Monday, August 29, 2005

Terrorists at UC Berkeley

This article details how the mother of Cal's very own student group everyone loves to hate has in fact been labeled a terrorist organization. Now, let me be clear that Bamn in is ineffectual at best and creepy at worst, but unless Bamn has been up to something I don't know about they are most certainly not a terrorist organization.

This is a waste of law enforcement time. Here's a hint: if they're trying to get their pictures in the newspaper they probably aren't terrorists.

Beat you again, Calstuff!

Update: Tightening up my original post.


Well, that's why they're a "potential" terrorist organization, rather than an actual one. It's sort of a significant difference. Besides, they always make plans to "take action." It's not the FBIs fault that they don't live up to their word.

Also, terrorists don't create a whole lot of terror if people don't notice them. Any terrorist worth her explosives will try to get into the paper.
Yeah, why if there's anything that Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Mohammed Atta had in common was that they were big publicity hounds. If only the Berkeley Daily planet would have printed Atta's letter to the editor I'm sure we would have been able to stop them much earlier.
I might also mention that Kaczynski and McVeigh accomplished none of their goals, so I sort of think they sucked as terrorists.

Atta, on the other hand, represented a group that had frequently publicized their views, and, as a result, created a huge change.

Now, I guess it's true that terrorist organizations aren't going to go on TV and say "Hey, we're going to blow this place up tomorrow," but they certainly try to get their view heard.
I think you're showing your age Beetle. As an adult, I remember full well the terror that the Unibomber and the attack on the Oaklahoma City Federal Building created. If you don't, try searching the library news archives for articles written at the time. They were certainly as successful as the Sept. 11 terrorists - like them they destroyed their targets and terrorized a nation. Also like them, they failed to destroy the nation.
Oh please. These terrorists want to bring down the Western World or at least the American government. Their plan was to blow things up leading to a break down in the system martial law and all that. (McViegh specifically wanted to start a race war.)

They all failed because their plan is stupid. To say that they succeeded because we all got scared is like saying that Hitler succeeded because the English were scared. It’s stupid.
What long-term impacts did the unibomber and OK city bombings have? Yeah, people might be scared for a while, but it didn't change a whole lot. A few years later, nobody cared.

The same can't be said for Atta. That attack has changed America in a very impactful way. It's a few years later, and we still can point to the impact. As to whether that counts as 'success' or not, I guess that's debatable.
Agreed. Hitler changed the dynamics of how the world worked, but that whole thousand year riech didn't work out as planned. As to whether that counts as 'success' or not, I guess that's debatable... if you're foolish.
So what do you think Atta's goals were? We seem to know Hitler's goals. But I've heard all kinds of speculation about how Atta and co. wanted things to go, and if the way we responded was the way they wanted us to respond. Which is why I said it was 'debatable' if it was success.
Assuming that Atta was representing Al Qaeda, it seems clear that Al Qaeda's goal is to evict western influence from the Middle East, then reestablish fundamentalist Islamic control over Islam's holy lands. By that measure, Atta has so far failed. However the Bush administration response - war on Iraq - may end up doing what Atta has not. A Clinton or Gore administration would undoubtedly have reacted differently; perhaps in a way less likely to have helped the terrorists build strength in the Middle East.
Post a Comment