Were airplanes really in imminent danger last week?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

4000 people ... 10 flights, assuming they are larger planes and at capacity that's not a bad number. Either way it's not my number it's a number I've seen many times in the past two weeks though.

Yes, it is a bad number. If they were all 747's, filled to absolute capacity, and EVERYONE on board died, it would barely eclipse 4000 people. That is a bad number.

So any person that pays attention to some of what O'Reilly says is deemed not good enough to grab your ear?

The guy has the number one rated cable news show on the air, you might be eliminating a lot of future conversation!

Yes. I really shouldn't have to argue against the merits of bill o'reilly. He's a racist, liar, and plagiarist. His cable 'news' show engages in about as much journalism as I do when I'm asleep. If you listen to 60 percent of what he says, you aren't nearly as centrist as you make yourself out to be. This is apparent within 10 minutes of watching his show. You don't have to be right or left to understand his show is bluster, not informed opinion. A monkey might have the 'highest rated cable news show in america', and I still wouldn't watch it for anything other than comic relief.

Not sure how an earth quake has anything to do with this discussion, though I'm sure you'd blame that on Bush too if it happened, bottom line a plot was uncovered, arrests were made, and information gleemed before any one got hurt.

In my non politically jaded world that's good news. I guess we all judge "good" differently.

You mean a racist, all-encompassing, harassing drag net was deployed, and some information was pre-maturely leaked in what could best be described as a 'dubious' timeline.

You're right, information was 'gleemed'. They made a bunch of arrests of the thousands of british muslims currently under warrantless surveilance and got a 'trace' of a 'suspected' bomb plot. A plot so imminent, dangerous and well-planned that they were going to rely on last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world to conduct a 10 plane simultaneous terror plot. That isn't far fetched in the least.

The earthquake is about as likely to kill 4000 people tomorrow as that 'terrorist plot' was.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes, it is a bad number. If they were all 747's, filled to absolute capacity, and EVERYONE on board died, it would barely eclipse 4000 people. That is a bad number.



Yes. I really shouldn't have to argue against the merits of bill o'reilly. He's a racist, liar, and plagiarist. His cable 'news' show engages in about as much journalism as I do when I'm asleep. If you listen to 60 percent of what he says, you aren't nearly as centrist as you make yourself out to be. This is apparent within 10 minutes of watching his show. You don't have to be right or left to understand his show is bluster, not informed opinion. A monkey might have the 'highest rated cable news show in america', and I still wouldn't watch it for anything other than comic relief.



You mean a racist, all-encompassing, harassing drag net was deployed, and some information was pre-maturely leaked in what could best be described as a 'dubious' timeline.

You're right, information was 'gleemed'. They made a bunch of arrests of the thousands of british muslims currently under warrantless surveilance and got a 'trace' of a 'suspected' bomb plot. A plot so imminent, dangerous and well-planned that they were going to rely on last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world to conduct a 10 plane simultaneous terror plot. That isn't far fetched in the least.

The earthquake is about as likely to kill 4000 people tomorrow as that 'terrorist plot' was.

Oh! So it IS another conspiracy! It was all set up to 'scare the unwashed masses' of which you so smugly don't belong, I suppose? Well, I guess all of us working monkey's are just blinded to the facts because of fear and you are all above the fray as can see things more clearly because of your superior intellect and better information.

Did I get that about right?

Oh, and we're all racists because they want to kill us. Almost forgot that one.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Stop trolling. You try misleading by questioning the poster's IQ, then coming up with a couple irrelevant comparisons, and finally rest of your remarks are just disparaging.

How about just pointing out that everything listed are issues, but not related to the terrorism issue at hand? Sure terrorism is distracting people from other, perhaps more pressing issues, but terrorism scares people and pointing out other problems does nothing to lessen the fear.

So you don't see a difference in dying from a car accident and being murdered? Is that what you are saying?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes, it is a bad number. If they were all 747's, filled to absolute capacity, and EVERYONE on board died, it would barely eclipse 4000 people. That is a bad number.

are you suggesting flights going down, likely on fire in the middle of the atlantic wouldn't result in EVERYONE ON BOARD DEAD?

That would be something.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes. I really shouldn't have to argue against the merits of bill o'reilly. He's a racist, liar, and plagiarist. His cable 'news' show engages in about as much journalism as I do when I'm asleep. If you listen to 60 percent of what he says, you aren't nearly as centrist as you make yourself out to be. This is apparent within 10 minutes of watching his show. You don't have to be right or left to understand his show is bluster, not informed opinion. A monkey might have the 'highest rated cable news show in america', and I still wouldn't watch it for anything other than comic relief.

I still think you fail to see my point.

I know the guy's a blowhard, and he can grate on me as well. He's on side in my mind some of the time and without a paddle the rest (hence my 60% figuere, though once again that's a number as a guess, I haven't researched it - I think you challenged my 20% number in a different topic).

But a number like that is likely true of a lot of stuff I watch and read from many sources with O'Reilly only offered up because Lanny likes to toss it out at me once a month around the calendar.

Either way have you ever noticed that no where in the massive Chomsky debate did I ever question anyone's intelligence or sanity for reading Chomsky, just that he shouldn't be used as THE source or only source.

If someone suggested to me that I shouldn't use O'Reilly as my only source for news they'd be right on.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You mean a racist, all-encompassing, harassing drag net was deployed, and some information was pre-maturely leaked in what could best be described as a 'dubious' timeline.

You're right, information was 'gleemed'. They made a bunch of arrests of the thousands of british muslims currently under warrantless surveilance and got a 'trace' of a 'suspected' bomb plot. A plot so imminent, dangerous and well-planned that they were going to rely on last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world to conduct a 10 plane simultaneous terror plot. That isn't far fetched in the least.

The earthquake is about as likely to kill 4000 people tomorrow as that 'terrorist plot' was.

It's a tight line to walk I admit, but until Irish Grandmothers go on a massive terrorism spree there is going to have to be some race focused screening. It sucks but it's true.

If I think I lost my car keys in our mud room I don't see the logic in searching all the bed rooms first just to be fair to all the rooms and avoid hard feelings.

Doesn't make it any more fair for the huge majority of people that are completely innocent though, I agree.

Funny to see ...

last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world

in the very same string you pound down a 4000 killed number because of a less than capacity argument but then go on to suggest it's air born rush hour!

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Hmmm, I'll be sure to remember this if they ever manage to crash a plane into the pickering nuclear plants. What a bunch of people on this site sometimes!! Can we have an IQ requirement to join or something?
Maybe we should stop investigating murders because there are alot of car accidents on the highways! That's the ticket! More traffic cops, less detectives I say!

In WW2 we should have been dropping grain over Nigeria instead of bombs on Dresden. Alot of hope for our future leaders on this site...

I don't want to put words in FDW's mouth, however I think I share his view.

I believe terrorism is a threat, however I believe the media and from my perception, a lot of governments, are focusing on it far too much. I'm glad there are agencies like MI-5 or CSIS who are watching out for our interests. I'm glad they stopped this potential attack and hope they will thwart the Pickering scenario you describe before it happens.

Similarly, I'm glad there are detectives investigating murders and glad there are traffic cops. I get the feeling though we're being led to believe there are murders happening every second and no traffic accidents.

I don't believe we should allow governments to push public opinion or their agendas based on terrorism alone. I believe there are other public policy issues which should receive far more focus than terrorism. For example it bothered me after the last US election a US news agency had a 'man on the street' interview down in Miami and the guy said he normally voted democrat but voted republican because he was scared of terrorism. It bothered me because I didn't feel he was thinking clearly and was voting out of an overly inflated fear.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So you don't see a difference in dying from a car accident and being murdered? Is that what you are saying?

What is the difference? What's wrong with expecting my government to try to prevent me dying in car crash, instead of wasting so much time and money fighting the far less likely threat of terrorism. The odds of me dying in a car crash are about 1 in a 100. The odds of me dying in a terrorist attack are in the neighbourhood of 1 in 100,000.

There is some dollar amount that you could spend to make roads completely safe. For example, as a wild ass guess, I would bet with the amount we've spent fighting terrorism, we could reduce highway accidents in half by fitting all cars some kind of variable traction control and side airbags, and redesigning the dangerous stretches of road.

If you reduced car accident deaths by half, you'd save almost 20,000 american lives per year. Do you really think that everything that is being done above and beyond a more modest plan of investigating and preventing terrorism is really saving 20,000 american lives/year?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Bingo

last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world

in the very same string you pound down a 4000 killed number because of a less than capacity argument but then go on to suggest it's air born rush hour!

Well, another reason the 4000 number is bad, is that the article mentioned a page back, as well as other sources are saying that it is quite unlikely that they could get enough of the required materials on board to create an explosion big enough to take down the airplane.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

are you suggesting flights going down, likely on fire in the middle of the atlantic wouldn't result in EVERYONE ON BOARD DEAD?

That would be something.




I still think you fail to see my point.

I know the guy's a blowhard, and he can grate on me as well. He's on side in my mind some of the time and without a paddle the rest (hence my 60% figuere, though once again that's a number as a guess, I haven't researched it - I think you challenged my 20% number in a different topic).

But a number like that is likely true of a lot of stuff I watch and read from many sources with O'Reilly only offered up because Lanny likes to toss it out at me once a month around the calendar.

Either way have you ever noticed that no where in the massive Chomsky debate did I ever question anyone's intelligence or sanity for reading Chomsky, just that he shouldn't be used as THE source or only source.

If someone suggested to me that I shouldn't use O'Reilly as my only source for news they'd be right on.

No, I see your point all too well. Relying on Bill O'Reilly for any portion of your 'news' is laughable. Watching his tv show or listening to his radio show for anything other than a laugh reflects poorly on your reasoning abilities. He has no credibility, this should be plainly obvious to anyone who doesn't use wetback as part of their daily parlance.

I noticed you didn't say chomsky was wrong or unintelligent in the previous thread. At the risk of derailing this one, I also noticed that you did nothing to reference any of your preconceived notions as to why he shouldn't be 'the' or 'a' valid source on the matter being discussed, instead prefering to dodge and weave criticisms of your viewpoint while reiterating your same, tired position.

last minute plane ticket purchases for the busiest air route in the world

in the very same string you pound down a 4000 killed number because of a less than capacity argument but then go on to suggest it's air born rush hour!

So are you saying that the transatlantic flight route is not the busiest in the world or that your previous post was incorrect and there were more than 10 flights involved in this 'plot'?

I don't see how my post is in any way contradictory.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, I see your point all too well. Relying on Bill O'Reilly for any portion of your 'news' is laughable. Watching his tv show or listening to his radio show for anything other than a laugh reflects poorly on your reasoning abilities. He has no credibility, this should be plainly obvious to anyone who doesn't use wetback as part of their daily parlance.

I noticed you didn't say chomsky was wrong or unintelligent in the previous thread. At the risk of derailing this one, I also noticed that you did nothing to reference any of your preconceived notions as to why he shouldn't be 'the' or 'a' valid source on the matter being discussed, instead prefering to dodge and weave criticisms of your viewpoint while reiterating your same, tired position.

Well ... I don't honestly see the need to defend anyone that I find interesting to listen too. I like Carver on CNN too ... very opposing views, but a spitfire delivery to today's topics of interest. Both are fun to watch. I can't stand Limbaugh, and I really can't stand Al Franken and Ann Coulter.

But unlike yourself I don't feel the need to defend something to the extent that you and others held a vigil over Chomsky. O'Reilly is a guy that has captured some interest in the US because he comes at things directly which I find refreshing in today's politically correct white wash.

I'm not holding him up to be a scholar, but I'm also aware that he's nowhere near the demon that people on the left (and you too I guess) make him out to be.

But once again ... the insults.

You suggest I have a problem with reasoning, that I use Wetback (now I'm a racist I guess) or would have to watch his show. And that I dodge and weave, when in actual fact I come right at every discussion we've had.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So are you saying that the transatlantic flight route is not the busiest in the world or that your previous post was incorrect and there were more than 10 flights involved in this 'plot'?

I don't see how my post is in any way contradictory.

Did you not find the 4000 inflated based on two things ... 1. people somehow surviving 2. planes not being full ... and then go on to say said terrorists were never really a threat because they hadn't bought tickets and these routes were so busy that they might find them sold out?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Well, another reason the 4000 number is bad, is that the article mentioned a page back, as well as other sources are saying that it is quite unlikely that they could get enough of the required materials on board to create an explosion big enough to take down the airplane.

That may be ...

but then if I wrote an article about the chances of a few guys with box cutters taking down four jets it might seem pretty laughable too.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I don't want to put words in FDW's mouth, however I think I share his view.

I believe terrorism is a threat, however I believe the media and from my perception, a lot of governments, are focusing on it far too much. I'm glad there are agencies like MI-5 or CSIS who are watching out for our interests. I'm glad they stopped this potential attack and hope they will thwart the Pickering scenario you describe before it happens.

Similarly, I'm glad there are detectives investigating murders and glad there are traffic cops. I get the feeling though we're being led to believe there are murders happening every second and no traffic accidents.

I don't believe we should allow governments to push public opinion or their agendas based on terrorism alone. I believe there are other public policy issues which should receive far more focus than terrorism. For example it bothered me after the last US election a US news agency had a 'man on the street' interview down in Miami and the guy said he normally voted democrat but voted republican because he was scared of terrorism. It bothered me because I didn't feel he was thinking clearly and was voting out of an overly inflated fear.

I can see what you guys are saying ... makes sense to me.

I think there is a tendency to attack the things in life that have more glamour, or that can come out of nowhere and kill people in eye popping fashion than the mundane trappings of day to day life.

However, there is a budget for most if not all of the things discussed, and perhaps these budgets aren't that far out of wack but not getting the media coverage of terrorism.

Hard to say.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I believe terrorism is a threat, however I believe the media and from my perception, a lot of governments, are focusing on it far too much. I'm glad there are agencies like MI-5 or CSIS who are watching out for our interests. I'm glad they stopped this potential attack and hope they will thwart the Pickering scenario you describe before it happens.

I don't think that MI-5 or CSIS (etc) are spending any more of their effort trying to root out these threats. They've probably been going on as if nothing has changed.

What has changed is the media perception and focus. They're getting huge ratings, so a lot of things are being blown out of proportion. This causes governments to put more focus on it, but still not to the extent that the media portrays. If I were to believe most of what the media says, nothing else ever happens in government - which is complete and utter BS.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well ... I don't honestly see the need to defend anyone that I find interesting to listen too. I like Carver on CNN too ... very opposing views, but a spitfire delivery to today's topics of interest. Both are fun to watch. I can't stand Limbaugh, and I really can't stand Al Franken and Ann Coulter.

But unlike yourself I don't feel the need to defend something to the extent that you and others held a vigil over Chomsky. O'Reilly is a guy that has captured some interest in the US because he comes at things directly which I find refreshing in today's politically correct white wash.

I'm not holding him up to be a scholar, but I'm also aware that he's nowhere near the demon that people on the left (and you too I guess) make him out to be.

But once again ... the insults.

and once again, you do absolutely nothing but reiterate your original position as if it is some kind self-reinforcing proof. The fact that you apparently don't watch limbaugh, franken or coulter does nothing to disprove that O'Reilly is just as bad or worse as those listed. I wouldn't defend watching phil donahue by saying I don't watch Keith Olbermann. There's no correlation. I present you with the argument that O'Reilly lacks any form of crediblity, is a known and repeated liar, a plagiarist and unapologetic racist, and you respond with "he's nowhere near the demon that people on the left (and you too I guess) make him out to be." Excellent rebuttal, I'm so glad you're coming 'right at' this discussion.


"held a vigil over chomsky". That is so rich. It's akin to your previous statements that he was somehow my (or the 'lefts') hero. Pretty sad tactic, really.

Did you not find the 4000 inflated based on two things ... 1. people somehow surviving 2. planes not being full ... and then go on to say said terrorists were never really a threat because they hadn't bought tickets and these routes were so busy that they might find them sold out?

I found the 4000 inflated based on more than 2 things. First, it is not without precedent that a plane crash over water yields survivors. Second, it is not without precedent that transatlantic flights do not often carry the very ceiling amount of the largest capacity airliner in the world. Third, it is not without precedent that every transatlantic flight is not solely on the largest capacity airliner in the world.

Why is it such a leap in logic that a 10 aircraft, 50 person operation would need to have a bit more organization to pull off a COORDINATED attack than is possible through stand-by ticket purchase, by persons without (real or fake) passports?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

and once again, you do absolutely nothing but reiterate your original position as if it is some kind self-reinforcing proof. The fact that you apparently don't watch limbaugh, franken or coulter does nothing to disprove that O'Reilly is just as bad or worse as those listed. I wouldn't defend watching phil donahue by saying I don't watch Keith Olbermann. There's no correlation. I present you with the argument that O'Reilly lacks any form of crediblity, is a known and repeated liar, a plagiarist and unapologetic racist, and you respond with "he's nowhere near the demon that people on the left (and you too I guess) make him out to be." Excellent rebuttal, I'm so glad you're coming 'right at' this discussion.

Seems to me I came right at it.

I pointed out that I don't need to defend the guy because I didn't use him as a source of any kind in this or any other discusssion. I can't get any more straight forward than that.

Lanny throws O'Reilly at me, you picked it up and did the same, and now I have to defend the guy? Why? I find him entertaining, but I don't quote the guy in arguments or use him in any way to defend my position on this or any other matter.

So which part of that isn't straight forward?

Beyond that ... I imagine the man's lawyers would have a field day in forcing you to prove ...

+ lacks any form of crediblity
+ is a known and repeated liar
+ a plagiarist
+ unapologetic racist

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

"held a vigil over chomsky". That is so rich. It's akin to your previous statements that he was somehow my (or the 'lefts') hero. Pretty sad tactic, really.

If I painted you with an incorrect brush I'm sorry, but were you not one of the two or three guys that spend 6 pages trying to force me to believe this guy is the cat's ass on mideast politics?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I found the 4000 inflated based on more than 2 things. First, it is not without precedent that a plane crash over water yields survivors. Second, it is not without precedent that transatlantic flights do not often carry the very ceiling amount of the largest capacity airliner in the world. Third, it is not without precedent that every transatlantic flight is not solely on the largest capacity airliner in the world.

I don't think any of the three targeted US carriers use anything but large body planes, I could look it up though. Unless you're watching old Aiport movies I don't think the survival rate would be all that high.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why is it such a leap in logic that a 10 aircraft, 50 person operation would need to have a bit more organization to pull off a COORDINATED attack than is possible through stand-by ticket purchase, by persons without (real or fake) passports?

Who knows ... maybe next time the US and Brits should just stand down and let it happen so they don't get accused of fear mongering!

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That may be ...

but then if I wrote an article about the chances of a few guys with box cutters taking down four jets it might seem pretty laughable too.

A good point.

But what you should add it is "4 guys with box cutters in a pre 9/11 world".

I would like to see 4 guys with boxcutters try to take over a plane today. I for one would consider all bets as being off and go at them tooth and nail. I imagine many frequent flyers would have a similar sentiment. When you know you are faced with suicide terrorists, there is little point in remaining quietly in your seat.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Seems to me I came right at it.

I pointed out that I don't need to defend the guy because I didn't use him as a source of any kind in this or any other discusssion. I can't get any more straight forward than that.

Lanny throws O'Reilly at me, you picked it up and did the same, and now I have to defend the guy? Why? I find him entertaining, but I don't quote the guy in arguments or use him in any way to defend my position on this or any other matter.

So which part of that isn't straight forward?

Beyond that ... I imagine the man's lawyers would have a field day in forcing you to prove ...

+ lacks any form of crediblity
+ is a known and repeated liar
+ a plagiarist
+ unapologetic racist



If I painted you with an incorrect brush I'm sorry, but were you not one of the two or three guys that spend 6 pages trying to force me to believe this guy is the cat's ass on mideast politics?

It's not about being the cats ass, it's about preventing the muddying of waters about a respected scholar's academic record by someone who's never even read his work, and goes solely by the non-peer reviewed opinion pieces of his detractors, many of whom are themselves proven plagiarists and fabricators. I just wanted to point out for anyone else that may be unfamiliar with chomsky that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to that particular subject, so your point of view should be seen in that light. It would be like me insulting the flames draft history without knowing a single draft pick.

I don't think any of the three targeted US carriers use anything but large body planes, I could look it up though. Unless you're watching old Aiport movies I don't think the survival rate would be all that high.

I don't care about the survival rate. I was pointing out how rediculous it is to say 4000 dead when the upper most ceiling possible, should everything align perfectly, would barely surpass that number. I could just as easily use the figure of 10 dead, because the precedent of these attacks has resulted in the deaths of only those sitting in the seat where the bomb is located. That would be based more on reality than the figure of 4000, but would also be improper because of a total dismissal of other possible outcomes. It's akin to statiscal outliers.

Who knows ... maybe next time the US and Brits should just stand down and let it happen so they don't get accused of fear mongering!

Again, this isn't about whether there was a plot or not, but rather the assertion by both governments that the attack was imminent and pressing. Hmm, where else have we heard that before?

This isn't about a terrorplot, it's about the subtle manipulation of a population by their government. To what ends isn't really that important, the crux of the issue is wilfully misleading the public by their elected representatives.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can see what you guys are saying ... makes sense to me.

I think there is a tendency to attack the things in life that have more glamour, or that can come out of nowhere and kill people in eye popping fashion than the mundane trappings of day to day life.

However, there is a budget for most if not all of the things discussed, and perhaps these budgets aren't that far out of wack but not getting the media coverage of terrorism.

Hard to say.

That I'll agree with too.

I like to use the analogy of the "Mad Cow Crisis" in Alberta after the first case. The entire world freaked out because of one wobbly cow. Did they ever stop to think how big a threat CJD is to humans? At the time I did a bit of research and I found from the 80s through about 20 years more people had died worldwide from carbon monoxide poisining due to lighting fires in their tents, than had died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease! Same thing is happening with terrorism these days everyone is far too hyper-aware.

Another good article which summed up my feelings fairly well: http://pintday.org/archive/20060815

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

That I'll agree with too.

I like to use the analogy of the "Mad Cow Crisis" in Alberta after the first case. The entire world freaked out because of one wobbly cow. Did they ever stop to think how big a threat CJD is to humans? At the time I did a bit of research and I found from the 80s through about 20 years more people had died worldwide from carbon monoxide poisining due to lighting fires in their tents, than had died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease! Same thing is happening with terrorism these days everyone is far too hyper-aware.

Not meaning to derail, but I suggest you read the following:

http://colmkelleher.com/

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not about being the cats ass, it's about preventing the muddying of waters about a respected scholar's academic record by someone who's never even read his work, and goes solely by the non-peer reviewed opinion pieces of his detractors, many of whom are themselves proven plagiarists and fabricators. I just wanted to point out for anyone else that may be unfamiliar with chomsky that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to that particular subject, so your point of view should be seen in that light. It would be like me insulting the flames draft history without knowing a single draft pick.



I don't care about the survival rate. I was pointing out how rediculous it is to say 4000 dead when the upper most ceiling possible, should everything align perfectly, would barely surpass that number. I could just as easily use the figure of 10 dead, because the precedent of these attacks has resulted in the deaths of only those sitting in the seat where the bomb is located. That would be based more on reality than the figure of 4000, but would also be improper because of a total dismissal of other possible outcomes. It's akin to statiscal outliers.



Again, this isn't about whether there was a plot or not, but rather the assertion by both governments that the attack was imminent and pressing. Hmm, where else have we heard that before?

This isn't about a terrorplot, it's about the subtle manipulation of a population by their government. To what ends isn't really that important, the crux of the issue is wilfully misleading the public by their elected representatives.

And you have proof it wasn't imminent? What would the motives of the government be to arrest the plotters other than public safety? They had already made their martyrdom videos, must have been pretty close.

You have proof that we are being subtly manipualted by our government? Maybe you watch too much news and think that the publis is as easily mis-led as you are?

By the way, Chomsky is a LINGUIST. Him talking about mid-east affairs is like a bacteriologist talking about the half-life of plutonium.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

By the way, Chomsky is a LINGUIST. Him talking about mid-east affairs is like a bacteriologist talking about the half-life of plutonium.

I typed his name into Amazon... for a bacteriologist, he sure writes a lot about plutonium.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/search/ref=n...ywords=chomsky