BF2S Forums "What's the safest seat on a plane?" Muslim family kicked off plane

Dilbert_X wrote:

Simple maths, LOL as much as you like.

Oklahoma - One operative killed 168 people on practically nil budget, and survived, for a while.
9/11 - 19 people killed 2,974 people, thats 156 people per operative, on a multi-million dollar budget

In terms of terror effectiveness the most effective terrorist remains a white christian US army veteran.
Not that I'm condoning terrorism, just remember this when you're stereo-typing moslems.

Alright.
But that is a kind of demented point..

9/11>okc bombing hands down as far as overall impact

I remember Mr mcveigh well though, first major terror attack on my country in my lifetime. Done by a right wing 'christian boy'....they refitted the federal building in my town because of that; in fact many federal buildings, made them less truck accessible.
I'm good with the fact  he was executed

And I'm not "scurred by the mooslims" at all, but a person could google lists of' terrorist attacks by muslims' and get a long.. list, vs the other demographics.

Just sayin.

Just making the point that right wing christian nutballs have just as much potential.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Those evil mooslums, they're always the turrists.
You can spot them cuz they're dark and shit.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … cveigh.jpg

The most effective terrorist to attack America is still a white Christian Gulf-War veteran.

Per person, yes.  The Oklahoma City Bombing killed 168 people and injured 800.

9/11 killed 2,998 people and injured about 6,291 -- however, this was carried out by 19 hijackers, so that puts the numbers per terrorist at about 158 deaths and about 331 injured.

However, if we include Terry Nichols alongside with Timothy McVeigh in the OK city bombings, then the most deaths and injuries per person still go to the 9/11 terrorists.

Also, if we consider that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden and the hijackers was to trick us into making enemies out of friends, then he was a lot more successful than McVeigh at weakening us as a nation.  We didn't enter a crazy war as a result of the OK bombings.  Also, we didn't enter an age of paranoia-induced big brother bullshit after them either.

Still, you are correct that a white ex-military terrorist would be best suited in flying under the radar before committing a terror act.

Turquoise wrote:

Also, if we consider that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden and the hijackers was to trick us into making enemies out of friends, then he was a lot more successful than McVeigh at weakening us as a nation.  We didn't enter a crazy war as a result of the OK bombings.  Also, we didn't enter an age of paranoia-induced big brother bullshit after them either.

Still, you are correct that a white ex-military terrorist would be best suited in flying under the radar before committing a terror act.

You can't measure the effectiveness of a terrorist from the body count imo, the goal of a terrorist is to create terror. And when you look at that, the 9/11 terrorists were the most effective. As you say turq, "we didn't enter an age of paranoia-induced big brother bullshit after them either."

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Guilty by irrational paranoia and suspicion. Guilty until proven innocent. Land of the free. lol

/I know it's not fair to characterise the US by this one indiscretion.

Yeah well I remember a time before 911 where we, as Americans, were FREE and trusted. We were allowed to take our children into the cockpits so they could talk to the pilots and such. We WERE FREE and trusting. It was the rest of the world that betrayed our trust and our freedoms and used them against us. If you wanna "sue" someone sue those responsible for that betrayal.

You will mock us for not being as free as we were, then condemn us for being stupid, naive and trusting which allowed the attacks to happen. Good stuff Cam.

Yes, the "rest of the world" is to blame. You always manage to top yourself, lowing.

If I were you I wouldn't address the intended context of the post either.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Aussiereaper wrote:

You can't measure the effectiveness of a terrorist from the body count imo, the goal of a terrorist is to create terror.

Reckon 19 Oklahoma bombings on the same day would have been more effective than 9/11

And when you look at that, the 9/11 terrorists were the most effective. As you say turq, "we didn't enter an age of paranoia-induced big brother bullshit after them either."

Why didn't the US go into paranoia mode after Oklahoma?
Why did they after 9/11.

Different agendas I guess, and not so much oil wherever McVeigh came from.

I reckon the safest seat on the plane is the one right next to the muslims.
Then you can beat the living crap out of them if they start anything up.

I'm sorry...did you live here in the states after the OKC bombing?

Obviously not. Every fringe white-supremacist group in the country had the FBI crawling up their asses with a microscope, 20/20 and 48hrs doing "exposes" on the white supremacist lifestyle, and on and on.

Pesky facts don't fit your agenda...too bad.

so, the appropriate P.C. response to "what's the safest seat on a plane?"  isn't "The one without a muslim in it, asking strange questions".

Okay.

Cleared that right up, then.

/sarcasm

That's outrageous. But what can you expect from a plane full of caucasians who are paranoid about terrorists? - not condoning the action, but we all know that it's happened more than once. If there are more terror attacks, the more this will happen in planes and in every other place.

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

If I were you I wouldn't address the intended context of the post either.

Why would I address an opinion of yours that I know will never change? The world betrayed America. Wow.

Look the point was, we used to be a trusting free country. Now we are less so due to GLOBAL events.  I was addressing Cam's mocking the US about our freedoms.

Most global events are shaped by the most powerful countries. The rest of the world didn't let the US down. The state of the world as contributed to by every country, including the US, is what's responsible for the way the US percieves itself in terms of security today. Saying that the rest of the world is responsible for the problems in the US nothing short of stupid.

Or are you trying to tell me that the US has absolutely nothing to do with the outside world?

As for freedoms in the US, it's still wholly controlled by the US itself. Cam was mocking the heavy-handed overkilling, paranoia and mass-hysteria that the US ended up instilling itself. Remember, both extremes can be wrong if the right approach is in the middle.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-01-04 06:44:41)

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

Look the point was, we used to be a trusting free country. Now we are less so due to GLOBAL events.  I was addressing Cam's mocking the US about our freedoms.

Most global events are shaped by the most powerful countries. The rest of the world didn't let the US down. The state of the world as contributed to by every country, including the US, is what's responsible for the way the US percieves itself in terms of security today. Saying that the rest of the world is responsible for the problems in the US nothing short of stupid.

Or are you trying to tell me that the US has absolutely nothing to do with the outside world?

As for freedoms in the US, it's still wholly controlled by the US itself. Cam was mocking the heavy-handed overkilling, paranoia and mass-hysteria that the US ended up instilling itself. Remember, both extremes can be wrong if the right approach is in the middle.

Nope what I am saying is America was pretty much a care free, relaxed place to live until terrorism hit us. I know a very controversial opinion

And you're blaming the rest of the world? Listen, lowing, if I went out and bombed my neighbours home, I'd be pretty stupid to leave my doors unlocked. It's very easy to create a utopia if you don't expect people to react to your actions.

Terrorists didn't attack the US because they "hate our freedom."

Last edited by mikkel (2009-01-04 06:49:14)

Zimmer wrote:

That's outrageous. But what can you expect from a plane full of caucasians who are paranoid about terrorists? - not condoning the action, but we all know that it's happened more than once. If there are more terror attacks, the more this will happen in planes and in every other place.

Wow...that's pretty stereotypical. I've never flown on a "plane full of caucasians" out of National. Normally, they're full of a pretty good mix of white, black, asian, hispanic, American and non-American passengers.

A pilot reacts to another passenger's concern, an airline overreacts and pisses on these peoples' rights as customers...but it's a racial thing now.

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

That's outrageous. But what can you expect from a plane full of caucasians who are paranoid about terrorists? - not condoning the action, but we all know that it's happened more than once. If there are more terror attacks, the more this will happen in planes and in every other place.

Wow...that's pretty stereotypical. I've never flown on a "plane full of caucasians" out of National. Normally, they're full of a pretty good mix of white, black, asian, hispanic, American and non-American passengers.

A pilot reacts to another passenger's concern, an airline overreacts and pisses on these peoples' rights as customers...but it's a racial thing now.

I know it's stereotypical, but that is precisely what the description you would put to the incident. I should have referred to "anyone but a muslim" instead of caucasians. That is generally what I meant. People are scared shitless right now and will find any excuse to persecute muslims like this.

Now, when I refer to "people", I mean in the generalised form.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Aussiereaper wrote:

You can't measure the effectiveness of a terrorist from the body count imo, the goal of a terrorist is to create terror.

Reckon 19 Oklahoma bombings on the same day would have been more effective than 9/11

Well, to be fair, 19 Oklahoma bombings would take out a large portion of Oklahoma's population.  They're not the most populous state.  It's kind of the middle of nowhere.

The 9/11 terrorists attacked major population centers for a reason.  It gets more media coverage, and it scares people even more than what happened with the OKC bombings.

It would be like the difference between a group of terrorists attacking Perth and a group of terrorists attacking Sydney.  Sydney would obviously garner more attention.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And when you look at that, the 9/11 terrorists were the most effective. As you say turq, "we didn't enter an age of paranoia-induced big brother bullshit after them either."

Why didn't the US go into paranoia mode after Oklahoma?
Why did they after 9/11.

Different agendas I guess, and not so much oil wherever McVeigh came from.

I reckon the safest seat on the plane is the one right next to the muslims.
Then you can beat the living crap out of them if they start anything up.

You're right that it was a different agenda.  McVeigh wasn't a foreign force.  I think you'll find that most countries, America and everybody else, get more freaked out by foreign attacks than from domestic ones.  I'm sure the differences in responses would be similar with Australia.

Imagine if some white supremists attacked Perth, and then a few years later, a group of foreign Muslims attacked Sydney.  Australia wouldn't necessarily enter a war over the second incident, but they'd surely respond more drastically from it than from the first attack.

Also, keep in mind that we had previous attacks from foreign Muslims.  Al Quida had tried to blow up the WTC before in 1993, there were a few embassy bombings, and then there was the attack on the USS Cole.  All of these things eventually led to a more drastic response by us from 9/11.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-04 10:11:21)