On The British Terror Story

So, the guy from Britain says that they were going to carry out mass murder on an unimaginable scale. Well, let's do a little math, shall we.

Nine planes, even if 767's, would hold about 300 people each. That would 2700 people. On Sept 11, 2001, 3000 people were killed in that event.

So, how would 2700 be unimaginable, when we just experienced 3000 all at once just a few years back?

Then they wonder why people like me don't have confidence in their ability to protect anybody. They couldn't imagine planes being used as weapons. They couldn't imagine the insurgency in Iraq. Now, they can't imagine the death toll which would be smaller than the one over which all these initiatives are based.

They're dumber than dirt, and they don't make me feel safe. They make me feel LESS safe, because they're too incompetent to do their jobs.
The Professor

Why wouldn't equally whacky people get together to watch the US and the UK security apparatus fly into colorful action? Hell of a lot bigger power trip than watching a hook and ladder truck turn the corner if you ask me.

....Link please or explain further. Thank you.

I was watching Washington Journal this morning, and Susan Swain was reading from the AP story. She read this as a quote.
The Professor

All week long, a bunch of civilian peacenicks have invaded the airport in Scotland to challenge the shipments of arms to the middle east. This is the PERFECT excuse to turn every airport in the US and Europe into an armed camp so they can keep supporting their fucking evil wars.

That's a good thought, Tyler. Now they've every excuse to do just that.

I was in Britain a couple years back when the "stinger missile" threat was uncovered. The airports at Manchester and London looked like army bases. Soldiers and police everywhere, tanks, armored personnel carriers, you name it.

Probably same thing now.
The Professor

And they are DYING to do it here too. Makes great press that you're "Tuff on TERRA," not like them PINKO DEMOCRITTERS.

I'm starting to really hate it here.

after the first day when they went through Prestwick, that's completely irrelevant.

So this is NOT supposed to have the side effect of turning airports into armed camps.

Right.

As I said, the weapons are going via military bases now. Any security measures at civilian airports are therefore irrelevant to whether the bombs keeping coming through England, therefore. Stopping hand luggage doesn't have much to do with preventing the peace campaigners getting in again, either.

Yes, if people on the planes had been killed, that would have been a terrible thing and it could also be called mass murder.......so I'll give him that much.

But I still don't see how, exploding some planes over the ocean adds up to a threat of unimaginable proportions! I mean, not unless they also had an atomic bomb or something like that.

At least exploding planes over an ocean is better than crashing them into buildings filled with people!

As i said in another thread, too, i don't see how a bunch of buffoons talking about blowing anything up is really a threat. How do we know they even really knew how to build a bomb, let alone sneak one on a plane? And then, 9 planes at once?
The Professor

I think we both have a similar opinion on this.

Someone else I saw this morning asked a counter terrorism person if they might get some kind of confession from the guys they arrested. The counter terrorism guy (I'm sorry, I don't remember who it was) said it was more likely that they would find some kind of evidence from searching their houses. For instance, maybe something could be found on the hard drive of their computer. Or maybe they wrote notes or plans on paper, etc

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Therefore, it is NOT unimaginable! And, after 9/11, if one can't imagine mass murder on the scale of thousands (which this would be), then one is a moron.
The Professor

nothing to try and stop that.

Timing - they got that part down alright.

is that the party are ready to kick his ass out. Of course Lebanon is now off the TV. Israel can slaughter more innocents with impunity and no coverage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/10/nprescott10.xml
<snip>
John Prescott was struggling to contain a growing Labour backbench revolt last night after rebuffing demands from MPs for Parliament to be recalled to debate the crisis in the Middle East.

The demand by up to 150 MPs, mostly Labour, for Parliament to be able to discuss the Government's response to the war in Lebanon, is the first political test the Deputy Prime Minister has faced since taking charge of the Government after Tony Blair left for his Caribbean holiday on Tuesday.

John Prescott
John Prescott leaves his home on his first full day in charge

The rebellion spread from back-bench MPs to the ranks of ministerial advisers when Jim Sheridan, the Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said that he was standing down as the parliamentary private secretary to the defence ministers.

How conveeeeeenient.

a Labour revolt he headed home.

this if for the 5 year anniversary of nine eleven, some of the horror is wearing off.

I'm not terrified at all. I'm not that impressed by the organizational ability or the skills of the bad guys. If i wasn't terrified during the cold war, when we had nutballs like Nixon and Reagan with their finger on the button, i'm sure not going to be terrified now.
The Professor

A rational assesment of risks, and a refusal to succumb to panic of any sort, is the key nowadays for us all as individuals, and our society as a whole. The aim of our enemies, both in our own government, and in the jihadi movement, is to produce unreasoning fear and panic in the people. We must resist this at all levels, and it really is not that hard to do. Fearlessness and fear alike are merely habits of mind: the one can be cultivated, the other dropped like any other self-destructive behavior.

...That I would fall for this bullshit.

Plastique in Hand Lotion bottles, and two component explosives to be mixed on the plane.

I can't get my car keys through TSA, and they're going to get detonators on the plane.

Right.

and then the numbers are hard to figure...

Hard to imagine how many zeroes in a brazillian!
The Professor

I think, perhaps, you are putting a little too much significance on the arbitrary choice of the word "unimaginable." Could we imagine 2700 deaths? Of course we could.

I don't think anyone was trying to make a point about whether they were capable of imagining such things. The point is that we were dealing with the (alleged) possibility of death on a large scale.

I think the word was carefully chosen to add weight to an event that may or may not have significance. And, since i think that, i believe the word was poorly selected, because the situation is NOT unimaginable. Perhaps you trust the authorities in this matter more than i.
The Professor

Yes, it is arguable that the word was poorly selected. My point is that the authorities are not using the word "unimaginable" to mean "We never could have thought of this." They're using it to mean, "big," "significant," "massive," and the like.

I think if you believe that the word was not specifically chosen as PR "shock & awe" then you're missing the forest for the trees.

Sorry Skinner, but i am very skeptical given the current information about this plot. Just because a bunch of buffoons talked tough about blowing up planes hardly means that they are a real or credible threat. And the use of the word "unimaginable" makes me think they are intentionally trying to make more of this than it really is.

I don't think the word was an accident. I think it was a scare tactic.
The Professor

Unimaginable in this context would not mean that 'it couldn't be imagined', rather that it would be horrific and hard to grasp....which, if this attack had been successful would have been true.