posted by stestagg on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:45
Conversations I found this today:

[link]http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm|| ||http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm [/link]

If you:
Have a front door that you close,
Use a camera,
Use a mobile phone
Have a white van
Use cleaning chemicals
Have a Credit Card
Use a computer
Travel
OR
Have a garage

then YOU could be a terrorist. Phone the hotline and assume the Anti-Terrorist-Submission-position while you wait for the black helicopters to arrive

;) .
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
So... like, what's my score?
by sbergman27 on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:30 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"Have a front door that you close,"

Yes. Well, it's not really my front door, you see. It belongs to the apartment complex. I'm just renting it. But I do close it.

"Use a camera,"

No. Well, yes. I don't normally use cameras. But I did take some photos of my loved ones a few months back. I had them developed at Walgreens.

"Use a mobile phone"

Unfortunately. I hate the slimy thing. But I seem to be stuck with it, for business reasons.

"Have a white van"

Never in my life, I'm happy to say. (I'm sure I got that one right!)

"Use cleaning chemicals"

Only when absolutely necessary. You probably don't want to visit.

"Have a Credit Card"

Yes. Well... no. Not really. I don't believe in credit. But I have something that looks like one, but it's really a debit card... though it *can* be used as a credit card... but not really.

"Use a computer"

Definitely a yes. Many of them! I'm not sure if it matters, but they all use an operating system that not everyone has heard of... and is not of American origin... and which some people say is kinda communist, but I don't think it is, really. And my friends don't think it's communist either.

"Travel"

I used to. Not any more. Too many security checks.

"Have a garage"

No. Maybe that's why I never made it rich from some cool invention I made in it? Is it *wrong* to feel resentful about having missed out on the American dream?

Reply Score: 2

Very true
by sultanqasim on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:44 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

It's ridiculous what kind of flimsy evidence they are using to claim that people are "terrorists". Here in Canada, they arrested about 20 people for having cell phones + laptops + batteries + a farmer who had some fertilizer. Western governments are going crazy. At least it isn't as bad as the US here.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Very true
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 6th Mar 2008 04:59 in reply to "Very true"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Here in Canada, they arrested about 20 people for having cell phones + laptops + batteries + a farmer who had some fertilizer.


Every time I visit my mother and sister, who live in a rural area in Nova Scotia, I get to hear about the latest ill-conceived political/legal plan for rural areas. My favourite so far has been a proposed law banning the use of wood stoves.

For one, it's an idea that no one who had spent the least amount of time in a rural area would consider pratical. It's also a purely-symbolic gesture (I'd be amazed if all the pollution caused by all the woodstoves in the province amounted to more than a drop in a bucket compared to the automobile pollution of even the smallest city in the province). And the motivation appears largely cynical: gain political points at the expensive of a relatively small group, therefore minimizing the risk of political repercussions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very true
by whartung on Thu 6th Mar 2008 23:41 in reply to "RE: Very true"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it depends on the area that you're talking about.

The primary difference about woodstoves (over cars, say), is the heavy amount of particulate matter that gets tossed in to the atmosphere. If you live in a valley that's susceptible to inversion layers (which many are), a lot of smoking chimneys can be very problematic for overall air quality with impact far beyond what a car produces. That's the primary motive behind banning wood stoves. Some communities only 'ban' them on particularly bad days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Very true
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 7th Mar 2008 01:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Very true"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it depends on the area that you're talking about.


Yeah, there is that - and of course population density is an important factor too. These are mostly coastal communities, however, in an area with an average population density of one person per square KM.

Reply Score: 2

The actual list, sans ZOMG!!!! reaction
by jwwf on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:51 UTC
jwwf
Member since:
2006-01-19

* Van – Terrorists need transport. If you work in commercial vehicle hire or sales, has a sale or rental made you suspicious?
* Passport – Terrorists use multiple identities. Do you know someone with documents in different names for no obvious reason?
* Mobile phone – Terrorists need communication. Anonymous, pay-as-you-go and stolen mobiles are typical. Have you seen someone with large quantities of mobile phones? Has it made you suspicious?
* Camera – Terrorists need information. Observation and surveillance help terrorists plan attacks. Have you seen anyone taking pictures of security arrangements?
* Chemicals – Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?
* Mask and goggles – Terrorists use protective equipment. Handling chemicals is dangerous. Maybe you’ve seen goggles or masks dumped somewhere.
* Credit card – Terrorists need funding. Cheque and credit card fraud are ways terrorists generate cash. Have you seen any suspicious transactions?
* Computer – Terrorists use computers. Do you know someone who visits terrorist-related websites?
* Suitcase – Terrorists need to travel. Meetings training and planning can take place anywhere. Do you know someone who travels but is vague about where they are going?
* Padlock – Terrorists need storage. Lock-ups, garages and sheds can all be used by terrorists to store equipment. Are you suspicious of anyone renting a commercial property?

Reply Score: 2

now go and report!
by stew on Wed 5th Mar 2008 10:50 UTC
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

Report! As many as you can. If they want suspects, give them some. The local police chef. The mayor. The neighbor that died last year. The more useless data they get the sooner they will realize the whole idea is just bullshit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: now go and report!
by h3rman on Wed 5th Mar 2008 12:39 in reply to "now go and report!"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

The more useless data they get the sooner they will realize the whole idea is just bullshit.


Uhm.. they already know it is just bullshit.
Terrorism is merely a business model. The most efficient way to manufacture approval to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and take away citizens' rights.
The United States is at the moment the number one terror state. Guilty, approved by a.o. my own country, of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threatening to kill even more in Iran. If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: now go and report!
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 5th Mar 2008 19:49 in reply to "RE: now go and report!"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

I'll bite. There's obviously a motive to invade Iraq, but I'm failing to see one for Afghanistan. Somehow I'm having a very hard time picturing a US government meeting where someone is saying "we really need to invade Afghanistan. How do we justify it? I know! Let's provoke/allow/fake/conspiracytheory a terrorist attack! The citizens will be bound to go along!"

Seriously, what's the motive? The Soviets I assume wanted Afghanistan as part of a march south towards a warm water port or something. What possible motivation would the US have for invading Afghanistan pre-911? The only thing I can think of would be a genuine desire to remove an oppressive regime, which while counter to my isolationist tendencies at least is noble in thought.

Again, come up with a motivation for jumping into the quagmire that killed the Soviet Union and your argument that terrorism was invented to justify it will sound a little better. All I'm saying is your post has some believability to it when it comes to Iraq, but when you try to extend it to Afghanistan you start to come off as a bit rabid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: now go and report!
by h3rman on Wed 5th Mar 2008 20:36 in reply to "RE[2]: now go and report!"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

I'll bite.

I like that. ;)

For the record, the White House/Pentagon did justify invading Afghanistan by claiming that..
a) Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11;
b) the Taliban were harbouring Bin Laden;
c) the Taliban refused to deliver said UBL into US hands (which was true, for the simple fact that the US never provided the (non-existing) 'proof' that he was indeed guilty of 9/11);
d) the Taliban were thus responsible for 9/11 and had to go.

None of this makes sense. The Taliban were US allies as long as they could keep Afghanistan stable and assist the US in building pipelines to the Caspian Sea. Nobody in the US administration every cared about "oppression" or "human rights".
However, the Taliban starting being annoying since, a.o., they wanted to kill all the opium (great source of cash for the CIA and its allies) and were not cooperative enough for the gas/oil pipelines for which Afghanistan is absolutely crucial. The US could not just invade Afghanistan, 9/11 was a perfect opportunity.

9/11 was perpetrated with a.o. the financial aid of the Pakistani ISI - a representative of which (the very 'money man' behind Mohammed Atta) was in Washington meeting high US officials on 9/10 or 9/11 (don't remember). Why didn't the US invade Pakistan? Because, obviously, the White House and the Pentagon were very comfortable with 9/11 (and because Pakistan, which is a military dictatorship with a guy Washington can do business with, is useful - beside the fact that it helped engineer the very same Taliban rule in the past, when the US still welcomed this; BTW part of this was the now murdered Benazir Bhutto). This explains why USAF did nothing to stop '9/11', a quick response was sabotaged from the highest level. (For more technical details on that day's events, I can easily provide you if desired with the documents that prove it couldn't have happened without US approval and assistance.)

Or why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia? Most of the supposed hijackers were Saudis, and despite the popular myth, UBL has never severed his ties with his very powerful family in Saudi Arabia.
They didn't because obviously, the Saudi government is cooperative with the US and doesn't do funny stuff like trying to cash euros for its oil instead of dollars like Saddam did (who used to be a great US ally when he tried to destroy Iran, and before he got a bit of Hubris trying to take over Kuwait's oil reserves and ports). The WMD thing, needless to say, is equally crap, Saddam had to go because of the oil, period.
This is all well-documented so if you want the sources I can provide them, if Google would fail to do so.

For those of us who are too geeky to digest this kind of stuff, use one nice little thing that you're likely to lose if you watch too much Fox News: common sense. State sponsored terrorism has existed for thousands of years. It is nothing new. To achieve tremendous interests, people commit tremendous crimes. The Middle East/Central Asian energy supplies are of tremendous interest to the people involved. Needless to say, I'm not just talking about the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz gang, but also Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron-Texaco, Halliburton, etc. etc. Tis is simply another phase of the energy war that started way back in the 20th century when the British and the Americans replaced the legitimate leader of Persia with the Shah in order to prevent Persian nationalisation of oil.

Yes, history did start a bit before 2001, as a matter of fact. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: now go and report!
by Phloptical on Thu 6th Mar 2008 00:03 in reply to "RE[3]: now go and report!"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Hallelujah!

Don't you just love the irony about the whole "human rights" BS. "The taliban are bad, because they ignore human rights." "Iran is bad, because they ignore human rights." Let me put you all up on a little secret....our "friends", the wonderful Saudis. Our "allies". You know, those dudes that have all the money and oil and live below Iraq. Yeah....those guys...IGNORE human rights. In fact, they are some of the worst abusers of human rights in the entire world. Yet the US federal government loves them....now why do you think that is???

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: now go and report!
by howitzer86 on Fri 7th Mar 2008 18:51 in reply to "RE[3]: now go and report!"
howitzer86 Member since:
2008-02-27

This isn't Slashdot... Take your conspiracy theories some where else.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: now go and report!
by warhoon on Thu 6th Mar 2008 01:17 in reply to "RE[2]: now go and report!"
warhoon Member since:
2006-11-19

The reasons for invading Afghanistan were never really about "removing an oppressing regime", exactly as it was with the Russians.... It all boils down to oil....

The US government backed oil companies wanted a pipeline drawn through Afghanistan and the Talliban didn't let them....

Bin Laden offered a convenient excuse for invading...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11

Reply Score: 1

It's sad
by mind!dagger on Wed 5th Mar 2008 13:30 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

I agree with the comment that terror is a business to some as-well-as a business model.

Meanwhile the people suffer.

Reply Score: 1

Hmm
by Buck on Wed 5th Mar 2008 17:07 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Where's the point about wearing black masks?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm
by Coxy on Fri 7th Mar 2008 11:18 in reply to "Hmm"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

I think the police are constantly watching millets and other outdoor clothing stores, they then arrest anyone who buys a Balaklava since you only ever see them being worn by criminals (aka terrorists).

That's why it wasn't on the list

Reply Score: 2