REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bomber stopped by FBI in Portland

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2010 07:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1762
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 27, 2010 4:49 AM

WHOZIT



http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fbi_thwarts_terro
rist_bombing.html


The TSA should be grabbing the balls of people who look like him, instead of kids and old ladys


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


A Somali born teenager ?

Doesn't fit the profile...




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:42 AM

KANEMAN


Nope, AUrap is right. This doesn't sound plausible.....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 29, 2010 6:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Further investigation reveals the guy is dumber than a brick, and was lead by the hand by FBI "handlers" step by step all the way - he couldn't even FIND the goddamn target zone without one in the van with him to give directions... so from day one this whole "plot" was handed to him piece by piece by the feds.

Oh yes, and where oh where did he get the "bomb" ?

Why, the same place Ramzi Youssef did!
Quote:

But the bomb was a fake and had been provided to Mohamud as part of a long-term sting by undercover FBI agents.

Of course, they gave Youssef a REAL bomb, and soon enough, as Judges get sick of playing along and charging these morons for essentially being dupes...

In order to keep up the booga-booga and make the charges stick, the FBI might once again resort to handing off real bombs, which worked out SO well in 1993, did it not ?

Or worse, get *played* by a real terrorist who plays dumb, milks them for equipment and intel, then kills the FBI infiltrator and makes a real strike with resources our so-called protectors provided him.

The gravest threat to our national security...
Is our National Security.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 29, 2010 10:31 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Further investigation reveals the guy is dumber than a brick, and was lead by the hand by FBI "handlers" step by step all the way - he couldn't even FIND the goddamn target zone without one in the van with him to give directions... so from day one this whole "plot" was handed to him piece by piece by the feds.

Oh yes, and where oh where did he get the "bomb" ?

Why, the same place Ramzi Youssef did!
Quote:

But the bomb was a fake and had been provided to Mohamud as part of a long-term sting by undercover FBI agents.

Of course, they gave Youssef a REAL bomb, and soon enough, as Judges get sick of playing along and charging these morons for essentially being dupes...

In order to keep up the booga-booga and make the charges stick, the FBI might once again resort to handing off real bombs, which worked out SO well in 1993, did it not ?

Or worse, get *played* by a real terrorist who plays dumb, milks them for equipment and intel, then kills the FBI infiltrator and makes a real strike with resources our so-called protectors provided him.

The gravest threat to our national security...
Is our National Security.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.




Blah Blah.....the guy wrote a piece in "inspire" try that on your dead leg! "Inspire" you ask? look it up peg leg and get a clue........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 29, 2010 3:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/50771809-68/portland-fbi-bomb-moham
ud.html.csp

Quote:

Some residents of this famously liberal city are unnerved, not only by a plot to bomb an annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony last week but also by the police tactics in the case.

They questioned whether federal agents crossed the line by training 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed O. Mohamud to blow up a bomb, giving him $3,000 cash to rent an apartment and providing him with a fake bomb.

The FBI affidavit “was a picture painted to make the suspect sound like a dangerous terrorist,” said Portland photographer Rich Burroughs. “I don’t think it’s clear at all that this person would have ever had access to even a fake bomb if not for the FBI.”


So, looks like the real Terrorist training camps are in Langley and Quantico, like I been sayin all along, neh ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/50771809-68/portland-fbi-bomb-moham
ud.html.csp

Quote:

Some residents of this famously liberal city are unnerved, not only by a plot to bomb an annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony last week but also by the police tactics in the case.

They questioned whether federal agents crossed the line by training 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed O. Mohamud to blow up a bomb, giving him $3,000 cash to rent an apartment and providing him with a fake bomb.

The FBI affidavit “was a picture painted to make the suspect sound like a dangerous terrorist,” said Portland photographer Rich Burroughs. “I don’t think it’s clear at all that this person would have ever had access to even a fake bomb if not for the FBI.”


So, looks like the real Terrorist training camps are in Langley and Quantico, like I been sayin all along, neh ?

-F



Since I just don't think like these guys, can you run down the reasons why TPTB want to keep us frightened of terrorists? It seems to me that a happy populace would be easier to manage than a frightened, angry one. But I can only guess what their motives are.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:54 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If the powers can convince you that you need to surrender your resources and your freedoms to them in order to secure your safety, they win.

Happy people have no motivation to surrender anything to the government. Only frightened people do.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If the powers can convince you that you need to surrender your resources and your freedoms to them in order to secure your safety, they win.

Happy people have no motivation to surrender anything to the government. Only frightened people do.




Thx Anthony - obviously I'm a skeptic but I'm always open to the best explanation. So far though I don't feel like I've given up any resources in the "War on Terror." I also don't feel like they are after my wallet - not sure they would need terrorism to do that anyway. So what resources?
As far as surrendering my freedoms, what freedoms and what do they want with them? Pat downs at the airport - seems like all govs are asking for that so hard for me to cite my gov as being out of synch or making unusual demands on that front.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:12 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


Sadly Pizmo, your statement is indicative of a fairly popular opinion.

Of course, your definiton of a resource is the key.

Is freedom a resource? The Patriot Act certainly took plenty of that away, as well as many smaller measures.

How about the opportunity cost of what the TRILLIONS we spent in Iraq could have meant for our country, our infrastructure, our economy?

I see these as resources we have certainly forfeited in the name of the War on Terror

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:18 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

First thing, I don't want to give the impression that there is a coordinated conspiracy. There might be, but there need not be and it is unimportant.

The FBI wants to guarantee their budget (or increase it) and hence need to justify it. So they create elaborate stings where they prop up, support, and then take down a Terrorist. "See," they can claim, "We need that budgetary increase, or else we won't be able to stop terrorists like X."

The CIA can do this much easier, creating threats from whole cloth at will to justify their budget.

The closest to 'Conspiracy' we see is things like the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, things which simply do not exist unless we are afraid of something.

And when you ask what part of your taxes go to support bloated FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security agencies, you will see you are indeed being financially bled for this. Even if they borrow the money and make your children pay it back. As long as they can convince you the expense is necessary, they get their money.

Any time a government agency is created, it will generally have a single Primary Purpose. The Primary Purpose is the same regardless of the agency.

TO CONTINUE TO EXIST.

And they will generally do all they can to guarantee they continue to exist. People in government like job security as much as the rest of us, and the people on top of government enjoy skimming resources, wallowing in power, and obtaining favors just as much as the people on top of corporations.

If they lose their funding, they lose everything.


So they make sure they never lose their funding. And if they can grow, even better. More power, prestige, favors, jobs, etc.

--Anthony





Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:32 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Anthony, BlueHM - guess I've been fixating on the TSA lately and the security theatre being run at airports.

I am a huge critic of our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so I guess we agree on the waste of our resources in those areas, but this kid in Portland hardly seems to connect with those.

Justifying next years budget - yes, familiar with the tactic, but aren't there enough real targets to do so without turning this kid? Don't we have enough enemies with ruining this kid's life?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:34 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Justifying next years budget - yes, familiar with the tactic, but aren't there enough real targets to do so without turning this kid? Don't we have enough enemies with ruining this kid's life?"

Hello,

That's a good question. I can only think of two answers.

1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.

or

2) We can't catch the real ones.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
As far as surrendering my freedoms, what freedoms and what do they want with them?

Example of the kind of freedoms they take: The freedom to take a commercial flight without being irradiated or being fondled at the gate. Just one example.

Why would they want to take freedoms? Control.

With enough freedoms taken and with enough control, the government can shape society into the kind of society they think is moral and just and right.

Really, taking our freedom is all for our own good.

Except when some people disagree with authority on what is "moral" and "just" and "right." It is fine when you agree. But if you disagree in a society where government has a large amount of control, you can't do anything to try to change it.

Witness China. Or Stalinist Russia. Or any other police state in history or throughout the world.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.

or

2) We can't catch the real ones.

Or both, as in we can't catch the real ones because there aren't that many of them.

Or if we catch real terrorists, we'll see what sorry, incompetent losers they all are and won't be frightened enough to justify giving govt more authority, money, and control.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's a good question. I can only think of two answers.

1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.



Perhaps that's true, perhaps that's because "we've" been doing a
good job or our tactics are discouraging them? I doubt it though, on all counts.

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
or

2) We can't catch the real ones.




I tend to believe this of the 2, but that kind of goes back to "needs more funding" and the need is actually real.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If I make a shampoo gun to kill terrorists with, and it fails to kill terrorists, would you fund a better shampoo gun? One with extra conditioner?

Or would you tell me that the shampoo gun isn't working, and to allocate my existing funds better?

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:31 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If I make a shampoo gun to kill terrorists with, and it fails to kill terrorists, would you fund a better shampoo gun? One with extra conditioner?

Or would you tell me that the shampoo gun isn't working, and to allocate my existing funds better?

--Anthony



Silly Anthony Terrorists never wash their hair! Thank god you're not in charge of security.

Seriously, wouldn't it be great if it were that simple?? "Dude, you're using a shampoo gun. How about trying to do some real police work for a change?" I mean you could really tell why bad guys were blowing stuff up. Too bad it's harder than that, though honestly, I think a lot of Americans probably believe it is as simple as your analogy.

The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:02 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.

By the standard of not catching anybody while avoiding serious Terrorist incidents... Airport security was a smashing success for years before 9/11.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:08 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.

Reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode on the Simpsons (Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7).

Quote:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.



That is why we have the scientific method. When you can't tell whether something is "working" or not, you try it on two groups which are as identical as possible. Change only the thing you are testing. Measure the outcomes in both groups. It's called an experiment.

For example, if they really wanted to see if X method is "working," they should try X in one group, and no X in the second group. Have the same group of people with various prohibited items walk through and see how many get caught. Then do it again and again with different people in different cities and scenarios. You'll start to get an idea of how effective X is.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.



Bingo. Witness the latest WikiLeaks fiasco. Note the statements and tones coming out of the Pentagon and the State Department in the wake of the latest leaks. There's tons of talk about how "we need to beef up our security" and how "it's unfortunate that these documents got leaked" - and not once has anyone said that maybe, just MAYBE, we (a) shouldn't be trash-talking other folks in "secret" e-mails and memos, or saying anything about them in an e-mail that we wouldn't say to their faces, or (b) we probably don't need to classify things as "secret" or "classified" just because they contain potentially embarrassing characterizations of other diplomats and world leaders.

I fully expect the U.S. government to come out any day now and demand an apology from Julian Assange. America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66

And yes, the State Department wants to go back to writing its own report cards again. And they want us to make sure they have enough money to insure that NOBODY can get their "sensitive" documents, so they can go right back to trash-talking the rest of the world without ever worrying about the consequences. And of course, they'll now need a much larger budget to see to that "security"...






This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:24 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.

Reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode on the Simpsons (Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7).

Quote:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.



That is why we have the scientific method. When you can't tell whether something is "working" or not, you try it on two groups which are as identical as possible. Change only the thing you are testing. Measure the outcomes in both groups. It's called an experiment.

For example, if they really wanted to see if X method is "working," they should try X in one group, and no X in the second group. Have the same group of people with various prohibited items walk through and see how many get caught. Then do it again and again with different people in different cities and scenarios. You'll start to get an idea of how effective X is.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky



Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.

By the standard of not catching anybody while avoiding serious Terrorist incidents... Airport security was a smashing success for years before 9/11.

--Anthony



Indeed it was. Seems like things/people/motivations changed though and we didn't change to address that (how'd we know?). So I suspect that that's what this new airport security process is a response to. Even shampoo changes.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:45 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.



Bingo. Witness the latest WikiLeaks fiasco. Note the statements and tones coming out of the Pentagon and the State Department in the wake of the latest leaks. There's tons of talk about how "we need to beef up our security" and how "it's unfortunate that these documents got leaked" - and not once has anyone said that maybe, just MAYBE, we (a) shouldn't be trash-talking other folks in "secret" e-mails and memos, or saying anything about them in an e-mail that we wouldn't say to their faces, or (b) we probably don't need to classify things as "secret" or "classified" just because they contain potentially embarrassing characterizations of other diplomats and world leaders.

I fully expect the U.S. government to come out any day now and demand an apology from Julian Assange. America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66

And yes, the State Department wants to go back to writing its own report cards again. And they want us to make sure they have enough money to insure that NOBODY can get their "sensitive" documents, so they can go right back to trash-talking the rest of the world without ever worrying about the consequences. And of course, they'll now need a much larger budget to see to that "security"...






Heh - it's like Haken posted every Private Message ever sent... China said North Korea acted like children, which is crazy because we all act like children.

Anthony: "Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process."
I agree that's a problem - there is the GAO, POGO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_On_Government_Oversight and We The People, and others but everyone in Gov needs as much oversight as we can afford.

Mike: "America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66" So you still *like* America?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:31 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

As a general rule, I presume negatives before I presume positives.

I presume unicorns do NOT exist until you show me evidence that they do.

If you tell me you've seen a unicorn with your own eyes, I'll presume you are NOT lying unless someone shows me evidence that you lied.

If you have evidence that they did experiment and test the effectiveness of AIT scanning, I will happily stand corrected.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:34 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


CTS,
That seems far too reasonable an approach for message board communication...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:40 AM

ESTEAD


Hello Fremdfirma,
As a transplanted Portlander who was not asked, but is not upset with what we know so far of the way the FBI has handled this case, I have a question for you.

When so few facts are available about the case, why do you so quickly agree with an uninvolved photographer's opinion, rather than waiting to hear what actually happened?

Thank you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:54 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

As a general rule, I presume negatives before I presume positives.

I presume unicorns do NOT exist until you show me evidence that they do.

If you tell me you've seen a unicorn with your own eyes, I'll presume you are NOT lying unless someone shows me evidence that you lied.

If you have evidence that they did experiment and test the effectiveness of AIT scanning, I will happily stand corrected.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky



Ah, presuming the negative first, that certainly is the American way, "We're in decline... I'm not getting my fair share... the rich have it all... TPTB want our freedoms... it's broken! Wait, I needed to turn it on first..."
Why start with a bias ("I presume negatives before I presume positives") ? You double your chances of being right if you don't presume either.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:19 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You double your chances of being right if you don't presume either.

I don't need to be right.

Presumption is just a nice place to stand until I have reason to change places. I change places quite often and with pleasure.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by estead:
Hello Fremdfirma,
As a transplanted Portlander who was not asked, but is not upset with what we know so far of the way the FBI has handled this case, I have a question for you.

When so few facts are available about the case, why do you so quickly agree with an uninvolved photographer's opinion, rather than waiting to hear what actually happened?


Because some of the case files are public information, and I had a local media contact fax me the relevant pieces, specifically the affadavit, and read it.

Oregon Live has it posted in PDF if you'd like to read it yourself.
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/USAFFIDAVIT.pdf

Glenn Greenwald also does an excellent breakdown of it here.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/28/fbi/index
.html


But essentially, never assume that just because the mainstream media hasn't handed out the facts of a case (which they often never do, especially if they have a political bias-stake in spinning the story one way or the other) that no one else has them, or that independant media doesn't.

These days most of our mainstream media is just an echo chamber anyway, almost every outlet running the same copy/pasted press release without even so much as verifying it cause it's cheaper than sending a reporter or investigative team in - one of the local college professors almost started a panic around here by showing just how easy it is to insert entirely fake stories into the local news-stream for that reason.

In this case I happened to be fortunate enough to have an Indymedia contact in Portland and thus it was as simple as a phone call, and didn't even have to wait on it cause they were already covering the story.
http://portland.indymedia.org/
Mind you, they ain't the most efficient or professional of the IMC crowd, but they're sure better than copy/pasted press releases, neh ?

There's also the history here, given that time after time after time after time, the FBI has done shit like this, up to and including handing a real terrorist (Ramzi Youssef) a real bomb, and indirectly causing one of the most damaging terrorist incidents in american history...

So, if you were to see a guy who you knew had been arrested nine times for auto theft trying to use a slimjim to unlock a car - would YOU believe him when he told you it was just that he locked his keys in there ?
Or would you have some just cause to think he was lying to you ?

How many of these "plots" have been nothing more than a bunch of losers who can barely survive on their own, set up, guided and financed by a planted agent ?
Why, damn near all of em, of course - upon investigation every single one follows this same pattern, and you expect me to believe that this time would be different than any other when the FIRST piece of hard evidence to hit my hands is that the fucking FBI was paying his *rent* ?

And yes, we do jump on these quickly, before they can sweep it under the rug as "classified" to cover their own asses, not to mention involvement.

Again, I say it - our so called protectors are a protection RACKET, and I wouldn't even discount the possibility of them helping stage a real attack were we to start hacking up their budget and cutting their personnel, cause many of em are "True Believer" RWA types who honestly *believe* some of the shit they're shovelling with all the fervor of your typical religious nutter, and so with them the ends justify *any* means - and if you don't believe me about it, peruse any of their own internal documents from the Church Committee files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

This ain't a matter of me agreeing with someone elses opinion so much as knowing what they ARE, knowing what they've DONE, and the firm belief that our own so-called protectors are a greater terrorist threat to our people, our country, than any of the incompetent morons or would be terrorist kingpins(1) they keep holding up to scare us with.
Quote:

We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country.
-William Grayson
11 June 1788


(1) OBL is certainly dead, and two of those "top lieutenants" (Abu Ayyub al-Masri & Abu Omar al-Baghdadi) we've reported captured/killed, ON FIVE SEPERATE OCCASIONS probably don't even exist, something that the army admitted in July 2007 when they implied they'd made up the name to "put a face" on the enemy and replace Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was just some shmuck they wanted to pin as much as possible on to make a big boogeyman.

And so, why would I believe the word of known liars, selling me a lie they've been caught in so many times before ?

WHY ?

Hell, for that matter, why should anyone believe them ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Glenn Greenwald rocks. Hard.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Also, since I just happened upon it, and it's relavent to the point - you'd be amazed at what the powers-that-be leave just lying around...

And even more horrified at the notion that your tax dollars have been spent on stuff like CONPLAN, more or less a blueprint for a military takeover and transfer of our goverment into direct fascism, waiting only sufficient exuse.
http://tc.indymedia.org/2010/nov/tc-indymedia-exclusive-secret-trigger
-blueprint-emergency-domestic-military-crackdown-plan
-
No "Conspiracy Theory" this, either - those are their own fucking documents.

Again, I ask you - why should I trust these people, when they put more effort into the idea of "handling" us, their so-called protectees, than they do any potential threat against us ?

Fuck man, they ARE the greatest potential threat against us, and it's long past time we acknowledged it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL