There is No Danger, There is No Danger, There is No........

Quote:

Of course not. The idea that people in the Middle East are plotting terrorist attacks against us is a base canard. I am very certain that the 9/11 terrorists did no reconnaissance at all!!!

See, your response, while humorous, didn't address the point of my post at all.

My point was that if the 'terrorists' wanted to take pictures of new york landmarks for the purposes of reconnaissance, they could easily get the same information online, or maybe get someone who ISN'T an identified guard for the Iranian UN mission to go around taking the pictures.

Do you think the terrorists are stupid? Is that it? Because anyone who was doing real reconnaissance in the fashion in which you so sarcastically implied they were doing it, would be an absolute idiot.

The idea that people involved might be taking pictures just like any other tourist is a base canard. I am very certain that the Iranian guards did no sightseeing at all!!!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Of course it's in America. You think I'm some kind of furrener?

0 Replies

One thing the terrorists we've been dealing with lately have shown is they usually do, or at least attempt to do what they say.

0 Replies

Holy Crap, you mean we won the war of 54.40 and Seattle is not in Canada?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

all this time I thought Bruce (the boss) was king of Jersey and now I find out it's part of america, next thing you know we won't need a visa to get in and out of New Mexico.

Them there Nuevo Mexicanos, they all talks a ferrin laguage, they can't be 'Merican . . .

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Of course not. The idea that people in the Middle East are plotting terrorist attacks against us is a base canard. I am very certain that the 9/11 terrorists did no reconnaissance at all!!!

See, your response, while humorous, didn't address the point of my post at all.

My point was that if the 'terrorists' wanted to take pictures of new york landmarks for the purposes of reconnaissance, they could easily get the same information online, or maybe get someone who ISN'T an identified guard for the Iranian UN mission to go around taking the pictures.

Do you think the terrorists are stupid? Is that it? Because anyone who was doing real reconnaissance in the fashion in which you so sarcastically implied they were doing it, would be an absolute idiot.

The idea that people involved might be taking pictures just like any other tourist is a base canard. I am very certain that the Iranian guards did no sightseeing at all!!!

Cycloptichorn

You are correct in your argument, and I think your logic is sound, despite the repeated lies of Bush and his cronies such as this article from: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/investigators/WABC_investigators_042902pabuses.html

"What has to trouble investigators is that a similar thing happened this past Summer, just before the attack on the Twin Towers. Three men were taken into custody after being spotted brazenly snapping reconnaissance photos at Federal Plaza. The men, all of Middle Eastern descent, were grilled by the FBI, their was film confiscated and then they were released. When the developed photographs came back a few days later the pictures showed key security checkpoints.

A renowned terrorist expert tells us that taking photographs of a potential target is a common practice of al-Qaida operatives.

Kushner *: "There's a history, they cased out the embassies in East Africa. They cased out Kohbar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole and certainly the World Trade Center. So, this is the M.O. of that particular group."

* Harvey Kushner, Anti-Terrorist Expert

0 Replies

Brandon, picking up foreigners taking pictures and accusing them of being spies used to be a standard practice in the Soviet Union. We Americans used to hoot in derision at the simple minded paranoia of the Soviets, but your mentality would have fit right in there.

0 Replies

From what I understood listening to those who know about such things, the way the terrorist went about getting their information was to do things in such a way that they blended in wherever they were at. For instance, in New York, I don't believe that they would put people who are easily recongnized taking pictures of things that are symbols like the statue of liberty or things like subways. They would have ordinary people perhaps even with their families looking like they are vacation. Or they would have people working in those hot dog venders things you see on TV in those big cities like New York. In smaller places they probably have people working in the middle of the mall in those temporary booths where they sell hats or something.

It would be incredibly stupid to use an Iranian guard to take pictures of the subways in new york for terrorist purposes. They may as well have had it stamped on their foreheads if that is the case because it would be so easy to trace anything back to them.

I think that was Cycloptichorn's point and I agree if it is his/her point and if not it is my point.

0 Replies

What is particularly interesting about this thread is the unanimous reaction by our progressive/liberal/leftist/really good guy friends.

On the one hand:

Iran is widely accepted to be a state sponsor of terrorism.

The 9/11 commission in reporting that they found no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda were conspiring, added that the evidence actually supports a strong link between and Iran and Al Qaeda

It is widely held that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda leaders and some experts even believe Bin Laden is there.

Something like 40% to 50% of all embassies' staff are thought to engage in some degree of espionage.

The Iranian theocratic regime considers America, The Great Satan to be its enemy.

There are any number of conspiracy theory "wet dreams" concerning George Bush and 9/11 and Iraq.

Many of the people the Soviets arrested for taking photos were American spies.

History and the daily news is replete with examples of unfathomable stupidity on the part of individuals and group, not obviously moronic.

The terrorist who attempted to smuggle explosives across the border between Canada and the US for the millennium celebration in Seattle was caught because he reacted stupidly to a border guard's standard questioning.

The "shoe-bomber" was a terrorist. The "shoe-bomber" was stupid. The people that let the "shoe-bomber" get on that plane were stupid.

The diabolically clever Bush Administration was incredibly stupid in allowing Abu Ghraib to happen.

The Iranian embassy was repeatedly warned not to allow these chaps to take photos and videos.

On the other hand:

Iran would never be so stupid as to have its agents do something as "obvious" as taking pictures in a city of 10 million, where 2 million tourists are snapping photos daily.

Thinking ill of Iran is a conspiracy theorist "wet dream."

Guarding against Iranian espionage is akin to the tactics of the Soviet Union.

Is it that Brandon is identifiable as a conservative or that the Bush Adminstration ordered the arrests? or both?

I know, it's simple logic: Only the Bush Administration is paranoid enough to suspect Iranian embassy staff of foul play, and only the Bush Administration is oppressive enough to arrest them.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Is it that Brandon is identifiable as a conservative or that the Bush Adminstration ordered the arrests? or both?

I know, it's simple logic: Only the Bush Administration is paranoid enough to suspect Iranian embassy staff of foul play, and only the Bush Administration is oppressive enough to arrest them.

Small problem. There were no arrests and no interrogation. Seems like the relevant authorities do not think it as much of a threat either.

Reasoning: if they were a credible threat, wouldn't we want to hold and interrogate them?

Sounds to me like a diplomatic expulsion, and we all know that many times this is more political than national security.

If this did represent a credible threat, then the authorities are derelict in their duty because those are free men.

Free to.... <queue spooky music> to do anything. Just about anything.... Shocked

But relax, "go to disney world". Laughing

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Small problem. There were no arrests and no interrogation. Seems like the relevant authorities do not think it as much of a threat either.

Reasoning: if they were a credible threat, wouldn't we want to hold and interrogate them?

Sounds to me like a diplomatic expulsion, and we all know that many times this is more political than national security.

If this did represent a credible threat, then the authorities are derelict in their duty because those are free men.

Free to.... <queue spooky music> to do anything. Just about anything....

But relax, "go to disney world".

"Arrest," "Expel" same difference.

But maybe not. Imagine the caterwauling if the authorities had violated the principle of diplomatic immunity and arrested these guys. Rogue Nation strikes again!

And we all know that all expulsions are not based on politics.

One thing we can be fairly certain of, these guys were "spies." They may not have had anything to do with terrorist attacks but dollars to donuts they were spies.

In any case, if we booted them just to piss off the Iranians, I'm all for it.

In the end, if the move was designed to simply piss off

0 Replies

"In any case, if we booted them just to piss off the Iranians, I'm all for it.

In the end, if the move was designed to simply piss off"

Stuttered

0 Replies

Quote:

One thing we can be fairly certain of, these guys were "spies." They may not have had anything to do with terrorist attacks but dollars to donuts they were spies.

I'm at a loss to see how you can be 'fairly certain' of this fact.

Surely you are not implying that every Iranian who is in America can be assumed to be a 'spy?'

The initial argument was not that the Iranians wouldn't spy upon us. It's that there are easier, and less visible, ways of getting photographs of stuff than using identified agents of Iran to do it - and if they are spies, no doubt they would have rathered we didn't know they were taking the pictures, right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We should invade Iran and get rid of all those spies.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
One thing we can be fairly certain of, these guys were "spies." They may not have had anything to do with terrorist attacks but dollars to donuts they were spies.

I'm at a loss to see how you can be 'fairly certain' of this fact.

Surely you are not implying that every Iranian who is in America can be assumed to be a 'spy?'

The initial argument was not that the Iranians wouldn't spy upon us. It's that there are easier, and less visible, ways of getting photographs of stuff than using identified agents of Iran to do it - and if they are spies, no doubt they would have rathered we didn't know they were taking the pictures, right?

Cycloptichorn

No, I am not implying that every Iranian who is in America can be assumed a spy.

These fellows are "guards" at the Iranian embassy. Non uniformed guards at embassies almost always translate as "spies."

These "guards" were out and about taking pictures and video tapes because they want to go home and regal their fellow Iranians with home movies and snapshots of The Great Satan's subways?

After repeated warnings they persisted because they felt compelled to protest an admonition that "...lacks political judgment and moral value?"

There is a very logical reason why nations (such as the US) use embassy staff to conduct certain acts of espionage: They have diplomatic immunity. We can't detain and interrogate them. Their ability to conduct espionage may be compromised by their official status (although in this case they seem to have accomplished whatever mission they might have had), but whatever they can do, they can do with impunity.

Let's, for argument sake, assume that the Iranians do want these pictures for sinister reasons, it is not as if such a desire would be unexpected. Whether or not these Iranians were taking pictures to support the sinister intentions, one can safely assume that the CIA presumes Iranians are taking pictures in NY. By having their embassy agents take the pictures they didn't spill the beans on any clandestine plans.

If I am right that these "guards" were spies (and I believe I am) then the Iranians, for whatever, reason wanted specific pictures of specific locations, which may or may not have been available on the internet. (I'm not sure one can get an idea of the security provisions for the Statue of Liberty by purchasing postcards or downloading jpg files from www.ILoveNY.com). They lose nothing by having their "guards" take them. Just as I am sure these fellows were "spies," I am sure that they were of the dime a dozen variety. There will be no major victory in deporting these guys as they can and will be easily replaced by Iran.

So Iran gets its photos, for whatever purpose may exist, and we confirm what we already knew or suspected that embassy staff from numerous nations, including Iran, are spying on us.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

We should invade Iran and get rid of all those spies.

No, we should invade Iran and get rid of those mullahs.

0 Replies

This

Quote:

Non uniformed guards at embassies almost always translate as "spies."

Is an assertion, and one you are basing your argument around, NOT a fact. Can you tell me what you base this belief on?

Provide me with some sort of evidence of this and I will readily give credence to your idea. Until you can do that, I have to stand with my origional statement that this sounds more like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream than reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So your saying that our government just expelled those guys who they suspected of spying for terrorist activities or some other no good purpose and let them go home to tell all they know?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

"Arrest," "Expel" same difference.

False. There is a big difference.

Quote:

But maybe not. Imagine the caterwauling if the authorities had violated the principle of diplomatic immunity and arrested these guys. Rogue Nation strikes again!

This would not violate the principles of diplomatic immunity so long as the danger is real. This is a misleading statement bourne of a poor understanding of diplomatic immunity.

Quote:

One thing we can be fairly certain of, these guys were "spies." They may not have had anything to do with terrorist attacks but dollars to donuts they were spies.

I tend to agree, which is why I pointed out that if they were accessed to be a legitimate threat we'd be treating them as such, and not as spies.

Which would be the big difference between expulsion and arrest and interrogation.

0 Replies

Craven

I have no special expertise on diplomatic immunity and I don't have the time to do any research, so I won't argue the point as to whether or not the Iranians could have been arrested.

However, the fact that they were not arrested is not a clear indication that there was a concern that they might be taking these photographs for terrorist purposes. Again assuming you are right about the law and diplomatic immunity, in order for the authorities to shrug the convention aside and assert an emergency situation, they would need far more convincing evidence that these fellow were terrorists than simply the fact that they were taking pictures which might assist terrorists.

It is, obviously, not certain that the purpose of these photos was terrorism related, but neither is it certain that they were not.

0 Replies

There is No Danger, There is No Danger, There is No........

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know