# Is It Just Me?



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Buzz: This is no time to panic...
Woody: This is the *perfect time* to panic!

From the Movie "Toy Story"


Buried in a small article section in yesterday's paper here, and carried in relative obscurity on CNN Friday, one finds the story that members of foreign extremist groups have been applying to become school bus drivers in the USA. Apparently some have even bought busses. Alerts have gone out to police. 

An FBI Spokesman concludes, ' There is no reason for any concern.'

Excuse me, but ........ _*What?!*_

The bus driver is al-Qeada, the bus monitor is Taliban, the dispatcher is Hezbollah, and the new tall princepal heading off for dialysis looks vaguely familiar....... but, what - me worry???


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

Yes, it is just you. Or, I hope it is just you. 

It would appear that you have purchased the 'fear' being sold by the Bush administration for the past 6 years. 

People from other countries, coming to our country looking to find gainful employement. That is a good thing. 

It used to be that people had a presumption of innocence. That we as a society did not prosecute until they actually did something wrong. I guess that went out with the bath water, right?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 18, 2007)

I foresee groups lobbying against bus drivers from other countries.
Sean


----------



## Kacey (Mar 18, 2007)

Perhaps if you posted a link to the story you're referring to, we'd have a better idea of what we're responding to.


----------



## LuzRD (Mar 18, 2007)

while i agree with Mr. Edward wholeheartedly about the merits of legal immigration/naturalization. i feel that "members of foreign extremist groups" are individuals that need red flags attached to them, not because theyre foreign but because of the nature, and potential of extremist groups.


i would also like a link to the article in question to see if it seems like a legitimate gripe, or if its just typical media fubar.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> members of foreign extremist groups



That's rather vague isn't it?

Which groups and where's the proof?

Would non-foreign extremist groups be a problem?  Like some of the fundamentalist Christian groups? Or maybe a PETA member?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

LuzRD said:


> while i agree with Mr. Edward wholeheartedly about the merits of legal immigration/naturalization. i feel that "members of foreign extremist groups" are individuals that need red flags attached to them, not because theyre foreign but because of the nature, and potential of extremist groups.
> 
> 
> i would also like a link to the article in question to see if it seems like a legitimate gripe, or if its just typical media fubar.


 
And what is the stance you take toward domestic extremist organizations? 
Should they be singled out too? 
How do you define extremist?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 18, 2007)

Just for the sake of helping the conversation

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html



> *WASHINGTON   The FBI has issued an "informational bulletin" to state and local officials saying to watch out for people tied to extremist groups trying to earn licenses to drive school buses.*
> 
> The Associated Press reports that members of the unnamed extremist groups have succeeded in gaining the drivers licenses, but a Department of Homeland Security official told FOX News that "at this time there is no evidence that any of these individuals have got these jobs, or got hold of school buses."
> 
> ...



The story continues at the link


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 18, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Just for the sake of helping the conversation
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html
> 
> ...



The thing that stands out there, is anything in quotes, coming from a knowledgable person, is basically saying: "There is no plot. There is no threat. And parents and children can feel perfectly safe,"

The only places that there is hinting at a threat is FoxNews written, and not coming from the FBI or any other official source.

FoxNews, in this Canadians perspective, is about as trustworthy as the national enquirer from what I have seen.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

But, wait... the statement that it *isnt happening* comes from our government, and if everything they tell us is a lie... than... is... wait...

Ow, my head hurts.​


----------



## LuzRD (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And what is the stance you take toward domestic extremist organizations?
> Should they be singled out too?
> How do you define extremist?



i appologize for being vague in my previous post.
 i singled out "members of foreign extremist groups" only because of the quote. i should have gone on to say that i consider anyone thats part of an extremist group to be viewed as potentially dangerous, again because of the nature, and potential of extremist groups.

i also asked for a link to the article in question, because quite frankly it doesnt specify whether its talking about members of groups that want to jihad the world away, or if its a group of people with an extremists view on school bus safety.  

to define "extremist" in this context i would start with the definition from the
American Heritage Dictionary "One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm" but i would amend it to include "use of violence" as mandatory to be considered an extremist, or extremist group. Well im sure id modify that definition, however i have a little headache and a lack of sleep, so maybe later.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yes, it is just you. Or, I hope it is just you.
> 
> It would appear that you have purchased the 'fear' being sold by the Bush administration for the past 6 years.
> 
> ...



Actually, I was pointing to the apparent absurdity of the Bush Administration in simultaneously telling us that foreign extremists are trying to get school bus licenses and that we have nothing to worry about.

Nowheres did I make any mention of prosecutions.... a fact easily verified. Nowhere did I advocate sanctions against legal immigrants.  Please do not ascribe political beliefs or legal positions to me that I do not hold. It is a piece of intellectual dishonesty I am not willing to overlook.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

LuzRD said:


> i
> to define "extremist" in this context i would start with the definition from the
> American Heritage Dictionary "One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm" but i would amend it to include "use of violence" as mandatory to be considered an extremist, or extremist group. Well im sure id modify that definition, however i have a little headache and a lack of sleep, so maybe later.


 
I am an athiest, so by the American Heritage Dictionary, I qualify, as that is 'beyond the norm'. And while, as a United States citizen, I am not an extremist, the United States is currently executing the 'use of violence' around the globe. So, as an Athiest of the United States, I am an extremist that belongs to a group that uses violence. 

Oh, the dilemma.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> That's rather vague isn't it?
> 
> Which groups and where's the proof?
> 
> Would non-foreign extremist groups be a problem? Like some of the fundamentalist Christian groups? Or maybe a PETA member?



Ummmm, that's kind of what I was getting at. 

This story shows up buried in the middle pages of our paper without anything else. Those are indeed questions that parents - we have 4 children - would like the details on!

We get 2000 hours of coverage on Anna Nicole Smith... and a story like this gets buried without details provided!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

People probably would have poo-poohed the gvt telling us to be on the lookout for middle eastern men trying to learn to fly commercial airliners in 1999 to. Eh.



Unless it was B. Clinton Id wager.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Actually, I was pointing to the apparent absurdity of the Bush Administration in simultaneously telling us that foreign extremists are trying to get school bus licenses and that we have nothing to worry about.
> 
> Nowheres did I make any mention of prosecutions.... a fact easily verified. Nowhere did I advocate sanctions against legal immigrants. Please do not ascribe political beliefs or legal positions to me that I do not hold. It is a piece of intellectual dishonesty I am not willing to overlook.


 
Forgive me for misunderstanding your post. 

I did not see your assault on the Bush Administration in your post.  Your exclaimation of indignation when the law enforcement officials tell us there is no need to be concerned, did not, to me appear as a cry *against* the Bush administration. As I recall, and re-read, you make no mention of the Bush administration in your post. 

How did you put it ..



> An FBI Spokesman concludes, ' There is no reason for any concern.'
> Excuse me, but ........ _*What?!*_
> 
> The bus driver is al-Qeada, the bus monitor is Taliban, the dispatcher is Hezbollah, and the new tall princepal heading off for dialysis looks vaguely familiar....... but, what - me worry???




So, you are attributing foreigners to being members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hezbollah. So, are you going to provide any evidence to this assertion? 

or, am I again, mis-reading what you said.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> The thing that stands out there, is anything in quotes, coming from a knowledgable person, is basically saying: "There is no plot. There is no threat. And parents and children can feel perfectly safe,"
> 
> The only places that there is hinting at a threat is FoxNews written, and not coming from the FBI or any other official source.
> 
> FoxNews, in this Canadians perspective, is about as trustworthy as the national enquirer from what I have seen.



Okay...... and I do not feel "perfectly safe" knowing that 5+ years post 9/11 these creatures are possibly still getting into the country and that they are apparently trying to get near our children. 

This is the story that gets a blurb in the back pages? Why aren't we given enough information to make an informed decision?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 18, 2007)

There is nothing of the sort in that story.  It merely states that the FBI has issued a informational bulletin to watch out for them.  No where does it say that any Al Quieda members have tried to get at your kids.

If I say, "Watch out for the Boogey Man", that does not mean the Boogey man has actually tried to get anyone.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Forgive me for misunderstanding your post.
> 
> I did not see your assault on the Bush Administration in your post. Your exclaimation of indignation when the law enforcement officials tell us there is no need to be concerned, did not, to me appear as a cry *against* the Bush administration. As I recall, and re-read, you make no mention of the Bush administration in your post.
> 
> ...



Excuse me, but what is the only administration we have that is currently in power? What other administration would there be putting out this apparent contradiction?

The "foreign" reference was contained in the original pathetic blurb of a story. I'm thinking that if you require evidence of foreigners being in the above groups, further discourse between us is likely to prove unproductive.


----------



## Zida'sukara (Mar 18, 2007)

**Serious mode off**

Hey you all didnt notice but I am a Dutch extremist. Before you know it, we dutch people have taken over and you will all be eating cheese and walking on wooden shoes!! 

**Serious mode on**

I dont think it is good to worry about it to much. Not every immigrant is an extremist. It would be bad if everybody does worry as no immigrant will find a job and new extremist groups will come or grow bigger(KKK). Beside of that, the extremists will only get what they want, chaos and disturbance in the country.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

The Chicago Tribune



> Kolko said the bulletin was sent merely as an educational tool to help local police identify and respond to any suspicious activity.
> 
> One counterterror official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the government felt it was likely that the foreigners investigated were merely employed as bus drivers, and did not intend to use them as part of any terror plot.



Sounds prudent to me. Would we prefer our law enforcement agents NOT look into the possibility of terrorists driving school busses? Doesnt look like it was intended for public consumption. Just some data for LE to be on the lookout for.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> There is nothing of the sort in that story. It merely states that the FBI has issued a informational bulletin to watch out for them. No where does it say that any Al Quieda members have tried to get at your kids.
> 
> If I say, "Watch out for the Boogey Man", that does not mean the Boogey man has actually tried to get anyone.



We'll have to agree to disagree....my main gripe being the government has not given us the information we need and deserve to make an informed judgment. Maybe you are right.... but why don't we know?

These bulletins do not simply materialize...... so is this some kind of tactic to get a political advantage, as was alleged pre-election 2004? Or, is data being withheld because we can't be trusted with it. Or, does the media think only stories about Britney, Paris or Anna Nicole are "news" deserving of in depth "coverage".

As a parent of 4, just knowing "the Boogey Man" could be close to my kids is enough for genuine worry. If you don't have kids, you likely won't understand.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Excuse me, but what is the only administration we have that is currently in power? What other administration would there be putting out this apparent contradiction?
> 
> The "foreign" reference was contained in the original pathetic blurb of a story. I'm thinking that if you require evidence of foreigners being in the above groups, further discourse between us is likely to prove unproductive.


 
I understand now. 

All FBI people are part of the Bush Administration. There are no career civil servents in that group. Heck, because Alberto Gonzales is the chief Law Enforcement officer in the country, and he is part of the Bush Administration (at least for the moment), doesn't that mean all Law Enforcement officers are part of the Bush administation too? 

But, then again, I didn't see a reference to an Administration in your first post ... 
Buzz Lightyear - check. 
FBI Spokesperson - check.
Administration - Nope. 

And then you argue all foreigners are al-Qaeda, Taliban or Hezbollah. There are no foreigners that are not part of al-Qaeda, Taliban or Hezbollah. 

How did that go ... 
all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are square.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The Chicago Tribune
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds prudent to me. Would we prefer our law enforcement agents NOT look into the possibility of terrorists driving school busses? Doesnt look like it was intended for public consumption. Just some data for LE to be on the lookout for.



If it wasn't intended for public consumption, why did the government provide "parts" of it to the Associated Press?

I am markedly less than happy with both the government and the media on this.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I understand now.
> 
> All FBI people are part of the Bush Administration. There are no career civil servents in that group. Heck, because Alberto Gonzales is the chief Law Enforcement officer in the country, and he is part of the Bush Administration (at least for the moment), doesn't that mean all Law Enforcement officers are part of the Bush administation too?
> 
> ...



No, you are still twisting both my words and my meaning.... and now it is blatantly intentional. 

I am unwilling to tolerate such tactics, from anyone, pursued for an obvious partisan agenda. You can now join my ignore list.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 18, 2007)

It is also possible that such information does not exist, no one ever planned to use school buses for terrorism and this was, as the FBI claims, purely a informational bulletin.

I would say good on them, thinking outside of the box.  What "could" a terrorist do, and what can they do to try and prevent it before anyone actually gets around to trying it.

There are, I imagine, countless preventive measures in place that have been put there before they where "needed".  

Besides, lets just take a minute here and consider the idea.  Why would terrorists want to attack school children?  Will it bring terror, yes.  But, will it gain support for there cause in there home land and circles?  I really doubt it, attacking children I imagine would pull people away from there cause, not too it.  World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a building in Washington that I can't remember where the targets of 9/11.  American Embassys are also a popular one.

Economic, Military, politcal.  Those are the main targets of terrorism, and what a good number of people in the East believe the American versions of are a threat to their society.  If you want to rally people to that cause, those are the things you attack, not a school bus full of children, I imagine even a good number of the terrorist groups would see that as wrong, and not there cause.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

It happened in Russia.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 18, 2007)

> From _Men In Black_
> 
> Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
> Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.



This mindset explains a lot about what the government tells us and how they try to protect themselves by trying to protect us from ourselves...they think


----------



## Kacey (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree....my main gripe being the government has not given us the information we need and deserve to make an informed judgment. Maybe you are right.... but why don't we know?



We "don't know" because too many people - by your statements, yourself among them - assume the worst and speak and act accordingly.  Are some immigrants terrorists?  I have no doubt.  Does that mean I should therefore assume that _all_ immigrants are terrorists, and treat them accordingly, just in case?  No, I don't think so.  Will it make me feel safe?  No - it will make me fear more of those around me.  Will it catch terrorists?  Unlikely - as they are trained to be inconspicuous.  Does this attitude increase the likelihood of racial stereotyping and targeting?  Yes - and I, as a citizen, cannot condone treating _all_ immigrants as terrorists to catch the few that are.  Personally, I suspect such treatment will make non-terrorist immigrants more accessible to the persuasion of terrorists, who chose them as patsies _after_ coming to this country.



grydth said:


> These bulletins do not simply materialize...... so is this some kind of tactic to get a political advantage, as was alleged pre-election 2004? Or, is data being withheld because we can't be trusted with it. Or, does the media think only stories about Britney, Paris or Anna Nicole are "news" deserving of in depth "coverage".



Election strategy is always possible.  The government's opinion that we cannot - or should not - be trusted with such information is equally possible.  And then, of course, is the fact that "stories about Britney, Paris or Anna Nicole" are better ratings grabbers than many stories about more concerning topics - a sad commentary on the state of American politics and the people who do - or don't - participate in the governing process.



grydth said:


> If it wasn't intended for public consumption, why did the government provide "parts" of it to the Associated Press?



Because those parts are, at this time, intended for public consumption.  By law, government may only withhold such information as is deemed necessary for the safety of the country.  Whether or not that is truly the guiding principle behind what is, and is not, released is a topic for another thread.



grydth said:


> I am markedly less than happy with both the government and the media on this.



Good!  Citizens who are unhappy with the government are more likely to participate in the governing process - as too few people in this country actually do participate.  Only through the exchange of information can citizens learn how to best participate in the governing process - just remember that not all information is complete, not all information is true, and all information, no matter how scholarly, is biased in one form or another.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 18, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I, as a citizen, cannot condone treating _all_ immigrants as terrorists to catch the few that are.  Personally, I suspect such treatment will make non-terrorist immigrants more accessible to the persuasion of terrorists, who chose them as patsies _after_ coming to this country.



yup yup.

Much easier to hate someone if they hate you and treat you poorly first.

The more a country mistreats foreigners the more foreigners they are going to have not liking them.  Not a good counter-terrorism plan IMO.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> It is also possible that such information does not exist, no one ever planned to use school buses for terrorism and this was, as the FBI claims, purely a informational bulletin.
> 
> I would say good on them, thinking outside of the box. What "could" a terrorist do, and what can they do to try and prevent it before anyone actually gets around to trying it.
> 
> ...



Andrew, I honestly - and respectfully - disagree with you completely on this. 

Informational bulletins do not just materialize..... from what little we are told, they had some concrete data......and then they let the AP know just "parts". 

The chlorine tanker explosions in Iraq, the 9/11 massacre, the public bombs in marketplaces and eating places in Israel - all show that terrorists are not shy about killing children. Hell, some of them use kids as attackers, look outs or cover.

I also see that terror constantly changes its operating modes, like a virus, to throw off security. You REALLY want to terrorize America? Stop focusing on NYC and make Dick and Jane Average afraid to let their kids out. Consider .... what would be the cumulative economic impact of closed schools and empty malls?

I wish I shared your confidence in effective measures in place.... but we all thought that on September 10, 2001. Our Democratic opposition has claimed all the effort has gone to Iraq, with Homeland Security being shorted out. I fear they are, in part, correct. 

Political impact? What would happen to support for the Iraq War if the cannibals got in here and started murdering our kids? Can you imagine the political infighting? We'd be more in danger of a civil war in the USA than Iraq is.


----------



## grydth (Mar 18, 2007)

Kacey said:


> We "don't know" because too many people - by your statements, yourself among them - assume the worst and speak and act accordingly. Are some immigrants terrorists? I have no doubt. Does that mean I should therefore assume that _all_ immigrants are terrorists, and treat them accordingly, just in case? No, I don't think so. Will it make me feel safe? No - it will make me fear more of those around me. Will it catch terrorists? Unlikely - as they are trained to be inconspicuous. Does this attitude increase the likelihood of racial stereotyping and targeting? Yes - and I, as a citizen, cannot condone treating _all_ immigrants as terrorists to catch the few that are. Personally, I suspect such treatment will make non-terrorist immigrants more accessible to the persuasion of terrorists, who chose them as patsies _after_ coming to this country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but no. I would have expected better from you.

I react strongly to any potential threat to my family. Irrespective of that, my reaction has *nothing* to do with what the government chose to tell us in the first place. You are welcome to your scorn, but your position fails basic logic. 

Any serious assertion that the government only withholds from citizens what it legally is entitled to shows a shocking ignorance of our government's behavior in modern times.

The information concerning "foreign extremists" was from the media stories themselves. Your discussion about the dangers of assuming all immigrants are terrorists is wonderful - except that I *never asserted *that position! I never said one word about or against decent legal immigrants. If you need to put words in my mouth and create a racist straw man, then perhaps you should reassess your moderator position. I could say: Go ahead and ban me, but I will _*not  *_sit idly by while anyone tries a stunt like that with my reputation...... but I will not give you the satisfaction or the chance to fire the shot. 

I resign.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> No, you are still twisting both my words and my meaning.... and now it is blatantly intentional.
> 
> I am unwilling to tolerate such tactics, from anyone, pursued for an obvious partisan agenda. You can now join my ignore list.


 
I do not believe I am doing either; I am not twisting your words, or your meaning. Of course, I can only deduce your meaning from the words you use. If you mean something different, I suggest you use words differently or different words. 

I understand you are as likely to be hurt in a terrorist incident as you are to be hurt from an asteroid. But, if you want to use this probability to paint all foreigners as a threat, and as members of al Qaeda, Taliban and Hezbollah, I will take measures to distance myself from you as an American. That is a position I find offensive. 

I will further point out the irrelevance of your argument about "legal immigrants" as proposed in your discussion. It appears that 19 of the September 11 hi-jackers entered this country legally. Many people from many nations enter this country as vistors, on work visa and as immigrants, to paint them all with one brush does a disservice to that statue in the harbor down the river from you. 

Thank you.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Sorry, but no. I would have expected better from you.


In what sense?  That I should agree with you?  Or that I should disagree using different opinions?



grydth said:


> I react strongly to any potential threat to my family. Irrespective of that, my reaction has *nothing* to do with what the government chose to tell us in the first place. You are welcome to your scorn, but your position fails basic logic.
> 
> Any serious assertion that the government only withholds from citizens what it legally is entitled to shows a shocking ignorance of our government's behavior in modern times.


How does my position fail "basic logic"?  Please reread what I actually said:

Because those parts are, at this time, intended for public consumption. By law, government may only withhold such information as is deemed necessary for the safety of the country. Whether or not that is truly the guiding principle behind what is, and is not, released is a topic for another thread.​ As I said, that is the law - whether or not that law is followed as intended is a discussion for another thread.  You - or anyone else who wishes to discuss if the government truly follows its own laws as it should (which, frankly, I doubt) - are welcome to start another thread addressing that issue.



grydth said:


> The information concerning "foreign extremists" was from the media stories themselves. Your discussion about the dangers of assuming all immigrants are terrorists is wonderful - except that I *never asserted *that position! I never said one word about or against decent legal immigrants. If you need to put words in my mouth and create a racist straw man, then perhaps you should reassess your moderator position. I could say: Go ahead and ban me, but I will _*not  *_sit idly by while anyone tries a stunt like that with my reputation...... but I will not give you the satisfaction or the chance to fire the shot.



In your original post, you stated 


grydth said:


> Buried in a small article section in yesterday's paper here, and carried in relative obscurity on CNN Friday, one finds the story that members of foreign extremist groups have been applying to become school bus drivers in the USA. Apparently some have even bought busses. Alerts have gone out to police.
> 
> An FBI Spokesman concludes, ' There is no reason for any concern.'
> 
> ...



You did not clearly state whether this was your opinion or the opinion of the article, which was not, at that point, cited.  I responded to that which was present.  If you were speaking for the article, then I was responding to the article; if you were speaking for yourself, then I was responding to you.  However, I will say that it appears that you, or the article, were pointing to the cultural background of the people mentioned, and it was that to which I was responding.



grydth said:


> I resign.



That is your choice.  However, decisions made in times of emotion - as yours appears to be - should be reconsidered when the emotion has peaked and ebbed.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 18, 2007)

*Attention All Users

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. 

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------

