« The Crazy [Liars] Next Door III | Main | Reuters Retracts Iraqi Beheading Story »

Craziness in the UK

A car that was engulfed in flames rammed into the airport in Glasgow, Scotland. Officials think it was related to the two unexploded car bombs that were found in London:

Two men rammed a flaming sport utility vehicle into the main terminal of Glasgow airport Saturday, crashing into the glass doors at the entrance and sparking a fire, witnesses said. Police said two suspects were arrested.


The airport - Scotland's largest - was evacuated and all flights suspended, a day after British police thwarted a plot to bomb central London, discovering two cars abandoned with loads of gasoline, gas canisters and nails.

"One has to conclude ... these are linked," Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain's joint intelligence committee, told Sky News. "This is a very young government, and we may yet see further attacks."

Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, who took office only Wednesday, was being briefed on developments by his officials, Downing Street said.

In Glasgow, the green SUV barreled toward the building at full speed shortly after 3 p.m., hitting security barriers before crashing into the glass doors and exploding, witnesses said. Two men jumped out of the burning vehicle, one of them engulfed in flames, they said.

"The car came speeding past at about 30 mph. It was approaching the building quickly," said Scott Leeson, who was nearby at the time. "Then the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight in to the door. He must have been trying to smash straight through."

Two men were arrested, Strathclyde Police spokeswoman Lisa O'Neil said.

Allahpundit has a great round up of articles and information. Apparently the one guy who got out of the car and was on fire is in critical condition. He had a device on him that required the hospital be evacuated.

Update: Freepers are saying that, according to a CNN report, a third terrorist was found inside the Cherokee.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22195.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Craziness in the UK:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with 2 Men in Flaming Car Ram Glasgow Airport

Comments (80)

But... but... but... John E... (Below threshold)

But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker! This sort of thing shouldn't be happening now that Bushitler Buddy Blair is out, Britons should be beloved of Muslims now!

A possible mirror into our ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

A possible mirror into our own future... Unless we start taking this seriously.

Instead of taking them to j... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Instead of taking them to jail, the polics should have thrown those 2 islamoterrorists back into the burning vehicle, along with a rack or 2 of ribs.

Not only do these en need to die and fast, there needs to be a message sent that we will not be 'kind' to people who try to murder innocent people.

ccg;Do you sit by ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

ccg;

Do you sit by your computer all day just to entertain us with something utterly stupid and banal? You sound so much like a jackass one might think you were one - oh excuse me what an insult to a jackass.

What's worrisome is that th... (Below threshold)

What's worrisome is that the New York Times' "Terror plot? What terror plot?" attitude can also be found across the pond.

That's a brilliant statemen... (Below threshold)

That's a brilliant statement you made JFO. Are stating for a fact that this was not an incident of terrorism? Are you claiming Edwards made no such remark regarding the War on Terror using the bumper sticker anaolgy?Or are you here to just spit at people who say things you dislike?

Instead of taking ... (Below threshold)
Instead of taking them to jail, the polics should have thrown those 2 islamoterrorists back into the burning vehicle, along with a rack or 2 of ribs.

Naah. Waste of perfectly good ribs.

I disagree with you C C G. ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I disagree with you C C G. I think pork ribs and muslims go together. I dip my bullets in lard, just in case some day I am called upon to send a muslim to Allah. With lard inside them they go the other way. No 72 virgins, just eternal BBQ. JFO, just f**k off. No one here is interested in anything you have to post. So as I said just f**k off. I get it, that is what your initials stand for. I knew you were a f**k off. Go f**k off JFO.

Hugh SYou must be ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Hugh S

You must be his jackass brother, you always seem to have a need to defend him. You question is as stupid and banal as his comment which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the post. Just another excuse for his usual snarky, off topic shot at people who don't see things the same way he does. Clear enough for you now?

Something tells me this is ... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Something tells me this is not AQ.

But, because of Scotland, it is definately aimed at the intimidation of Brown. I wonder if he will be as strong as Blair?

Just F**k Off, your first p... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Just F**k Off, your first post here was an attack on CCG. You have the audacity to correct someone who responded to your trolling. What the fu*k is wrong with you, boy? Were you born stupid or did you just grow that way? Do you doubt Scotland Yards statment that this was a terrorist attack?

JFOHere is what yo... (Below threshold)

JFO

Here is what you said:

ccg;

Do you sit by your computer all day just to entertain us with something utterly stupid and banal? You sound so much like a jackass one might think you were one - oh excuse me what an insult to a jackass.

Posted by: JFO at June 30, 2007 05:46 PM


Here's what he said:

But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker! This sort of thing shouldn't be happening now that Bushitler Buddy Blair is out, Britons should be beloved of Muslims now!

Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2007 05:12 PM

Your reply to my post:

Hugh S

You must be his jackass brother, you always seem to have a need to defend him. You question is as stupid and banal as his comment which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the post. Just another excuse for his usual snarky, off topic shot at people who don't see things the same way he does. Clear enough for you now?
Posted by: JFO at June 30, 2007 07:54 PM

No he is not my brother. My question is on topic, not stupid and not banal. Present a cogent and sober argument to rebut this.

There wasn't anything off topic about the C-C-G comment. Edwards has said that the war on terror is a bumper sticker. British officials are treating this as a terror attack.

Hugh, JFO is obviously humo... (Below threshold)

Hugh, JFO is obviously humor-impaired and can't tell sarcasm without /sarc tags.

But... but... but... Joh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker!

Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this? I don't recall South Asians attacking Western targets prior to 9/11. Should we now start invading South Asian countries because of this? Should we occupy Thailand?

Calling the WOT a "bumper sticker" doesn't mean that terrorism doesn't exit, just as the failures of the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" have left us with both of those in abundance. Any suggestion that it does is either stupidity, illiteracy, or political rhetoric.

C-C-GI think JFO is ... (Below threshold)

C-C-G
I think JFO is just the troll on patrol this evening and either can't keep up with the traffic or is having dinner with Sonoma.

Jackass Brothers:I... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jackass Brothers:

I have a fabulous sense of humor. I laugh at the "comments" of youright wing goofballs every time I visit this funny paper blog.

JFOThat's simply fab... (Below threshold)

JFO
That's simply fabulous. Fabulous.

Now, answer the questions. Make an intelligent argument. Present facts relevant to the responses to your vapid post.

Or go back to your fabulous life.

Did the WOT preven... (Below threshold)
Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this?

Did WWII prevent attacks on our ships? Did it incite more attacks on our shipping?

Should we not have attacked Germany or Japan?

Nice evasion of the questio... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Nice evasion of the questions.

WWII campaigns were successful in limiting Germany's advance, and were ultimately successful in stopping them. The WOT campaigns are not succeeding in stopping terrorism, and in fact are increasing them. And I would love to hear how "winning" in Iraq would somehow stop terrorism from AQ's worldwide presence, including South Asia. By your argument, we needn't have attacked Japan, since defeating Germany would have been enough to make Japan magically docile.

Brian:Did the ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this? I don't recall South Asians attacking Western targets prior to 9/11. Should we now start invading South Asian countries because of this? Should we occupy Thailand?

Let's start with your misunderstanding of "South Asians." In the U.K. the phrase refers to those of Pakistani or Indian ancestry.

Secondly Thailand in NOT in south Asia it is in South-East Asia. I'm sorry you're so geographically challenged but it is was it is.

Moreover, in looking at western targets the list shouldn't be limited to those carried out by "south Asians."

A few examples.

Jan. 19 1975 - Arab terrorists attack Orly airport, Paris, France, seizing 10 hostages from a bathroom. French provided the terrorists with a plane to fly them to safety in Baghdad, Iraq.

April 19 1981 - 13 people killed, 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.

21 Dec 1988 - Pan Am Boeing 747 destroyed in flight and crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland; 270 killed (189 Americans) including 11 on the ground.

26 Jun 1996 - truck bombing at U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 killed, 515 injured.

AND, lets not forget the big one shall we:

Feb. 26 1993 - World Trade Center in New York badly damaged by a massive bomb by Islamic terrorists. The van bomb was planted in an underground garage and left 6 people dead and 1042 injured and almost ½ billion dollars in damage.

But ya know nothing happened prior to 2001.

Brian, the question was ask... (Below threshold)

Brian, the question was asked in another thread, but you ignored it, so I will ask it again.

When you take away all the attacks inside Iraq itself, has the total number of attacks in the rest of the world increased or decreased since 2003?

It's a very simple question, which I am sure you'll either ignore or try to avoid.

When you take away all t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

When you take away all the attacks inside Iraq itself, has the total number of attacks in the rest of the world increased or decreased since 2003?

Well, let's see...

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

30% of 11,111 is 3,333. That means 7,778 terrorism incidents NOT in Iraq. And if worldwide incidents increased fourfold to 11,111, that means they were at 2,777 prior to that increase. 7778 is greater than 2777.

So the answer to your question is "increased".

It's a very simple question, which I am sure you'll either ignore or try to avoid.

Typical for you to accuse others of that which you do so often.

And where can someone find ... (Below threshold)

And where can someone find those stats online to verify them, Brian?

That's all the jackass ccg ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

That's all the jackass ccg does Brian. He opens his mouth and the the diarrhea of goofball right wing talking points flow out. He reads nothing, thinks nothing and offers nothing. My 5th grade grandson would have seen you answered the question - with a link even. LOL

Got a link Brian?N... (Below threshold)
marc:

Got a link Brian?

Not that we don't trust you... but, it's good to know the source to judge how accurate the data is.

JFO:That's all... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

That's all the jackass ccg does Brian. He opens his mouth and the the diarrhea of goofball right wing talking points flow out.

And you have provided exactly what in this thread, (and most other you infest) that doesn't fall under your own description.

Re: TrollsI must c... (Below threshold)

Re: Trolls

I must credit Jay Tea on this: He wrote an excellent essay on the tactics of trolls.

JFO manifests most of them: insult, ad hominem attack, diversion, rinse and repeat.

JFO is to be compared to a bot: he can do nothing but follow the above program.

Ignore him as you would a pop up ad.

Marc, I did a little resear... (Below threshold)

Marc, I did a little research on my own and I found there's a very good reason Brian used 2005 figures: The 2006 figures tell quite a different tale.

As you can see in the combination of the Near East and South Asia accounts for about 80 percent of the total. I mentioned that the total terrorist incidents have gone up from about 11,000 to 14,000. As you can see, most of that growth occurs in the Near East and most of that is accounted for by Iraq and I'll get into that here in a second. The rest of the world is relatively flat.
(emphasis added by me)

Quite illuminating, don't you think?

HughS:Ignore h... (Below threshold)
marc:

HughS:

Ignore him as you would a pop up ad.

A 100 bucks to the first one who writes a FireFox plugin that blocks JFO and Lee popups!

Well Brian... got a rebutta... (Below threshold)
marc:

Well Brian... got a rebuttal to C-C-G's post?

And note, "rebuttal" means a counter argument not making a hasty exit from the thread.

When one of you wingnuts wr... (Below threshold)
JFO:

When one of you wingnuts writes something cogent or intelligent with some critical thinking I'll be happy to respond. Meanwhile i remain amused by ccg off-topic snark about Ewards, his inability to read and Hugh's stupid questions.

Marc, note also that I give... (Below threshold)

Marc, note also that I give a link to where I got the report. Just happens to be from the website of the US Counterterrorism Office itself.

JFO:When one o... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

When one of you wingnuts writes something cogent or intelligent with some critical thinking I'll be happy to respond.

OK, you got us, we confess. But perhaps in the interest of being a good blog-buddy you can provide an example of cogent, intelligent writing that uses some critical thinking.

Let's start with your mi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Let's start with your misunderstanding of "South Asians." In the U.K. the phrase refers to those of Pakistani or Indian ancestry. Secondly Thailand in NOT in south Asia it is in South-East Asia. I'm sorry you're so geographically challenged but it is was it is.

Oooh, you got me, didn't you! Why, that just invalidates my entire point! Damn, why didn't I look at a map?!

Moreover, in looking at western targets the list shouldn't be limited to those carried out by "south Asians."

Excellent. Thanks for supporting my point.

But ya know nothing happened prior to 2001.

Did someone say it didn't? Or was that just you trying to work tangential sarcasm into your post?

Oh, and you really should credit the sites you copy text from, especially when you just pick and choose what to copy and ignore all the rest of the information that invalidates your point.

Got a link Brian? Not th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Got a link Brian? Not that we don't trust you... but, it's good to know the source to judge how accurate the data is.

The link was in the previous post

Brian:Oh, and ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Oh, and you really should credit the sites you copy text from, especially when you just pick and choose what to copy and ignore all the rest of the information that invalidates your point.

You really are a befuddled idiot aren't you?

You first... where's your link and credit to this:

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.
And while your spinning that where's your counter point to C-C-G's post?

The 2006 figures tell q... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The 2006 figures tell quite a different tale.

Do they, now?

I mentioned that the total terrorist incidents have gone up from about 11,000 to 14,000. As you can see, most of that growth occurs in the Near East and most of that is accounted for by Iraq and I'll get into that here in a second. The rest of the world is relatively flat.

Quite illuminating, don't you think?

It says the majority of growth is accounted for by Iraq, not the majority of the incidents. Or are you saying that because non-Iraq terrorism tripled in 2005 and then stayed flat in 2006, that equals success? Shall we look at the increases in 2002? 2003? 2004? (You can feel free to dig them up yourself.)

Besides, nothing you said changes the answer to your own question, and I quote, "When you take away all the attacks inside Iraq itself, has the total number of attacks in the rest of the world increased or decreased since 2003?"

The answer remains "increased", no matter how much you try to backpedal.

JFO's an attention whore. H... (Below threshold)

JFO's an attention whore. He's been asked more than enogh to respond to questions. He continues to bare his brain and say "Look!".

Next question.

You really are a befuddl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You really are a befuddled idiot aren't you? You first... where's your link and credit to this:

Here it is now for the third time. Do try to pay attention.

And while your spinning that where's your counter point to C-C-G's post?

Right here.

Now, do you have anything else to add besides failing to read or berating me for not responding to your already-answered questions quickly enough?

Now, here's the hard questi... (Below threshold)

Now, here's the hard question, Brian.

Determine the amount of the increase that is directly attributable to the war in Iraq and not to any other source.

And where can someone fi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And where can someone find those stats online to verify them, Brian?

Lest you also accuse me of not answering an already-answered question that you failed to notice, here.

Just happens to be from the website of the US Counterterrorism Office itself.

And my figures "were compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and released with the annual State Department Country Reports on Terrorism." Your point?

HughS; Question 1)... (Below threshold)
JFO:

HughS;

Question 1): No. Even a 5th grader would know it was. Stupid question.

Question 2): No. So what? What's Edwards got to do with the subject of the post. Nothing of course. Stupid question.

Question 3): No. I'm here to read cogent and intelligent critical thinking from wingnuts. So far, I'm sadly disappointed as evidenced by your 3 stupid questions and ccg's silly off-topic snark attack at Edwards.

London's communist mayor, n... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

London's communist mayor, not surprisingly, is defending the terrorists.

Since the liberals can't take these foiled attacks and today's Glasgow Airport attack seriously, can they find any fault with anything? Well, maybe they'll get their panties in a wad because today's attack used a SUV.

Hmmm... Edwards' comments a... (Below threshold)

Hmmm... Edwards' comments about the War on Terror isn't germane to a thread about terror attacks?

Sounds like desperate spin to me.

...and ccg's silly... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
...and ccg's silly off-topic snark attack at Edwards.

Edwards is fully deserving of off-topic snark attacks.

Well gee ccg lets not discu... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Well gee ccg lets not discuss the attack. Lets just say snarky things about leaders of one another's parties. That makes for a great discussion about a post called "Craziness in the UK". Why we could just start arguing about the failures of one sides leaders since the 70s. That's real germane too. And stupid.

The point, JFO, which you a... (Below threshold)

The point, JFO, which you apparently cannot comprehend, is that the people who are saying that the war on terror is somehow false have just been proven wrong.

Do you understand it now, or do I have to use shorter words?

John:Want to get s... (Below threshold)
JFO:

John:

Want to get snarky - lets talk about your idiotic allegation that the mayor of London "is defending the terrorists." Are you that stupid that you think someone wouldn't read your link? Yeah, you are. I guess you fit right in with the rest of the true believing wingnuts. So, when George Bush and Rudi stood up and defended Muslims they were "defending the terrorists" too" ? I guess so. Maybe they're commies too?

ccg:As usual you'r... (Below threshold)
JFO:

ccg:

As usual you're reading comprehension is nonexistent. Show me where Edwards said the war on terror is "somehow false"? Edwards didn't say that or anything close. If you read what he said you know it's not true and in addition to being stupid you're a liar.

Why we could just ... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Why we could just start arguing about the failures of one sides leaders since the 70s. That's real germane too. And stupid.

Or we could just argue about the recent past and the failure to deal forcefully with a known, active and deadly threat. Not just geo-politics, not murky organizations, but with well formed, organized, credible threats. Threats that said, "We did it, and we're going to do again."

We could talk about playing patty-cake with them. The unwillingness to take action for fear of political fallout. The lack of will take firm action, of making a tough decision.

Which is all that Edwards and most of the demo candidates want to do. It's just he was foolish enough to say something stupid. So, just what we want again, Bill Clinton the Second. Panderer and appeaser in chief.

Maybe Silky Pony will sue the terror out of them. He could find another jury of turnips that would buy into the fact that AQ having to millions of dollars will make them stop....yah, that's the ticket.

Edwards' bumper sticker: Lawsuits on Terror

Determine the amount of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Determine the amount of the increase that is directly attributable to the war in Iraq and not to any other source.

Let's see:

2002: 198 attacks
2003: 190 attacks (www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/)
We invade Iraq.
2004: 3,192 attacks (www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002)
2005: 11,111 (cited previously)

So a dramatic increase in terrorism not after 9/11, but after we invade Iraq. A coincidence, you say?

A definitive answer? Not at all. But let's see you determine the amount of terrorism that was directly prevented by the war in Iraq and not by any other source.

Are you going to keep changing your question until you find one that cannot possibly be answered, by anyone?

Well congratulations, you did it.

John:Or we could t... (Below threshold)
JFO:

John:

Or we could talk about your first comment about the mayor of London and how you lied in your comment. And since you did that who should pay attention to any of your drivel? Or was i right about Bush and Rudy defending the terrorists too - according to your thinking.

Why do you hate America and why are you such a traitor to everything this country stands for John?

Actually, Brian, you just p... (Below threshold)

Actually, Brian, you just proved my point. Your statement about the Iraq war being a direct cause of terrorism worldwide is unprovable.

By the way, the time frame with the increased terror attacks also coincides with attacks on Israel from Lebanon, which included taking an Israeli serviceman hostage, several terrorist-type assassination attempts in Lebanon, and the taking of British hostages by Iran. None of this can be directly linked to the Iraq war. It's just been a very tumultuous era in the Middle East, which accounts for nearly all the terror attacks.

But a good lefty like you wants to lay everything bad at the feet of Bush, don't ya?

I don't think everything ba... (Below threshold)
JFO:

I don't think everything bad should be laid at the feet of Bush. Just the bad things for which he's responsible - like the debacle in Iraq and the increase in terrorism as a result.

But you cannot prove that a... (Below threshold)

But you cannot prove that any of them are a direct result of the war... they might have happened anyway.

By the way, if Clinton hadn't passed on taking Osama out, would the World Trade Center still be standing?

JFOQuestion ... (Below threshold)

JFO

Question 1): No. Even a 5th grader would know it was. Stupid question.

What was the 5th grader's answer?

Question 2): No. So what? What's Edwards have to do with the subject of the post. Nothing of course. Stupid question.

Connect the dots: Bumper Sticker. War on Terror. Attacks in Glasgow. Comments of UK authorities. (Hint: try to draw a crescent with that)


Question 3): No. I'm here to read cogent and intelligent critical thinking from wingnuts.

What language? English? Spanish? Rap? Graffiti?

HughS:Whichever la... (Below threshold)
JFO:

HughS:

Whichever language you want - but I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting. If your pathetic defense of ccg on the Reuters post is any evidence, I'd no doubt die holding my breath and I don't want to die.

Go ask a 5th grader by the way. he'd tell you it was a stupid question too.

Connect the dots: Raegan/Lebanon/Marine Barracks/War on Terror/Glasgow. About as valid a point as your stupid point isn't it?

Go ask a 5th grader b... (Below threshold)

Go ask a 5th grader by the way. he'd tell you it was a stupid question too.
I was asking a 5th grader.


About as valid a point as your stupid point isn't it?

So you acknowledge that your point was stupid by noting equal validity.

Enough with you.

Sadly I have to go to bed c... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Sadly I have to go to bed cause I'm so tired from laughing at Hugh and ccg. Of course the point about Raegan was stupid - gosh i even said it was. Gosh I thought you might get it but I was wrong.

Good night, Have a good evening and I look forward to more of your comedy tomorrow. God bless.

The 5th grader joke was weak by the way - you lose some credit for that one.

Ha Ha,God Bless,you are com... (Below threshold)
OFJ:

Ha Ha,God Bless,you are comedy gold,JFO.

Everybody,a round of applau... (Below threshold)
OFJ:

Everybody,a round of applause for your Troll of the day,JFO,bravo,bravo.

Sadly I have to go to... (Below threshold)

Sadly I have to go to bed cause I'm so tired from laughing at Hugh and ccg. Of course the point about Raegan was stupid - gosh i even said it was. Gosh I thought you might get it but I was wrong.

Thought you were playing poker all this time.

Actually, Brian, you jus... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Actually, Brian, you just proved my point. Your statement about the Iraq war being a direct cause of terrorism worldwide is unprovable.

Don't be a nitwit. It's "unprovable" that President Gore would not have hunted down OBL and killed him with his bare hands. That doesn't make it likely, nor rational. If that's all you're resting your hat on, you're a fool.

But a good lefty like you wants to lay everything bad at the feet of Bush, don't ya?

Ah, and so this is how it ends, eh? After several rounds of you making points and me tearing them apart with facts and citations, you retreat by accusing me of nothing more than being out to get Bush.

What a good rightie you are.

And I never made any statem... (Below threshold)

And I never made any statements about the fantasy of a President Gore.

President William Jefferson Clinton had the opportunity to have Osama bin Ladin handed over to US officials by another nation (I think it was Pakistan, but I could be mistaken), and he turned it down.

So we may actually be able to blame 9/11 on Clinton. Chew on that one for a while.

Does anyone with a brain ac... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Does anyone with a brain actually think the terrorists were not going to increase their terrorism when their "brothers in arms" are attacked? The lefts equating this is telling. What it says LOUD and Clear is they are afraid and cowards. They are unwilling to defend their way of life. They are unwilling to defend their fellow countryman. I for one, expected a huge increase when this started. The terrorists were used to us turning tail and running. They were insensed that we took the fight to them on their land. Saddam was a secularist. He did not have Mullahs running his country. Truth be told, Islamofacists wanted him out. They just didn't want US to do it. They wanted to.

You lefties, JFO and Brian in particular have to grow a pair or you will be taking off your shoes to enter your house. Your wives and daughters will be in burka's.

I believe in the United States. I want the United States to succeed. I want the terrorists to lose. I want my grandchildren to grow up in a safe world. ww

Actually wildwille it is yo... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Actually wildwille it is you who hates what america stands for. Why won't you just admit it?

By the way I did my part - 6 years, voluntarily - in the Army 1970-1976. Tell us what you've done for America - I hope you have served your country and I congratulate you if you have.

No wonder you are sour, a v... (Below threshold)
kim:

No wonder you are sour, a volunteer in a drafted army.
================================

Only in a libbers world do ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Only in a libbers world do you hate your country is you want the United States to win. Only in the libbers world where the sky is pink and the clouds are fluffy marshmellows. ww

Hey, JFO, I "hate" America ... (Below threshold)

Hey, JFO, I "hate" America so much that I want it protected from terrorists.

Before you ask, I did not serve. I have a disability that prohibits my serving. I'm sure you'll spin that to make me a coward, tho, and I am OK with that, it will just show the depths of your own hatred.

"President William Jefferso... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"President William Jefferson Clinton had the opportunity to have Osama bin Ladin handed over to US officials by another nation (I think it was Pakistan, but I could be mistaken), and he turned it down.

So we may actually be able to blame 9/11 on Clinton. Chew on that one for a while."

Democrats are criminal hucksters and lying frauds. Do you think for a moment that the cowardly Clinton would have made 43 million going around "giving talks" if he had imprisioned the leader of Al Qaeda Osama Bin Laden?

Hell no, and that is why democrats are un-American Communist loving frauds.

And hell ya you can blame the POS for 9/11.

CCG:I have no evid... (Below threshold)
JFO:

CCG:

I have no evidence you're a coward, only evidence that you are a liar and a bad one at that.

I notice that one of the lead loony wingnuts, wildwillie, hasn't responded to my question about what he's done to serve his country. I hope he does share his experience with us.

Let me tell you something t... (Below threshold)
J. Fisk:

Let me tell you something that is serious Son of the Godfather.

About an hour ago, I just learned that my dad is on a federal terrorist watchlist. Thats right my dad. A red, white and blue, white American, who's ancestors came here in the 1600's. You can't get more American than that.
Why? I wanted to know.
Well it seems that my dad, who has a Phd in Biochemistry, has for a number of years been writing articles for Law Enforcement Magazine. His articles help law enforcement learn to spot potential terror situations, how to handle those situations, and what the dangers are.
My own dad, a 65 year old heart transplant patient, and proud American, is doing his part to help educate law enforcement, and potentially save American lives. Out of college, my dad worked as a microbiological researcher for the Veterans Administration, {Yes, apparently the VA does conduct research} in the 1970's and 1980's ran his own toxicology lab, and employed about 100 people. He is an expert in the field of microbiology. He has a lot to offer law enforcement.

So is he recognised for his efforts by the government? You bet. His contact within the FBI let him know that he is and has been for some time, on a federal terrorist watchlist. And there is nothing anyone can do to get him off of it.

Now I have been writing from time to time on Wizband about the abuse potential of the USA Patroit Act. Many foolish people attack me for what I have to say on this matter. I hear responses like,

"So what if the government taps our phones and moniters our internet activity, I'm not guilty of anything, I'm no terrorist, so I have nothing to worry about."

So why are they watching my dad then? Even the FBI knows he's no terrorist. Because he has specialized knowledge of microbes? So what, so do thousands of other researchers. So do thousands of college students studying microbiology.
Are these people also potentially on terrorist watchlists? Yes they are. Unerving isn't it? To have someone watching all your activities is not a very pleasant or healthy thing. Think about it.

Kind of makes you want to change majors. You don't have to have ill intent to become a suspect. A f*ucking suspect! What kind of bullshit IS this??
My dad is now considering not writing for Law Enforcement at all now. Apparently the FBI puts spiders on the servers of internet providers, and when you go to a site the government has tagged, or you google a certain topic, your IP address gets reported to the FBI, and they take a look at you. You never know this though. My dad is concerned that someone in the FBI might make a mistake, and he could wind up in serious trouble over nothing. He feels this will hamper his research, and now is considering not writing anymore.

The real losers in all this are you and me, the public, and law enforcement. Sure, there are other experts that can educate local police and state officials on bioterrorism, but they're probably on watch lists also. If they found out they were on lists, I wonder if they would continue to educate, or if they would just stop. This bullshit policy is just self defeating. Its mindless. My dad has never even been arrested. He tries to help, and gets put on a list. Nice going.

I really wonder how many of you clowns are on some watch list and don't even realize it. Think of all those google searches you did over the years, are you so sure, you didn't manage to red flag yourself in some way? This is way out of control.

Do you like to live in fear even though you've none nothing wrong? Better get used to it. You wanted it, you got it. You clowns need to wake up. DJ Drummond, Kim Pre-sap, J Tea, and all you lemmings, be careful what you wish for. Wake up.

J Fisk


A possible mirror into our own future... Unless we
start taking this seriously.
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at June 30, 2007 05:17 PM

Paranoia strikes deep.<br /... (Below threshold)
kim:

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your heart it will creep.
==================

You learned about this an h... (Below threshold)
kim:

You learned about this an hour ago, and you've speculated to this extent? That, my fine feathered friend, is some fantastic work.
=====================================

I am on a Homeland Security... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

I am on a Homeland Security list.

A few years ago, as a favor to a close friend, I bailed an Egyptian guy out of jail and loaned him a hundred bucks. I know him only slightly, but enough to know he is no terrorist. Stupid maybe, but no terrorist.

Whereupon he immediatly drove to NYC, left his leased car, and booked it back to Egypt.

They found the car and in due course, me.

I am not the slightest bit concerned about my interview or possible taps. It is what I expect them to do.

Every microbiologist with even the most remote connection to weapons is on some list or other. They said so - the anthrax case is still not solved and the potential threat is great.

Exactly, Robert, I had some... (Below threshold)
kim:

Exactly, Robert, I had some similar thoughts. A microbiologist capable of running a tox lab with 100 employees is either working for the government, as this guy's putative father used to do, or is on some sort of monitoring, or ought to be. For heaven's sake, with the amount of government regulation of a lab of that sort, a terrorist watch list would be the least of the lab manager's problems.

It really points to J Fisk either imagining the whole story, or not telling us a big chunk of it.

I think he's just lying. The whole post just reeks of propaganda.
===========================

Kim, I expected as much fro... (Below threshold)
J Fisk:

Kim, I expected as much from you.

Speculated what? My dad was told this by his FBI contact. It would be quite convenient for you if I were lying.

My dad's lab that he ran years ago, was a toxocology lab. They tested commercial products and did animal studies. It was not a weapons lab, they did not work with microbes. They tested makeup, contact lenses, all sorts of new products for potential toxic effects. They tested new drugs to ensure safety with humans. They got HUGE government grants to do research for studies for the government. His work with microbes was with the VA, years before. And it was not for weapons. The VA doesn't do that.

Why the hell is it paranoia?? I think it sucks to be on some kind of government list.

Surveillance of those with murky backgrounds, or known terrorists is one thing, but there is no reason at all that he can't be cleared and removed from that list. He never had anything to do with weapons with his work. But that doesn't mean he does not know about them. He conducts his research, writes his articles, gets paid by his editor, and winds up on a list for it. Every research organization publishes their findings, and fear of the government snooping through your bank accounts, tapping your phone, and invading your privacy in general, should not be an obsticle to conducting legitimate research. Nobody likes being watched.
Well Kim, its 100% true. Seems you can't believe it. I don't give a damn. You can't believe it because its not how you imagined things to be. Well you were wrong. Its not propaganda if its true.

Heres another one.
January 9, 2007 front page of the New Haven Register: Arrest Exposes State's Threat List
CT Governor Jodi Rell wants an explanation on the arrest of an activist-blogger at Rell's inaugural parade and about law enforcements list of allegedy dangerous individuals. Ken Krayeske, a Green Party supporter, campaign worker, and internet blogger was arrested by Hartford police after taking photos of Rell during her inaugural parade. Police say Krayeske's name was on a list of "pontial threats," put together by the FBI, state and local police.
"There was nothing is Krayeske's history that indicates that he was a danger to anyone," said state rep Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee. He and other legislators blasted the arrest as unnececessary and a violation of constitutional rights. Governor Rell wrote to state Public Saftey Commisioner Leonard Boyle, asking him to reveiw the incident and to find out why Krayeske's name and photograph were given to police before the parade.
"In providing security and protection, we cannot permit the rightsof individuals to be trampled," Republican Governor Rell's letter stated.
State Rep Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, said the secret list of allegedly dangerous individuals "reeks of secret police." "Political activism is not a crime," said Caruso. Lawyor questioned whether holding Krayeske for 13 hours and then releasing him on $75,000 bail was an attempt to prevent him from protesting at Rell's inaugural ball that evening.
So there you have it. Secret threat lists. Political activism will put you on the list.
I wonder what else will.
Kim, before you open your big mouth, check out this story. Front page of the New Haven Register, Jan 9, 2007. http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17686002&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=590581&rfi=6


The FBI said that anyone wi... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

The FBI said that anyone with equipment that might possibly be used to process anthrax would be looked at.

The fact that you pretend not to understand this so that you can maintain your outrage, tells me that you are not looking for an explaination - you are looking for a cause.

Riot on Fisk, but you'll get no sympathy from me.

Robert, its not a fact that... (Below threshold)
J Fisk:

Robert, its not a fact that I "pretend" to not understand, I understand fully. My dad did not make phamacuticles, he merely tested them.

Weaponized microbes need to be finely ground. Finer than you would grind for making drugs. It needs to be so small that it can remain airbourne. For drugs, there is absolutely no reason to grind that small. You need specialized equipment for that.

In short, my dad's tox lab did not ever have the capability to make any such thing. Why would they? Like I said before, they tested products. They tested anti cancer drugs for effectiveness. Things like that. They tested products for toxicity. Are toxic chemicals leaching out? They had no capacity to make weapons. Get a grip.

I see you make absolutely no comment about the totally verifiable story that ran in the New Haven Register. Every time I post this story, Wizbangers go silent. I challenged DJ Drummond with this story, but nothing from him. No comment. Even that loudmouth Kim, can't find her voice. She finally shut up. I think her best defense of this kind of abuse would be to marginalize it and say its an isolated incident. Of course the state of CT does have a secret threat list. And political activism, like belonging to the Green Party, or calling for a non violent protest will put you on the list. Its a showcase of abuse.

Thats why I think we need to repeal the Patriot Act. The abuses. Robert, you might not be concerned that you are in an FBI database. By the sounds of it, you're just listed in some file. You're right, thats not a big deal. In the past, once the investigation was concluded, the FBI was required to purge their files. Now, thanks to AG Ashcroft, the FBI can keep the info permanently. And worse, they can share that data with private industry. What Privacy Act? The danger is this information can fall into the wrong hands, or be subject to misinterpetation. How would you like your employer to get the information about that incident you were involved in? Suppose some knucklehead in upper management, reads it the wrong way, and decided to be cautious. You were after all questioned by the FBI and may have helped a terrorist excape the country. Access to sensitive information? Forget it, promotion denied. You may not even know the real reason. The abuse potential is endless. You may not care about your privacy, but so many people do, that they created the Privacy Act and made it into law. Privacy is privacy, no matter what area you are talking about.

And worst of all, the Patroit Act grants itself wide ranging powers that are not supported legally, and even contradicts other laws. How can you perform a warrentless search, when the 4th amendment specifically forbids it? The Patroit Act has no legal authority in many areas. But everyone is intimidated and yields to it. Its gotta go. I just think we can do better than this ham handed approach. "It reeks of secret police." Its UNAMERICAN. Very unamerican.

And they STAY silent.... (Below threshold)
J Fisk:

And they STAY silent.

No one wants to talk about verifiable abuses of the USA Patroit Act.

"Everytime I post this story, Wizbangers go silent."

And Kimbo, when are you going to wax that "thing" off your lip?"

I consider this thread closed.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy