What an Idiot

[GirgleMirt]

How did anyone know that it was a sarcastic joke instead of a real terorist intent on using the plane as a giant missle? It's easy to look back and see what happened now. Wasn't so clear at the time.

Why would someone intent on using a plane as a giant missile comment to others that he was trying to light up his shoes? Wouldn't that be counter constructive to his goal? You think real terrorists will joke about taking over a plane before doing it?

And again, the guy was caught by the two air marshalls, what was he supposed to do to take over the plane? If anything, the plane was SAFER than it was before it took off, before now the terrorist was identified and was being watched by two marshalls.

He posed no more threat to anyone than any other passenger in any other flight... That's fact... A joke does not make one a threat. And that's what's crazy, handling a joke like as if it was a real threat.

What would happen if you went to the airport, held out both of your hands in front of you, palms up, and declared, "I have a bomb in my hands!". That could probably earn you a neat little strip search in retribution and to make sure that the deranged man that you are is really no threat, but they wouldn't evacuate the airport and send in the bomb squad to disarm the non-existing bomb you're holding in your hands.

The guy posed no threat. They freaked out and sent out the jets for no good reason. They failed to accurately grasp the situation and used a disproportionate response. And what's sad is that it might pretty well be procedure, and even if everybody involved knows that the response is inappropriate, they go through the steps because that's what procedure dictates.

 

[lsiberian]

Context my friend, context... If a plane has been hijacked or is in risk of being, yes, deploying fighter jets to shoot it down because it might be used as a giant missile is a necessary precaution.

This does not apply to this case. A guy made a sarcastic joke about lighting trying to light up his shoes. Did this guy pose a threat to the flight or anyone on board? The answer is a simple and clear no. Was the plane more at risk of being hijacked because someone made a sarcastic comment about trying to light up his shoes? Again, the answer is no. Did the fighter jets serve any purpose in this case? The answer is again no. Huge waste of money and time for everyone involved.

A ridiculously disproportional response to a benign act. And that's the issue and what is vent worthy here. They're so paranoid and irrational that a trivial act becomes a huge concern and a disproportional response is generated.

It's the same kind of paranoid and unreasonable silliness which resulted in the patriot act, which pretty much dismisses any human right any individual is entitled to on pretty much any insignificant grounds. In the name of security any insanity goes, and no response is disproportional.

The guy was a foreign diplomat and probably a trained intelligence agent. For all we know he was a terrorist and this is just a cover story. Don't buy every story you read.

 

[GirgleMirt]

The guy was a foreign diplomat and probably a trained intelligence agent. For all we know he was a terrorist and this is just a cover story. Don't buy every story you read.

What? So he joked about trying to light up his shoes on fire because that was his cover story for not blowing up the plane with the bomb he didn't have? Or the USA is trying to cover this up because he's a terrorist which failed to hijack a plane? You lost me... Did you even read the article?

 

[Rickster71]

Context my friend, context... If a plane has been hijacked or is in risk of being, yes, deploying fighter jets to shoot it down because it might be used as a giant missile is a necessary precaution.

This does not apply to this case. A guy made a sarcastic joke about lighting trying to light up his shoes. Did this guy pose a threat to the flight or anyone on board? The answer is a simple and clear no. Was the plane more at risk of being hijacked because someone made a sarcastic comment about trying to light up his shoes? Again, the answer is no. Did the fighter jets serve any purpose in this case? The answer is again no. Huge waste of money and time for everyone involved.

A ridiculously disproportional response to a benign act. And that's the issue and what is vent worthy here. They're so paranoid and irrational that a trivial act becomes a huge concern and a disproportional response is generated.

It's the same kind of paranoid and unreasonable silliness which resulted in the patriot act, which pretty much dismisses any human right any individual is entitled to on pretty much any insignificant grounds. In the name of security any insanity goes, and no response is disproportional.

Somebody doesn't understand the concept of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

 

[ArthurPE]

yes, the guy is an idiot, he was sent home...
but he is a member of a family that is one of the richest in the world and I'm sure he doesn't give a damn, obviously...

what concerns me is that our response does not inspire confidence in our security apparatus...it's based on large sums of $$$ and materials, no logic or insight...keystone cops

I would like to see an approach more like Israels, very low key, human based and effective...

edit: it's funny no one mentioned where this clown was going, or who he was going to visit

 

[Rickster71]

What? So he joked about trying to light up his shoes on fire because that was his cover story for not blowing up the plane with the bomb he didn't have? Or the USA is trying to cover this up because he's a terrorist which failed to hijack a plane? You lost me... Did you even read the article?

On one hand you fault our government's overreaction, which was based on assumption.

Yet, you don't see you've also formulated your opinions based on assumption, and little knowledge of FAA, Homeland Security, or the White House's procedures.
Also you assume that the info that was given to press was the 'whole story.'
And assume yet again, that what passes as unbiased media in this country, didn't put their spin on it.

The 27 year old diplomat, Mohammed Al-Madadi going to a meeting with an imprisoned al-Qaida sleeper agent – raises questions about why someone familiar with national security cases would apparently flout airline security rules and joke about would-be bombers.
How does one become a diplomat at 27 anyway?...

 

[GirgleMirt]

How did anyone know that it was a sarcastic joke instead of a real terorist intent on using the plane as a giant missle? It's easy to look back and see what happened now. Wasn't so clear at the time.

Did you read the story? There was never any question of the plane being hijacked or in risk of being hijacked. There was question of some smoke and a man who made a comment about trying to light up his shoes. The joke wasn't even about hijacking the plane, it was about blowing it up. That is the information the marshalls and everybody else had, that was the issue, this isn't in hindsight, the problem was simply smoke and joke about bomb shoes, nothing about using the plane as a giant missile.

On one hand you fault our government's overreaction, which was based on assumption.

Yet, you don't see you've also formulated your opinions based on assumption, and little knowledge of FAA, Homeland Security, or the White House's procedures.
Also you assume that the info that was given to press was the 'whole story.'
And assume yet again, that what passes as unbiased media in this country, didn't put their spin on it.

I don't assume anything. I comment on the reported events. If the reported events were inaccurate, then my comments might not apply. If no fighter jets were deployed, and if those events never happened, for example, then this discussion is quite pointless don't you think?

Btw, what do you think is inaccurate? What's the spin? What part of the story exactly do you question?

It's funny because at one point, it seems like every time someone is losing an argument, comes silly questions about the validity of everything. Just, you know, to hint that actually there's many unknowns and that renders the whole discussion and points made invalid.

"How do you know there's no life after death and no souls?". "Science knows a lot about physiology and workings of living beings, never was anything to hint something like souls existed." "Science has been wrong before, at one point they thought the atom was the smallest thing" or "There's a LOT that science doesn't know!" " ... "

So why don't you expand on how "FAA, Homeland Security, or the White House's procedures" conflicts with any of the points I've made? Or exactly what you think was inaccurate about the story? Which of my 'assumptions' are false based on what fact of the FAA, HS, WH procedures? All you've done is hint that possibly there's some important info I don't have that or that some fact might be false, which renders everything I've said false. Don't hint that maybe *something* was inaccurate, state clearly what you think was inaccurate, or clearly state what information you think is pertinent.

 

[Rickster71]

Did you read the story? There was never any question of the plane being hijacked or in risk of being hijacked. There was question of some smoke and a man who made a comment about trying to light up his shoes. The joke wasn't even about hijacking the plane, it was about blowing it up. That is the information the marshalls and everybody else had, that was the issue, this isn't in hindsight, the problem was simply smoke and joke about bomb shoes, nothing about using the plane as a giant missile.


I don't assume anything. I comment on the reported events. If the reported events were inaccurate, then my comments might not apply. If no fighter jets were deployed, and if those events never happened, for example, then this discussion is quite pointless don't you think?

Btw, what do you think is inaccurate? What's the spin? What part of the story exactly do you question?

It's funny because at one point, it seems like every time someone is losing an argument, comes silly questions about the validity of everything. Just, you know, to hint that actually there's many unknowns and that renders the whole discussion and points made invalid.

"How do you know there's no life after death and no souls?". "Science knows a lot about physiology and workings of living beings, never was anything to hint something like souls existed." "Science has been wrong before, at one point they thought the atom was the smallest thing" or "There's a LOT that science doesn't know!" " ... "

So why don't you expand on how "FAA, Homeland Security, or the White House's procedures" conflicts with any of the points I've made? Or exactly what you think was inaccurate about the story? Which of my 'assumptions' are false based on what fact of the FAA, HS, WH procedures? All you've done is hint that possibly there's some important info I don't have that or that some fact might be false, which renders everything I've said false. Don't hint that maybe *something* was inaccurate, state clearly what you think was inaccurate, or clearly state what information you think is pertinent.

Sure it's an assumption, you weren't there and have no firsthand knowledge.

The points I made where examples of the assumptions a house of cards is built on.

I have no firsthand knowledge, though I do know that being in a situation and living it, is vastly different from Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Sure it's an assumption, you weren't there and have no firsthand knowledge.

The points I made where examples of the assumptions a house of cards is built on.

I have no firsthand knowledge, though I do know that being in a situation and living it, is vastly different from Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

This applies to any and all events where you were not personally present, and to even to pretty much the sum of our collective knowledge. In other words, pretty much the entirety of our existences.

It's simply a logical fallacy. You attempt to discredit a position by accusing someone of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". It's a straw man argument. "It's funny because at one point, it seems like every time someone is losing an argument, comes silly questions about the validity of everything. Just, you know, to hint that actually there's many unknowns and that renders the whole discussion and points made invalid.".

Quite sad. Always what seems to happen when someone can't keep up with a debate. A clear sign that he's lost and has run out of arguments. With that, I'm out.

 

[Rickster71]

This applies to any and all events where you were not personally present, and to even to pretty much the sum of our collective knowledge. In other words, pretty much the entirety of our existences.

It's simply a logical fallacy. You attempt to discredit a position by accusing someone of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". It's a straw man argument. "It's funny because at one point, it seems like every time someone is losing an argument, comes silly questions about the validity of everything. Just, you know, to hint that actually there's many unknowns and that renders the whole discussion and points made invalid.".

Quite sad. Always what seems to happen when someone can't keep up with a debate. A clear sign that he's lost and has run out of arguments. With that, I'm out.

I'm not discrediting your position, you don't have one.
Your opinion of this situation is based mostly on your assumptions.
The first being, exactly how the whole thing went down.

A scenario where the air marshals asked him what he was doing through a locked bathroom door, while he said he was trying to light his shoe.
It's a far cry different from the perceptions of some that it was a casual face to face joke filled conversation while in the plane's aisle.

I'm not in an argument; and certainly don't profess to second guessing how the U.S, State Dept and Homeland Sec does their jobs.
Maybe your qualified to do that... I'm not.
All while you somehow think "only you know" the answer, based on what you don't realize are assumptions and third & forth hand information.
No "logical fallacy" there.

 

[gmichael]

Somebody doesn't understand the concept of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

I'm noticing that too. I guess he doesn't get the part that anyone can look back and say it was a joke now, but at the time, they didn't know.

 

[GirgleMirt]

You're the one who doesn't have a position.

Your opinion of this situation is based mostly on your assumptions.
The first being, exactly how the whole thing went down.

Reporting from Washington and Denver
Two F-16s scrambled to escort a United Airlines jet into Denver International Airport on Wednesday night after a Qatari diplomat apparently tried to sneak a cigarette, then joked that he had wanted to set his shoe afire, federal law enforcement officials said.

...

"The guy just wanted a smoke and went into the bathroom," the source said. "Not a smart thing to do."

The incident was exacerbated by the man's sarcastic comment after leaving the lavatory, when flight attendants and passengers smelled smoke. Asked what he had been doing, he allegedly remarked, "Lighting my shoes on fire," according to one law enforcement source in Washington. Several passengers concurred with that description of events early Thursday.

I'm not in an argument; and certainly don't profess to second guessing how the U.S, State Dept and Homeland Sec does their jobs.
Maybe your qualified to do that... I'm not.
All while you somehow think "only you know" the answer, based on what you don't realize are assumptions and third & forth hand information.
No "logical fallacy" there.

You're not qualified to say whether scrambling two fighter jets to escort a plane because a passenger tried to sneak in a smoke and then joked about his setting his shoes on fire was an appropriate response? Well, maybe you're really not qualified... One would have to ponder really what kind of qualifications one would require to comment on these events...

But anyhow, the backpedaling and side tracking of the discussion is impressive. Somehow, now this all comes down to second guessing how "State Dept and Homeland Sec" do their jobs... And it's about the validity of the "third & forth hand information". And it's about how commenting on the reported information is simply in fact making unfounded assumptions about a situation where anyone who was not there at the time doesn't have a chance in hell of really having a clue of what he's talking about.

Really a waste of time, as this has become completely silly. People are so disappointing... This is pretty much how every conversations turns out. One side fails to come up with arguments and go to ridiculous places...

Questions you've left unanswered: "what do you think is inaccurate? What's the spin? What part of the story exactly do you question? So why don't you expand on how "FAA, Homeland Security, or the White House's procedures" conflicts with any of the points I've made? Or exactly what you think was inaccurate about the story? Which of my 'assumptions' are false based on what fact of the FAA, HS, WH procedures?"

What are my assumptions exactly? That fighter jets were deployed? That there was joke about lighting up shoes? That he tried to light up a cigarette?

Lots of questions for you to answer, let's see if you can do so, or if you'll once again accuse me of vague things like not having a position, making assumptions, having little knowledge of whatever, etc...

 

[GirgleMirt]

I'm noticing that too. I guess he doesn't get the part that anyone can look back and say it was a joke now, but at the time, they didn't know.

Yeah, he could have been trying to blow up the plane like he joked he was tryign to do. Now how do the fighter jets fit in with this exactly? What's the link with hijacking? I've asked this repeatedly and there was no answer. Can you answer this simple question?

I've asked you this before, can you reply to these simple questions? "Why would someone intent on using a plane as a giant missile comment to others that he was trying to light up his shoes? Wouldn't that be counter constructive to his goal? You think real terrorists will joke about taking over a plane before doing it?"

 

[gmichael]

This applies to any and all events where you were not personally present, and to even to pretty much the sum of our collective knowledge. In other words, pretty much the entirety of our existences.

It's simply a logical fallacy. You attempt to discredit a position by accusing someone of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". It's a straw man argument. "It's funny because at one point, it seems like every time someone is losing an argument, comes silly questions about the validity of everything. Just, you know, to hint that actually there's many unknowns and that renders the whole discussion and points made invalid.".

Quite sad. Always what seems to happen when someone can't keep up with a debate. A clear sign that he's lost and has run out of arguments. With that, I'm out.

It's not about winning or loosing an agument. It's about you not catching on to the point that no one knew it was a joke at the time. Isn't it better to error on the side of caution? Was it a mistake to scramble the jets? Well yeah, it's easy to say that now. Who knew then? People pannic when an idiot makes a threat. To them, that's what it was. It wasn't known to be a joke until later. Hence the Monday morning QB comment.
Do you follow our football at all? They play on Sunday and every Monday morning, everyone knows what the QB should have done. But would they have known what to do in the heat of the moment? We call those people Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

[gmichael]

Yeah, he could have been trying to blow up the plane like he joked he was tryign to do. Now how do the fighter jets fit in with this exactly? What's the link with hijacking? I've asked this repeatedly and there was no answer. Can you answer this simple question?

Yes. I'll be glad to answer this again. But will you get it this time?
People pannic under the threat or terrorism. They make mistakes. But I for one am glad that they errored on the side of caution this time. If the same was done on 9/11/01 the towers would still be up and 4000 people would still be alive.

 

[gmichael]

I've asked you this before, can you reply to these simple questions? "Why would someone intent on using a plane as a giant missile comment to others that he was trying to light up his shoes? Wouldn't that be counter constructive to his goal? You think real terrorists will joke about taking over a plane before doing it?"

And I'll answer again. People do not always think clearly under pressure. A possible bomb is a lot of pressure.

 

[GirgleMirt]

It's not about winning or loosing an agument.

That's not what your posts and the posts of others seem to indicate.

It's about you not catching on to the point that no one knew it was a joke at the time. It's it better to error on the side of caution?

So they really thought he had tried to light up his shoes like he said he did. Obviously, he had failed. What's the caution? The two marshals arrested him and watched him carefully, what were the jets for exactly? I've asked on multiple occasions, no answer as of yet.

Was it a mistake to scramble the jets? Well yeah, it's easy to say that now. Who knew then?

Why were the jets deployed for exactly? There was never any threat of hijacking at any point of the situation.

People pannic when an idiot makes a threat. To them, that's what it was. It wasn't known to be a joke until later. Hence the Monday morning QB comment.

But there was no threat... Just a statement about failing to light up his shoes. He didn't say he was going to blow up the plane with his shoes, commented that he tried to, which should have been evident to everyone involved that it was not a serious comment. It would be absolutely moronic to actually state so after a failed attempt. Nobody would be so utterly moronic as to fail to blow up a plane and then publicly disclosing it, only to then make yet another attempt at lighting up his shoes and blowing up the plane. Do you see how that makes absolutely no sense what so ever?

Do you follow our football at all? They play on Sunday and every Monday morning, everyone knows what the QB should have done. But would they have known what to do in the heat of the moment? We call those people Monday morning quarterbacks.

No I don't watch football at all, but I figured out what MMQ meant. If a quarterback gets confused and runs to his own goal line thinking he just made a touchdown and scores a safety for the opposing team, it would be moronic to comment that, someone who read an article about it in a newspaper the next days and commented on the events was "simply making assumptions", that he was "assuming that the info that was given to press was the 'whole story.' ", that "what passes as unbiased media in this country, didn't put their spin on it.", etc.

It's silly. Yet, that's pretty much what we have here.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Yes. I'll be glad to answer this again. But will you get it this time?

These were the questions:
1) Now how do the fighter jets fit in with this exactly?
2) What's the link with hijacking?
3) "Why would someone intent on using a plane as a giant missile comment to others that he was trying to light up his shoes?
4) Wouldn't that be counter constructive to his goal?
5)You think real terrorists will joke about taking over a plane before doing it?"

Your answer

People pannic under the threat or terrorism. They make mistakes. But I for one am glad that they errored on the side of caution this time. If the same was done on 9/11/01 the towers would still be up and 4000 people would still be alive.

So basically, you're saying that that they panicked and made a mistake by deploying the fighter jets, which was absolutely worthless and a disproportionate response to the problem at hand. Glad we all agree on that.

It's funny how people area always unable to answer simple questions... Here, I'll answer my own questions because it seems so hard for you people to do so.

1) Now how do the fighter jets fit in with this exactly?
Answer: They don't. Absolute waste, there was absolutely no reason for them to be deployed
2) What's the link with hijacking?
Answer: Paranoia. There was absolutely no cause or justification in this case to think that there was a chance the plane was under threat of being hijacked...
3) "Why would someone intent on using a plane as a giant missile comment to others that he was trying to light up his shoes?
Answer: They wouldn't. Would make no sense to do so.
4) Wouldn't that be counter constructive to his goal?
Answer: Of course.
5)You think real terrorists will joke about taking over a plane before doing it?"
Answer: Of course not.

 

[Rickster71]

I'm noticing that too. I guess he doesn't get the part that anyone can look back and say it was a joke now, but at the time, they didn't know.

This is really scary.
It's like the reincarnation of Joe Schmo and JohnD and LOTR all wrapped into one.... All with the same long 'Uni-Bomber like' manifestos

 

[GirgleMirt]

This is really scary.
It's like the reincarnation of Joe Schmo and JohnD and LOTR all wrapped into one.... All with the same long 'Uni-Bomber like' manifestos

Not answered a single question? Check.
Personal attacks to discredit a poster? Check.
Didn't add anything to the topic at hand? Check.

Just more of the same... People are so disappointing...