group. Furthermore, some extremist Muslims are coming to plant bombs, in case that fact has truly escaped you.

My objection is to the cure turning out to be worse than the disease. The threat of foreign terrorism has been a convenient tool for politicians, policy makers and media pundits who have consistently lied and exaggerated the threat of foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for their own benefit, and pose a greater threat to freedom than anything coming in from overseas.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My objection is to the cure turning out to be worse than the disease. The threat of foreign terrorism has been a convenient tool for politicians, policy makers and media pundits who have consistently lied and exaggerated the threat of foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for their own benefit, and pose a greater threat to freedom than anything coming in from overseas.

Point of order....many "terrorist" attacks in the United States are domestic in origin, as well as an attempted attack from Canada (Millennium Bomber). Politicians must be responsive to both real and perceived threats or they will be labeled as "soft" on terrorism (and defense).

[August1991]

Being "politically correct" means to submit your very way of thinking and speaking to an "established truth".

At its origins, political correctness questioned the term "housewife" (for example). Well, why did we assume that a married woman would be at home?

I find no fault with this original intent of political correctness. A slogan of the 1960s was "Question Authority". It's a good slogan.

I must have missed the part where you "conceded to [my] view."

I fear the world will end when a woman concedes to another view. I fear the end of the universe if an American woman ever concedes. Edited May 9, 2010 by August1991

[WIP]

Point of order....many "terrorist" attacks in the United States are domestic in origin, as well as an attempted attack from Canada (Millennium Bomber). Politicians must be responsive to both real and perceived threats or they will be labeled as "soft" on terrorism (and defense).

Doesn't it seem that foreign terrorists are the focus of attention? Especially when Homeland Security refuses to use the term "terrorist" to describe some of the homegrown variety, and what about letting Hutaree militia members out on bail! If they were Muslim converts, rather than some band of Christian Reconstructionists, there would be an uproar if they were let out, or read their miranda rights. When it comes to terrorist threats on U.S. soil, there is a greater danger presented by militias who are creating their own private armies, than there is from foreigners.

[Guest American Woman]

I fear the world will end when a woman concedes to another view. I fear the end of the universe if an American woman ever concedes.

Yes, indeed; the fate of the world is dependent on American women.

[Guest American Woman]

Who knows how many would have been killed!

Exactly. Yet there you were, claiming it wouldn't have killed more than two.

But according to bomb making experts this device was not anything on the scale of the car bombs and roadside bombs that go off on regular basis over in Iraq and Pakistan. The bomber bought fertilizer that doesn't ignite ...........

All true, and who's denying it? Thus my questioning who it is that's presenting this as another potential 9-11, and I see you had no response for that.

If the bomber was indeed trained by the Taliban, what were they teaching him? Maybe they sent him off with these plans as a practical joke then!

That's something you'll have to ask the Taliban, since the Pakistani Taliban are the ones claiming responsibility.

His plane was fueled up and he believed that it would crash through into the building, so his intention was to kill as many IRS staff as possible, not just commit suicide. Why then is a Muslim military psychologist who snaps and goes on a shooting spree, a terrorist incident, while a white, middle aged American man who flies is plane into an office building is not?

As I already explained, he was not acting on behalf of a group with a stated mission. No group has declared a jihad-type mission against the IRS, on which he was acting. There is no ongoing problem with bombs, planes, explosives, etc., regarding IRS workers, being carried out by a group of people who feel it's their mission to do so.

In other words, if only one Muslim had committed one act, if there hadn't been a jihad declared, if there wasn't a mission to kill as many westerners as possible, and if there weren't people acting on it, there would not be the reference there is to "terrorism" regarding (extremist) Muslims, either. That one incident would be seen in the same light as the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.

For some reason, you want everything to be seen the same, treated the same, called the same. And it's not.

So the guy he alerted, who flagged down the police gets cards and flowers, congratulations from the mayor and the president, and the first to notice the smoke gets ignored:

“I didn’t see the car pull up or notice the driver because I was busy with customers. But when I looked up I saw that smoke appeared to be coming from the car. This would have been around 6.30pm.”

“I thought I should call 911, but my English is not very good and I had no credit left on my phone, so I walked over to Lance, who has the T-shirt stall next to mine, and told him. He said we shouldn’t call 911. Immediately he alerted a police officer near by,” said Mr Niasse, who is originally from Senegal and who has been a vendor in Times Square for about eight years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7114495.ece

He didn't "alert the guy;" the guy, Lance Orton, had already noticed the smoke on his own. Same with Duane Jackson, who actually alerted the police, too. Mr. Niasse was not "the first" to notice the smoke, in spite of his claims.

Furthermore, sounds to me as if his English is perfectly fine in those quotes you cited. Seems to me it was good enough to have alerted the police himself, but he didn't. Lance Orton did. As did Duane Jackson, who is also quoted as saying that he and another vendor looked inside the vehicle, yet you don't hear one word about that "other vendor." Most likely because he's not a Muslim.

If Mr. Niasse weren't a Muslim, people wouldn't be making his seeing the smoke too as an issue,either. Some have gone so far as to outright lie about it, with headlines such as Media Ignore The Fact That Man Who Alerted Police To Failed Times Square Bombing Is A Muslim Immigrant. He didn't "alert the police." aAnd according to Orton, he didn't "approach" him either; he admits he heard someone behind him yell 'if you see smoke, call 9-11' or some such thing. Orton seems like a very low key guy, who is not basking in this attention at all.

But the fact remains that Mr. Niasse did not alert the police officer, and as I said, his English seems perfectly up to the task at hand, and it didn't matter if he had no credit left on his phone; he could have alerted the same "nearby police officer" that, according to him, Orton notified. But he didn't. Yet, because he's a Muslim, you think he should deserve the same credit as those who did.

My objection is to the cure turning out to be worse than the disease. The threat of foreign terrorism has been a convenient tool for politicians, policy makers and media pundits who have consistently lied and exaggerated the threat of foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for their own benefit, and pose a greater threat to freedom than anything coming in from overseas.

Yet we are living the free life here in the States, free from the fear, hysteria, et al that others attribute to us.

The media will do what it feels it must to sell, politicians will do what they feel they must to get elected, same as anywhere else, and people will go on living their daily lives mainly unaffected by it ... same as anywhere else.

All the claims of mass hysteria, fear, etc. are what's "worse than the disease," IMO. In other words, you criticize the media and politicians for the hyperbole that you yourself are engaging in.

[waldo]

Yet we are living the free life here in the States, free from the fear, hysteria, et al that others attribute to us.

really... your supply of tuck tape must be well in hand. Do you accept that your country's 'terrorist threat levels' have been purposely manipulated in the past to counter exactly what you've just pronounced... your "freedom from fear, hysteria, et al"?

[Guest American Woman]

really... your supply of tuck tape must be well in hand. Do you accept that your country's 'terrorist threat levels' have been purposely manipulated in the past to counter exactly what you've just pronounced... your "freedom from fear, hysteria, et al"?

The percentage of our households stocking up on duct tape likely equals the percentage of Canadian households living in igloos. At the same time, worst case scenario, it appears as if the number of Canadians claiming that Americans are living in fear by far greatly outnumber the actual number of Americans living in fear, and since you have only 30 million vs our 300 million, do the math.

I see those media outlets/politicians who are "purposely manipulating" people to fear are having an effect, though-- too bad it's on Canadians like you rather than Americans.

Edited May 9, 2010 by American Woman

[waldo]

The percentage of our households stocking up on duct tape likely equals the percentage of Canadian households living in igloos. At the same time, worst case scenario, it appears as if the number of Canadians claiming that Americans are living in fear by far greatly outnumber the actual number of Americans living in fear, and since you have only 30 million vs our 300 million, do the math.

Duct tape sales rise amid terror fears

I see those media outlets/politicians who are "purposely manipulating" people to fear are having an effect, though-- too bad it's on Canadians like you rather than Americans.

besides, what's a lil ole Rummy/Ashcroft election influence anyway?

Ridge: I Was Pressured to Raise Threat Level in 2004 (no need to follow-up with the subsequent Ridge backpeddaling... that somehow he quoted himself incorrectly in his autobiography! )

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, one headline at one moment in time, in this instance 2003, speaks for all Americans-- then, now, and forevermore, as do "lil ole Rummy/Ashcroft."

You just don't get it, and it's most likely because you don't want to. Or maybe you really don't have the ability to understand the difference between media/political hype/a news article from 7 years ago, and the reality of 99.9999% of Americans' lives.

Either way, what you think has no impact on actual American lives. It's your 'reality' only. But just for the record, in keeping with your own line of thought, I can only conclude that you concede that I know more about the reality of the daily lives of Canadians, based the media/politicians/a headline & article in the Canadian media from 2003, than you do.

[Michael Hardner]

As I already explained, he was not acting on behalf of a group with a stated mission. No group has declared a jihad-type mission against the IRS, on which he was acting. There is no ongoing problem with bombs, planes, explosives, etc., regarding IRS workers, being carried out by a group of people who feel it's their mission to do so.

In other words, if only one Muslim had committed one act, if there hadn't been a jihad declared, if there wasn't a mission to kill as many westerners as possible, and if there weren't people acting on it, there would not be the reference there is to "terrorism" regarding (extremist) Muslims, either. That one incident would be seen in the same light as the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.

For some reason, you want everything to be seen the same, treated the same, called the same. And it's not.

While I generally agree with your point, i.e. religious-based terrorism is different, some of what you said isn`t right.

No group has declared jihad against the IRS but who has declared jihad against America ? The answer is: various extremists have. And although nobody has declared jihad against the IRS there are domestic groups in the US that arm themselves against the government. So there are more similarities between domestic terrorism and external terrorism than you let on.

The external threat, though, is taken more seriously and it should be.

[waldo]

Yes, one headline at one moment in time, in this instance 2003, speaks for all Americans-- then, now, and forevermore, as do "lil ole Rummy/Ashcroft."

You just don't get it, and it's most likely because you don't want to. Or maybe you really don't have the ability to understand the difference between media/political hype/a news article from 7 years ago, and the reality of 99.9999% of Americans' lives.

Either way, what you think has no impact on actual American lives. It's your 'reality' only. But just for the record, in keeping with your own line of thought, I can only conclude that you concede that I know more about the reality of the daily lives of Canadians, based the media/politicians/a headline & article in the Canadian media from 2003, than you do.

no - the offered links directly aligned with, (1) a 2003 duct tape reference... the much hyped and comically disparaged 'sheepish response', that quite literally saw duct tape disappear from store shelves across the U.S., and (2) a 2009 reference to the historical 2004 manipulation of your country's threat levels for intended political election gain. Of course they're somewhat dated references. But, surely, you're not suggesting your country doesn't continue to issue regular threat alerts?... or, are you suggesting American's ignore it all, are oblivious to it all - that they've been lulled into a sense of complacency... since "you're fighting them over there, so you don't have to fight them over here!"

yours was the bold pronouncement that, "we are living the free life here in the States, free from the fear, hysteria, et al that others attribute to us". But let's leave those somewhat dated link references for what they are... let's not have me scurry about for easily found current examples of (some) Americans preoccupied with a terrorist threat (real or imagined)... let's simply accept your assertion that, today, you speak for how 99.9999% of Americans live their daily lives. What's changed in these passing years since 2003/2004 to allow Americans to, "live the free life, free from fear, hysteria, et al"? Do you simply, for example, ignore the effects of your Patriot Act? Since your government is obviously preoccupied with dealing with real-world threats (real or imagined, domestic or international), do you (also) assert that 99.9999% of Americans are oblivious to this, your governments preoccupation - and how it affects their daily lives, if even only by indirect cost allocations? Is this the reason, the foundation for your expressed 99.9999% certainty?

[Guest American Woman]

The White House is now saying the Pakistan Taliban was behind the attempted car bombing in Times Square:

Citing newly obtained evidence, senior White House officials said Sunday that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the failed Times Square bombing. link

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't it seem that foreign terrorists are the focus of attention? Especially when Homeland Security refuses to use the term "terrorist" to describe some of the homegrown variety, and what about letting Hutaree militia members out on bail!

Terrorists have been a staple in US history....the more recent context just changes the scale and politics. Or to use a favourite Canadian term, the "optics" do not change the basic tasks of threat assessment and allocation of limited resources to prevent attacks by individuals or groups. The biggest change has been the adjustment of expectations to include NBCR attacks, even though conventional bombings will do just fine for a terrorist's purpose. Bail for indicted suspects is part of the post event politics and hysteria....the fairness critics wouldn't have lasted very long in the political environment surrounding WW2 America and associated "loss of freedoms".

If they were Muslim converts, rather than some band of Christian Reconstructionists, there would be an uproar if they were let out, or read their miranda rights. When it comes to terrorist threats on U.S. soil, there is a greater danger presented by militias who are creating their own private armies, than there is from foreigners.

Both scenarios present a threat risk, but don't enjoy the same political assessment or reaction because of 9/11 and current policy with wartime footing. Your own nation is currently supporting this policy even though it has not been "attacked" externally, yet pipeline bombings in BC continue. If you are seeking a politically correct balance in all things terrorist, you will be disappointed.

[bush_cheney2004]

The White House is now saying the Pakistan Taliban was behind the attempted car bombing in Times Square:

Good....if the evidence supports such a conclusion, then I am confident that Mr. Obama will do his job, even if it looks a lot like George W. Bush.