(updated -- it get worse)
Horrible news from France:
Gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring seven, French officials say.Horrible news or, at Fox, excellent news -- you provide the terrorist attack, they'll provide the war:
At least two masked attackers opened fire with assault rifles in the office and exchanged shots with police in the street outside before escaping by car.
President Francois Hollande said there was no doubt it had been a terrorist attack "of exceptional barbarity"....
The latest tweet on Charlie Hebdo's account was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The satirical weekly has courted controversy in the past with its irreverent take on news and current affairs.
The magazine was fire-bombed in November 2011 a day after it carried a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad....
"I think the free world now has seen what is ahead of us." @WalidPhares on the deadly terror attack in Paris
https://t.co/4QVmlBPwDX
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) January 7, 2015Walid Phares -- former Mitt Romney adviser, reportedly an officer in a group responsible for a civilian massacre in Lebanon in the 1980s, and believer in the sharia threat to the United States -- is slavering for war. He doesn't sound unhappy about today's news. He sounds satisfied. Events conform to his worldview. He's sure he's been vindicated.
... I think the free world now has seen what is ahead of us because we have been so late in fighting terrorism both in the region, because we have been letting down our guard across the Atlantic. It's not just in France but even here, because we have not actually addressed the ideology and radicalization....I'm so tired of this notion. I'm tired of being told that Western nations are oblivious to this -- based on what evidence? That jihadism wasn't wiped out in two hours in a CGI spectacle of explosions, as if this were a Hollywood movie? Western nations are fully aware of the threat. The response, in the West and in the Arab/Muslim world, is inadequate in some respects, excessive in others, appropriate in yet others. But people like Phares don't really care about keeping people safe. Phares has made a career of scaremongering and saber-rattling -- he wants this to go on. No matter how many wars we fight, how many drones we drop, how many people we subject to surveillance, as long as he can say it's not enough, he has a sweet, well-paid gig. So he's like an oilman who hit a gusher today. It's a good day for him.
And for everyone at Fox.
Fox "military expert": "political correctness is killing us."
— Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) January 7, 2015Many of the Fox fans replying to that Phares tweet seem as if this could just be the moment they've been waiting for:
@foxandfriends @WalidPhares
Not if the rest of the world pulls together to exterminate them.
— Pap (@d926600) January 7, 2015@foxandfriends @WalidPhares This has always been ahead of us just people have not opened their eyes and saw it there #betterwithfriends
— Albert Rocha (@Theramenes) January 7, 2015Oh, and of course, it's all Obama's fault:
@foxandfriends @WalidPhares Thats Obamas people hard at work. Boy they sure are tolerant.
— Daniel (@monterelez1) January 7, 2015@foxandfriends @WalidPhares Barry O will label it workplace violence. Move along, nothing to see here.
— Jeff Robinson (@jrobinson105) January 7, 2015Yeah, a terrific day for the whole Fox family.
****
UPDATE: Via Media Matters, here's a clip from Fox -- you'll hear K.T. McFarland argue that "political correctness" hinders our ability to "find, track, and follow people" (oh, and French gun control is at fault as well) ... and then, at about 2:12, Elisabeth Hasselbeck links the attack to, of all people, New York mayor Bill de Blasio:
... When you hear about not painting everybody with the same brush, not treating everybody differently, I'm thinking about New York City here, and police morale, and as soon as the police, and as soon as the police act they're painted with the racist brush by, in fact, our own mayor here. So how are officials supposed to be on high alert and really getting specific looking at individuals without, you know, taking a step back in terms of security?I'm left speechless by that.
27 comments:
I hope the cleaning crews at FAUX "news" will wear HAZMAT suits when they go to clean-up after every show - all of FAUX "news" crews folks will be jirkle-cerking one another off under the tables.
And I'll say it again:
America's conservatives and Republicans pray on their knees every day for another 9/11 on American soil.
Will they, like Democrat did, try to support and embrace the President after a horrific terrorist event?
Don't even bet a child's doll house on it!!!
OMG OMG OMG -- I'm watching John Kerry, live, making a statement about the attack, and after speaking in English he's now -- GASP -- repeating what he said in....
in.......
Oh, the horror for all good Americans....
HE'S SPEAKING IN FRENCH.
Of course, at the moment we can't be yammering about cheese-eating surrender monkeys and Freedom Fries, but still!
How is this Any different than "Christians" shooting the place up, or Israel commiting genocide? They bow down to the same damned dog.
Clearly the tehrrists were inspired by the new Rethuglican majority in the Senate, right?
I won't bother asking '10 beers' for an actual example of " Israel committing genocide", he might implode!
Instead, on the specific question of whether or not political correctness is having an effect on security, let me ask you all this question:
Is racial profiling allowed at American airports when deciding who should be scrutinised closely?
I ask because as I understand it - and I will be happy to be proved wrong - little old white ladies are given the same treatment as Muslim women dressed in burqas.
Say it ain't so!
So let me see if I understand you correctly, Duffy: you're blaming a terrorist attack in Paris on airport security in America?
Ten Bears knows what he's talking about, duffous, but here is an article about what he is talking about:
From his cinder block home in the Shatila refugee camp, Youssef Hamza remembers peering through a bathroom vent when he heard a woman running down the alley, screaming his name. Her arm was gushing blood but Hamza remained silent. Moments later, the militiamen came trampling after her, and he knew he had to act fast. He motioned quietly to his family, who were crouching in the dark, to get ready to make a run for it.
"I told them, 'don't speak, don't cough,'" the 65-year-old Palestinian refugee recalls, scratching a thin white beard. "Either we are going to be killed here or die trying to escape." He told those who protested, "We will rely on God."
Sneaking through the camp's network of dark alleyways, the family fled to the adjoining Beirut neighbourhood of Barbir. But there, under a highway overpass, they were met by a 50-calibre barrel of an Israeli gunner. Hamza says the soldier ordered them back, brushing off their plea that a massacre was taking place.
But Israeli commanders knew otherwise. They were actually in close coordination with the militiamen known as Phalangists, and had allowed them into Hamza's neighbourhood earlier that evening.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/201291672947917214.html
Don't ask Duff what he means, Steve, that would require at least temporary sobriety in order for him to give a coherent answer to your question.
"Will they, like Democrat did, try to support and embrace the President after a horrific terrorist event?"
-----------------------
I know it's a rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway.
There will be no talk of impeachment. They will demand that he be tried for treason and then immediately executed.
"So let me see if I understand you correctly, Duffy: you're blaming a terrorist attack in Paris on airport security in America?"
No, Steve, but part of your piece implied that FOX and other Right-wingers were claiming that PC was spoiling security in the west. I simply asked the question to elicit information.
Can't help noticing that you avoided an answer!
'10 Beers' and DA seem unaware that the word 'genocide is usually meant as a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire people. I would hazard a guess, in fact I'd bet the deeds of the house, that the Palestinian population is bigger now by a huge margin than it was 50 years ago. Whatever else the Israelis might or might not be they are usually reckoned to be efficient - and in the field of genocide they have, shall we say, first-hand experience!
Targeting a specific people is genocide, duff, that you think it doesn't count unless said people are all wiped out is a very convenient definition.
Terrorist attack yesterday at Colorado NAACP office by old white guy. ZZZzzzzzzz.
So, uh, help me out here - these are the kind of deaths that it IS okay to politicize? As opposed to the kind of deaths that it's NOT okay to politicize?
I have such a hard time keeping up with conservative rules.
God, will you people please stop feeding the troll? It's like you're addicted to something you know is bad for you.
You have to feel a bit sorry for the Fox crowd. They never got to use the 'hundreds more suspected Ebola cases, new calls for Obama's impeachment' stories they worked so hard on. Nobody seems to care about immigration executive orders or Cuba. And their greatest election victory EVAH didn't actually seem to change anything. No wonder they're restless.
and as soon as the police act they're painted with the racist brush
Is she equating choking a guy selling loosies to fighting terror?
your piece implied that FOX and other Right-wingers were claiming that PC was spoiling security in the west.
Actually, you dim bulb, his piece QUOTED FOX and other right wingers claiming PC was spoiling security it the west. No implications required.
Aunt Snow, I am admonished, Ma'am! But no-one will answer my easy-peasy question: Are little old white ladies (no, no, not you, Auntie!) treated to exactly the same security procedures as Muslim women wearing burkas at US airports? In other words, is racial profiling strictly forbidden and if so, why?
gee, duff, I didn't know that being a fanatic jihadi can be profiled and caught by looking at a persons racial appearance.
Thanks for the simple solution to this problem.
Thank you, DA, at least you answered my question, er, in an elliptical way but still, well done, 'E' for Effort!
So, your security measures *are* guided by questions of political correctness.
You're overfed, troll. I'm not feeding you anymore.
simply put - since a terrorist would not attempt to draw attention to oneself by say wearing a burka and since security personal are not all Sherlock Holmes able to tell at a glance who is faking being a nondescript traveler and who isn't, erring on the side of caution requires everybody goes through the same procedures. Sorry about that - you can't be too careful no?
Trying to explain anything to duff is like teaching calculus to a chimpanzee.
Dark - while I agree, this is unfair to the chimpanzee whose limitations are biological in nature as opposed to the troll's petulant willfulness.
That said, Chimps are very well adapted to their habitat a fact that the troll into the jungle without supplies or weapons would prove fairly quickly.
What is this thing called "trolling"?
All I did was ask a straightforward question which arose from the original post, to wit:
"Is racial profiling allowed at American airports when deciding who should be scrutinised closely?"
The answer is, apparently, 'No'.
As it should be.
This is why racial profiling and selective screening don't work.
Try not to move your lips too much when you read it:
To improve the efficiency of airport security screening, the FAA deployed the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening system (CAPS) in 1999. CAPS attempts to identify potential terrorists through the use of profiles so that security personnel can focus the bulk of their attention on high-risk individuals. In this paper, we show that since CAPS uses profiles to select passengers for increased scrutiny, it is actually less secure than systems that employ random searches. In particular, we present an algorithm called Carnival Booth that demonstrates how a terrorist cell can defeat the CAPS system. Using a combination of statistical analysis and computer simulation, we evaluate the efficacy of Carnival Booth and illustrate that CAPS is an ineffective security measure. Based on these findings, we argue that CAPS should not be legally permissible since it does not satisfy court-interpreted exemptions to the Fourth Amendment. Finally, based both on our analysis of CAPS and historical case studies, we provide policy recommendations on how to improve air security.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm
From "student papers", DA, so that's pretty convincing then!
In the meantime, let's strip search Auntie Snow and ignore the woman in the burka in case she cries 'racism'!
the troll is tragic waste of protein.
Won't even bother to point out that nobody was saying ignore the hypothetical woman in the burka since the need for aggrieved victimhood is impervious to any such efforts.
Post a Comment