That picture is great.  The TSA guy is diligently scanning the old man’s limbs, etc.  But the man’s power chair, being made of metal and plastic, can’t be scanned with such a crude wand.

So the power chair could easily be crammed with explosive material (which - let us not forget Timothy McVeigh’s example - can be made with fertilizer purchased at WalMart, and combined “another readily available ingredient").  There are already batteries, complex wiring, etc.  That power chair (as an example) is ready made to become a rolling tool of terror…

...but it that possibility being guarded against?  Hasn’t it?  Surely a loophole like that wouldn’t be left open?

...oh well…

(I’m not specifically singling out power chairs.  There are lots of items in reasonably common use that could also be made to serve nefarious purposes...)

Security theater isn’t meant to stop anything — it’s meant to remind the proles of the constant fear of terrorism, give the proles a (small) feeling of security, and provides direct evidence to the proles that we are small, and The Government is big, so don’t even THINK about fucking with The Government.

America v2.0 — It’s not your father’s country anymore…

I’m on The List like Mr. Griffen.  I asked one clerk before a flight why and they said it was probably because I have the same name as someone already on it. Nice.

MikeEss, tsk tsk, you should know by now that domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Eric Randolph don’t count, they shouldn’t be mentioned in connection with the War on Terra.  They’re white, duh.  /sarcasm

“I asked one clerk before a flight why and they said it was probably because I have the same name as someone already on it.”

...or it could be because you sometimes comment on leftist blogs where you sometimes complain about security theater…

(I think that’s a joke...)

My younger brother showed up on Teh Watchlist when he was 17 years old.  Nice white high school kid, member of the local Methodist youth group, member of the track and tennis teams. 

Seriously, I’m half convinced that the “terrorist watchlist” is just a random sampling of 1 million-odd Americans with no connection to anything whatsoever.

1 in 250 Americans is on a watch list. Counting only airplane using Americans, I’d guess that 1 in 100, yes, 1%, are on a watch list.

I don’t think that motorized chairs are allowed on planes.

The chair probably gets packed into the hold with the luggage…

...but I don’t know that for a fact.  But if not, what does he do on the other end?…

1 in 250 Americans is on a watch list. Counting only airplane using Americans, I’d guess that 1 in 100, yes, 1%, are on a watch list.

Which means that if you’re riding on, say, a DC-10, at least 2 of your fellow passengers are on the watch list.  If we stick with the 1-in-250, at least 1 is.

TSA: Transcendentally stupid assholes.

Think Keystone Kops with computers.

The terrorist watchlist is the sixth largest active military force on the face of the planet - and that’s not even including all the terrorists who aren’t on the watchlist.

“Active” is a bit of a misnomer.

...or it could be because you sometimes comment on leftist blogs where you sometimes complain about security theater…

Damn! Damn the TSA and their superior logic!

I’ve long thought the real intention of security theater was to soften us up for the coming dictatorship. They’ll just keep ratcheting it up - absurd, but relatively minor when taken on its own indignity by absurd but relatively minor when taken on its own indignity - until we’ve given everything away.

The chair goes on the plane SOMEWHERE. I think it’s an ADA violation for airline personnel to even look at it funny.

I like the way they claim that the 1,000,000 names are actually only 400,000 people, because of pseudonyms, and then turn around and tell everyone hassled that they’re not on the list, but that they merely share a name with someone who is.  And then they cheerfully claim that the list Works™.  Clearly, something doesn’t add up at all. 

That, and there’s now way in hell that there are 400,000 terrorists worldwide.  I doubt that al-Qa’ida would be more than 2500 people in a doomsday scenario, and it’s supposed to be the largest group out there. Even including IRA members, former Weathermen, Basque separatists and the like, the only way they get to 400,000 is if they include “dissidents” as well, which is pretty much guaran-fucking-teed. 

(As an unrelated side note, I get very annoyed when anyone who shoots at US troops is called a “terrorist.” By shooting at soldiers in an attempt to do military harm they disqualify themselves of that particular label by definition.  I guess they think “insurgent,” “guerrilla,” or “combatant” would grant them too much legitimacy for propaganda purposes, but it puts the government in the absurd position of fighting a “war” (and don’t you dare call it an occupation) against enemies semantically incapable of waging war.)

No, no, no - if we must have creeping totalitarianism, I want it to be as incompetent as humanly possible. Competent totalitarianism is the last thing we need. (See also: illegal and immoral military occupations of foreign lands)

That power chair (as an example) is ready made to become a rolling tool of terror…

...but it that possibility being guarded against?  Hasn’t it?  Surely a loophole like that wouldn’t be left open?

I’d hope that they use an electronic sniffer on the chair to test for explosives.  I know that’s what they usually do with parachute rigs.

(As an unrelated side note, I get very annoyed when anyone who shoots at US troops is called a “terrorist.” By shooting at soldiers in an attempt to do military harm they disqualify themselves of that particular label by definition.  I guess they think “insurgent,” “guerrilla,” or “combatant” would grant them too much legitimacy for propaganda purposes, but it puts the government in the absurd position of fighting a “war” (and don’t you dare call it an occupation) against enemies semantically incapable of waging war.)

While I agree with you that the “terrorist” label is far too often applied to people who are not terrorists, the fact that an insurgent attacks a uniformed Soldier doesn’t prevent that insurgent from also being a terrorist (by blowing up a market the next day, or whatever).  Insurgent and terrorist are not mutually exclusive terms (and neither are Soldier and terrorist, for that matter).

the fact that an insurgent attacks a uniformed Soldier doesn’t prevent that insurgent from also being a terrorist (by blowing up a market the next day, or whatever).

Maybe, but unless we know for sure, why use the term?  I mean it’s possible that Jane Doe: Soccer Mom is going to blow up Walmart tomorrow afternoon.  We don’t refer to her as a terrorist until she actually does it, though.

No, no, no - if we must have creeping totalitarianism, I want it to be as incompetent as humanly possible. Competent totalitarianism is the last thing we need. (See also: illegal and immoral military occupations of foreign lands)

You think so? Go watch Brazil, then tell me you’d rather have incompetent totalitarianism .... Mr Tuttle

The other thing is if you broaden the list so much where you’re having to keep track of 400,000 or a million names, you dilute its effectiveness and the real terrorists can slip through while a guy named James Robinson, hardly an uncommon name, deals with hassles. heckuva job, TSA!

Statistically speaking, I work with at least four terrorist. I better start reporting them…

Insurgent and terrorist are not mutually exclusive terms (and neither are Soldier and terrorist, for that matter).

Here’s where I differ: I don’t think it accurate to say that someone is both a soldier and a terrorist because they attack both soldiers and civilians.  Taken to the extreme, were the US and British air forces “terrorist organizations” because of the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden?  Were the squadrons that led those attacks?

No.  In the same way I wouldn’t call the Allies “terrorist nations” instead of “nations that have utilized terrorism in warfare,” I wouldn’t call, say, FLN members “terrorists” instead of “rebels/insurgents who have utilized terrorism in an insurgency.” To call someone a terrorist implies that their goals are somehow secondary to the spread of terror (and if you don’t acquiesce, they’ll spread more terror).  I don’t think an insurgent fits this mold, since their actions are in some part made to advance their goals directly.  It’s the difference between “we’ll keep bombing random coffee shops until you give us what we want” and “we’ll keep bombing YOUR coffee shops until you LEAVE.” I think there’s an important distinction in counter strategies, if not in morality.

the fact that an insurgent attacks a uniformed Soldier doesn’t prevent that insurgent from also being a terrorist (by blowing up a market the next day, or whatever).

Maybe, but unless we know for sure, why use the term?  I mean it’s possible that Jane Doe: Soccer Mom is going to blow up Walmart tomorrow afternoon.  We don’t refer to her as a terrorist until she actually does it, though.

I recognize this and, in fact, I agreed with the poster who said that the term is overused and used incorrectly.  I was simply pointing out that NonWonderDog’s assertion that a person who attacks a Soldier “disqualifies themselves” from being a terrorist is incorrect.

That example sounded better in my head.  The idea was to reference FLN terrorism, which not only spread fear but made the city a measurably worse place for the French to live in (and not just because of the threat of terrorism).  The point is that an insurgent has more clearly defined goals than a terrorist, even if the insurgent sometimes resorts to terror.

Oi, now we’ve got the thread all jumbled up.

To put it another way: if a Sunni insurgent bombs a Shi’ite marketplace in their city, they spread terror, yes, but they also make the city harder for Shi’ites to make a living in--which advances their goal in the civil war of removing Shi’ites from their city.  If a Sunni terrorist bombs a Jordanian hotel in order to scare the US and Israel away from interfering in Iraq, that does nothing but spread fear.

The tactics can be the same, but the strategy is entirely different.  Because the distinction is one of intent, I don’t think there can be any overlap except among the schizophrenic.

Since we seem to have hijacked the thread, I’m just going to carry on this conversation.
So, if I’m reading you right, you’re claiming that the Jordanian terrorist who blows up a hotel to spread fear but who doesn’t accomplish his strategic goal (US out of Iraq) is more of a terrorist than a Sunni insurgent who blows up a Shi’ite marketplace who does accomplish his goal?
If so, I have to disagree.  Terror is terror.  If you are intentionally attacking civilian targets in order to use fear to further your goals, you are a terrorist, regardless of if you are successful or not and regardless of if your plan even makes sense or not.  A stupid terrorist is still a terrorist.

If you are intentionally attacking civilian targets in order to use fear to further your goals, you are a terrorist

Then every country that participates in war is a terrorist nation. It’s fine if you want to hold this position, but that puts a nation that was attacked in the position of being called a terrorist for bombing the cities of their attackers. By this broad definition the United States is currently a terrorist nation for what we’ve done in Iraq. But not just Iraq - in virtually every war we’ve participated in since the revolution we have intentionally inflicted damage on civilian populations.

I think the difference is that I define “terrorist” as one who uses terror as a strategy, while you seem to define terrorist as one who uses terror as a tactic. I don’t think your definition works, because far too many “legitimate,” “definitely not terrorists” combatants use terror as a tactic.  I’ve already referenced the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and you can add Hiroshima, Nagasaki, lots of Vietnam (culminating in My Lai), and Shock and Awe.  That’s just off the top of my head, and that’s just us.

If those who use terror as a tactic during a civil war (i.e. Iraq) are terrorists, then William Tecumseh Sherman was more a terrorist than any IRA member (neither targeted civilians directly).  And that just seems a bit absurd to me.

I was simply pointing out that NonWonderDog’s assertion that a person who attacks a Soldier “disqualifies themselves” from being a terrorist is incorrect.

Well, it does if , at the time that this particular insurgent was in the habit of attacking soldiers did not occur during/after a time in which she or he was a known terrorist.  You don’t call a fugitive who’s on the lam after knocking over a series of corner stores a serial killer, for instance, without damn good evidence that he’s also been killing people.  Even if there happened to be a high degree of overlap between people who robbed stores and serial killers.  And when you get in the habit of calling all armed robbers serial killers without differentiation between the two, you have serious semantic issues to say the least.

The argument over whether someone can be classified a “terrorist” or if they are “something else” comes up quite often.  It’s a result of a fault in people’s thinking:  If someone is a terrorist, then we can go after them, so let’s try to figure out who is a terrorist.

As an example, was the guy who killed Theo van Gogh a terrorist?  Mao talks about “terrorism” (which for him was the same as guerrilla tactics) as being useful to polarize a target populace...so they are either enraged at you or scared of you.  So what was Mohammed Bouyeri’s intent?  Was he trying to cow the Dutch, or was he just enraged at van Gogh?  Did he even have a plan?

Lumping him in with UBL or any of the other head honchos is a mistake, as is treating “terrorism” as if it’s somehow different from any other sort of heinous crime.  Blowing people up is blowing people up, murder is murder.  Thinking otherwise is how we get extraordinary measures against them.

So, quit trying to figure out what a terrorist “is” or what actions mark someone as a terrorist.  We already have a pretty good idea of what killers, kidnappers, arsonists, etc. are and a generally good idea of what is an accessory to crime.  We don’t worry about whether or not the guy who drove the getaway car is actually a “bank robber,” but he’s an accomplice and that’s enough.  This should not be so difficult.

So what was Mohammed Bouyeri’s intent?

Well obviously he’s Teh Mooslum, so duh, terrorist.

So what was Mohammed Bouyeri’s intent?  Was he trying to cow the Dutch, or was he just enraged at van Gogh?  Did he even have a plan?

I think he was about as much a terrorist as Hesham Hedayat, who shot up the El Al Airlines counter at LAX before being shot by security guards.  Considering that his wife had just left him and returned to Egypt with their kids, it’s hard to say that he was a terrorist and not a psycho who snapped.

David Berkowitz swore that Satan told him to kill people—are we supposed to take him at his word?

I’m not sure whether I’m embarrassed or proud to have thought Petey was talking about the Theo van Gogh who was the art dealer brother of Vincent.  I was all, “What?  Theo van Gogh was killed by a potential terrorist named Mohammed Bouyeri?  In 1890?  Weird...”

I think the difference is that I define “terrorist” as one who uses terror as a strategy, while you seem to define terrorist as one who uses terror as a tactic. I don’t think your definition works, because far too many “legitimate,” “definitely not terrorists” combatants use terror as a tactic.  I’ve already referenced the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and you can add Hiroshima, Nagasaki, lots of Vietnam (culminating in My Lai), and Shock and Awe.  That’s just off the top of my head, and that’s just us.

If those who use terror as a tactic during a civil war (i.e. Iraq) are terrorists, then William Tecumseh Sherman was more a terrorist than any IRA member (neither targeted civilians directly).  And that just seems a bit absurd to me.

Terrorism can be used tactically or strategically (and is often used as both at the same time).  In your examples, I’d say the nuclear bomb drops and Tokyo are clearly terrorism.  Dresden is a bit harder to define as such, as the target of the bombing was the rail yards and most of the city ended up being collateral damage.  My Lai I don’t think I’d define as terrorism so much as a bunch of Soldiers who fucking lost it.  They weren’t killing the villagers to achieve any kind of military goal.  They were killing the villagers because they had snapped and had basically come to see all Vietnamese as the enemy.  I don’t think I’d qualify “Shock and Awe” as terrorism, as it was designed to intimidate the Iraqi military into surrendering by attacking military targets.  And as for Sherman, while some aspects of his march through the South may have been terroristic, I wouldn’t define his attacking the Southern resources (burning cotton, etc.) as terroristic, as those resources were being used to support the Confederate Army.

You think so? Go watch Brazil, then tell me you’d rather have incompetent totalitarianism .... Mr Tuttle

Great movie. Compare it to 1984, and then tell me you’d rather have compentent totalitarianism… Mr Syme. At least with the incompetents you’ve got a chance of slipping through the cracks - plus incompetent totalitarianism is a lot less durable than the competent version.

If those who use terror as a tactic during a civil war (i.e. Iraq) are terrorists, then William Tecumseh Sherman was more a terrorist than any IRA member (neither targeted civilians directly).  And that just seems a bit absurd to me.

Wow. Complete Ignorance Alert. You think the IRA didn’t target civilians directly?

Kingsmills 1976. IRA shoot ten Protestant civilian labourers dead in a revenge attack.
London 1973. IRA detonate two car bombs, 180 casualties.
1974. Balcombe Street Gang. Six murders by shooting and bombing. All civilians. Also the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, another 86 civilian casualties.
Birmingham pub bombings. 183 civilian casualties.
Warrington 1993. Bombed a shopping centre - two civilian casualties, both under 12.
And - believe me - many, many others.