Article

2004-07-26 Home Front: WoT

Update: Annie Jacobsen's scary flight with Syrian "musicians"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rex 2004-07-26 11:16:07 PM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Article: None showed up on the FBIâs most wanted list and since their story checked out they were allowed to go.

None of the 19 hijackers showed up on that list either.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 1:03:35 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 1:03:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Here's a neat little solution. Make access to the airline toilets possible only by using a magnetic stripe card (like hotel card keys) that identifies a passenger ticket number. The transfer of any person's card is a punishable offense. Repeated short-term lavatory use flags you and gets your picture taken. The lavatory is then swept for a IED and discovery of any evidence walks back to the recorded list of passenger ticket numbers for that flight and previous ones.

Identity checks then begin profiling (yes, profiling) matches between passengers and countries of origin or flight destinations to establish any suspected collaborators onboard the flight or ones made by that aircraft previously. As association charts are filled in we would be able to detect congregations of suspected terrorists on a given flight or particular aircraft and seek to disable the threat.

I can draw up a white paper if someone else finds the funding. It only uses existing technology and is a no-brainer.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-26 1:08:54 AM|| 2004-07-26 1:08:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I read her story and was shocked by the reticence of the paseengers. I think part of the significance of the Texas Ranger motto, "One Riot, One Ranger," is that a Texas Ranger can expect a posse to for instaneously. Here are some things that passangers could have done if they were threatened:

1. Ask the stewardess to provide a full and unopened can of any beverage. Load the can into a sock in preparation for a throw down. Swap seats so that you can keep an eye on the guy with the foot problem.
2. Pass a note to the stewardess to notify the captain and the air marshal that you intend to attempt to solve the problem. Then confront the leader or to stop one of the band and tell hem that you don't think that he needs to go to the bathroom anymore.
4. Go to the bathroom yourself and bring the entire NY Times Sunday edition.

There are almost infinite choices. Any of them are better than to allow a dry run to proceed without challenge.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-07-26 1:57:48 AM|| 2004-07-26 1:57:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 1.Gary Boettcher, a member of the board of directors of the Allied Pilots Association, wrote to Mrs Jacobsen:this airborne event is not a singular nor isolated experience
2. Another pilot, Mark Bogosian, with American Airlines, said: "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a âdirty little secretâ that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."
And these comments, I expect, will be buried in the 2nd report of the Congressional Commission struck after 9/11 encore? Is Normie Mineta putting these "incident" reports in File 13? While the "Rats and Dimwits are courting the votes of the Muslim-American quarter, we're supposed to fly with eyes in the back of our heads and take Karate lessons so we can over power Muslim terrorists who hijack a jetliner? Our fearless leaders in DC fly in private jets and Airforce 1 while we common plebs fly with terrorists in our midst. Nice.

Posted by rex 2004-07-26 2:01:34 AM|| 2004-07-26 2:01:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The problem is Norm Mineta and his personal reasons (being a child in a WWII Japanese internment camp in the US) for not allowing racial profiling of Muslim/Arab men.
The only question is whether we wait until after the next 9/11 attack or put some of the those 9/11 Commission recommendations into operation now and do it so there won't be another attack or at least one using airplanes.
I hate to say this, but I fully understand why they put Japanese living here in those camps.
Now that I know what I know about Islam as a religion (and it ain't a Religion of Peace in the least!), it's just not safe, even if it's not PC, to assume that all Muslims are moderates, as I'm sure they're not all radicals, but all it takes is 1 guy like shoe bomber Richard Reid on a plane, as we know now.
They'd profile us if it were Saudi Arabia and I bet they do it there anyway!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 2:10:18 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 2:10:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Unfortunately, it's all of our politicians, including GWB, and not just Normie Mineta, who are loathe to profile Arab air travellers for fear of losing votes.

Here's another article about the scary stuff that's happening on our jetliners. No one cares, because the people in power don't use commercial flights.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040721-101403-1508r.htm
"Scouting jetliners for new attacks" by Audrey Hudson 7/22/04

Posted by rex 2004-07-26 2:55:56 AM|| 2004-07-26 2:55:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I wonder if ANY of you cares one bit about the actual facts of the matter. Which in this case only serve to highlight the ridiculousness of Mrs Jacobsen's extreme racism and nothing else.

FACT ONE -- The Syrians were EXACTLY what they were claiming to be, doing exactly what they were claiming to be doing, not causing the slightest problem. The extensive background checks turned out fine, again and again and again. Nothing happened except what was supposed to be happening.

Nice scare quotes, rex -- utterly disgraceful ones. But (and this may disappoint you) the musicians were indeed truly musicians -- you can check out some of their music here I believe: http://www.almazaj.com/WMCshop.cgi?action=dbview&id=TMP1210

FACT TWO -- If this was supposed to be a "practice run" then it utterly failed, because the air marshals were checking out the toilets to see no mischief was being done there. And indeed no mischief was.

They had it in *mind*. There was no danger. And the extensivity of the checks on the true Syrian musicians bordered on the ludicrous, so there was *doubly* no danger. But I know that everyone likes the role of the victim so keep on pretending that the eeevil PC crowd leaves you all so utterly unprotected and insecure by allowing Muslims to use the toilet -- which was the full extent of Mrs. Jacobsen's reason to worry. That a group of Muslim people probably had a bit too much coffee while waiting for their plane and then had to use the toilet.

Naive of me, I know, to believe that not all toilet-users are necessarily planning the assembly of bombs. But one thing I agree with Jacobsen is indeed that these people shouldn't have used the toilet. They should have peed all over *her* instead, something which she most thoroughly would have deserved.

FACT THREE -- the only real danger in the whole case came from Jacobsen's own hysterics. Read it up here:
http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

"The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service."

and also this:
"The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsenâs actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves. Air marshalsâ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger. âThey have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,â spokesman Adams confirmed, âto make sure it isnât a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover."

Nice of Mrs Jacobsen, wouldn't you say?

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/07/21/askthepilot95/

A story about *nothing*, puffed up to sound important and dangerous. Oh, no the Islamic guy didn't smile back to my own fake smile -- that must mean he must be eeevil and plotting terror.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 3:02:02 AM|| 2004-07-26 3:02:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Aristotle, there's nothing to say that jihadis can't pretend to be a "band" when they're really terrorists.
I've read nowhere in her account that the air marshals did anything, much less clear the plane's restrooms.
You don't know what danger there was, pal, but it doesn't sound good.
Ms. Jacobsen's account sounds eerily like actor James Wood's account of witnessing the 9/11 hijackers do a dry run.
The part that scared me the most was that, clearly, the killers have decided that 4 or 5 guys is too few and that they need to use bigger teams.
Shut up and stay in Greece, Krapsaris--America will take care of the problem both here and in Athens!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 3:10:14 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 3:10:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Aristotle, there's nothing to say that jihadis can't pretend to be a "band" when they're really terrorists"

But the point is that these people were indeed a band.

Not that you ever cared about facts, Jen, now or ever before.

"I've read nowhere in her account that the air marshals did anything, much less clear the plane's restrooms."

No, the air marshals don't advertise themselves going around saying "we are air marshals". Revealing themselves is the last thing they want to do. I gave you the account that tells it.

Ofcourse *next* time, and in order to not show themselves "ineffective" when the next Mrs Jacobsen comes along, they'll immediately have to reveal themselves to her, and thus be vulnerable to the terrorists.

Who knows -- perhaps this was a "dry run" on the part of Mrs Jacobsen, not the musicians. A try to see whether air marshals would be stupid enough to reveal themselves just in order to comfort the hysterics of a passenger.

"The part that scared me the most was that, clearly, the killers have decided that 4 or 5 guys is too few and that they need to use bigger teams."

Killers that never actually killed or tried to kill anyone aren't killers. And these specific group "clearly" weren't killers, no matter what you "clearly" see.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 3:19:12 AM|| 2004-07-26 3:19:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Aris, ever hear of a "cover story"? Let's see, they could be a band, and then receive terrorist training. But, they have a reasonable purpose for their travel and they can test security all they like. After all, the real killers are waiting...let the reconnaissance teams do their work first.

Lessee, a large group of Syrians, who paid cash for first-class tickets, behaving oddly on an airliner. Where have I heard that story before? Ah yeah, James Woods saw the same thing a few weeks before 9/11.

Posted by Gromky 2004-07-26 3:44:10 AM|| 2004-07-26 3:44:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 You are just OBTUSE, Katsaris!
Before there were the 9/11 attacks, they almost certainly made dry runs.
And Ms. Jacobsen's account makes no mention of the air marshals ever revealing themselves.
You just love to pretend that Americans are making this whole War on Terror up, don't you?
Wait until those bastards blow up the Parthenon!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 3:45:15 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 3:45:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Unfortunately, I must agree with Aris, and Don Sensing, another flaming Greek liberal, on this one. There is no reason to believe that any of the band members are terrorists or that any security personnel did not perform their job successfully and appropriately. Ms Jacobsen was either, charitably, overwrought or, cynically, successful in getting her 15 minutes of fame, if only on the blogosphere.

It is ironic that by bending over backwards to be politically correct Underperforin Norman is actually increasing the fear of Americans that any person of Arab descent is a possible terrorist. It is this kind of unrestrained fear that will lead to calls for interment camps after the inevitable next domestic terrorist attack.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-07-26 8:02:12 AM|| 2004-07-26 8:02:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Let's see, they could be a band, and then receive terrorist training

Let's see, they could also be a band and then NOT receive terrorist training. But just be a band.

And Ms. Jacobsen's account makes no mention of the air marshals ever revealing themselves.

You still haven't picked up any reading skills, have you? That's exactly what I said. That they were competent, when you had wanted them to be incompetent instead. Idiot.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 8:13:09 AM|| 2004-07-26 8:13:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 My solution is I don't fly. I didn't fly before though. If I did fly however I would bring along my own bar of soap and a fresh change of socks.

Posted by FlameBait93268 2004-07-26 8:21:46 AM|| 2004-07-26 8:21:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Although I think the whole story is fishier than a mermaid's knickers, I don't see how you come to your conclusion that the air marshals were 'competent' through apparent impotence, Aris. If these Syrian guys really were acting in a manner that suggested they were assembling a bomb, then the marshals should have intervened. They wouldn't have beren given any posthumous medals just for going down with everyone else having successfully 'maintained cover'. The way I see it, either certain passenger were getting carried away, or the air marshals weren't doing anything to prevent what looked like a mid-air bombing attempt.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-26 8:32:54 AM|| 2004-07-26 8:32:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 If these Syrian guys really were acting in a manner that suggested they were assembling a bomb, then the marshals should have intervened.

But they weren't assembling a bomb so perhaps the marshalls' ability to interpret their behavior after being trained is superior to Ms Jacobsen's hysteria.

Further, assume it is a training run. Do the marshalls help them by identifying themselves and showing terrorists how to get marshalls to reveal themselves without doing anything prosecutable? There were plenty of ground personnel waiting to talk to the band, so somehow the word got out that there was something to look into but nothing to stop. Sounds like they did their job and Jacobsen should keep taking her Valium.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-07-26 8:39:23 AM|| 2004-07-26 8:39:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Further, assume it is a training run. Do the marshalls help them by identifying themselves and showing terrorists how to get marshalls to reveal themselves without doing anything prosecutable?

So what you're saying is: the marshals should do nothing if they think they're watching a training run. How do you recognise the difference between a training run and the real thing? Marshals might be trained to be observant, but I doubt they're psychic.

There were plenty of ground personnel waiting to talk to the band, so somehow the word got out that there was something to look into but nothing to stop.

And where on earth would that assurance have come from?!

Let's face it - all that needed doing was the flight crew issuing instructions for all passengers to sit down (say 'turbulence is anticipated'), and keep things that way for the next couple of hours. If the suspicious customers refused to do so, they would be exposed and could be dealt with; if they sat down, so much the better. If the Syrians were 'probing' the marshals' responses, it wouldn't do much good - they'd be interrogated and investigated thoroughly, their links and associates tracked down, and they'd be deported, not to return, or incarcerated.

As I said before, all very fishy. Have any other passengers come forward to defend or contradict Jacobsen's version of events?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-26 9:43:55 AM|| 2004-07-26 9:43:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Make all muslims travel air freight.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-07-26 10:14:16 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:14:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Jen: Aristotle, there's nothing to say that jihadis can't pretend to be a "band" when they're really terrorists.

Terrorism isn't a profession. They don't need to pretend. The hijackers on 9/11 were urban planners, engineers, et al. Arafat is an engineer. Zawahiri is a doctor. Bin Laden is an engineer. Zarqawi is an engineer. The talent pool from which terrorists draw presumably includes as many musicians as it does engineers as doctors.

Aris and some of the media making excuses for the band presumably believe that terrorists are illiterate villagers from rural areas. Not so. People from really poor areas have more practical concerns - such as feeding their families. Global jihad is not on their daily schedule. Neither is learning foreign languages nor traveling to distant countries.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 10:16:01 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 10:16:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Make all engineers travel air freight.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-07-26 10:28:10 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:28:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Aris, if those fellows were just innocent musicians, why (as recent information suggests) did they overstay their visas?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-26 10:31:16 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-07-26 10:31:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 LOL Howard!

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-26 10:44:57 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:44:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Perhpas they wuz held over RC? Like Plan 9?

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-26 10:45:51 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:45:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 So what you're saying is: the marshals should do nothing if they think they're watching a training run. How do you recognise the difference between a training run and the real thing?

Except that they didn't do "nothing". As I explained, and as the article I linked to said, they checked the toilets to see if anything was happening. *Inconspicuously*. So that the possible terrorists couldn't know which passenger was an air-marshal who was checking the toilet, and which passenger just wanted to pee.

And as the article Davis linked to said, the FBI was contacted and background checks were being done on Syrians all the while (checks that *cleared* them). And as was further mentioned in those articles, the Syrians were then questioned and *again* cleared.

Is your concern really so great, Bulldog, about the invisible bomb that will magically be assembled in different toilets by fourteen different people?

If the Syrians had been preventing other customers from using the toilet between each of their visits, *then* it'd be a "try run" worth its money.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 11:22:32 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:22:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 RC, the visa issue is more complicated, and as Donald Sensing notes, visa authorization dates may differ from a visa expiration date.

I agree with Aris and Mr. Davis to a fair extent on this one: Ms. Jacobsen panicked. Her panic might well have made things worse. If air marshalls were on the scene, let them handle it, that's why they're there.

There are things we can do as citizens if we're ever confronted with a similar situation, things that are quiet, calm, careful and methodical in approach. We can very quietly prepare ourselves for the worst (soda can in a sock, etc). We can very quietly let the flight attendants know that something is amiss and that we're prepared. We can very quietly trust the professionalism of the flight crew.

What we can't do in panic, either on the plane or elsewhere. We have to be the calm, level-headed, smart ones that will take the right action at the right time.

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-26 11:30:29 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:30:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Aris, did you even bother reading the other article I linked to in #6? Duh. This is not the first incident of Arab folks scouting out airliners. And Annie Jacobsen was not on board the AA flight.
A June 29 incident aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles is similar to a Feb. 15 incident on American Airlines Flight 1732 from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

And Aris, I assume you refer to the following comments made by NAMED airline PILOTS as "scare quotes"? Whereas you believe the soothing words of Mr. Sensing, who may be a good blogger but who IS NOT a pilot. Rightttttt....
Gary Boettcher, a member of the board of directors of the Allied Pilots Association, wrote to Mrs Jacobsen:this airborne event is not a singular nor isolated experience. Another pilot, Mark Bogosian, with American Airlines, said: "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a âdirty little secretâ that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."

Posted by rex 2004-07-26 11:32:17 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:32:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 I didn't say it was a dry run, Aris. I said the story seems fishy to me for a number of reasons.

And as the article Davis linked to said, the FBI was contacted and background checks were being done on Syrians all the while (checks that *cleared* them).

Oh that would make everything just hunky-dory, would it? Checks conducted in an hour or so based, presumably, on information provided by the passengers. Who believes such checks could be trusted to determine events in such a situation?

Is your concern really so great, Bulldog, about the invisible bomb that will magically be assembled in different toilets by fourteen different people?

You don't imagine there might be more than one device in such a situation?

If the Syrians had been preventing other customers from using the toilet between each of their visits, *then* it'd be a "try run" worth its money

Not at all. If you'd managed to get the components on board, each hidden within a small item of hand luggage, why would you need to conceal the device at all times? You'd assemble the parts in secret, but could transport the device, and transfer it between individuals, in the cabin.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-26 11:36:22 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:36:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 This is not the first incident of Arab folks scouting out airliners.

And this is not the first incident of innocent Arabs needing to use the bathroom either. So the general existence of Arabs scouting out airliners says nothing whatsoever about whether *these* particular Arabs were scouting out an airliner.

And Aris, I assume you refer to the following comments made by NAMED airline PILOTS as "scare quotes"?

No, by "scare quotes" I'm referring to the scare quotes around the word "musicians". They *were* musicians and that's a 100% certain fact. So deal.

If you think that they were *also* possible terrorists, that's a *different* question with a less certain answer. Just as Zhang Fei said, thinking that it applied to me, rather than the originator of the thread.

But the thing we know for certain is that they were indeed musicians. So no scare quotes around the word.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 11:43:24 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:43:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 You don't imagine there might be more than one device in such a situation?

I don't believe in invisible devices.

You'd assemble the parts in secret, but could transport the device, and transfer it between individuals, in the cabin.

Then you'd again see items being passed multiple times between individuals then heading to the bathroom, so if the air marshals had an eye on these people, they wouldn't need to be "psychics" (as you claimed) in order to know whether something possibly dangerous was going on or not. They'd just need to be observant.

There's something we can all agree on: That it was good that the air marshals kept an eye on these people, and such threats may exist for real in the future.

And there's a thing that we don't agree on, namely that these specific people were almost certainly innocent, and that Jacobsen was biased against them from the start which coloured all her later reactions.

For god's sake, Jacobsen describes how she was once terrified when she saw a group of Arab people in a car buying *lunch*, to the point that she took down the licence number of the vehicle. But now ofcourse she says that she regrets not telling the authorities about those horrible Arab people ordering lunch and *gasp* driving a car, and not actually doing anything suspicious.

Can you *really* not see how fricking paranoid and racist this person is, how predisposed to seeing everything as suspicious? She needs therapy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 11:56:56 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:56:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 a) I can put quotes around the word musicians, Aris, because it is uncertain whether these Syrians were doing what they were doing on the plane because they were trained musicians or because they were AQ operatives. Fyi, I agree with Jacobsen's following observation and therefore and thusly I rightfully used quotes around the word "musicians:"
"But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldnât 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?"

b) To offset Mr. Sensing's blog comments, why don't we read what Michelle Malkin had to say about the matter? Fair and balanced...if you want to ignore named pilots observations and only rely on bloggers' second hand take on the incident, Malkin deserves a read to counter balance Sensing. Look at Malkin's 7/25 comments and work backwards in dates.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Posted by rex 2004-07-26 11:59:30 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:59:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 For god's sake, Jacobsen describes how she was once terrified when she saw a group of Arab people in a car buying *lunch*

Now I wasn't terrified but I will admit to gagging one hot summer day at the drive thru at abu flies.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-26 12:01:35 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:01:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 And there's a thing that we don't agree on, namely that these specific people were almost certainly innocent

No, that's something you're mistaken about, Aris. I don't believe this was a dry run. I think there are elements of the story that just don't add up, and that either Jacobsen is exaggerating what happened, or that the onboard security failed to respond appropriately to what (according to Jocobsen) did look highly suspicious.

They'd just need to be observant.

And have eyes not only in the back of their heads, but distributed throughout the aircraft and in the toilets. AFAIK, they can't observe everything, so, in an incident as described by Jacobsen, just acting inconspicuous wouldn't be enough - they should have stopped the activity. That's why I'm sceptical of Jacobsen's account - I think they would have done that.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-26 12:05:07 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:05:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 It's not me, rex, who's ignoring "named pilots'" opinions, it's *you* who's ignoring the observations of one of the ACTUAL air marshalls in the ACTUAL scene, rather than rely on "second hand takes".

Once you read his comments on Jacobsen, get back to me. Rather than pretend I'm relying on second hand opinions when it's you who's doing it.

And I don't find it surprising that you think Jacobsen's obvious apologetics for her racist paranoia is an actual argument worth mentioning.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 12:08:52 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:08:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris, let's revisit the security issue after the Athens Olympics.

Posted by Random thoughts 2004-07-26 12:12:40 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:12:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Random thoughts> So none of us will ever talk about security issues for more than a month? I doubt that's gonna happen.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 12:20:33 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:20:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I think people who put their faith in the marshals are a little too trusting of their competence and a little too dismissive of the abilities of potential terrorists. The Israeli guy who co-founded Akamai, and was on one of the 9/11 flights, used to be part of an elite Israeli counter-terrorist strike force. He was stabbed by one guy with a knife who attacked him from behind. How did he not notice that guy? Was the terrorist well-camouflaged, or just well-prepared? Can any one or combination of these marshals hold a candle to the Israeli, a veteran of Israel's elite Sayaret, in terms of situational awareness? I don't think so.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 12:22:51 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 12:22:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Why does anyone treat Aris with anything but the contempt he deserves?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-26 12:51:29 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-07-26 12:51:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Katsaris, your whole argument is based on the presence of air marshals and their having the plane under their control, yet there was no sighting of marshals being there at all in Jacobsen's account.
Merely someone who said they were there.
And they seemingly had no power to do anything with the suspects while they were in the air.
And I have no idea what you're referring to about Annie and the " Arab lunch" thing--pure BS.
Ms. Jacobsen was merely relating that her travels to the Middle East had enured her to being frightened of Muslim males, not the opposite.
Katsaris, you can yap on all you want--and you do!--about the EU, but when it comes to matters of domestic security here in the United States, you don't know SHIT and would be doing yourself a favor and hiding your ignorance more by shutting up.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 12:51:45 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 12:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 just wasted bandwith posting responses to that idiot greek...

Posted by Dan 2004-07-26 12:58:28 PM|| 2004-07-26 12:58:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Steve, I disagree. If "something" happens it won't be another takeover of a plane. More like the plane just blowing up in midair. Waiting for your chance with soda cans isn't going to help.

Posted by someone 2004-07-26 1:12:15 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:12:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Why Syrians are even be allowed to inter this country during these uncertain times is more a mystery to me than any of this.

Syria is currently fighting a proxy war with our troops along their border and in Falluja. Syria is occupying Lebanon that has jihadies as part of the fabric of that society. This is PC blindness and I'm disgusted by it.

The Visa application should have been denied on the grounds that the Syrians !could! (not are) be or have jihadie connections. It's not racist! It's anti jihadie, a geo-political threat. Syrians are up to their eyeballs in jihadies. Same goes for the whole islamic mid-east and I don't want them flying over my country while we are at war. If the crooner needs a band call an agent in LA and get some expats. Kind of goophy to be flying these guys out for a gig.

Jen is right about the internment of the Japannese. If you read their creation myth you would have done it to. Desperate times... And it was right to recompence them after the war for that too.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-26 1:13:43 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:13:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Aris, you raise some good points. Jacobsen does seem a tad tense. However, if the 9/11 hijackers had been stopped or removed from the planes, your claims would likely have been the same. Some of those guys were, I believe, on some database somewhere, but who knows if the right database would have been checked given the "wall" between domestic and international issues. Preemption in these cases is almost always going to appear as though "innocent" persons were targeted. In this case, that may have been true. It does seem, however, from what the pilots have said, that probing is taking place. Unfortunately, we have to be on our guard and in doing so are going to step on some toes. Odd that you take such umbrage at that.

Posted by remote man 2004-07-26 1:16:19 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:16:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 There was an episode of Airline! on A&E where a group of passengers on a 737 had become unruly, terrifying their fellow passengers. It was a group of youths and one chaperone. They were running up and down the aisle, throwing stuff, and generally being idiots. They did not listen to the stewards, ignored the pilot in command, ignored the 'fasten seat belts sign' even after being warned of oncoming turbulence. Needless to say, they were met by Chicago cops when the plane landed. Only the chaperone was prevented from boarding the connecting flight. The other passengers got vouchers for having to endure the stress on the flight.

Had I been the pilot, I would have diverted the flight immediately, and asked for SWAT assistance upon landing. This pilot continued on to their destination.

The moral of this story is that there are hundreds of "incidents" that occur in the air during the course of running an airline, just ask the employees. Some are even worse than what Mrs. Jacobsen described. Focusing on Arabs or Muslim engineers is a splendid way of getting blindsided the next time a white, American convert to Islam decides to "take off" his shoes in mid-flight.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-26 1:21:13 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:21:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Remember that James Woods spotted a group of young Arab men behaving oddly on a cross-country flight a week or two before 9/11. He actually watched them conduct their dry run. He commented on their behavior to a stewardess; I think he may have been interviewed, but only later, after the people his "racist paranoia" marked as odd had taken part in the murder of 3,000 people.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-26 1:21:41 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-07-26 1:21:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Lucky raises 2 excellent points:
why are we still letting in Syrians with visas when we're at war in the Middle East and Syria isn't exactly an ally
and
Why aren't there enough American bands, real or fake, available to play this gig?
And these 14 men had bought one-way tickets (with cash, I think), another hallmark of the suicide jihadi attackers.
It makes you wonder if the airlines and the TSA changed anything after 9/11.
All I can say is, I'm not flying and won't.
If I can't get there by car, forget it!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 1:29:37 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 1:29:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 A recant on a single point -- the mention of the incident of the Arabs lunching was a mistake on my part: I had confused an incident commented on by a different blogger in regards to Jacobsen's article with Jacobsen's own words. So you can scratch that out with apologies.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 1:44:02 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:44:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 "Katsaris, your whole argument is based on the presence of air marshals and their having the plane under their control, yet there was no sighting of marshals being there at all in Jacobsen's account."

Which is kinda the point of "undercover" but if you'd followed the link I provided you'd go to the statements of the Federal Air Marshall's (named) spokesman who said quite clearly that there were several air marshalls on the plane who kept an eye on the Syrians and had decided that they would remain undercover, and which were more concerned with Jacobsen's own dangerous actions.

Crawford> Why does anyone treat Aris with anything but the contempt he deserves?

Whenever people disagree with you on which people are contemptible and which people aren't, that must certainly be evidence of a global conspiracy to piss you off, rather than signs of different people using different criteria than you in their judgment of other people.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 1:50:35 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:50:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Krapsaris,Robert Crawford is right--you are majorly pissing me off.
The air marshals are clearly ineffectual and were afraid to do anything on that plane and as an American who watched 3,000 of my fellow citizens killed in cold blood on live TV, I don't appreciate you denigrating our collective informed fear!
The Muslim terrorists want to kill us again.
They want to kill more of us.
And they're going to keep trying.
To discredit this particular incident is getting you nowhere, but it's emblematic of the whole French/EU attitude that America is making stuff up about the whole war.
Fuck you, Aris and the rest of the French--laughing at we Yanks while they burn EUrope down behind your backs.
During WWII, the Greeks said nothing when the Nazis came to cart your Jews off to the camps.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 1:57:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 1:57:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 GreatJen: All I can say is, I'm not flying and won't.

The moment the pilot squawks 'hijacking', you can be sure to see F-16s in a matter of minutes. Depending on the plane's flight path and behavior, this probably means that you're dead anyway, no matter what happens in the cabin, and no matter how many security measures have been put in place by the airlines or TSA.

So, in a way you're right. If I had a choice between flying and driving, I would drive. Flying is a risky business. But then again, it always has been.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-26 2:00:50 PM|| 2004-07-26 2:00:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Whenever people disagree with you on which people are contemptible and which people aren't, that must certainly be evidence of a global conspiracy to piss you off, rather than signs of different people using different criteria than you in their judgment of other people.

And whenever people show more concern over a threat than you do, it must be because they're racists and paranoid, right?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-26 2:23:55 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-07-26 2:23:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 "Krapsaris,Robert Crawford is right--you are majorly pissing me off."

And I should care because I respect what you think of me? Or perhaps because *you* had respect for me in the past? You are in a constant state of being pissed off with people who disagree with you, Jen: Nothing's different now.

"The air marshals are clearly ineffectual and were afraid to do anything on that plane"

They seemed quite effective to me. And I saw no sign of fear in their described actions.

"and as an American who watched 3,000 of my fellow citizens killed in cold blood on live TV, I don't appreciate you denigrating our collective informed fear!"

I didn't denigrate your collective informed fear. I denigrated some people's seeming incapacity for rational thought.

"The Muslim terrorists want to kill us again. They want to kill more of us. And they're going to keep trying."

True, true and true.

"To discredit this particular incident is getting you nowhere, but it's emblematic of the whole French/EU attitude that America is making stuff up about the whole war."

When people told the little boy, "Don't cry wolf", they weren't implying that wolves didn't exist, nor were they implying that wolves weren't actually trying to eat his sheep, nor did they mean to say that wolves aren't dangerous.

It was the opposite: Wolves *were* dangerous, and wolves *might* try to eat his sheep, which was all the more reason not to overreact or lie. If all passengers tended to overreact like Jacobsen did, and all flights had to deal with wackos like Jacobsen, please tell me: who would pay attention when a rational person noticed *actual* signs of danger? They would be shrugged off because for every actual case of hijacking you'd have 1000 Jacobsen's to deal with and calm down.

If you don't know how to separate fiction from reality, when reality does come around you won't have the tools to fight it.

Seven people using seven different toilets is somehow a sign of danger? Explain *that* to me, Jen.

"Fuck you, Aris and the rest of the French--laughing at we Yanks while they burn EUrope down behind your backs. During WWII, the Greeks said nothing when the Nazis came to cart your Jews off to the camps."

Greece lost half a million in WW2, so I don't appreciate your denigration of other people's sacrifices either. But I already have the contempt for you that I only reserve for worms, so you can't fall any more in my estimation.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 2:28:09 PM|| 2004-07-26 2:28:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 And whenever people show more concern over a threat than you do, it must be because they're racists and paranoid, right?

This particular person is racist and paranoid, because she has described no reason for her fear other than the skin-color (or if you want to be more accurate, the general ethnic ancestry as seen on their facial features) of the people involved.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 2:31:51 PM|| 2004-07-26 2:31:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 The men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 and killed 3,000 Americans were all Muslims, from Middle Eastern countries, with swarthy skin, dark hair and dark eyes.
Given that their holy book tells them to kill "infidels" with impunity and indeed blessings from their religion, is reason enough to profile Arab Muslim males, with some suspicion being given to Arab Muslim females and others who profess to be Muslims.
Islam is a political system as well as a religion.
To "discriminate" them in racial profiling is neither rascist nor paranoid.
Even it if is, I would rather be safe than sorry and I expect my representatives in Washington to hear about this!
If America can't be "free" enough for these bastards to wage their jihad in my country, that's too bad.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 2:50:55 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 2:50:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Aris, they were a band, but their visas had expired 3 weeks prior.

And I thought after all this, Anne said the people in the band are not who she saw.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-07-26 3:52:43 PM|| 2004-07-26 3:52:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 And nice to see you back, are you going to be our on-site blogger for the Olympics?

Maybe Fred can give you your own area.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-07-26 3:53:24 PM|| 2004-07-26 3:53:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 To "discriminate" them in racial profiling is neither rascist nor paranoid.

Too bad that we are NOT talking about mere discrimination in racial profiling, (which I *haven't* commented on, pro or against), we are talking instead about a woman going completely hysterical in an airplane. And not just that, but then describing her experience (mainly synopsized as "darkies needing to use the bathroom") as if it was a traumatic near-death experience, rather than just feeling relieved (and perhaps slightly embarrassed) that nothing bad happened. Four and half hours of terror, according to her.

And we are also talking about a woman in this forum who is insisting that the air marshals were too ineffective -- but since nothing bad happened in the airplane, I'm not sure how she defines their "ineffectiveness".

They made sure that the Syrian men were no danger -- which means they were obviously ineffective in determining what Jen has determined beyond any possibility of a doubt by the mere fact of reading a single biased one-sided account.

And not just that but also calling US officials cowardly to act on the basis of *nothing*. Are you sure you're not anti-American, Jen? Because in this thread it's me who says that the American officials acted as they should, and it's you who's saying that they didn't.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 4:04:47 PM|| 2004-07-26 4:04:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#57
Aris and others:

There are several lessons to be learned from this little fiasco. #1, no matter what official government policy may be, we understand that in light of 9/11, it is WISE to look askew at ANY "unnatural" conduct made aboard a flight. It is DOUBLY WISE to look askew at unnatural conduct made by Middle Eastern men.

If anyone associated with this flight should be chastised for this instance, its *NOT* Annie (the reporter who relayed the story). Instead, its the flight crew, who acknowledged being concerned, but made no VISIBLE actions to relieve the concerns of those aboard. If flight crews wish us, the flying public, to believe that they have some sort of "authority" while aboard a flight, we damn well expect them to EXERT that authority when the situation demands it.

Finally, it blows me away that anyone can so easily dismiss that all 14 of them were from a terrorist-supporting state, that their visas were expired, and that their conduct fits no known pattern of "normal" flight behavior. Tell me, Aris, when was the last time that you and 13 of your friends took turns congregating at the back of an airline while more or less continuously occupying the onboard bathroom?

I hope to God that the reporting of incidents like this alerts the American people. If the various government agencies and the airline personel are not interested in defending the passengers, I guess we're going to have to do it ourselves.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-26 4:05:51 PM|| 2004-07-26 4:05:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 There is a larger issue that I don't hear discussed much in the duststorm around Jacobsen's article, although it's been hinted at.

Namely, that there is every reason to believe that we are in for decades of global instability and conflict, with terror tactics a likely central player. Since the reasons for a generation or more of conflict are structural to the information revolution, the instability will go on with or without the defeat of Islamacist fundamentalism.

Nanotech may provide an answer to the extreme global imbalances we see in productivity, wealth and freedom, once it matures. The reality is that failed economies and societies (like those that characterize pretty much the entire Muslim world) are going to find it very very difficult to compete successfully even in traditional manufacturing industries; only a truly radical change in production technologies, like nanotech, has any chance of bridging the gap.

But even if the technology were there, the resulting social dislocation would most likely continue to provide an excuse for terror violence against those who have innovated and prospered in the post-industrial world -- and above all, head and shoulders above all, that means the United States.

The result? we - the US and those countries whose success begins to approach ours - will face potential attacks on airlines, railroads, cities, ports and other infrastructure for a long time. So we had better a) take the threat seriously and b) get beyond a single ethnic or other profile in our threat analysis and response.

Ironically, if there are enough successful attacks on e.g. airlines, it will only spur greater innovation on the part of the US. A lot of air travel is for business purposes that could be accomplished other ways, if there were sufficient need. As usual, the terrorists are quite likely to exacerbate the very chasm they resent.

In the meanwhile, the threat of attacks is real and it is not transitory .... so let's get serious about identifying and responding to that threat. Short term hysteria is counterproductive. But so too is the complacency many have as a result of success so far in preventing attempted attacks since 9/11.

Posted by rkb 2004-07-26 4:18:19 PM|| 2004-07-26 4:18:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 rkb - the root cause of terrorism is never poverty. It's often used as an excuse, but you'll never find an impoverished culture or society resorting to terrorism without a very malignant (usually left-wing) idelolgy directing action that way. It's the mindset that espouses terrorism that needs to be targeted, not the poverty itself. And to 'treat' poverty as a response to terrorism is just another form of appeasement...

I'd like to see poverty reduced, sure, but not in any relation whatsoever to violence against the west.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-26 4:25:55 PM|| 2004-07-26 4:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Great points, rkb.
Isn't it ironic and strange that the jihadis can master enough "tech" to put up web sites where they can air beheading videos, but that their nanotech skills, which should have been applied first to improving the scholerotic economies of the Middle East, seem to end there.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-26 4:28:10 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-26 4:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Jen, "nanotech" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means -- it certainly has nothing to do with the Internet or with websites.

rkb> I'll agree with Bulldog on this -- this is religious fascism and imperialism, not poverty's that's to blame. And terrorism is just a means of that religious imperialism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 4:58:31 PM|| 2004-07-26 4:58:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 rkb commented on how poverty was the root cause of Islamist terrorism. It isn't. Zealotry is. Most of the terrorists are relatively well-educated people, literate and able to function in modern societies. Moussaoui, the most dysfunctional of the 9/11 terrorists, had several years of college, more than the average American. Sure, his English is lousy, but his mother tongue is French. Sure, some illiterate Pakistanis and Afghans joined the Taliban as guerrillas as a means of escaping their meager existences. But most of the really capable people - the guys able to do real damage, are, as in the military, pretty sharp people. Arafat, Zarqawi and bin Laden are all engineers. Zawahiri is a doctor. Marwan al-Shehhi, the lead hijacker, had a masters degree in urban planning. These guys are sharp, and they're definitely not going hungry.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 5:00:15 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 5:00:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Aris that last was a cheap shot.
Funny... but a cheap shot.

Beside in the future nano engines will help scholerotic veins.

Posted by Lumpy R 2004-07-26 6:03:54 PM|| 2004-07-26 6:03:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 It is true that the terrorists are not motivated by personal poverty, but rkb is right that there is the larger problem of countries and peoples who can't really compete with western technological societies. These countries and regions are dysfunctional in a variety of ways. They are breeding grounds for extremist ideologies, and I too believe that this phenomenon will endure for decades.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-26 6:08:02 PM|| 2004-07-26 6:08:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#65
This particular person is racist and paranoid, because she has described no reason for her fear other than the skin-color (or if you want to be more accurate, the general ethnic ancestry as seen on their facial features) of the people involved.

Bullshit, Aris. You're ignoring their behavior, which had much more to do with her suspicion AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT INTERROGATION than their skin tone.

But, hey, you gotta cling to that position desperately, eh? Even after you admit you confused what someone ELSE wrote with what Jacobsen wrote.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-07-26 6:24:10 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-07-26 6:24:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 virginian: it is true that the terrorists are not motivated by personal poverty, but rkb is right that there is the larger problem of countries and peoples who can't really compete with western technological societies. These countries and regions are dysfunctional in a variety of ways. They are breeding grounds for extremist ideologies, and I too believe that this phenomenon will endure for decades.

The average Chinese / Cambodian / Vietnamese / Filipino / Indian / Indonesian worker is poorer than most people in Arab countries. The problem isn't poverty - it's an ideology that believes that everything the West ever achieved is based on theft and deceit, and it is the Muslim birthright to recover the fruits of this theft from the West, not by hard work, but by taking it, much as Muhammad's descendants took huge swathes of Central Asia, North Africa and the Levant. They believe in empire, except that when Muslims are doing it, they are merely fulfilling the will of God.

It's like Communism - defeat the ideology by outproducing it, preventing it from taking over any more governments and the danger is over. Communists did not become more radical as they became poorer - they saw the light and came in from the cold. We need to prevent Islamists from becoming stronger, and they will eventually implode from the inside. Think of Afghanistan as the Korean War and Iraq as Vietnam, except this time, we get to win Vietnam, because the Commander-in-Chief does what it takes to win. The War on Terror is like a compressed Cold War, except that we have already won two major campaigns.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 6:45:11 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 6:45:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Zhang Fei, I don't disagree with anything you said. I am just trying to point out that jihadism and dysfunctional states are interrelated problems. I see the Iraq war as an attempt to do something about one of these states.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-26 7:23:00 PM|| 2004-07-26 7:23:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 virginian: Zhang Fei, I don't disagree with anything you said. I am just trying to point out that jihadism and dysfunctional states are interrelated problems. I see the Iraq war as an attempt to do something about one of these states.

Iraq is absolutely part of the solution, but whether or not it is fixed up, Muslim governments have taken notice - if they tolerate terrorist movements, they may suffer Saddam's fate. What I was pointing out is the zealotry, not dysfunction is the problem - Saudi Arabia, one of the richest states in Islam, is the biggest incubator of terrorists around, whereas Indonesia, one of the poorest and most dysfunctional Muslim states is not, along with Cameroun, Senegal or any of the other poverty-stricken African Muslim states. The problem isn't poverty - it's zealotry.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 7:39:06 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 7:39:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 The issue with recognizing that zealotry is the problem is this becomes a war with Islam - not all of it certainly - but that's how it will be perceived by the other side. This is why we beat about the bush with excuses like WMD's, human rights violations, et al. Better to skirt over the whole issue. Muslim rulers will get the message. And by and large, they have, which accounts for their improved cooperation with the US. The only thing they need to understand is that they want to stay off the enemies list. When September 11 occurred, Afghanistan and Iraq were on that list. Libya got itself off that list by cooperating on WMD's. The next country on that list will be hit if another big event like 9/11 occurs in the continental US. This time, the target will likely be Iran - and Gaddafi will be congratulating himself that he made a deal before the new atrocity occurred.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-26 7:48:29 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-26 7:48:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Disregarding any misguided notions about connections between poverty and terrorism, rkb's point still stands about the technology gulf and increased productivity's link to quality of life. I applaud virginian's synopsis of that topic.

Zhang Fei, as usual, you are calling the shots rather well. Zealotry is the core issue. Your comparison to communism is absolutely SPOT-ON. All of your analogies apply and we are fighting the same sort of virulently infectious meme.

The longer Islam waits to purge violent jihadis from their ranks, the more this becomes an actual war on Islam. Muslims of every stripe seem both unable and unwilling to comprehend this simple fact. They seem to believe the mantle of religious freedom that has so graciously been draped over them by free-thinking Western societies will not be withdrawn after a sufficient number of atrocities. Islam is in for a rude awakening. The longer they remain somnolent about this simple fact, the worse their casualties will be when the gloves come off.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-26 8:44:41 PM|| 2004-07-26 8:44:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 It is true that Saudi Arabia is not exactly dysfunctional. It functions as a medieval state. Unfortunately in the context of modern technological civilzation, that simply won't do. It can't maintain its own technically complex oil infrastructure without foreign assistance. It uses its vast wealth to export a medieval ideology. It's not dysfunctional, it's not exactly a rogue state, it's not exactly a failed state, but it's definitely a problem state.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-26 8:58:28 PM|| 2004-07-26 8:58:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 I am obliged to disagree, virginian. Because financing and facilitation of terrorism extends to the very highest levels within the House of Saud, it most definitely qualifies as a Rogue State.

Whether it is Prince Turki al-Faisal's links to bin Laden and mullah Omar or Crown Prince Abdullah attributing al Qaeda operations to Zionist conspiracy, all levels of Saudi society appear to be ~~infested~~ invested with the sort of credulous mindset only a dictator could love.

The House of Saud's deal with the Wahabbist devil is most damning of all. Their unrestrained preaching of anti-west dogma to each year's successive rank of recruits (many flown in at the Royals' expense on their private jets), is precisely what has bred up this massive popular base of Islamic support for terrorism.

Saudi Arabia has much to answer for. While American petrochemical investment helped propel the House of Saud into control, it in no way excuses such flaccid internal security regarding an internal threat to a putatively vital ally.

Should it turn out America has never been regarded (or treated) as a significant global ally, then that becomes proof positive of duplicitous intent all along. All differences between traitor and rogue state dissolve at that point. Saudi Arabia has been on an asymptotic approach to that barrier of dissolution for decades. At some point their intimate proximity to so much of terrorism's operative and financial baseline erodes any distinction between the two.

When do they reach that place? I think they're beyond the point of no return as it stands. The doubly ingrained sense of entitlement that results from, not only Islam's putative pre-existing claim upon much of the world's civilization, but also from the Saudi Royals' profligate lifestyle has galvanized an entire society into a gold-plated Midas mentality despite the near-total absence of skill base or recent achievements.

Only the most irresponsible sort of pseudo-leadership willingly allows their subjects to stagnate so abjectly in the midst of so much wealth. It has served as a form of control to segregate the average Saudi citizen from all mission critical work in the refineries. While this is now coming back to haunt them, it remains totally addictive as a way of preventing significant interference with the flow of wealth into the royal treasury.

The House of Saud has single-handedly spawned a most vicious form of pseudo-religious intolerance all through the craven desire for material gain and little else. America did not inculcate this modus operendi either by suggestion or example. As all of the terrorist pigeons finally come home to roost the Royals will be buried, not with sand or soil, but guano.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-26 10:13:09 PM|| 2004-07-26 10:13:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Ok, call it a rogue state then. (Sorry this thread has gotten so off topic, but since probably nobody's reading it at this point, who cares?) It's difficult to find a common term for all the types of dysfunction and roguery that abound in the world. The point is, Islamic terrorism and bad state actors are an intertwined problem. There are many, some having a convention tonight, who would have us believe that they will restore the proper perspective to our foreign policy, in which the WoT is a low intensity conflict, best handled by law enforcement and maybe a few special forces. They get away with this false shift of perspective by decoupling terrorism from state actors. In reality we are or eventually will be in conflict with a number of these states, not just the terrorists that they support.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-26 10:58:22 PM|| 2004-07-26 10:58:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 All points well made, virginian.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-26 11:01:55 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:01:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Please excuse me, this point was not properly made:

The House of Saud's deal with the Wahabbist devil is most damning of all. Their unrestrained preaching of anti-west dogma to each year's successive rank of recruits (many flown in at the Royals' expense on their private jets), is precisely what has bred up this massive popular base of Islamic support for terrorism.

I meant to point out that the House of Saud flies in all these raw novitiates FOR EACH NEW HAJ without ensuring that they are not infected with the Islamist meme. They surrender these greenhorns over to people they know to be the most anti-American of all. That is duplicity and I'm confident that we are in violent agreement, virginian.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-26 11:09:01 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:09:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Some of the comments above remind me why I keep telling people to check out Rantburg. Good discussion.

As much as it pains me, I think I mostly agree with Aris. Some things about this 'Syrian musician-hijackers' story just sounded fishy.

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-07-26 11:19:02 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:19:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 *sigh* Nobody watches Airline on A&E, I guess. Good show I tell ya.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-26 11:26:29 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:26:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Yeah, every casino I've ever been to isn't complete without a real good Syrian orchestra. It's just the icing on the cake.

Posted by tu3031 2004-07-26 11:54:56 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:54:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 Les Nessman: Sure, you could say it "sounds fishy". But I could remind you:

1) They overstayed their visas;
2) They behaved in a manner that cannot even be pretended to be "normal passenger behavior";
3) The Federal Air Marshalls released a statement this morning backing Annie's version of the events, and concluding that she was right to raise a concern.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-27 12:04:50 PM|| 2004-07-27 12:04:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Crusader
1. Yep, that is bad. Of course, so do tens of thousands of other foreigners, because they know the INS won't do shit about it.
2. Yep, I agree.
3. She was right to 'raise a concern'. I would have 'raised a concern', too. My spidey-sense is tingling due to the way she describes some of the details, and the supposedly 'obvious' 'fact' that these guys were truly 100% terrorists.

I'm telling you; I would be very suprised if the events happened exactly like Annie said. I'll bet you a dollar it did not happen exactly as she said.

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-07-28 12:32:38 AM|| 2004-07-28 12:32:38 AM|| Front Page Top

01:07 Islamic sand babboons
01:39 Seafarious
01:34 .com
01:23 .com
01:07 Islamic sand babboons TROLL
00:56 Allah Is A Cave Nigger TROLL
02:31 Anonymous6371
12:58 Anil
19:49 Jarhead
19:23 Allah Eats Shit With A Spoon
19:18 Anonymous5929
00:32 Les Nessman
12:04 Crusader
08:43 CSI :Baghdad
00:54 Super Hose
00:48 Super Hose
00:42 Super Hose
00:27 RMcLeod
00:08 Rafael
00:05 OldSpook
00:01 GreatestJeneration
23:59 MrO
23:59 GreatestJeneration
23:59 A Jackson