the moonites scare

[tofu]

If you hadn't heard, earlier this week the cartoon network did a promotion for a show called _Aqua Teen Hunger Force_ in several cities including Boston, NY, and Chicago. Basically, they put light-brites with a cartoon character on them around the city. In almost every city, it was no big deal. But in Boston, they are apparently IDIOTS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kdP8WBB4lI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ6oBNW156o&mode=related&search=


"they thought it was a bomb"

yes, because if you're going to plant a bomb somewhere, YOURE GOING TO COVER IT WITH LED LIGHTS!

are people really this stupid??

[Nowhere Man]

Yes, they are, and IMHO on both sides. Why didn't the network or ad agency tell the city government and police that they were going to be putting up stuff that will scare those who don't think?

Edit to add: Thanks to Hollywood, everyone knows that bombs are covered with blinking lights and countdown timers...

Fred

[aurora]

Yes, they are, and IMHO on both sides. Why didn't the network or ad agency tell the city government and police that they were going to be putting up stuff that will scare those who don't think?

Edit to add: Thanks to Hollywood, everyone knows that bombs are covered with blinking lights and countdown timers...

Fred

Maybe because it wouldn't have been allowed?

Not sure, but maybe you can't just put stuff up on or over a highway wherever you want?

[Dragon Star]

I think it's absolutly hilarious.

Terrorists win again...

[mugaliens]

...except they were marketers, not terrorists. Tofu, I'm with you.

I sure am glad you raised this issue - I've been itching to raise it but was afraid of the backlash. Regardless, this issue must be raised and appropriately addressed.

The issue involves several sub-issues which must be addressed:

First, governmental agencies are hair-trigger happy to respond to any perceived threat, in large part due to the 9/11 event. That's a given, and quite understandable, provided they do so wisely. Boston's hair-trigger response and subsequent cover-up, however, was both foolish and hugely deceptive (CYA) in nature.

Second, yes, the marketers should have informed the city of their intentions as a precautionary measure given the times. Thus, they should be held liable, in part (only in part, the rest explained, below), for not taking reasonable precautions along this line. If the two guys who'll only answer questions about hair from the 1970s were in fact hired by CNN, then CNN should foot the bill. They can certainly afford it. The marketers can't.

Third, the fact that the signs were place in 9 cities and ONLY Boston responded in this fashion, particularly in light of the hastily dispatched letter from CNN saying, "yeah, we did it," and Boston's reply of "well, that's just one of the many leads we're following at this time," is also very telling, namely of their intentional obfuscation of the issue. The other cities reacted rationally. Boston did not, and as courts usually require a "rational man" approach, I sincerely hope they shut the heck up, admit their mistake, and stop wasting the taxpayer's money by trying to take this thing to court. They goofed up, the country knows it, and the best thing they can do at this point is to admit it and move on. NOTHING will be accomplished by continuing down the current path they're own except to validate that mindless, trigger-happy reactions are "ok." They're not ok, particular when you've been given several weeks to think about one's reaction (the signs were in place for several weeks before Boston responded in the manner they did).

Quite frankly, when a leading city such as Boston receives a communique from a leading organization such as CNN claiming ownership of the event, and proceeds to spend additional millions of dollars "defusing the 'devices,' they're simply highlighting their own stupidity and the funds should be extracted from the salaries of the idiots involved in the decision-making, not the fine tax-paying citizens of Boston.

Forth, they're labeling the signs as "devices," particularly with a characterization that "it contains all the components of an explosive device, but without the explosives," is totally pure CYA fodder and should recognized as such. A "We overreacted" message would have been readily accepted by the general public, but this crap is NOT.

My watch has more "explosive device" components than did the signs, as does every TV, computer, radio, vehicle, and cell phone in the entire world. Every stoplight on the planet qualifies, too, but I don't see Boston's EOD team blowing up stoplights or raiding BestBuy stores, do you? The sheer paranoia and mania here long ago exceeded believable limits.

Who in the world is Boston trying to fool, here? Sure, they're ridiculously stupid - they proved that in their gross overreaction and subsequent muffed attempts to cover up their ineptitudes (very plural) by blaming others when the other eight cities recognized the signs for what they were - signs. But are they so ridiculously stupid to believe they could actually pull the wool over the eyes of the public at larger and claim that they were muffed terrorist attempts, or, more diminuatively, that their gross over-reactions were somehow justified and that someone else must pay? This is akin to the idiot who spilled hot coffee on her lap and sued McDonalds for millions.

Um... DUH!

This entire fiasco has grossly exceeded my tolerance levels for sanity, and I'm a reasonably patient individual.

Yes, there was a need for some response once the presence of the signs was reported. But to go to the ridiculously excessive lengths that they did, and engage the subsequent coverups and counterblames, merely highlights the fact that the Bostonian government has lost all touch with reality, it's citizenry, and has forfeited the sympathy of the general populus.

In two words: They suck!

And to think that I actually wanted to move to Boston at one time. Well, that's about as historical as Boston itself, in light of their "leadership's" ridiculous responses to very benign "potentially explosive, but without the explosive" objects, millions of which are present in the city at any given moment.

Man! I still can't fathom their dunderheadedness. That's just so over the top. It's like someone bloodying one's head by slamming it against a wall because he can't find the key to the door and he's late for a meeting.

This entire response is definately a prime candidate for the Darwin Award.

Really! How could ANYONE be so STUPID?

I've a couple of related vids I'd like to link to on YouTube, but unfortunately, they contain foul language, so I'll not go there. However, they tell the picture more succinctly than I.

[Jigsaw]

What I heard on a news site somewhere was that when the devices first went up, the LEDs weren't turned on yet, so all you saw was a black box and some wires, all attached to things like highway overpasses. So actually I'm not surprised that some folks took it for a bomb, because quite frankly it wouldn't occur to me that it might just be a publicity stunt--I'd have assumed that, lacking an obvious camera taking pictures of traffic, it was a bomb, too.

[Chuck]

The terrorists won because they've got us running around in a panic even when they don't do anything. If they were to cease all activity now it would be years before these things stop happening.

Maybe false alarms like this will come to be known as "Boston WMDs". That would amuse me.

[mugaliens]

What I heard on a news site somewhere was that when the devices first went up, the LEDs weren't turned on yet, so all you saw was a black box and some wires, all attached to things like highway overpasses. So actually I'm not surprised that some folks took it for a bomb, because quite frankly it wouldn't occur to me that it might just be a publicity stunt--I'd have assumed that, lacking an obvious camera taking pictures of traffic, it was a bomb, too.

I'm with you, except for the fact that roadside bombs aren't constructed to resemble Lite Bright signs, they contain explosives (sniffible by tens of thousands of trained dogs, more than a few of which are in Boston), and, in general, they're constructed to resemble attention-indifferent material, not attention-gathering material.

In short, these artifacts were erected in 9 cities, only one of which (BOSTON) reacted at all, and grossly over-reacted to cover their grossly over-reacting sorry backsides.

Roadside signs are a dime a dozen in the US. Billboards, etc., whatever.

Couple other issues to consider:

None were placed close enough to cause any danger to traffic if they had actually been bombs.

Ooops.

The bomb-sniffing dogs did not ID these devices as containing any explosives.

OOOPS.

Come on - just how much do you want to try and polish the reputation of an organization that took a high-dive into the proverbial BIG STINK?

Boston messed up, big time. No question about it.

The only out is for them to admit it. Anything else simply adds to them trying to look like a PR campaign gone wild trying to hide the BIG STINK.

[Dragon Star]

...except they were marketers, not terrorists. Tofu, I'm with you.

LOL! Talk about missing the point!:lol:

[Donnie B.]

First of all, in the other nine cities, the guerilla marketers were not stupid enough to place the devices in public areas, along highways and attached to bridges. They were placed in locations like storefronts. No one in those cities called them in as "suspicious devices" because they weren't in suspicious locations.

Second, the situation in Boston was complicated by the discovery of two hoax pipe bombs on the very same day. It is hardly surprising that the authorities reacted aggressively to what seemed to be a coordinated attack, at least for a few hours.

Third, what's the alternative? We're living in a world where people strap explosives around their waists, walk into crowded places, and blow themselves up. Would you really prefer it if the authorities shrugged off reports of suspicious devices attached to critical infrastructure?

I think the Boston authorities reacted properly, given the information available at the time. It's easy to scoff and laugh it off with 20-20 hindsight. It's not such an easy call when you're responsible for the public safety. As one of those who was close enough to be affected by the Boston situation, I say well done -- and throw the book at 'em.

[mugaliens]

Sorry to disagree, but none of the devices were placed in such a way as to cause more than inconvenience damage even if they were high explosives. The reaction of the other eight cities was appropriate. Boston's was not, and their subsequent media coverage is 100% CYA trying to protect political appeal, etc.

Again, the best way they could have done that is to say, "oops, we goofed. Sorry."

That would have been forgotten the next day. Their current response and ridiculous attempts to elevate this to some momentous moment will forever be written in the annuls of stupid governmental tactics.

[Moose]

We're living in a world where people strap explosives around their waists, walk into crowded places, and blow themselves up.

Actually, I have to correct you there, but we really don't. That's why we end up panicking over Lite-brites. It's at best part of the periphery of our "world", but not part of our world itself.

Suicide bombing is part of the world of an "ordinary decent" living in Tel Aviv or Baghdad. Parcel bombs are (or at least were) part of the world of an "ordinary decent" in London. Car bombs are a part of the world of someone living in Belfast, among a few other places. Burkhas and gender-based oppression are part of the world of women living in Afghanistan, and (bluntly) Saudi Arabia. (*This list is by no means complete. I wasn't trying for that, nor could I.)

None of these things are in any way part of the world of some average person living in Boston. That's why all of these false-alarms are such a shock to us and pretty much take a life of their own sometimes.

[Lord Jubjub]

BTW, these signs had been up for TWO WEEKS before somebody alerted to the possibility that they may be bombs.

[mike alexander]

The real crime committed was Making A Public Figure Look Like A Horse's Heinie.

All I could think of was: "Use of unnecessary force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers... has been approved."

[mugaliens]

The real crime committed was Making A Public Figure Look Like A Horse's Heinie.

All I could think of was: "Use of unnecessary force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers... has been approved."

Touche'!

Then again, the Blues Brothers really did a few things wrong. The two marketers really did not, save for the sole task of coordinating their placement with the appropriate authorities (at the very least, the property owners on whose properties they were placed). Still, CNN should pick up the tab.

[TrAI]

What I heard on a news site somewhere was that when the devices first went up, the LEDs weren't turned on yet, so all you saw was a black box and some wires, all attached to things like highway overpasses. So actually I'm not surprised that some folks took it for a bomb, because quite frankly it wouldn't occur to me that it might just be a publicity stunt--I'd have assumed that, lacking an obvious camera taking pictures of traffic, it was a bomb, too.

Actually, I believe they were lighted when they were put up, the video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4DE06lqA34) of the people hanging them up seems to indicate as much, and they were hanging there for weeks... They may have been fitted with light sensitive switches or maybe the batteries had been depleted by the time they were reported, however. Unlighted it would pretty much look like a LED traffic sign that was not in use, I would think...

On a more general point, I really think media should get better at how to use words when they refer to incidents. This is not a "bomb hoax" as that implies that someone intended for the devices to be taken as bombs. It was not a "bomb threat" as nobody actualy threatened with bombs. I am not even convinced it is right to call it a "bomb scare" as that is to open to interpretation. Perhaps something like "suspected bombs"?

However, it is understandable that the authorities would want not to take any chances in cases like this. I have seen some people saying things to the effect that "terrorists would not make bombs looking like lite brite pictures of cartoon characters", and that is kind of true, usualy I would think it is prefrable that explosive devices are as low key as possible, so they are not detected before they do what they are designed to do. There are exceptions though, when the devices are ment to be seen, like when someone puts bombs in toys and such things. Of course, these pictures were hanging in places that were a bit too far of the ground to be intended as such.

[mugaliens]

On a more general point, I really think media should get better at how to use words when they refer to incidents.

Well said. The media was over-reporting the event every bit as much as the city officials of Boston were doing the CYA dance trying to remove the egg on their faces for being so foolish.

[tofu]

The media was over-reporting the event every bit as much as the city officials of Boston were doing the CYA dance trying to remove the egg on their faces for being so foolish.

The problem with the media is the 24-hour news network. I think it's time we admit that a 24-hour news network is a bad idea. They run out of important things to report, so they seize on something - anything at all, just so they'll have something to put on the air.
Case in point, how many people were taken by sharks last year in Florida? I actually don't have any idea. I presume it's the same number that are taken every year. Since it was the same as it always is, you didn't see it reported on the news. After all, "same as always" doesn't fit the definition of news. But I remember several years ago we got wall-to-wall coverage of shark attacks for about a month. Then later we come to find out that this was nothing special. There wasn't an increase in attacks. It's just that the media didn't have anything better to report.

So because they were bored, they scared a lot of people.

They also have a cyclical love affair with violent video games. But that's not news either. I should never turn on CNN and see a "report" about violent video games.

The solution, I think, is to do away with CNN et. al. and just have news websites. That doesn't fix the problem with Boston's government, but it would I think fix the media over-reporting problem.

[Doodler]

Third, what's the alternative? We're living in a world where people strap explosives around their waists, walk into crowded places, and blow themselves up. Would you really prefer it if the authorities shrugged off reports of suspicious devices attached to critical infrastructure?

Some time ago, in or about 2003, I was having a conversation of that nature with someone, and I told them I'd rather take my grandkids to see the fourth reconstruction of the Washington Monument freely, than pass through a security cordon to see the first one.

[BigDon]

The terrorists won because ...


They "won" did they? Does this mean you're going to dress your daughter like a beekeeper and murder your sister for talking to someone you don't know?
Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Mister Earl]

Some time ago, in or about 2003, I was having a conversation of that nature with someone, and I told them I'd rather take my grandkids to see the fourth reconstruction of the Washington Monument freely, than pass through a security cordon to see the first one.

Would you feel the same way if dozens were killed each time the monument were damaged? It's too easy to say security is getting out of hand when you forget the many people dead due to the lack of it.

[aurora]

Somehow I always thought that, if the terrorists won, it would be something more impressive than a litebright.

http://www.cc.utah.edu/~bb6078/litebright.html

[captain swoop]

Actually, I have to correct you there, but we really don't. That's why we end up panicking over Lite-brites. It's at best part of the periphery of our "world", but not part of our world itself.

Suicide bombing is part of the world of an "ordinary decent" living in Tel Aviv or Baghdad.

And London. Tube trains and a bus blown up by suicide bombers.

Six failed suicide bombers on trial at the moment. They only failed because their detonators weren't big enough to set off the main charges otherwise another bunch of busses and tube trains would have been blown up.

[BigDon]

Cool link aurora, I book marked it for later.

[mike alexander]

For the record, they're 'Mooninites', not 'Moonites'.

And we need some sort of balance on stuff like this. or we're going to end up closing a city every time someone notices that a neon sign is a light connected by wires to a buzzing box.

[Doodler]

Would you feel the same way if dozens were killed each time the monument were damaged? It's too easy to say security is getting out of hand when you forget the many people dead due to the lack of it.

Yes, I would.

Do I want to live free with the possibility that someone might just end up blasting me to smithereens, or do I want to live in a police state where I get biometrically scanned in order to check my mail at the Post Office?

The problem with the police state is that the only viable assumption is that anyone and everyone could be the enemy, if you're going to defend a nation based under the aegis of equal scrutiny under the law (i.e., no racial profiling). This throws the very idea of innocence until proven guilty out the window. Any presumption of innocence becomes a hole in the security shield you're trying to establish, so you have to assume I'm guilty until cross checking confirms my innocence.

Pass thanks. I'd rather die than live in that country.

[Moose]

And London. Tube trains and a bus blown up by suicide bombers.

And London. Londoners have learned how to go back to their ordinary lives before the dust has had time to settle, am I right? That's something I've always admired about you guys. It's a sort of stoicism I've always tried to emulate.

[Chuck]

They "won" did they? Does this mean you're going to dress your daughter like a beekeeper and murder your sister for talking to someone you don't know?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Terrorists want to terrify people. We're obviously terrified. Mission accomplished.

[Donnie B.]

I won't say "I told you so"... okay, yes I will.

Turner Broadcasting agreed to pay $2,000,000 to Massachusetts today, as compensation for the expenses incurred by various agencies in this incident. In so doing, they explicitly acknowledged that the response by Boston authorities was not excessive.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley stated publicly that the settlement was larger than they would have expected to realize in any possible legal action against Turner. This suggests that Turner didn't simply pay off the state to avoid a court battle.

The case of the two men charged criminally is still unresolved, but is expected to be settled by negotiation.

[Moose]

This suggests that Turner didn't simply pay off the state to avoid a court battle.

Saving them years of scandal. The loss of goodwill in trying to stonewall would cost way more than 2,000,000, not to mention the publicity. Everyone and their dog knows what a Mooninite is now.

That "Boston's response was not an overreaction" statement is magnanimous as all heck on the part of Turner. "Everybody knows" that that sort of statement as part of a settlement is code for almost the exact opposite.

Ted Turner may as well have pat the Boston Chief of Police on the head and sent him off to play with his toy cops.

[Doodler]

Ted Turner may as well have pat the Boston Chief of Police on the head and sent him off to play with his toy cops.

There's an awesome visual. :)

Ted's got his flaws, but I respect his business sense.

[Fazor]

Okay, sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read yet another article on this at cnn.com, and I just can't take it anymore. Why on earth did they think they were bombs? *sigh*

I guess that's just the mentality people have anymore. I know when I was working security downtown there was an incident where a guy waiting for a bus sat his duffel bag down in front of our (government) building, and walked a few feet away. After a while, it looked like it was an abandoned bag. Of course, everyone coming in/out of the building were coming up to us concerned that someone was about to bomb us. (Oh no!). Not that we weren't appreciative of the help they thought they were providing; but it made me think. 6 years ago, nobody would have even noticed a bag. But today, they all go crazy over the slightest mis-placed item. *shrugs*

[Neverfly]

Its not such a bad thing though... Concern that MAY just save a life. Id rather hear fifty times in an hour from passersby noting the bag- then to not hear anyone point it out. In these Times people have become more aware of threats around us.. Like little marmots on the prairie poking our snouts in the air, peeking at every rustle in the grass...

[Fazor]

Its not such a bad thing though... Concern that MAY just save a life. Id rather hear fifty times in an hour from passersby noting the bag- then to not hear anyone point it out. In these Times people have become more aware of threats around us.. Like little marmots on the prairie poking our snouts in the air, peeking at every rustle in the grass...

I'm not against that. I'm against charging so much in damages. Although I don't see why they weren't fined for posting unauthorized signs, which has to be an offense.

[Neverfly]

I'm not against that. I'm against charging so much in damages. Although I don't see why they weren't fined for posting unauthorized signs, which has to be an offense.

You know what?
WHY an offense? unauthorized?
<expletive!!>

What happened to FUN America?

Humor?

Remember the good old days when most people could laugh instead of acting offended?

It seems like no matter what you do or where you go- you have to walk on Eggshells these days or you face a multi-million dollar lawsuit for <Torturous slander> or some nonesuch ridiculous...(mutters incoherently)

I think we have taken this "Safety Factor" too far.
YES its a GOOD thing that people are more concious and aware of Modern threats.

BUT a person advising you of something suspicious- and huge ridiculous lawsuits are too different things.


ETA: It kinda looks like a changed my tune there i think. I didnt so much as I'm saying there are REASONABLE limits. Your comment Fazor reminded me of another angle of looking at this.

[NEOWatcher]

... but it made me think. 6 years ago, nobody would have even noticed a bag. But today, they all go crazy over the slightest mis-placed item. *shrugs*
I beg to differ...but look at the 1996 Olympics. An unattended bag was discovered and bomb disposal called before any threat was made.

What I fault in this situation is:
- Why not let a nearby business owner in on it in case of a problem?
- Yes; it would be different 6 years ago; but, the people who placed the devices weren't living under a rock for 6 years, and should have some idea that people are touchier nowadays.
- Why not have some identifying mark, phone number, company or some very inconspicuous mark for authorities to follow up with. The general public wouldn't know or care or even notice.
- if it were for marketing, then how would somebody not familiar with the show (which would be your intended audience) know what it is.

This all adds up in my mind that it was only a stunt to gain news, and not marketing as they claim. Free publicity is not always free, and at $2M I think they are getting off a lot cheaper than if they spent the money for equivalent publicity.

[Neverfly]

I beg to differ...but look at the 1996 Olympics. An unattended bag was discovered and bomb disposal called before any threat was made.

What I fault in this situation is:
- Why not let a nearby business owner in on it in case of a problem?
- Yes; it would be different 6 years ago; but, the people who placed the devices weren't living under a rock for 6 years, and should have some idea that people are touchier nowadays.
- Why not have some identifying mark, phone number, company or some very inconspicuous mark for authorities to follow up with. The general public wouldn't know or care or even notice.
- if it were for marketing, then how would somebody not familiar with the show (which would be your intended audience) know what it is.

This all adds up in my mind that it was only a stunt to gain news, and not marketing as they claim. Free publicity is not always free, and at $2M I think they are getting off a lot cheaper than if they spent the money for equivalent publicity.


No matter HOW popular a product or show is- there will be those unfamiliar with it. I even know the Teen titans and could probably rattle off at least half of the theme song....

As far as a STUNT to get publicity? Highly Unlikely. The signs were VERY OBVIOUS and only ONE city out of six showed ANY concern- i dont doubt the marketers didnt see this ridiculousness comming and are now busily trying to do some CYA in front of their angry bosses.

[Doodler]

I'm not against that. I'm against charging so much in damages. Although I don't see why they weren't fined for posting unauthorized signs, which has to be an offense.

No real fines there for doing it, only if you fail to comply with the order to remove them in the first place, AND you only get tagged with the order if you actually get caught.

Technically, they've broken a local zoning ordnance. Plus it would be possible to classify these little lite brites as something other than a mere sign because of the nature of what they are. Illuminated signs with the electrical works would have required at least a walk through review of them by the County office in every jurisdiction I've ever run a permit. Electrical reviewers will want to have a look at them, the Life Safety folks will want to know whether they represent a fire hazard if Excrement Happens, and the Zoning folks will want to see to it their placement doesn't violate any local covenants or laws. Contrary to what most people might think, these local politicos actually generate a great deal of paper that impacts our lives while we ignore them watching the three ring circus in Washington.

[BigDon]

Terrorists want to terrify people. We're obviously terrified. Mission accomplished.

Sorry Chuck, we're not fighting "terrorists". Terrorism is a military tactic, not a political group. When you can't field a standing army to combat your enemy you fall back on terrorism. It's nobodies first choice. Its a tactic of the weak against the strong. We're fighting radical Islam. With the stated goal of seeing the United States ruled under sharia law. Heard them say it myself.

( To the mods, sorry about the dip into politics but we're talking about our present war and there are very few apolitical wars)

[Careless]

Terrorists want to terrify people. We're obviously terrified. Mission accomplished.

The point of terrorism is not to scare people, the strategy of terrorism is scaring people. The point is to effect political or social change. I don't think this is what they had in mind.


Yes, they are, and IMHO on both sides. Why didn't the network or ad agency tell the city government and police that they were going to be putting up stuff that will scare those who don't think?
They got permission to do it. The city govt failed to communicate that fact to the appropriate departments.

[Neverfly]

in chucks defense:

in a WAY you CAN say that the terrorists have won a voctory
in the sense that they definetly have our attention.
Look at people acting Panicky..

im not AGREEING really with what he said
but i can see kinda why he said it

[peter eldergill]

On a side note, I am familiar with the cartoon, and have never been able to sit through more that 20 seconds of it, publicity stunt or not. It is true that I've never given it a chance, but I'm on this website too much! HA!

Pete

[yuzuha]

Persanlly, I think the overreaction and trying to save face is stupid, but then I try to keep things in perspecitve.... about 50,000 people die on our roads each year so that seems a more logical thing to be wary of!

[NEOWatcher]

As far as a STUNT to get publicity? Highly Unlikely.
But then what was it, or what affect were they trying to get? Why only advertise to the people who know what it is?
The signs were VERY OBVIOUS and only ONE city out of six showed ANY concern-
It depends on what you say is obvious. It is far from obvious for me to know what it was, but it was obvious to me that it didn't look like a danger.
i dont doubt the marketers didnt see this ridiculousness comming and are now busily trying to do some CYA in front of their angry bosses.
Absolutely; but, scares like this have happened before, and it is well known that foreign objects left unattended are automatically suspicious.

[Stuart van Onselen]

We're fighting radical Islam. With the stated goal of seeing the United States ruled under sharia law. Heard them say it myself.

( To the mods, sorry about the dip into politics but we're talking about our present war and there are very few apolitical wars)

I apologise for dipping still further into politics, but BigDon is simply wrong here.

The vast majority of Muslims, even the radical ones, don't give a porcine beast's gaseous excretion about how Americans rule themselves. "They want us all to live under Sharia law" is a ludicrous exaggeration promoted by cynical manipulators of public opinion (otherwise known as "politicians").

These people want to rule their own lands in their own way, without US interference (Note: I am not defending them here, at all!) How the "decandent West" rules itself features very low on their list of priorities.

And even if they did want to "make your daughter dress like a beekeeper", only the tinyist, craziest minority of a minority would possibly believe they have a chance of ever doing so.

This is not a "clash of civilizations" - If every Muslim in the world rose up in arms against the West, they still wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of forcing such a huge social change. The West's techological and military superiority is just too vast. (For example, if Iran built a dozen nukes tomorrow, they'd still be at a 10,000-to-1 disadvantage against the US.)

The only people who are in a position to destroy the Western way of life, including its freedoms, are, ironically, the very elected representatives who accuse Islam of wanting to do so.

Talk about projection...

I humbly accept any punishment the moderators feel is appropriate for this deliberate violation of posting policy. But I just had to make my point, even if it gets deleted before anyone even sees it. It's a matter of concience for me.

[tofu]

Sometimes the mods around here overreact, so let me say something up front. I don't think this discussion is political at all. The definition of "political" that I'm using here is this one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=political
2.of, pertaining to, or connected with a political party

So in my humble opinion, if I said something like "the republican party did X and my reaction is Y" then that would be a political discussion. But when I say, "this is my definition of a word" I don't see that as a political discussion at all.

When you can't field a standing army to combat your enemy you fall back on terrorism. It's nobodies first choice. Its a tactic of the weak against the strong.

I completely disagree with this. In my opinion, terrorism is the practice attacking civilians while blending in with civilians. To put it another way, for me to call you a terrorist, you have to do two things: 1. hide behind civilians. 2. target civilians.

It is entirely possible for a resistance movement to exist without resorting to terrorism. How many school busses did the French resistance blow up during WWII? Zero. They attacked German soldiers and avoided civilian casualties where possible.

Fight against the government. Fight against its agents. That's resistance.

There is something about certain groups that makes them want to kill civilians. They drive a car bomb through a check point where they could kill soldiers, and then take it to a market where they can kill civilians. That's terrorism.

The vast majority of Muslims

Nowhere in BigDon's comment did he say, "omg this applies to most Muslims!" He was clearly talking about those few Muslims that organize themselves into terrorist organizations.

It's exactly the same as someone making an observation that all proponents of ID are Christian. This isn't bashing Christianity. It is a valid observation. The fact that the majority of Christians do not support ID is totally irrelevant and in no way negates the observation. ID is a religious issue pushed by members of a particular religion. One can oppose ID without letting that opposition spill over into hatred or discrimination against Christians as a whole.

Another example, 100% of abortion clinic bombings have been perpetrated by Christians. However, most Christians will tell you that even though they believe abortion is a sin, it is up to God to punish sin. So my observation that Christians bomb abortion clinic in no way demeans the whole of Christianity.

I can never understand why, in any internet forum where this discussion comes up, if I mention that Christians bomb abortion clinics or support ID, the most resistance I will get to that statement is from a Christians saying something like, "well I don't support that." But if someone points out that 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim, it seems there is always someone who takes the same sort of offense that you took. That just strikes me as odd. Why are people so protective of Islam? It can stand on its own just like any ideology.

[napolean]

turner got much pubilcity because of the over reaction. the cops could have reacted but not in such a drastic way and cnn needs to shutup or next they start nuke scare or something.it is ridiclus, and people need not to take the news so sersiouly alls they care about is rateings

[mike alexander]

Careless wrote:

They got permission to do it. The city govt failed to communicate that fact to the appropriate departments.

Whoa. Where'd that fact pop up from? Any rerefence would be appreciated, since that would make the whole kettle of fish smell quite different.

[Gillianren]

But if someone points out that 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim . . . .

I don't think that's true. For one, that leaves out the entirety of the Troubles, not notably a Muslim conflict.

[Doodler]

Whoa. Where'd that fact pop up from? Any rerefence would be appreciated, since that would make the whole kettle of fish smell quite different.

Agreed, if they've got permits, this thing really will blow up in Boston's face.

[Stuart van Onselen]

Sorry, it seems I have not made myself clear.

I took no offence on behalf of Muslims. I am a devout Atheist (that's a joke - geddit?) and have a considerable store of contempt for religion in general.

My point was that, AFAIK, even amongst the Islamic terrorist minority there is little or no desire to overthrow the Western democracies. This is a (possibly deliberate) misconstruction of their goals. To react as if the fabric of Western civilization is under threat is ludicrous.

Muslim terrorists will never, ever overthrow the US nor any 1st-world government. This is neither their intent, nor is it even remotely within their power.

[tofu]

I took no offence on behalf of Muslims.

Ok, I'm glad you cleared that up. I think it's much more productive to debate someone like you who doesn't take it personally.

even amongst the Islamic terrorist minority there is little or no desire to overthrow the Western democracies.

Hmm, well I let's see... it took me about 10 seconds to find this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433462&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

Is the Daily Mail a reputable paper? I don't know, maybe they made up these quotes:

A few miles away from Whitechapel in East Ham, an indication of this could be found in around half a dozen garish yellow and black flyers that were haphazardly plastered across bus shelters, traffic lights and road signs. Sharia law, they proclaimed to passers-by, was "the only option for the UK".

Gous Miah, a 26-year-old shop worker from Bethnal Green, would like to think that this tatty but arresting poster is a vision of the future.
"The British way of life is unacceptable to Muslims," says Mr Miah, who works in a newsagent's shop.

"British law is not acceptable to Muslims - it is too soft. There are people committing horrendous crimes and getting away with it. Things would be better if we lived under Sharia law.

"The ultimate goal of every Muslim is to establish Sharia law over the whole Earth," he says. "It is a superior way of life and every Muslim living in the UK has an obligation to call for Sharia law to be implemented.

"We believe in jihad, which literally means to struggle. It is not allowed for a Muslim to obey a man-made system of laws that is prone to errors.

"Sharia law is a perfect system of divine law and order that the whole world should live under.

"Everything you have in the West is wrong. We should be in charge over you. If Sharia law prevailed, it would change everything.

It doesn't seem like the reporter had much trouble finding people to openly state that they want to overthrow western democracy and establish Sharia law. So I would really have to disagree with your statement that there is "no desire" to do so. Quite obviously, there is plenty of desire.

Also obvious, I could go out and find quotes by Christians saying that they want the US to be governed by the Ten Commandments. I guess that the big difference in my mind is that, as happened a few years ago when some Christians were offended by artwork (http://www.timeswatch.org/twarticles/2006/20060206.asp) - Christians are paper tigers. They get offended and then just get on with their lives. They didn't riot. They didn't burn down any museums. They didn't kill anyone. They got mad and then they got over it. But Muslims are fundamentally different, and you'd have to be blind not to see that. Someone made a cartoon of Muhammad and just look at the results ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoon#Economic_and_human_costs). Several buildings set on fire. 139 people killed. Theo Van Gogh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Van_Gogh.27s_mur der) made a movie about the treatment of women in Muslim countries. His punishment was to have this throat cut and a letter pinned to his chest with a knife. All because he made a movie.

So anyway, like I said in my previous post, clearly most Muslims are peaceful people who just want to live in peace. But it seems to me that there is a very large and very powerful and vocal minority that like to use violence and actually do want to overthrow western democracies. That just seems obvious to me.

[Moose]

But if someone points out that 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim, it seems there is always someone who takes the same sort of offense that you took. That just strikes me as odd. Why are people so protective of Islam? It can stand on its own just like any ideology.

It's not Islam people are being protective of. It's the truth, which seems to be of increasingly short supply these days. I must challenge your assertion that 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim. It's a strong claim (and bluntly libellous if we were talking about individuals) and thus must be back up by strong evidence. Please provide it or retract the claim. And if you have to argue this, please do so elsewhere. Such a discussion would be clearly against BAUT's rules.

I have an identical problem with your sweeping overgeneralization that Christians bomb abortion clinics. It might be true (with evidence to support it, anyway) that the people who have bombed abortion clinics have claimed to be Christians, but that doesn't make the converse true.

A -> B does not imply B -> A.

[tofu]

It's not Islam people are being protective of. It's the truth, which seems to be of increasingly short supply these days. I must challenge your assertion that 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

Fine. Wikipedia keeps a pretty good list of terrorist attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks#2007

going back through the last year (and including 2007) I see 48 total

1 I don't consider a terrorist attack but I'll count it anyway.
3 of them, it's not known who was responsible
5 were definitely done by non-muslims (two LTTE, two ETA, and one Sin Fien)
39 were done by muslims

39/48 = 81%

So I apologize for saying 99.9%. The figure is closer to 80%.

Happy now?

Now I'm going to get banned for linking to wikipedia. How dare you link to wikipedia? What were you thinking!

[BigDon]

Stuart I'm not going to get mean, snotty or political in my reply here. All I'm going to say is What part of I've heard them say it myself did you think comes from our politicians? I've never heard one of our politicians say that. Most of them are too chicken to not use the "terrorist" blind that hides the fact that were fighting jihaddists

[Moose]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

I'm as serious as a heart attack. I'm also declining to further participate in this blatantly partisan derailing of an otherwise perfectly healthy thread.

You may want to consider that this last exchange is a fair example of precisely why BAUT discourages (if not forbids) political/religious discussion of a partisan nature.

[tofu]

par•ti•san

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

I'd love to see you quote which of my statements meet the definition of partisan. Was it the "99% of terrorists are muslim" statement? Is that partisan? Well golly, it turns out that statement was pretty close to the true percent. The facts (according to wiki) show it to be around 80%. From now on, I'm going to say that 80% of terrorists are muslim. That's a fact. We aren't having a debate here. I'm stating facts. If you call facts partisan I find that kind of amusing. Was it the part about how *some* muslims want to overthrow western democracies and establish sharia law? I didn't even have to say that! I just quoted some british guys. Is it partisan to quote people??

I think you're just mad because I put the truth right there in your face and forced you to look at it. Why is this controversial anyway? Why is this even considered politics? If you can walk up to someone on the street and ask them if they want sharia law, and they tell you that yeah they do want it, how is it politics to quote them? If I started a thread with, "ok BAUTers, everyone please tell me what your opinion is of this guy" then we'd have some people telling us it's scary and other agreeing with him and THAT would be a political discussion.

I'm as serious as a heart attack.

you're also wrong, as I showed with wiki. Where are your links or sources to back up any of your statements? *crickets chirping*

[ToSeek]

This is not an appropriate discussion for this forum. Thread closed.