dagblog - Comments for "Stupid Americans"

And some day the bomb will

Flavius — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:10:55 +0000

And some day the bomb will go off. He'll decide at the last minute that he wants more independence . So instead of meeting his handler he'll go to the square ahead of time with his own do it yourself weapon.

Madness

It can be assumed that the

chucktrotter — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:47:42 +0000

In reply to Stupid Americans

It can be assumed that the wanna' be bomber's value as a source for intelligence and leads ran out months ago. We will never be completely free from danger originating from within and outside our country. There has to be a limit as to how much can be expended in order to insure our security. Even aircraft manufacturers calculate the cost of failures into their design process. Our security will fail as will aircraft plunge from the sky. bin Laden certainly can't complain on his ROI from 9\11. Talk about bang for the buck! We lost far more than treasure on that day!

I'm seriously touched by your

we are stardust — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:05:50 +0000

In reply to Very interesting post,

I'm seriously touched by your heartfelt empathy for this father, my friend.

Worked quite well for The

cmaukonen — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:04:30 +0000

In reply to Death by a thousand paper

Worked quite well for The French Resistance during WWII and The Vietcong as well.

Death by a thousand paper

miguelitoh2o — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:47:51 +0000

In reply to The case brings to mind the

Death by a thousand paper cuts seems to be a winning strategy for AQ. Our fearless leaders keep trumpeting the so-called successes as Destor details in this post, when in fact the so-called war on terror was lost a long time ago. We're just too dumb to know it or too driven by the 24 hour news cycle to admit it.

Very interesting post,

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:37:15 +0000

In reply to Stupid Americans

Very interesting post, destor. You really caused me to consider the Portland case from a different perspective.

What was the interest of the government in pursuing this? We assume it was to protect the U.S. and prevent any such violence from occurring such as the attack this kid had allegedly planned for Portland. No brainer, right?

But then why did "the investigation" need to progress right down to the point of the kid - on the scene - punching numbers in a cell phone. Most assuredly, they must have had enough evidence to go to court and gain a conviction for crimes that would have put this kid away out of harm's reach at a point way short of this.

One would think that it would have been more beneficial - from an operational point of view - to intercede at some point and attempt to get the kid to work with the agents in helping acquire as much info as possible on whatever domestic networks there might be that are available to "home grown" terrorists. What would there be to lose? You've already got him dead to rights for crimes that will take him out of circulation. THAT objective is achieved. Why not attempt to leverage that for additional gain on the GWOT? And in the process, would it not have been possible to help the kid gain some kind of redemption here? To encourage him to be drawn back from the precipice? To at least provide opportunity to moderate his culpability in this alleged crime?

I think it's pretty obvious that the desire to stage this dramatic - and fearful! (important, that!) - climax trumped anything else. Who is the terrorist here? The kid? Or the government who used his father's plea for help as a means to manipulate this situation into a terrifying "near miss?" (And don't even get me started on the possibility, as alleged by his friends and defense team, of the kid being set up to perform an act that he might otherwise have never performed.)

As for the father, I can only begin to imagine the torturous second-guessing that he undoubtedly experiences following the way this played out. Somehow, I picture a father's consideration here that perhaps it might have been a better alternative for this to have been resolved by a little father/son talk on the riverbank, talking about the rabbits. I shudder in horror when I try to place myself in that desperate father's shoes.

The case brings to mind the

seashell — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:41:45 +0000

In reply to The story of the kid from

The case brings to mind the total impotence of al Qaeda over the last ten years to produce anything more than incompetent guys trying to light their shoes or underwear in planes.

Apparently, the underlying goal is not so much to blow planes out of the sky as it is to bankrupt and scare the US. According to the new English language al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, written by a Pakastani-American now associated with AQ in Yemen:

The goal of what it dubbed Operation Hemorrhage, the authors said, is not just to bring down aircraft, but to force Western governments to spend huge sums for new security measures, further burdening their faltering economies.

"We will continue with similar operations and we do not mind at all in this stage if they are intercepted," one article said. "It is such a good bargain for us to spread fear amongst the enemy … in exchange for a few months of work and few thousand bucks."

I hereby give you permission

Michael Maiello — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:49:18 +0000

In reply to I was gonna change it to

I hereby give you permission to follow your whims when they strike you. Nothing I write is Shakespeare.

I was gonna change it to

Donal — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:45:52 +0000

In reply to Somebody fixed it for me!

I was gonna change it to Stoopid Ameriicans.

So, I guess one way to look

Elusive Trope — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:24:09 +0000

In reply to I don't think you can really

So, I guess one way to look at the question is how do we make it so that there is political (and financial?) benefit in successfully helping someone expressing alienation and radicalization find productive outlets for their dissatisfied energy?

The only way that we can achieve this political benefit benchmark is not only receptive to this kind of response but are making demands for it.

I agree basically with you on the institutional mindset regarding law enforcement. The thing that springs to mind is how a number of police departments found that by getting more officers out of their cars, moving among the people, and building positive relationships with a local neighborhood lowered crime, increased cooperation and made everyone's life better. But these shifts came only after neighborhoods raised their voices about the (perceived) police's attitude toward the neighborhood residents and consquent treatment of them.

In other words, as long as the people remain in lynch mode (or continue to be perceived as being so) against anyone who hints at terrorism, law enforcement, and the politicians that support them, will continue to set expectations and reward systems based on capture of the targets rather than rehabilitation of the individual. Ultimately, if we give up on the hope that those within law enforcement (or political or financial) institutions cannot access their humanity and are not impervious to shifts in societal paradigms, we might as well just pack up our bags, turn out the lights, because the party is definitely over.