ethiopian born man arrested at detroit metro with nuclear info

[smurphy]

Will be several standing in line to bail this guy out.
If one of planes on 911 had failed-- you'd have several orgs here going to bat for the terrorist just as they are with 20th hijacker currently.
They want to inherit the probs France and rest of Europe are now experiencing.
--and we don't need migration of poor angry Islamic immigrants--we are converting them internally--about 42% of Muslims in U.S. are american born converts--right Smurph

I don't know why you addressed me in this thread. If you have a problem with people helping scum and terrorists, then I have no argument - I'm right there with you.

Which reminds me, you never gave your opinion regarding the FACT that James Baker's law firm is accepting millions of dollars to defend the Saudis in the lawsuit filed by 9-11 families... How do you feel about that?

 

[bryanz]

DO YOU GET IT ????

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Didn't see the question on Saudi's and don't know much about it.

Without any digging I will assume the following and if I'm off base let me know.

Assumption Bakers lawfirm is representing "the country" of Saudi Arabia in defence of lawsuit filed by families of 911.

Unless there is evidence that the country sent the terrorist I don't think there should have even had to be a defence team--and to compare it to defending Saddam who is quilty without question is absurb.

Now I'll go one better on families of 911--why should they be compensated by federal gov and other victems of catastrophies not--ie hurricane--earthquakes ect

With the exception of # of deaths that occurred I fail to see how any individuals death that day is any more tragic than any other death that occurred by accident on any given day.

Now if you want to talk about the firefighters and police that gave their lives that day I'll agree 100%

If I had to make choice I'd have took all the compensation from the individuals and given it to the fireighters/police that earned it.

Case in point--They interviewed 35 year old widow in weeks that followed that was irrate because she had not received any funds yet--and progressed to tell how she had 2 mortgages and 2 car payments that were behind.

While many may have been sympathetic--my thoughts were--she should have been irrate with herself and husband. They could have mortages on 2 homes/payments on 2 cars but couldn't see to spend $35 a month on life insurance for about $1,000,000 coverage.
I have "0" sympathy/tolerance for her--or anyone else that shuck their own responsibilities and try lay it off on someone else.

 

[MrChristo]

Now I'll go one better on families of 911--why should they be compensated by federal gov and other victems of catastrophies not--ie hurricane--earthquakes ect

With the exception of # of deaths that occurred I fail to see how any individuals death that day is any more tragic than any other death that occurred by accident on any given day.

Now if you want to talk about the firefighters and police that gave their lives that day I'll agree 100%

If I had to make choice I'd have took all the compensation from the individuals and given it to the fireighters/police that earned it.

Case in point--They interviewed 35 year old widow in weeks that followed that was irrate because she had not received any funds yet--and progressed to tell how she had 2 mortgages and 2 car payments that were behind.

While many may have been sympathetic--my thoughts were--she should have been irrate with herself and husband. They could have mortages on 2 homes/payments on 2 cars but couldn't see to spend $35 a month on life insurance for about $1,000,000 coverage.
I have "0" sympathy/tolerance for her--or anyone else that shuck their own responsibilities and try lay it off on someone else.

Dogs...DTB....sorry....speechless.

Tremendous moment of clarity and sense from you there...really, I never thought you had it in you! It's magic!
No....really...superb.

Man, if I'd posted that same thing, I'd be called an "anti-humanitarian" or "anti-American" even.

...no, honestly, I'd love to prattle on about it, but truly moved!! (you leftist, uncaring bastard!)

 

[gardenweasel]

Car wrecks are unfortunate, but unless we are talking about the movie "Maximum Overdrive" the cars are not out to kill as many Americans as possible. You think there might be just a little bit of a difference between accidents and murder? Why did we spend so much money trying to track down Ted Bundy? What did he kill? 20-30 people? Who cares? So many more people die from carbon monoxide poisoning. We would be better off having 100 Ted Bundy/Jeffery Dahlmers running around torturing and murdering as many people as possible and just hiring more inspectors to check for carb mon levels. I know I would sleep much easier.

Your post is a perfect example of using stats and absolutely amazingly bad logic to prove something completely idiotic. (See Scott4SC's post about Montana St being better than USC by transference of wins as an example. He was joking, I'm not sure you are.)

At what level of body count should we start inconveniencing you in the airport? 4,000 people murdered is obviously is not enough. 150K? New York City? We've got 300 million people in the US alone, who cares if a couple hundred thousand are murdered by terrorists. Lets not get all crazy about this until we can get the murder total above annual deaths from car accidents.

wish i`d posted that....

brilliant,flapjack.....just brilliant...:clap:

 

[MrChristo]

wish i`d posted that....

brilliant,flapjack.....just brilliant...:clap:

EDIT: Sorry, might have gotten a bit carried away...
...but telling us that accidents don't count is a brilliant insight?

All "accidents" (maybe not ALL, the certainly the vast majority) are preventable...it's just a matter of having the time, energy, resourses to do anything about them.
We as people, and we as a society make decisions every single day that compromise our safety and don't give them a second thought...
...yet someone mentions "terrorism" and things fly off the scale!

who cares if a couple hundred thousand are murdered by terrorists.

That's just the entire point...You don't care about the couple of hundred thousand that die each yer from preventable causes.

So why care about a possible terrorist threat?...Clearly the answer is that you are scared may be in the next one...
...yet you still drink, smoke?, drive cars, eat processed food...etc. etc. etc...I assume you aren't scared to go outside in the dark and you don't sleep with a shotgun within reach... all things that statistically will shorten your life...and in real terms one of them is highly likely to...but this piece of news makes you both the happiest, safest feeling people in the world!?? :shrug:

There is absolutely zero proportionality to your fears. None!

 

[gardenweasel]

murder:..the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought...

accident:....an unintentional or unexpected happening that is undesirable or unfortunate....especially one resulting in injury damage harm or loss....

you don`t get it do you,christo....your moral equivalence meter is stuck on stupid....

you don`t see the difference between something unfortunate happpening during the course of one living their everyday life to the planned and plotted,deliberate murder of thousands...maybe hundreds of thosands by the willful acts of some throwback neanderthal monsters from the 7th century?...

those whose goal is the planned destruction of civilized society as we know it?....to bring forth some religious boogeyman from a hole in the ground?......

and you give absolutely no consideration to the sanctity of one's home, personal property, and life against the aggression of these animals?......

we should wait until several cities are leveled...so,theres a "sense of proportionality"???

proportionality?....this argument could hold water when one is dealing with a rational enemy as germany or japan were....or the russians....

not so now, as all of us are dealing with the jihad, which has its own dynamics and reward system, which are not negotiable in the real,civilized world.....

so,in the christo world,we should be more concerned with car accidents or falling off ladders?....

i`ve never heard anyone so oddly use euphemistic language in political discussion to camouflage morally outrageous ideas and actions....

comparing the prevention of accidents with the effort to thwart premeditated mass murder on an unimaginable scale........is?......is??..... insane....

all due respect,but,it`s getting so every time i read one of your posts i feel as though andy or barney let otis out again.....

 

[MrChristo]

You're a funny man, gw...you and your closet internet psycology testing unit...

I do own a dictionary...I can look up the definations of "accident" and "intentional" on my own...

It's not the issue, but you think you're on a roll so you're going with it...fine, drag that bone...


and you give absolutely no consideration to the sanctity of one's home, personal property, and life against the aggression of these animals?......

Dude, the simple fact is that you're more likely to be deliberately, intentionally, maliciously murdered in your, sorry, one's home than you are to die in an "act of terror".
Plain and simple. Unarguable fact.

You just keep swinging and missing, don't you gw...just can't get the main point into your scone, so you tear off on something that you think is close enough.

Keep looking suspiciously sideways at men with beards, when it's the white, US born citizen average Joe is far more likely to end it all... :SIB



Now, please, don't get me wrong...I'm not in the least bit saying "do nothing"...but surely...surely there comes a point where the cost (in both $, and personal freedoms) becomes WAY to much for the benefit?

Oh and btw, If you ever actually bothered reading posts instead of imagining and/or trying to analyse them, you would have seen that I posted this...

oh, and btw, btw, speaking of you avoiding any real issues, I notice you haven't answered a couple of direct questions asked of you in the other thread...

 

[MrChristo]

acts of some throwback neanderthal monsters from the 7th century?...

...

This one is getting a bit thin too...but I can't be bothered with it right now...
...for another time...

...unless of course you're still convinced the world is going to end tomorrow, then I better get to it as quickly as possible, huh!

 

[THE KOD]

I think it was chicken little that said the sky was falling.

 

[flapjack]

The point I'm making is that there are just some things in this world we can't control.
Obviously your point (and gw's) is that we caught this guy, we're winning!!!...
...my point is that for every "this guy" there are probably 5, 10, 20 others who have the same info but aren't stupid enough to carry around wads of cash and a lap-top with a nice little folder labelled "nuclear threat data".

Of course there is a difference between accidents and murder...point?

... for every Ted Bundy there are 1000's of average Jo's that only kill 1 person...so Ted's victims were more important than any individual?...You're actually supporting my whole "pointlessness" argument.

How many car accidents occur by people breaking the law?...speeding, running red lights, dui, drugs...all 100% avoidable...if we want to assign a policeman for EVERY driver in the world.

What a stupid, unrealistic proposal hey?!...You just have a think about it


I also like the way flapjack, that you seem to ignore that the aircraft indusrty work under that very principal, yet I guess you have no issues with flying when need be?
Dead set, same, easy logic to follow mate...plane crashes WILL happen. Some are unavoidable. Some are absolutely avoidable but problems get over-looked due to simple economics.

Oh, woe is me...how many lives...HOW MANY LIVES??
It makes me shake my head at the double standards of people caring oh so much about "terrorism", yet not giving 1000 other deaths on any particular day another thought.

"Of course there is a difference between accidents and murder...point?"

I'm glad you see the difference, your post suggested otherwise as you rank things like carb monox poisoning and car accidents with terrorism in order to show how unimportant terrorism is.


"It makes me shake my head at the double standards of people caring so much about "terrorism", yet not giving 1000 other deaths on any particular day another thought".

Oh, wait, take back what I said about being glad you see a difference between the two. You are once again equating accidents with terrorism ie cold blooded murder.

But, to address the other points:

1) First of all, my point was not that we are winning as you suggest. Where did I say that? I think we are losing and will continue to lose until something more drastic happens that wakes up all of America/the world. That being said, yeah, I'm glad they stopped this guy.
2) Every industry works under the principal of risk/reward as does every person. The airlines industry risk/reward happens to be very high. I wish they would be more diligent and I think some of their in action on fixing potential problems borders on negligence. I do have big problems with that. But, do you think the airlines industry's aim is to kill as many of their customers as possible? If you think so, then I understand how you can group airline wrecks due to mechanical error with mass murder. If you think otherwise, I have no idea what the relevance is.
3) "For every Ted Bundy..." Yes, I was simplifying to make a point. Feel free to exchange my "Ted Bundy" for your "1000's of average joes that kill people" in my message and my point is the same (Assuming you are taking about premeditated 1st degree murderers). Yes, call me crazy. I would be more worried about a 1000 cold blooded murders roaming my streets than monoxide poisoning.
4) You continue to equate accidents with terrorism ie cold blooded murder on a large scale. You will never stop all accidents from happening, that is why they are called accidents. People will continue to come up with new ideas, better education, products, etc that make day to day living safer yet they will still happen. The current terrorist threats to the country/western civilization are not accidental and cannot be lessened in the same manner and yet you think we should be just as concerned about people electricuting themselves on their toasters? It does not strike you that the risks have changed/will continue to change? That the threat has increased dramatically over the last 10+ years? That we should just look at past statistics of deaths to determine what we should be concerned about? Must we wait for something even more catastrophic to happen - like a nuke - before we decide to commit the resources necessary in the defense of the country from people who intend to kill as many of us as possible? You do not see something inherently evil and menacing about cold blooded murder that does not ring true for accidental death? If you see no moral difference between the two, then I guess I see the point. I guess maybe our main difference is that you say there are somethings that we cannot control, terrorism is just one of them and is unavoidable like death and taxes. I cannot throw in the towel like that. If we are losing the war on terror, we don't just say "oh well" lets spend our time and money on other things that are easy to control.

BTW, I'm no right wing whack job. As long as those idiots are in the WH I think we continue to blunder our way and continue to lose the war on terror. But that does not mean we give up or turn on our government. Too much at risk.

 

[MrChristo]

No, look, you're right in a sense...I did seem to get a fair bit off track.
Maybe the angle I was coming from wasn't a great idea (ie. If something is going to happen, it will happen, regardless of the time and effort we put into it.)

As I've already said tho...I'm not saying there is NO threat...I just don't believe it's ANYWHERE NEAR as high as people like gw think.
It's the whole fuel that has driven this government to well, be in the position it is now.

The reason I highlighted those original numbers is because we DO climb ladders without thinking twice. We DO jump in our car, and drive without our seltbelts for a quick trip to the shop.
We DO a whole lot of stuff that can quite easily end our lives prematurely...but (again, as I've already said) someone spots an 'arab' looking 'suspicious' in the street and it's the begining of the end!

Do people really think 9/11 was about "murdering as many people as possible"?? Surely not.
They said all along they can't win a straight out war, that they were out to attack American symbols and to hurt the west financially.

I know this is going to sound callous, but only 5000 people were killed.
If they wanted to simply wipe people out they would have flown an extra 10 seconds, turned right and ploughed into a packed Meadowlands Stadium.
Obviously you know your country better than me, but I'm pretty sure you could jot down 20 places in a minute where more people could be killed than by crashing into the Pantagon.


Here's an excert from Misunderstanding Terror...that I just found tbh, apparently it was in a Foreign Policy journal in 1987...

...http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(198722)67<104:MT>2.0.CO;2-S&size=SMALL

Wouldn't mind getting hold of the whole thing...interseting how issue in 1987 are much the same as now isn't it.

 

[gardenweasel]

""Do people really think 9/11 was about "murdering as many people as possible"?? Surely not.
They said all along they can't win a straight out war, that they were out to attack American symbols and to hurt the west financially.

I know this is going to sound callous, but only 5000 people were killed.
If they wanted to simply wipe people out they would have flown an extra 10 seconds, turned right and ploughed into a packed Meadowlands Stadium.
Obviously you know your country better than me, but I'm pretty sure you could jot down 20 places in a minute where more people could be killed than by crashing into the Pantagon.""

""It's the whole fuel that has driven this government to well, be in the position it is now.""

hmmm?..... "fuel" ?....."this government"....

.do you remember the first wtc bombing in 1993?....the attacks on embassies,the cole etc?........

bin laden calling for clinton`s death?....

""Dr. Ahmad Al-Akhras gave one simple reason why Muslim countries have issues with U.S. foreign policy. “If you invade them (Muslim countries), they hate you,” Al-Akhras said. “You help them, they love you.”

well, let's see:

in ww2, america and britain ousted the german nazis from muslim north africa.

starting in 1979, america provided covert aid to the muslim afghans to help them repel an invasion by the ussr....

in 1990, it was basically america and britain that kicked the relatively secular saddam out of muslim kuwait......the u.s.committed itself to the defense of muslim saudi arabia, with troops to guard against any attack by saddam....

and what did we get for "helping" these muslims?...

the first wtc bombing in 1993, which (had it been successful) would have killed even more people than 9-11.....

you forgot?...

and moving right along...in 1999, the u.s. bombed serbia for 78 days straight to stop their attacks on the muslim albanian kosovars....yes,slick willie....

and again, what did he get from osama?..clinton,the guy who went to the mat to try and bring peace between israel and palestine?.....he got death threats...

what did anwar sadat get for offering his hand in peace?...assassinated....

more?....didn`t mention helping to feed starving muslims in somalia, all the billions in aid dollars after the indonesian tsunami, or any other time a natural disaster hits a muslim country....

they "only" killed 5,000?...where have you been?


that`s not counting wtc1,the cole,the embassies..

the hotels in egypt,.somalia,thailand,darfur,india and the sudan and algeria and afghanistan pakistan and israel and russia(a school full of children)the philippines and indonesia and nigeria,england spain,the egyptian hotels,bangladesh,turkey,morocco,yemen,tunisia,ethiopia,jordan........(deep breath)

uzbekistan,mauritania,kenya,argentina,germany,belgium,denmark,tajikistan,the netherlands...and cananda....


...could have killed more if they`d wanted to?...but,they wanted to show their benevolence?....not much of a threat?....

the world really feels the love...

you sir,aren`t a relatively harmless stalinist/socialist as i first thought...you are legally insane...

 

[MrChristo]

...bring up the same old tired examples...again missing any real point and going on your own little speel...

You've been told 1000 times that the religious war against the west you're so keen on promoting is totally different form ancient territorial 'wars' in most of those places you name that have been going on for 100's of years.

I repeat, ultra-hype driven terrorist paranoia, mixed with a healthy dose of blind patriotism has indeed, put this admin (you see it's not a government anymore) where it is today.

...could have killed more if they`d wanted to?...but,they wanted to show their benevolence?....

Yeah, look, full points for sarcasm, nice witty little line, but tell me it isn't true? :shrug: (er, not the benevolence part obviously )