Suspicious Activity Reporting program . . .

Roger Hicks said:
The only way you could possibly guarantee this is if you were involved in the planning, which I assume you were not. A moment's thought will reveal that the "propaganda of the deed" (as terrorism was once called) is designed precisely to spread fear, alarm and despondency -- in other words, the things you "guarantee" it wasn't about.

Do you REALLY believe that 9/11 was only about knocking over a couple of buildings and killing a few thousand people? Of course it wasn't. They were merely a handy and very dramatic tool. Stop and think for a moment about the word "terrorism". It doesn't mean "killing people". It means "frightening people". And they have succeeded.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

We are not slaves to our nomenclature. Simply because we define (or have previously defined) the word "terrorism" to describe what you say, doesn't make it such that this is the one and only true definition for all time.

No, 9/11 wasn't just about knocking over buildings and killing a few thousand people. But that doesn't mean it wasn't at all about those things.

9/11 was about killing non-believers and apostates, and provoking the withdrawal of same from the 'holy' land (whatever that is). How do we know this? Because the perpetrators TOLD US.

Virtually no act in human history is as satisfactorily explained as 9/11 (or, indeed, modern 'terrorism' as it's generally understood), because we have explanations ad nauseum from those who planned it.
 
mfunnell said:
Roger,

All too true. And while some of this is no doubt about "them" I suspect that the achieved effect is far more about "us". And it doesn't paint a pretty picture of "us".

My immediate point of reference is the difference between my personal experience in London in the late 70s and early 80s when the IRA (and UVF) bombing campaigns were on, versus the reaction to the "7/7" bombings in 2005 and incidents thereafter. The earlier episodes appeared to be dealt with by a degree of stoicism, perhaps some fatalism, and a genuine realisation that overreaction would be counter-productive. The latter, well, "can too much panic ever be more than barely enough?" I find the contrast depressing.

...Mike
Click to expand...

Here's a critical difference:

The IRA were after a tangible goal, achievable in this life.
Al Qaeda's goal is not to be found on Earth.

In the latter, we face an enemy who is committed to irrationality, and we find it nigh impossible to put ourselves in the position of someone who actually believes what modern Islamic terrorists say they believe.

In Islamic terrorism, we face an enemy which believes the world should be organized according to 7th century morality, but which is armed with 21st century weaponry. And yet, we pretend as if this isn't so.
 
edge100 said:
Here's a critical difference:

The IRA were after a tangible goal, achievable in this life.
Al Qaeda's goal is not to be found on Earth.

In the latter, we face an enemy who is committed to irrationality, and we find it nigh impossible to put ourselves in the position of someone who actually believes what modern Islamic terrorists say they believe.

In Islamic terrorism, we face an enemy which believes the world should be organized according to 7th century morality, but which is armed with 21st century weaponry. And yet, we pretend as if this isn't so.
Click to expand...

+1! The US, Canada, and parts of Europe and other areas have let in people from other countries who do not wish to be a part of their country. Instead, they wish to turn their host country into their country of origin. At the same time, they want to avail themselves of all their host countries resources. And yet if one went to these countries of origin and made any suggestion whatsoever that they allow you to live there, to vote, to get public assistance, and to adopt the ways and customs of your country you would be kicked out -- that is if you were able to make it out alive. While in these other countries you could not dress as you would in your own country, nor worship as you would back home -- because that would be an insult to their religion and culture. And that's not to say that there aren't many wonderful people there -- there are -- but they play by different rules -- and think the people who allow their own countries and cultures to be systematically dismantled are fools. So, the bottom line is the world is a mess. The only thing that might bring everyone together is an attack from an alien planet 🙂 Can the US and parts of Europe absorb all these people and survive? Logically it seems like a long shot. And should the West not survive, will the rest be in worse shape. Anyway, don't jump on me for this post -- I'm not an expert -- I'm just a photographer -- it's the only thing I'm good at -- and even that is open for debate. 🙂
 
edge100 said:
mfunnell said:
[...]My immediate point of reference is the difference between my personal experience in London in the late 70s and early 80s when the IRA (and UVF) bombing campaigns were on, versus the reaction to the "7/7" bombings in 2005 and incidents thereafter. The earlier episodes appeared to be dealt with by a degree of stoicism, perhaps some fatalism, and a genuine realisation that overreaction would be counter-productive. The latter, well, "can too much panic ever be more than barely enough?" I find the contrast depressing.
Click to expand...
[...]Here's a critical difference:

The IRA were after a tangible goal, achievable in this life.
Al Qaeda's goal is not to be found on Earth. [etc..]
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. This threat is so severe that mindless panic is required. Counter-productive and self-defeating reaction is indicated. Because that's always so helpful.

...Mike
 
Okay...if you don't want the tank photographed,DON"T PAINT IT IN BRIGHT COLORS!

Frankly, I think the security guards overreacted. I was a guard when I was 21 and I worked with some real lulus. It's not a job that gets the best and brightest.

let me put it this way: we have a guy in the area that's a security guard for the coal mines in the area. This guy has done stuff like running a traffic checkpoint on the main road and checking ID and insurance-something he has NO legal right to do, following people and stopping some guy passing thru on a bicycle and demanding to see ID. Near as we can figure, he thinks being a security guard makes him a cop. Uhh...NO!
 
edge100 said:
...

2. This IN NO WAY implies that the majority of Muslims are terrorists; this is demonstrably false, and anyone who says otherwise is an out and out racist.

3. Despite the fact that it is currently impolitic to say so, we in the liberal west are very much at war with Islam, in the same way we would be at war with 13th century Christianity. We are at war with the vision of society clearly laid out in the Koran and the Hadith, just like we would be at war with the vision of society laid out in the Old Testament.

I see nothing whatsoever contentious about any of this.
Click to expand...

And therein lies your contradiction. We are at war with Islam as a totality, yet not all Muslims are terrorists? If you can make the distinction between the Old Testament and Judaism, or between 13th century Christianity and the Christianity of the 80's 90's and today, then surely you can see that a particular interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith (which is not, mind you, a singular thing, but an amorphous collection of things) does not constitute the whole of Islam. To say that the west is at war with Islam is exactly the kind of dangerous generalization that I think you are honestly trying to avoid.


But back to the greater point, I fail to see how taking a picture of a thing that everyone can see from the highway constitutes a security threat.
 
mfunnell said:
I stand corrected. This threat is so severe that mindless panic is required. Counter-productive and self-defeating reaction is indicated. Because that's always so helpful.

...Mike
Click to expand...

Straw man, much? I'm not suggesting that mindless panic is the answer. In fact, I think that our current approach to anti-terrorism is woefully misguided.

But to blindly ignore the patently obvious causes of global terrorism, or to pretend that it isn't singularly a problem of the proximity of unjustified belief in ludicrous propositions and modern advanced weaponry, is no help at all.
 
De_Corday said:
And therein lies your contradiction. We are at war with Islam as a totality, yet not all Muslims are terrorists? If you can make the distinction between the Old Testament and Judaism, or between 13th century Christianity and the Christianity of the 80's 90's and today, then surely you can see that a particular interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith (which is not, mind you, a singular thing, but an amorphous collection of things) does not constitute the whole of Islam. To say that the west is at war with Islam is exactly the kind of dangerous generalization that I think you are honestly trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

You're quite right: all religions make claims that are patently ridiculous and completely without evidence. Islam is not unique in that respect. Moreover, you're also right that the Old Testament and 13th century Christianity provide just as much rationale for terrorism as the Koran and Hadith do (though it's not merely one 'interpretation'; how anyone could read these monstrous books and think that the invisible creator of the universe has anything but contempt and hatred for non-believers and apostates is beyond me).

But there is a difference: most Christians (though not all) have learned that the business of making widgets is incompatible with killing non-believers and blasphemers. That is, Christians have largely taken the pragmatic view that tolerance of these things is a better way to build a society than is strict adherence to their religious dogmas.

That doesn't make their beliefs any less ridiculous, but it does make them less dangerous.

Moreover, in the case of Christianity, the New Testament provides, at least in part, some kind of buffer against the Old (though slavery, amongst other things, is still fine with Jesus)

Islam has had no such reformation. Moreover, Islam has a built-in anti-reformation clause: the death penalty for apostasy. "No compulsion in religion" (Koran 2:256), my arse.

So all faiths are equally guilty of irrationality. But not all faiths are equally dangerous to us in 2014.

Finally, I will clearly state that most western Muslims have, of course, not subscribed to the vision of society described in the Koran and Hadith; and we should, of course, be thankful for this. On the other hand, our best evidence suggests that should an atheist homosexual find himself walking the streets of Riyadh, he should expect some very poor treatment, indeed. Point being, to paraphrase Sam Harris, the doors to tolerance and modernity do not open from the inside.

De_Corday said:
But back to the greater point, I fail to see how taking a picture of a thing that everyone can see from the highway constitutes a security threat.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
edge100 said:
Roger,

We are not slaves to our nomenclature. Simply because we define (or have previously defined) the word "terrorism" to describe what you say, doesn't make it such that this is the one and only true definition for all time.

No, 9/11 wasn't just about knocking over buildings and killing a few thousand people. But that doesn't mean it wasn't at all about those things.

9/11 was about killing non-believers and apostates, and provoking the withdrawal of same from the 'holy' land (whatever that is). How do we know this? Because the perpetrators TOLD US.

Virtually no act in human history is as satisfactorily explained as 9/11 (or, indeed, modern 'terrorism' as it's generally understood), because we have explanations ad nauseum from those who planned it.
Click to expand...
And of course you believe every word they say, and seek no further explanation.

There is no dichotomy. Yes, they have stated their aims. Repeatedly, as you say. But of course they intended to provoke fear, suspicion, etc.: exactly the things you "guaranteed" they did not think about. Why else would they do it?

The aim of terrorists is to spread terror, and as a result of 9/11 they have succeeded in the United States, possibly beyond their wildest dreams. Frightened people make stupid mistakes, and waste a lot of energy, time and money on trying (almost invariably unsuccessfully) to avoid all risks, including the imaginary and trivial.

Like Mike, I lived in the UK when the IRA was bombing right left and centre. I drank sometimes in one of the pubs they bombed. I could have been there that night. And you know what? We saw it for what it was: a tiny risk, far smaller than that of being killed in a traffic accident, with just a few madmen responsible. We did not glorify it by calling it a war.

That was the real mistake on the part of the USA: taking the murderers at their word, as "warriors" of jihad. If they had treated them as common criminals or madmen -- which is what they were/are -- they would have alienated far fewer people who would normally have abhorred the criminal behaviour. But cast it in terms of a Christian-Muslim war, and loony extremists on both sides will spring to defend "their" religion.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Like Mike, I lived in the UK when the IRA was bombing right left and centre. I drank sometimes in one of the pubs they bombed. I could have been there that night. And you know what? We saw it for what it was: a tiny risk, far smaller than that of being killed in a traffic accident, with just a few madmen responsible. We did not glorify it by calling it a war.

That was the real mistake on the part of the USA: taking the murderers at their word, as "warriors" of jihad. If they had treated them as common criminals or madmen -- which is what they were/are -- they would have alienated far fewer people who would normally have abhorred the criminal behaviour. But cast it in terms of a Christian-Muslim war, and loony extremists on both sides will spring to defend "their" religion.
Click to expand...

+1. Well said.
 
Dan, you know you just defined the early history of early colonialization of the North and South America?

NY_Dan said:
+1! The US, Canada, and parts of Europe and other areas have let in people from other countries who do not wish to be a part of their country. Instead, they wish to turn their host country into their country of origin. At the same time, they want to avail themselves of all their host countries resources. And yet if one went to these countries of origin and made any suggestion whatsoever that they allow you to live there, to vote, to get public assistance, and to adopt the ways and customs of your country you would be kicked out -- that is if you were able to make it out alive. While in these other countries you could not dress as you would in your own country, nor worship as you would back home -- because that would be an insult to their religion and culture. And that's not to say that there aren't many wonderful people there -- there are -- but they play by different rules -- and think the people who allow their own countries and cultures to be systematically dismantled are fools. So, the bottom line is the world is a mess. The only thing that might bring everyone together is an attack from an alien planet 🙂 Can the US and parts of Europe absorb all these people and survive? Logically it seems like a long shot. And should the West not survive, will the rest be in worse shape. Anyway, don't jump on me for this post -- I'm not an expert -- I'm just a photographer -- it's the only thing I'm good at -- and even that is open for debate. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
filmtwit said:
Dan, you know you just defined the early history of early colonialization of the North and South America?
Click to expand...

Yep.

And why, pray tell, are native North and South Americans not participating in widespread suicidal terrorism?

Because suicidal terrorism makes no sense within the context of what native North and South Americans believe about the actual nature of the universe.

Why is it so hard to accept that people really do believe what they say they believe?
 
Roger Hicks said:
The only way you could possibly guarantee this is if you were involved in the planning, which I assume you were not. A moment's thought will reveal that the "propaganda of the deed" (as terrorism was once called) is designed precisely to spread fear, alarm and despondency -- in other words, the things you "guarantee" it wasn't about.

Do you REALLY believe that 9/11 was only about knocking over a couple of buildings and killing a few thousand people? Of course it wasn't. They were merely a handy and very dramatic tool. Stop and think for a moment about the word "terrorism". It doesn't mean "killing people". It means "frightening people". And they have succeeded.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hitting the nail square on the head, there, Roger. Particularly the part I have put in bold.
 
Roger Hicks said:
And of course you believe every word they say, and seek no further explanation.

There is no dichotomy. Yes, they have stated their aims. Repeatedly, as you say. But of course they intended to provoke fear, suspicion, etc.: exactly the things you "guaranteed" they did not think about. Why else would they do it?
Click to expand...

Because the invisible creator of the universe highly values the killing of non-believers and apostates, and has reserved a special place in heaven for those that carry out this work. If you REALLY believe that this is true, then 9/11 makes total sense, as does blowing yourself up in a crowded marketplace.

Roger Hicks said:
The aim of terrorists is to spread terror, and as a result of 9/11 they have succeeded in the United States, possibly beyond their wildest dreams. Frightened people make stupid mistakes, and waste a lot of energy, time and money on trying (almost invariably unsuccessfully) to avoid all risks, including the imaginary and trivial.
Click to expand...

I agree that they have done this, and done it well.

I just don't believe that this is their central aim, not least because they have out and out told us what their central aim is.

Roger Hicks said:
Like Mike, I lived in the UK when the IRA was bombing right left and centre. I drank sometimes in one of the pubs they bombed. I could have been there that night. And you know what? We saw it for what it was: a tiny risk, far smaller than that of being killed in a traffic accident, with just a few madmen responsible. We did not glorify it by calling it a war.
Click to expand...

"War on terror" is a ridiculous moniker. If OBL had been the leader of a country, and the WTC brought down by missiles, then 9/11 would have been an act of war. Would we have declared a "war on war", hence?

Roger Hicks said:
That was the real mistake on the part of the USA: taking the murderers at their word, as "warriors" of jihad. If they had treated them as common criminals or madmen -- which is what they were/are -- they would have alienated far fewer people who would normally have abhorred the criminal behaviour. But cast it in terms of a Christian-Muslim war, and loony extremists on both sides will spring to defend "their" religion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Roger, but this is just dead wrong. The answer to religious violence (which this certain is) is not to ignore the role that religion plays.

I'll be frank: we need to create a world in which belief in gods is a shameful failing of one's intellect, in the same way that belief in a flat earth is shameful, or that holocaust denial is shameful. We need to create a world in which people use the same standards of evidence for their belief in gods that they use for their beliefs in every single other area of human discourse.
 
daveleo said:
Who's the "we" that's going to do this ?

All "we" really need to do is learn how to disagree without killing each other.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

However, history tells us that when you force people to live together with limited resources, they will organize themselves according to their unjustified beliefs, and that certain beliefs cannot withstand the presence of certain others.

For example, the country of Pakistan exists SOLELY because Islam cannot withstand the presence of Hinduism. The virtually unending state of near-war that has existed between Pakistan and India ever since their split is evidence of this.

The "we" is all of us. "We" need to stop privileging religious faith, and call it out for the abomination that it is.
 
I would assume the lack of access to bomb making material during the 16th, 17th and 18th century had something to do with native north and south americans not blowing themselves up during that time period. But I'm sure that if they had, some would have.

edge100 said:
Yep.

And why, pray tell, are native North and South Americans not participating in widespread suicidal terrorism?

Because suicidal terrorism makes no sense within the context of what native North and South Americans believe about the actual nature of the universe.

Why is it so hard to accept that people really do believe what they say they believe?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom