International ferry terrorism search called off: they were just tourists
Since last summer, the FBI has been on the lookout for two men who were seen taking a deep interest in a car-ferry in Seattle. The men were believed to be terrorists, plotting to blow up the ferry.
Actually, they were tourists who'd never seen a car ferry and thought it was cool.
Last summer, the FBI launched an international search for two men after crew members and riders on a Washington State Ferry reported their unusual behavior — namely that they were taking pictures below deck, in areas that don't hold much interest for most tourists.Link (via Schneier)A ferry captain snapped their photo, which was passed along to the FBI.
Turns out the men, both citizens of a European Union nation, were captivated by the car-carrying capacity of local ferries.
"Where these gentlemen live, they don't have vehicle ferries. They were fascinated that a ferry could hold that many cars and wanted to show folks back home," FBI Special Agent Robbie Burroughs said Monday.
the latest
latest episodes
They found this out by pulling out the suspects fingernails, right? How else can the FBI be so sure?
FEAR! FEAR! Run for your lives!
Tourist, terrorist... potato, potato.
You can never be too certain when people take pictures of things.
Similar to the two men seen breathing, sought for scheme to contaminate the air.
The Seattle Times has a pic of the gentlemen in question, before you click would you care to guess what their apparent lineage appears to be?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004394642_fbi06m.html
These are the idiots we have acting as our "authorities" nowadays. That's reassuring, isn't it? They're so bored, and trying so hard to invent a threat to justify their jobs, that they're out chasing tourists who thought some boat in the northwest somewhere was kinda cool.
You realize we're on the edge of another McCarthyist era, right? We're not all butt-clenched over pinkos this time, but rather terrorists. The madness is the same, though. It's moronic.
I live here (in Seattle) and I find the minutia of ferries fascinating. I also take tons of pictures of them. Weird pictures like the plate welds and the often cryptic signage. Then I use them to make art.
(All artists are terrorists. It's our reason for breathing.)
Everyone knows that the biggest threat to ferries are irresponsible ferry captains:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/15/ferry.accident/
Wait. . . they didn't arrest them?!!! That's IT, the terrorists have WON!!
I think perhaps there is a paranoia now, a fear that "I might be the one that lets the next 9/11 happen if I don't follow up on every lead." Of course, how far does one go with that kind of thinking?
I really wonder if they had been blond-haired and blue-eyed if they would have been treated with the same suspicion, taking photos in odd places or not.
Sure, they were just tourists...
THIS TIME!
NEVAR LET DOWN UR GARD!
If you let people take pictures of boats then the tourists have won!
Yeah, tourists, alright...OF TERRRRRRRRR!
It's good to know that after seven years and billions of dollars spent, our agencies are now fully capable of catching every trainspotter, curious tourist and ferry enthusiast that crosses their path. Bravo.
I dunno, guys. Tha' one on tha' right shore looks like oneathem terrists ta me. Lookit tha mongol brow ridge. He's callin' the shots, shore is.
this is like a bad episode of "The Munsters" or "Car 54"
****Turns out the men, both citizens of a European Union nation, were captivated by the car-carrying capacity of local ferries.
"Where these gentlemen live, they don't have vehicle ferries. They were fascinated that a ferry could hold that many cars and wanted to show folks back home," FBI Special Agent Robbie Burroughs said Monday.****
Obviously, they never used Irish Ferries between Dublin and Holyhead: http://www.irishferries.com/ulysses/21_century.shtml ; and neither P&O between Rotterdam and Hull: http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/hull/ .
Poor guys. That shit is ridiculous.
Well, it's entirely possible they haven't. They may not have ever been to those places you see, as Europe's kind of big...
You people. When they arrest people likely to be terrorists, you complain. When they don't arrest people who aren't terrorists, you complain. When they don't arrest people who then turn out to be terrorists, you complain that they didn't connect the dots.
Seriously, what do you want?! What configuration of government is necessary for you to say, "OK, the terrorism problem is being handled in a fair and efficient manner."?
#16 is a terrorist. He knows details about ferries, and seems to have an interest in them that most people do not have. Arrest him.
Sheesh, could you imagine if the authorities applied this same line of thinking to say, cars, at the local car show? "This man is more than normally interested in the specific car part being displayed at the Hybrid display over there. He must be plotting to infiltrate a Hybrid factory and destroy its contents, in an attempt to keep America from becoming less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Oh, and also he is brown."
#19: Complaining is a sign of being observant enough to know what can be changed for the better. Hopefully, people will never stop complaining. If people stop complaining, the world stops progressing.
Seriously, what do you want?
For you not to start your posts with "You people." Once we've got that down, we'll see what else we can negotiate.
I think this could fall under the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' catagory.
So the captian of the ferry (who presumably sees 100's or 1,000's of tourists and locals everyday) sees people behaving suspiciously enough for him to report what he saw to the authorities who find out who the people are and determines through their investigation that they are not a threat.
Great! I want the government following up on this sort of thing.
There would also be outrage if the government did nothing and ended up causing loss of life through their inaction, no?
Certainly you wouldn't exepect a law enforcement agency to just ignore a report of suspcious activity when it's their very job to follow up on these sort of things?
There is no pleasing some people.
a few years ago, some friends ran their pirate flag up the flagpole on the ferry going between Port Angeles and Victoria, BC. Even that brazen bit of jackassery didn't result in a call to the FBI, simply a stern (ha ha!) talking to by the Captain.
For you not to start your posts with "You people." Once we've got that down, we'll see what else we can negotiate.
Fair enough. Mr. or Ms. Antinous, what form of investigatory government agency will forestall your complaints?
#23, "behaving suspiciously" or "being brown" are the things I think are at stake here. as other commenters have noted, would their "behaviour" have been deemed suspicious had they been blonde and blue eyed? most likely not.
thinking critically about how racist ideologies are imbedded in our society when this harmless behaviour can be assumed to be terrorism based on their appearance is what is important in this discussion, i think.
and speaking for myself, i'm quite sick of the fear-mongering that goes on in our culture to think that we should call the authorities every time we see something suspicious, or, in some people's cases, someone brown.
Turns out the men, both citizens of a European Union nation, were captivated by the car-carrying capacity of local ferries.
"Where these gentlemen live, they don't have vehicle ferries."
One of the tourists were quoted as saying:
"Jagshemash! These are much so nicer than the boats in my country of a Kazakhstan.
Can I say again, we support your war of terror!"
OR:
"Where these gentlemen live, they don't have vehicle ferries."
"Ferries? Where we're going, we don't NEED ferries!"
flamingphonebook @ 19: You people. When they arrest people likely to be terrorists, you complain. When they don't arrest people who aren't terrorists, you complain. When they don't arrest people who then turn out to be terrorists, you complain that they didn't connect the dots.
Seriously, what do you want?!
For starters, you could try developing your ability to detect sarcasm.
In context — of this site, of this thread, of ill lich's comment history — a comment like "Wait. . . they didn't arrest them?!!! That's IT, the terrorists have WON!!" should probably not be taken at face value.
Trivia. In the new Battlestar Galactica, an empty vehicle loading area inside a (presumably Vancouver) ferry appears in the guise of a maintenance area.
Fairies? I know all about fairies! And some of them are *gasp* Radical Fairies! Does that make me a terrorist? (No, because I am not brown.)
I'm not sure what a vehicle fairy is, unless it's a guy who's seriously into car cruising.
What? But I did spell it righ--oh.
Never mind.
Ha! They finally caught up with that Borat guy for blaspheming the american national anthem ... Jose can you see?
Mr Phonebook:
I don't speak for "you people", but I would like to see government activities, conducted effectively and rationally. The amount of time and effort (i.e. my tax money) spent investigating ought to be appropriate to the actual suspiciousness of the activity in question. Taking pictures of something someone else doesn't find interesting is not suspicious enough to warrant the spending of any money at all. Not even if the photographer is brown.
If a terrorist attack happens, will I be mad that the authorities didn't do something? No. I'll be mad they wasted their time doing the obviously wrong thing.
@#19
"When they don't arrest people who aren't terrorists, you complain."
No, we don't. We joke. Get it?
#33:
OK, then what qualifies as properly suspicious?
#29 and #34:
I thought that everything after the first sentence in #9 was a serious critique of the technique used. I also thought #6 containted no sarcasm.
But even the sarcasm supports my point. There can't be any story about anti-terrorism effort without a wave of responses that the government is doing too much or (rarely) not enough. And I don't just mean on BB. Any blog or news outlet that has comments.
No commenter uses sarcasm against terrorists. No one calls for terrorists to adjust their tactics to take our rights into account. Which means that on the comment pages of the world, an honest, hardworking anti-terrorist agent gets far shabbier treatment than a terrorist.
Well, if my voice is going to be heard, I'm going to go the other way, and say, without a trace of sarcasm, good job FBI, you did the right thing.
In other news, the investigation into terrorists using flying drones to recky targets was called off: those were just birds; the investigation of terrorists using small submarines to recky ships called off: they were just fish; and experts now believe those bright points you see at night aren't terrorists firing guns from space; they are stars.
Film at 11.
flamingphonebook,
You seem to be expending a lot of effort trying to alienate other commenters. I recommend that you rethink that strategy.
flamingphonebook,
The point is, this item (article, blog post, link, whatever you call it) is the latest in a extraordinary line of absurdities reported from the front line of the "war on terror".
In these stories we see a nation tying itself in knots trying to fight an unwinnable "war" against a largely imaginary foe, and in the process wasting billions of dollars, causing unbelievable inconvenience to its own citizens and alienating much of the rest of the world, which looks on in amazement.
You ask: "What configuration of government is necessary for you to say, "OK, the terrorism problem is being handled in a fair and efficient manner."?
Ok, well, there are many countries in the world that suffer terrorist attacks from time to time. It's nothing new. Planes got hijacked in the '70's. Bits of London got blown up every couple of years, people died. Hundreds of people died in the Bali bombing. Madrid, etc. None of these countries decided that "everything changed" Because you know what - when you say that, and when you screw up again and again like the US is now, in attempting to perpetrate this absurd "war" - THE TERRORISTS WIN! The best way to "fight" terrorism is quietly. Without panicking. Without allowing any noticable change to your way of life. Any maybe, just maybe, finding a way to give the terrorists a voice that reduces their desire to kill your citizens (are you thinking that's unacceptable? - well, it's working pretty well in Northern Ireland right now).
And finally - having a manhunt for a couple of guys taking pictures in a ferry as an effective way of spending your tax dollars on reducing the risks of terrorist attacks? Nah.
The FBI did do the right thing. Eventually. They did it only because the gentlemen in question were more concerned than they should have had to be, and went out of their way to be convincing to the FBI. The FBI then did what I think they're at minimum obliged to do, which is publish the fact that these men were entirely innocent. The newspaper also apparently did the right thing by printing the picture again with "NOT TERRORISTS" under it (effectively), after doing the wrong thing by printing it in the first place.
It would be better if the FBI had done the right thing earlier, and said "OK, is there anything that would make real terrorists want to blow up a car ferry?" I think that if anyone had thought about that for five minutes, they'd've said "Naah" and gone back to looking for actual criminals.
If a little car ferry in the Northwest was judged to be a probable terrorist target by some poor sleep-deprived and coffee-addled FBI analyst, they should have reality-checked by posing the same picture with two blond guys in business suits, and telling some other analysts "Hey, these guys were taking pictures on a car ferry. Should we investigate?" And after being laughed at, they should say "OK, so I was being racist when I suspected these brown people of being terrorists" and dropped the whole thing at that point.
Tim McVeigh was a blond guy from Michigan. Blond guys from Michigan did not come under general suspicion after the Oklahoma City bombing. I know this because I am a blond guy from Michigan. Once I started shaving my head, THEN I started being "randomly" pulled out of line for an extra check at the airport.
If you defend the FBI's action in this case, either you think racism is an appropriate mode of reasoning for crime-prevention (in which case I have no time for you) or you think they really WOULD have investigated two blond guys doing the same thing (which would make you appallingly naive, but not outright evil).
y ppl r ll clnclly nsn. bt y ll ls vtd fr ths dt bm.
I see the terrorists are still attacking in people's imagination.
A ferry in Seattle? Please. Obviously the FBI think the best thing they can do to reassure the Americna public is to spend their days chasing their tails, all at the taxpayers' expense.
So, does it work?
you people are all clinically insane. i bet you all also voted for this idiot obama.
The pro-torture troll is back to yell at us again.
# 37
You seem to be expending a lot of effort trying to alienate other commenters. I recommend that you rethink that strategy.
I could say that the other commenters are spending an equal amount of effort trying to alienate me. We have disagreements; we're making our respective points. I'm finding it informative and useful to hear a different point of view.
#38
In these stories we see a nation tying itself in knots trying to fight an unwinnable "war" against a largely imaginary foe, and in the process wasting billions of dollars, causing unbelievable inconvenience to its own citizens and alienating much of the rest of the world, which looks on in amazement.
I do not see that. I see a government trying (and it being a government I see it trying poorly) to establish justice in an unjust time. I see it making its best effort in an awkward situation, but it pursuit of a noble goal. The inconvenience, I see and decry. The amazement, I see and say, "Let them react however they like." The imaginary state of the foe, I do not see. I'm not afraid of terrorism; I'm not even angry at it; I am furious at the ideology behind it, and I am galled that I must give ear to that ideology because it uses terrorism. Before the major terrorist attacks of the 90s and 00s, I didn't have to think about what some radical right-wing religious believers thought about the way the world should work. The government is trying, again incompetently, to preserve my security not to care about them.
The best way to "fight" terrorism is quietly. Without panicking. Without allowing any noticable change to your way of life.
I agree. But no noticeable change of life means that we preserve our dismissal and ignorance of the terrorists' causes.
Any maybe, just maybe, finding a way to give the terrorists a voice that reduces their desire to kill your citizens (are you thinking that's unacceptable? - well, it's working pretty well in Northern Ireland right now).
It's stemmed the terrorism; has it solved the issue? Don't the sympathizers of the IRA still want a unified Ireland?
No, I do not think terrorists deserve a voice. To me, the fact that one has to resort to violence to make a point means that the point in question in indefensible by rational means. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, we didn't give ear to his ideas about Ruby Ridge. When the Unabomber was at large, we didn't pay heed to his Ludditism (and the newspapers that published his manifesto should be ashamed). But when Mohammed Atta et al committed the terrorism of 9/11, I'm told we should listen to their points about US-Middle Eastern relations. Why the difference?
I wonder if it's because they're brown.
#39
It would be better if the FBI had done the right thing earlier, and said "OK, is there anything that would make real terrorists want to blow up a car ferry?" I think that if anyone had thought about that for five minutes, they'd've said "Naah" and gone back to looking for actual criminals.
If I were a terrorist, I would want to blow up a car ferry, or anything else I could get into with an explosive. If I thought about that, I'd conclude that if terrorists were rational, they wouldn't be terrorists.
Jeez. We use to think Merkins were stupid before 9/11. Explain again why we would want to visit you retard country?
(JK: I really like most Americans but your *country* really is so fucked up man.)
You wear a merkin? NSFW
PhoneBook
"Don't the sympathizers of the IRA still want a unified Ireland?"
Maybe, but they are not terrorists if they aren't blowing things up, they're politicians.
A belief in a unified Ireland is not a crime, nor a reason to be called a terrorist, it's a personal view, and in some, a political stance.
"To me, the fact that one has to resort to violence to make a point means that the point in question in indefensible by rational means."
So you are saying that a united Ireland, or indeed a non-British-ruled Northen Ireland, as a point, is indefensible?
The violence may be indefensible, but the point? I'll thank you not to tell me, or anyone living in Ireland, what we can and can't want for the future of our land.
Nor to tell any citizen of any country that they have no right to civil uprising, whether you force the label 'terrorism' onto it or not.
It's easy to ignore anyone's humanity when you label them a 'terrorist'. You no longer have to think of their history, or the struggle they have gone through to be heard in their own land. No, everyone we call a 'terrorist' is now a faceless, evil doom-bringer, no matter what their political aims.
"Before the major terrorist attacks of the 90s and 00s, I didn't have to think about what some radical right-wing religious believers thought about the way the world should work."
Are all 'terrorists' "radical right-wing religious believers"? Or is it just easier to not have to care about international politics and you own foriegn policy? It's a pity it took a few men on some planes, flying into your buildings to make you aware of the world we all live in, but it's a worse pity, after turning around to see, that you still have such a blinkered, black & white view of it all.
Perhaps if you had looked earlier, you wouldn't be looking around every corner for the brown boogieman.
26 plus 6 equals 32 in my book.
Also, I think you too easily dismiss the Unabomber manifesto.
Industrial Industrial Society and Its Future
It contains a lot of views and information, that a great many people may sympathize with (in part or whole). Have you read it before deciding it needs censoring?
..crap, that's me on the BlackList now huh?
shit.
So you are saying that a united Ireland, or indeed a non-British-ruled Northen Ireland, as a point, is indefensible?
Not now that the IRA has laid down its arms. When it was reaking terror, then a united Ireland was indefensible. No cause should profit from terror.
The violence may be indefensible, but the point? I'll thank you not to tell me, or anyone living in Ireland, what we can and can't want for the future of our land.
Well, put it this way: if I were living in Northern Ireland, and you or anyone else was willing to commit terrorism for the sake of a united Ireland, and achieved a united Ireland, I would immedeately become a terrorist for a *divided* Ireland, since I would conclude that terror was the way to achieve a political aim.
Nor to tell any citizen of any country that they have no right to civil uprising, whether you force the label 'terrorism' onto it or not.
Precisely: *civil* uprising. If you're being killed, fight back. If you're being enslaved, stop working. But if your political preferences aren't being made the law of the land, then argue your point civilly or leave the area.
It's easy to ignore anyone's humanity when you label them a 'terrorist'. You no longer have to think of their history, or the struggle they have gone through to be heard in their own land. No, everyone we call a 'terrorist' is now a faceless, evil doom-bringer, no matter what their political aims.
Again, to give the point sharper relief, if I were to go to Syria and start terrorizing the people there, should they start listening to my political aims?
Are all 'terrorists' "radical right-wing religious believers"?
No, but the ones of the 90s/00s were. I'm referring to the attacks on the WTC in 93, on the Khobar Towers, on the Cole, and on the WTC and Pentagon in 01.
It's a pity it took a few men on some planes, flying into your buildings to make you aware of the world we all live in, but it's a worse pity, after turning around to see, that you still have such a blinkered, black & white view of it all.
And this is the crux of the matter. You think that the black and white, pre-9/11 view was morally wrong, and that 9/11 was worth the cost to shake us out of it. I think that this view is far more insidious than the FBI's suspicion of brown people or America's slipshod view of world affairs. Ignoring the rights of the strong is not better than ignoring the rights of the weak.
@Arkizzle
It contains a lot of views and information, that a great many people may sympathize with (in part or whole). Have you read it before deciding it needs censoring?
I have not said it needs censoring. It should not be censored. But I will not read it, because it was presented in violence. And I will decry the newspapers for publishing it, for the same reason.
"if I were living in Northern Ireland, and you or anyone else was willing to commit terrorism for the sake of a united Ireland, and achieved a united Ireland, I would immedeately become a terrorist for a *divided* Ireland, since I would conclude that terror was the way to achieve a political aim."
So, in a general sense, no matter the rightness of the cause, even if someone else had bombed and acheived the 'correct' outcome - for the population - you would immediately take the other side, and because bombs were involved, bomb for it?
If that is what you are saying, that is possibly one of the most retarded things I have ever heard in my life.
"But if your political preferences aren't being made the law of the land, then argue your point civilly or leave the area."
Whose area? OUR area, or the occupying force's area?
Why would the British have listened to anyone, if they hadn't been fought with? This isn't a problem of decades, it has a history of HUNDREDS of years. With death and oppression for thousands, and a further 20-25% of the whole Irish population, if you include the potato famine, which was remediable.
Do you actually think that everywhere has had an equal democracy, for all people, for ever? How do you use politics if you aren't allowed to vote or gain office? And then, when you finally secure the right to vote or stand, how do you use politics when the odds are so stacked against you, as they were in Ireland for those later years, or NI in the '70s, 80's and 90's?
"If you're being killed, fight back"
We did, we had civil wars.
What about torture, beatings, wrongful arrest? The Guildford four, the Maguire seven, the Birmingham six, just to name the high-profile cases you may know of, not to mention all the individuals who suffered the same and more under the RUC and, earlier, the Black and Tans.
"And this is the crux of the matter. You think that the black and white, pre-9/11 view was morally wrong.."
No, I think your your self-satified, island-state mentality, casually ignoring the crimes against, and exploiation of, the world at large, by your elected government and it's tools, for decades, is morally wrong. I never suggested America 'deserved' to get attacked.
It is up to YOU to know what YOU are doing in the world.
"But I will not read it, because it was presented in violence.
Yes, burying your head in the sand, and ignoring the reasons things happen is the perfect solution.
Sarcasm aside, that's not just my view..
- Sun TzuI believe that France should get out of Brittany, and that England should set Scotland and Wales free.
I believe that the world would be a better place tomorrow if Robert Mugabe died tonight. I feel the same way about Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Vladimir Putin.
None of that makes me a terrorist. I don't blow things up; I don't kill innocent people, or even frighten innocent people (not on purpose; some kids at the grocery store were a little scared of me this week, but that's it). I'm not even an assassin; if any of those people were standing in front of me now, I would not kill them even if I had a gun and the skill to use it.
Osama bin Laden? Well...him I might shoot. But probably not, if I had control of my wits. He's more valuable alive.
The difference between a terrorist and a person with radical political beliefs is unsubtle: the one carries out attacks, the other does not.
Your tax dollars at work, etc. Enjoy your police state, patriots.
Just to be very clear:
I am not advocating violence.
I am not suggesting anyone 'deserves' to be attacked.
I am not defending attacks on civilians.
I am looking at how (an) oppressed people have dealt with their oppression, and how the line between freedom fighter and 'terrorist' is both a matter of perspective, and historical hindsight.
So, in a general sense, no matter the rightness of the cause, even if someone else had bombed and acheived the 'correct' outcome - for the population - you would immediately take the other side, and because bombs were involved, bomb for it?
No, I'm saying that if you had to bomb for it, it wasn't the correct outcome. But using bombs to stop bombs is correct, just as taking the property of a robber is.
Whose area? OUR area, or the occupying force's area?
Why would the British have listened to anyone, if they hadn't been fought with? This isn't a problem of decades, it has a history of HUNDREDS of years. With death and oppression for thousands, and a further 20-25% of the whole Irish population, if you include the potato famine, which was remediable.
Why is it your area? And why can't you secure it from the government? If you're so set on independence, build an economic base, outearn the British, and present terms of secession when you're strong enough to warrant it. Violence is a shortcut to something you haven't earned yet.
No, I think your your self-satified, island-state mentality, casually ignoring the crimes against, and exploiation of, the world at large, by your elected government and it's tools, for decades, is morally wrong. I never suggested America 'deserved' to get attacked.
And I never said you suggested that. I said you thought it was worth the cost, based on your "pity/worse pity" claim. But in any case, I support the mentality you describe. A nation is sovereign, not a member state of the world.
It is up to YOU to know what YOU are doing in the world.
I do know, and I act by my own standards, no one else's. If my country does the same, and the standards are good ones, then I would be counted as a patriot.
Yes, burying your head in the sand, and ignoring the reasons things happen is the perfect solution.
Not everything is reasonable. The rantings of a madman are not reasonable. The petulance of the weak is not reasonable. And if an ideology needs violence to gain attention, it is unlikely to be reasonable.
Sarcasm aside, that's not just my view..
Sun Tsu also spoke of winning battles without fighting, knowing when to fight, and making decisions quickly. If you are focussed on your own betterment by your own values, you need not concern yourself with the incorrectness of others.
I am looking at how (an) oppressed people have dealt with their oppression, and how the line between freedom fighter and 'terrorist' is both a matter of perspective, and historical hindsight.
Perhaps, perhaps. But if that be the case, then "oppression" is also a matter for interpretation. Shall I call the attacks of Sept. 11 an oppression, and the FBI's scrutiny of swarthy men a freedom fight?
This is my last:
"Why is it your area? And why can't you secure it from the government? If you're so set on independence, build an economic base, outearn the British, and present terms of secession when you're strong enough to warrant it. Violence is a shortcut to something you haven't earned yet."
And "earned"? "Earned" the right to the land that was invaded and taken from us? You say above that it is correct to take the property of a robber. You are arguing at cross purposes, contradicting yourself.
Basically, it looks like you are saying "might is right", and I just have no desire to get into that, because I'm not a fan, and so we are not likely to reach any agreement.
"I do know, and I act by my own standards, no one else's. If my country does the same, and the standards are good ones, then I would be counted as a patriot."
And you seem to agree with everything done in your country's name.
We are not going to agree here.
I beg favour and bow out.
It took almost a year to find two tourists? And their EU homeland authorities probably helped to clear things up.
How long would it take to find someone who doesn't leave a money trail, uses multiple identities and comes from a country that doesn't co-operate on principle?
Flamingphonebook, as a rather well-educated Norn Irish Protestant, may I gracefully ask you to STFU NOOB.
You have no idea what you are talking about and it's actually gotten to the point where I have sighed out loud - Why is it your area? And why can't you secure it from the government?
You think the Irish should have to earn their country back from an invading force who suppressed their language and enforced a feudal system of government that led to the emigration of thousands, and the deaths of thousands more? Good on you.
I grew up in Northern Ireland - I've known people who died in bombings, I've known policemen who've lost the plot because of the stress they were under, I've met terrorists who were very pleasant men, well-spoken, well-educated and very passionate about their beliefs.
It appears you haven't done any of the above so I would respectfully ask you to leave my country out of your examples from now on.
Not that I agree with racial profiling at all, but those men are pretty obviously Eastern Europeans, not Middle Easterners. Of course, I'm well familiar with this strange thought process whereby American security people fail to realize that not all Europeans are lily white, given that my brother and I are the children of a Slavic-SE Asian mixed marriage and he gets profiled constantly (I'm two shades lighter and female, which makes me a nice, safe, white woman, presumably), but this is one of the more blatant examples I've seen.
Anonymous 58: Thanks for that. I was annoyed by that comment too, but I didn't have the background or the personal experience to draw on. Why don't you create an account and comment more often? You are clearly able to write in complete sentences and disagree violently without flaming (well, as long as one doesn't expand STFU, but hey). Join the BoingBoing Commentariat!
Rabican 59: It was only a decade ago that I realized, in a forehead-smacking moment, that Eastern Europeans look remarkably like Western Asians, duhh! I had a coworker with a Japanese name, and figured his mother was a "white" European, because he looked like he might be half Japanese. It turned out that his Japanese name was an affectation; he was actually a Turk.
Now the guy at another job who I thought was of Mexican origin (Spanish last name, what I took for classic Mexican mixed-blood features)—HE was half Japanese, father Spanish-from-Spain.
Now, maybe I'm unusually bad at identifying people's races—if so I'd consider it a mark of pride—but it points out one of the truly stupid things about racism: you have to identify the race of the person you're looking at before you can get your prejudices in line. Wouldn't that be a flag for a rational person? But racism is a form of irrationality, so I guess that's pretty moot.
@59, my first thought was "French". The guy on the right looks EXACTLY like LeBeau from "Hogan's Heroes". They don't look Middle Eastern, and they don't look like terrists.
You think the Irish should have to earn their country back from an invading force who suppressed their language and enforced a feudal system of government that led to the emigration of thousands, and the deaths of thousands more? Good on you.
I think things are tough all over. If we say that terrorism is warranted for some people that we feel sympathy for, then we either have to come up with a criterion list for when it's warranted beforehand, or else admit that there's no rhyme or reason to human existence and give up. If the IRA can kill innocents to get what they want, why can't I kill innocents to get the IRS off my case or to protest the 55 MPH speed limit?
It appears you haven't done any of the above so I would respectfully ask you to leave my country out of your examples from now on.
I didn't bring it up. But A) is a point really worth anything if it can't apply to all examples and B) what does it matter whether a person has sufferred to whether or not his ideas make sense?
"The petulance of the weak is not reasonable"
I detect evil.
FPB 62: Point of information: While innocent people were killed in IRA bombings, they did not target innocent people. Their targets were political. One can argue whether their targets were "legitimate" "combatants" in a "war" or not, but random suicide bombings that took out whomever was on the bus? No.
If you think the word 'terrorist' should apply to people who kill civilians (however defined) while targeting "legitimate" "combatants" in a "war," then the armed forces of every nation that has ever had a war are terrorists, ours especially. So I'd avoid that definition if I were you. Thatcher and her detestable ilk were eager to make that connection, of course, but that doesn't exactly make it true.
I detect evil.
Well, you have all those sensitive membranes.
watch this
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=133_1210305250&p=1
Wow.
spread it
That was an amazing example of civil disobedience (if I'm allowed to believe wiki that the word pertains to disobeying commands as well as laws), and was strangely a bit like a comedy routine.