Plane crashes into Tampa office tower

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Jsut to join in the victimfest try being under 18

OK, everybody on the Cellar who's never been under 18, raise your hands. Some of us have more experience at being under 18 than others, of course, but those of us who don't die early all ultimately achieve the same quota. Unless we're able to pass for older than we are, of course.

"VIctimfest" indeed. Tony's point about self-defined victimhood is on-point; there's a substantial "cult of the victim" in some political circles. After a while it gets old (if you'll pardon the expression) to those that aren't playing the game, especially when it's used as an argument for compensatory special privileges..

dham's talk about elments of your identity being an indelible part of that identity is bang-on as well. I'm thinking of Stan's dog "Sparky" (played by George Clooney) on South Park--("Sit up, Sparky. Beg, Sparky. Don't be gay, Sparky".)

You suppress or disguise parts of your identity to please or mollify others at your peril. And I suspect that the only solution to cops who watch black/arab/female/queer people more closely may be having more black/arab/female/queer cops.

Actually, I suppose getting all four in one should be some kind of triple-word-score. But finding a cop with no personal biases will be quite a trick.

[jaguar]

smartarseism aside, two clear differnces are, particualry in some cases people haven't been under 18 for a long time, and times do change. Seondly, i doubt kids had the same kind of disposeable incomes kids have today (in some cases) which illustrates the gap perfectly, if these people working in these places did realise that, they would (and when they do, do) serve you like any other customer.

Actually, I suppose getting all four in one should be some kind of triple-word-score. But finding a cop with no persinal biases will be quite a trick.

Doesn't mean it has to come out on the job, i thought that is what being professional about in these jobs was about. btw its personal not persinal, i thought nic would have pointed that out.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
smartarseism aside, two clear differnces are, particualry in some cases people haven't been under 18 for a long time, and times do change. Seondly, i doubt kids had the same kind of disposeable incomes kids have today (in some cases) which illustrates the gap perfectly...

So you're saying it's uniquely difficult to be under 18 now? Seems to me I heard that one when I was under 18. :-) It's always something....either the clerk won't take your money as fast as you want him too, or you're subject to being drafted and having your ass shot off in some foriegn war. We had to walk to school in the snow every day, too....uphill....both ways. :-)

I wonder if it's really true that folks under 18 have more disposable income today than they did, say, twenty or thirty years ago, if we adjust for inflation. Of course it's another question if this would entitle them to better treatment in retail establishments. When I worked in retail, I got a lot more hassles from shoppers who were under 18. Of course, *I* was under 18 at the time too.

I fixed the spelling error, probably before nic even saw it.

[Nic Name]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the draft an "over 18" issue?

Are we digressing here, or are we getting back to the thread and some connection with the "troubled kid" who flew into the Bank of America Building?

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers? Is John Walker a foreign terrorist or a troubled young man? Let's check his ethnicity and see which he might be. Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I think so. Yet, he was always called the Oklahoma City bomber.

[jaguar]

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers?

Colombine?

So you're saying it's uniquely difficult to be under 18 now?

God no, probably easier than ever but i do say kids (least round here) do have some serious disposeable income, a signifigant aprt of that no doubt is the people i know but..

Of course it's another question if this would entitle them to better treatment in retail establishments.

Better? No, equal yes, if you're spending as much as the guy who's 20 years older than you next to you, its in the businesses interst to treat you equally, you are of equal value.

My point was merely pointing out another form or basis for discrimination, lets leave it at that?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Nic Name
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the draft an "over 18" issue?

Only if you waited until then to worry about it. Once you turned 18 when the draft was active, it was too late...

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Nic Name

Are we digressing here, or are we getting back to the thread and some connection with the "troubled kid" who flew into the Bank of America Building?

THANK YOU!

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers?

More than two threats I'm afraid. No one should be above or beyond reproach, IMO. Certainly, no one should be singled out, while others are allowed to walk away.

Is John Walker a foreign terrorist or a troubled young man? Let's check his ethnicity and see which he might be.

Exactly.

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I think so. Yet, he was always called the Oklahoma City bomber.

Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he could possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Nic Name
We've seen photocopies of the "anthrax letters" so, why have we not seen the reported 6 page handwritten letter carried by the Bank of America Building "suicide" pilot, in which he mentions Osama and the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The actual words would allow the public to form a clearer picture of what happened here. Or, would that not be in the public interest? hmmm...

I agree with you on that one. But, as I'm sure you know, it doesn't make for "good copy" to make such "demands" on our government, law enforcement, and other units of authority. You'd be a "troublemaker" and "unpatriotic". Heaven forbid that you merely ask for more information about this issue. ;-)

So far, all I've seen in the media is a couple of lines "paraphrasing" the letter by the police and authorities. Has the media asked for a copy of the letter, or a complete transcript? Has release of the complete transcript been refused? hmmm...

Hmm, indeed. That will more than likely be a mystery for a while. However, had it been one of those "dirty Arab/Muslims"...well...

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he could possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow.

NO.

He was <b>REPEATEDLY</b> called a terrorist. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been called, by even major news outlets, "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil" - but the last day anyone ever said that was September 10th.

You're twisting facts here to add to your argument - that's called "spin", and that's okay. The problem is that they're not really facts. McVeigh has been called a terrorist. He was a terrorist. He used terror to get his message across. No one ever said he wasn't.

[Nic Name]

I think that one of the aspects of the definition of terrorism is the intention to have the act of violence felt as a threat to the security of persons other than the direct victims of the assault.

In that definition would be included any number of middle eastern terrorist organizations, as well as terrorists acting alone or in small groups: McVeigh, Bishop, Columbine's Trench Coat Mafia and copy-cat mafias, the Unibomber, the anthrax mailer and others.

The official American government rhetoric of the war on terrorism has been refined " to root out foreign terrorists with international reach" in order to narrow the war on terrorism and, by definition, exempt from the current "war" such terrorists as McVeigh, the IRA and Arafat from the definition.

Of course, other countries, allies in the war on terrorism, accepting the current Amercian government's definition of terrorism may have a different view of "foreign" and "international reach" don't they?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
He was <b>REPEATEDLY</b> called a terrorist. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been called, by even major news outlets, "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil" - but the last day anyone ever said that was September 10th.

As time went on, he was called a terrorist. Initially, he was merely called the "Oklahoma City Bomber," at least from my personal recollections. I remember some people using the word "terrorist," but I don't remember it being as widespread until recently...before 9/11 of course. Was he a terrorist? Certainly, at least IMO.

Do you think all those militias that were behind the 8-ball after OK City are building their machine up again, b/c of 9/11?

*watching a History Channel show on the KKK*

Rho just brought up an interesting point. I understand that we are trying to fight terrorism internationally, but if we are in a "War on Terrorism," could the Klan be considered part of that war? Should they be?

Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message". I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists". Maybe we could just deport them to Africa or something?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Hmm, indeed. That will more than likely be a mystery for a while. However, had it been one of those "dirty Arab/Muslims"...well...

I think we're quite likely to see the letter eventually...sooner if it's in the hands of the NTSB, later if the Tampa cops have it, where somebody may try to seal the record because Bishop was a juvenile. Certainly NTSB should end up with a copy, since as an aircraft incident it's their baliwick. It will probably be FOIAed from them if they don't release it. Most evidence NTSB deal with eventually is released, including CVR recordings right up to the point of impact. However, they haven't released the ground tapes they have of UA93.

It would appear that one thing Bishop was quite "troubled" about was *being* a "dirty Arab". His dad's birth name was evidently "BIshara", and converations he had with a teacher after 9/11 suggest he was feeling terrible conflict about his Dad's ethnicity.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message". I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists". Maybe we could just deport them to Africa or something?

True, they have tried to "mainstream" themselves. They tried to support a show on my university's radio station (an NPR station)...and lost in court. UM-St. Louis's argument: To have a group such as the Klan supporting a program on a radio station run by the school (therefore, by the state) could drive away minority students. Made sense to me...race relations weren't exactly the greatest on our campus as it was.

They also adopted a stretch of Interstate 55 in South St. Louis County. They won this case in court. Their sign has been torn down several times, to the point that St. Louis County Police had to start watching it. Someone was finally caught tearing it down one night. The man made no apologies for doing it though.

This statement from a Klan site almost makes them sound like decent people...ALMOST.

[edit]

Whoops...that went more off-topic than it was already going. My actual point was that we definitely need to look within our own borders for terrorist groups. We've already beem looking for terrorists within our borders, but the main focus has been on "foreign" terrorists. Given the Klan's past activities, I don't think it would be unfair to give them a look-over. For now, I am satisfied with Matt Hale not being admitted to the Illinois bar.

I wish we had more info regarding Walker and Bishop. The fact that Walker was fighting with the Taliban damn near seals his fate...fighting for a regime that denied people of their basic rights. But the info that I've heard on Bishop is contradictory at best. Was he truly a terrorist sympathizer, or disturbed beyond belief?

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've been gone for awhile so let me catch up a bit. The first time I heard the term 'Domestic Terrorism' was before they had arested McVeigh. The guy that was my boss at the time had a sister-in-law in the building when it happened. I remeber clearly speaking with him about it and the words 'terrorist attack' was reapeted constantly. Not a month down the road, the next day. Of course if you remember it was originally reported that the people believed responsible were 'three men of arab decent'. So you could argue that was the reason for it...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next subject, the KKK has not exactly toned down. What they've done is grown smarter. They still work hard at recruitment, but they recognise their message is unpopular right now. So, instead of being the big bad nasty death squad of the past they pretend to be civic minded activists. What's worse is they don't think it's an act. They've been taught to speak more intelligently, so their message sounds more reasonable. They've helped set-up more (by the current standards) extreme white supremisist groups. Who then condem them for not being tough enough. Again making them sound less insane. This scare's me. I want my lunatics acting insane, they're easier to spot that way. This has been going on for awhile now. I remember about a decade ago when they set up shop in north west Arkansas a black guy I worked with said they had asked all the african-americans in the area to a big picnic to show how much they had changed. (He didn't go) The fact that he wouldn't back down doesn't mean that he wasn't scared.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.