The Foiled Al Qaeda Attack on LA Building...

The plot envisioned a ghastly replay of the attack that brought down the World Trade Center, only this time the Al-Qaida terrorists wanted to crash a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plan unraveled in early 2002 with the arrest of one of the ringleaders, but President Bush provided new details about it Thursday in defending his handling of the war on terrorism.

The timing of his chilling disclosures, four years after the plot was discovered and four months after he first discussed the broad outlines of the scheme, raised suspicion that his remarks were politically motivated. At the moment that Bush was defending his aggressive approach to terrorism, two of his top advisers were trying to quell a revolt in Congress against his domestic eavesdropping program.

Whole thing here.

Two quick thoughts: First, thank god they stopped this. Second, what were the means used to discover and bust up the plot? I realize we'll never learn the details, at least for a very long time, but did the feds use Patriot Act provisions? NSA surveillance? etc.? This much we do know: "[Top counterterrorism adviser Frances] Townsend refused to discuss whether electronic surveillance played any role."

Related: Eighty Percent of Al-Qaeda No. 2s Now Dead.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    If they had used the Patriot Act, surveillance without warrants, or any other controversial measure, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

  • ||

    I'm also suspicious of the fact that we heard nothing about any of this until, coincidentally, the issue of expanded power was being debated in Congress.

  • ||

    "If they had used the Patriot Act, surveillance without warrants, or any other controversial measure, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops."

    I doubt it. They only reluctantly disclosed this incident today. You can't continue to do effective operations by divulging your methods. Was the Patriot Act even in effect at that time?

  • digamma||

    using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door,''

    How the hell does that work? It sounds like they took every scary thing from the last 5 years and threw it into one incoherent story.

  • ||

    I'm also suspicious of the timing of this announcement. I've noticed a few posts and comments on lefty blogs pointing out that the Clinton administration foiled the Millenium Plot without warantless searches and such.

    I also remember something from yesterday at, I want to say, TAPPED from The American Prospect, pointing out that the plot involved hijacking a plane with shoe bombs. There is a certain inconsistency here, since the shoe bombs would blow up the plane, or part of it, before it could strike the building.

    All that out of my system, I'm still glad we stopped a plot, even if a really silly and unlikely-to-succeed one.

  • ||

    All that out of my system, I'm still glad we stopped a plot, even if a really silly and unlikely-to-succeed one.

    I'm not convinced that we DID stop a plot. I find it too hard to believe that the government would have sat on such a success story for all this time.

  • Jeff P.||

    I am certain there are a lot of things that the gov't does that we never hear about. But this comes off sounding like a guy portraying himself as a fake veteran: lots of specious claims with no possible way to back them up. Too many folks involved would have been clamoring for hero-worship for this to have been kept under wraps for four years.
    I also don't see the RNC being happy about a sure-to-win-an-election PR opportunity being denied to them.

  • ||

    "How the hell does that work?"

    A small explosive to destroy the lock on the cockpit door.

    "There is a certain inconsistency here, since the shoe bombs would blow up the plane, or part of it, before it could strike the building."

    Yeah, they would destroy the lock on the cockpit door, and stun the pilots. That might bring down the plane, but hijacking a plane is a risky business.

    "I'm not convinced that we DID stop a plot. I find it too hard to believe that the government would have sat on such a success story for all this time."

    You girls sure are distrustful :-].

  • ||

    Good point, Jennifer, especially considering the fact that the plot involved something as unlikely as a shoe bomb, made famous by our Brit friend of a few years ago. (Jon Stewart commented on Richard Reid that "he practically asked the flight attendant for a match.")

    I suppose I'm more forgiving today, having caught the cold that kept my husband and younger son home for most of the week. The drugs are pretty good.

  • ||

    I'm not convinced that we DID stop a plot. I find it too hard to believe that the government would have sat on such a success story for all this time.

    Neither am I. I can't imagine that breaking up a terror plot wouldn't be huge news.

  • Dave W.||

    If Congress had turned over in the fall of 2002, we would have been having this discussion and would have gotten these details a long time ago. I blame the American voter.

  • ||

    "If Congress had turned over in the fall of 2002, we would have been having this discussion and would have gotten these details a long time ago. I blame the American voter."

    You mean if we had just elected a bunch of Democrats we would all be saved?

  • MP||

    Yeah, they would destroy the lock on the cockpit door, and stun the pilots. That might bring down the plane, but hijacking a plane is a risky business.

    Sorry to beat a dead horse, but 9/11 changed everything. Passengers are no longer docile. Everyone now assumes that a hijacking is a suicide mission and thus they have nothing to lose by storming the hijackers. Unless the hijackers have a way to kill every single passenger on a plane, their plan will fail.

    They only reluctantly disclosed this incident today. You can't continue to do effective operations by divulging your methods.

    Why be reluctant? They don't need to divulge the details. But waiting four years to say anything is just stupid. Stop treating us like sheep, Uncle Sam. We can take it.

  • ||

    There is absolutely no way that there was a plot in 2002 to crash another plane into a building, knowing that following the events of 9/11, both passengers and pilots would either 1) make every attempt to overcome the hijackers, who were unlikely to be armed, or 2) bring the plane down, in a landing or a crash, somewhere where the harm to people on the ground would be avoided or mitigated. This is either a bunch of crap, or al Qaeda are so genuinely stupid that we are expending a massively disproportionate amount of effort on them.

  • ||

    "Why be reluctant? They don't need to divulge the details. But waiting four years to say anything is just stupid. Stop treating us like sheep, Uncle Sam. We can take it."

    This is true, but the mindset of cops and intelligence people is to not disclose anything.

  • ||

    The rich part is something a commentor at the Hammer of Truth blog pointed out. Norman referenced: "LA Times date 10/05 Scope of Plots Bush Says Were Foiled Is Questioned; [HOME EDITION] Josh Meyer and Warren Vieth. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 8, 2005. pg. A.15
    (Copyright (c) 2005 Los Angeles Times)"

    He lists the full text over there, but the gist is that the foiling of this plot may not have been much of a foiling at all.

  • Dave W.||

    You mean if we had just elected a bunch of Democrats we would all be saved?

    What I mean is that gridlock is the answer. (Cf, Pro Libertate's recent comments on direct election of Senators.)

  • ||

    "There is absolutely no way that there was a plot in 2002 to crash another plane into a building"

    You do what works, and you keep doing it until it does not work any more.

  • ||

    The fuunny part is that the Mayor of LA was never informed. He had to watch the speech himself to find out about the terror plot on his city. The President's timing couldn't be more obvious.
    Go here http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13833661.htm

  • ||

    I am a big fan of gridlock too. I doubt that the elections of 2002 would have caused any of this to be divulged though.

  • ||

    You do what works, and you keep doing it until it does not work any more.

    It stopped working at 10:10am ET on 9/11/2001.

  • ||

    "The fuunny part is that the Mayor of LA was never informed. He had to watch the speech himself to find out about the terror plot on his city. The President's timing couldn't be more obvious."

    Of course the mayor of LA was never informed, he is a strident partisan Democrat. Why would he be informed?

  • ||

    And according to my brief skimming of the article, the people who were supposed to carry out this attack are in custody but nobody knows exactly where.

    I can see why the government would sit on this for a while and try to keep it secret: Sources and methods and all that. Revealing the methods used to collect intelligence is a privilege reserved only to Robert Novak! :-)

    But now that the executive branch is trying to defend some of their more controversial tools, I'm surprised that they said so little about the tools used here. I don't expect the full technical specs of the NSA hardware used to tap phones, just a statement that "Wiretaps, which are an inherent power of the executive, were crucial to capturing the people who wanted to launch this deadly attack." Or "The Patriot Act, passed by Congress and invaluable in the War on Terror, provided the tools needed to capture these dangerous terrorists."

    But we didn't get that. Instead we got a description of a rather implausible attack, which is contingent on being able to pacify a plane full of passengers who are ready to fight for their lives and a device destroying the door but not damaging any controls needed to steer the plane into a building.

    I'm not buying it.

  • ||

    And according to my brief skimming of the article, the people who were supposed to carry out this attack are in custody but nobody knows exactly where.

    I can see why the government would sit on this for a while and try to keep it secret: Sources and methods and all that. Revealing the methods used to collect intelligence is a privilege reserved only to Robert Novak! :-)

    But now that the executive branch is trying to defend some of their more controversial tools, I'm surprised that they said so little about the tools used here. I don't expect the full technical specs of the NSA hardware used to tap phones, just a statement that "Wiretaps, which are an inherent power of the executive, were crucial to capturing the people who wanted to launch this deadly attack." Or "The Patriot Act, passed by Congress and invaluable in the War on Terror, provided the tools needed to capture these dangerous terrorists."

    But we didn't get that. Instead we got a description of a rather implausible attack, which is contingent on being able to pacify a plane full of passengers who are ready to fight for their lives and a device destroying the door but not damaging any controls needed to steer the plane into a building.

    I'm not buying it.

  • ||

    "It stopped working at 10:10am ET on 9/11/2001."

    Pithy comment, but not grounded in any kind of evidence.

  • ||

    I'm wondering if Karen Cox isn't just an invention of Jennifer's to liven things up a bit, since joe has been a little scarce since the New Year.

    I mean, if Karen Cox really exists, I think that's great, but I really wonder about the timing of her appearance.

  • ||

    wayne-

    It stopped working when the passengers of flight 93 stormed the cockpit. And the failure was further reinforced a few months later when passengers tackled the shoe bomber.

    Four guys to take over a passenger plane? Not buying it. Not anymore. Not unless they have firearms, lots of training, and lots of ammo.

  • ||

    "Instead we got a description of a rather implausible attack"

    T, I don't see why this attack is at all implausible. A similarly "implausible" attack only a few months before resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, and the total destruction of two landmark American buildings.

  • ||

    I'm wondering if Karen Cox isn't just an invention of Jennifer's to liven things up a bit, since joe has been a little scarce since the New Year.

    Nope.

  • Dave W.||

    The alleged 2002 hi-jackers would also have had to worry about the Air Defense shooting the plane down.

    Like they did with Flight 93.

  • Jeff P.||

    I'm picturing Gov. Schwarzenager himself leaping onto the plane from a pursueing jet, managing to climb to the nose and swinging in through the cockpit window.
    It ends when a loose piece of the Chief Bad Guy's Turban (cuz they all wear turban's in this film) unravels, get's sucked out the window, and causes the guy to spin around really fast.
    I open the floor to ideas for Schwarzie's "funny line" at this point.

  • ||

    DNFTMFT.

  • ||

    I am no big fan of the Patriot Act either. It ought to be scrapped, in my opinion, but I see no reason to doubt this story.

    It is obvious that the telling of this story is politically motivated, but everything that exits the mouths of everybody at the level of the president is always in some way politically motivated.

  • ||

    You do what works, and you keep doing it until it does not work any more.

    Which, oddly enough, is the same strategery the current administration uses to prevent terrorism. Well, if you take out the part after "until"...

  • ||

    "I open the floor to ideas for Schwarzie's "funny line" at this point."

    How about, "this is a no spin zone", delivered in a condescending Bill O'Reilly voice?

  • ||

    but I see no reason to doubt this story.

    Nor is there any reason to believe this story. The timing makes me lean toward the nonbelief side. Let's see: "You guys are telling me I can have extra-super-secret powers to stop the bad guys? Well, four years ago I used these very powers to stop a horrible plot. No, I can't give you any details about how. No, I can't tell you where the bad guys are now. No, I can't provide any verification at all. Just trust me. Trust me when I say that if I don't get these powers lots of bad, bad things will happen. Hey, we're the same government who locked a bunch of innocent guys in Gitmo and swore they were all dangerous terrorists--we never make mistakes, and we never lie."

  • ||

    Nick Gillespie,

    Are you trying to make some sort of "point" by thanking "god" instead of "God"?

  • ||

    "DNFTMFT."

    OK, I'm stumped, what does this mean?

  • ||

    You guys are telling me I can have extra-super-secret powers to stop the bad guys?

    I meant to say CAN'T have these powers.

    Harrumph.

  • Timothy||

    Thoreau: Well, given that these sorts of things take a long time to plan, I suppose it's plausible that the 2002 attack was being set up prior to 9/11. Once you get that far, why quit?

  • Dave W.||

    Let's see now Phil. the government hides and then selectively disclose this 2002 terrorist-related thing for obvious political reasons.

    But they would *never* approach Flight 93 that way. There they would tell the truth, the whole truth, only the truth and quickly. Cause genuine heroes was involved there!

  • Dave W.||

    Wayne,

    He is saying I am a troll because you do not challenge the official account of the crash of Flt 93 on a libertarian board (of all places!!).

  • ||

    The government didn't stop this plot. It was one man - Jack Bauer. He, btw, was passenger #57.

  • ||

    So, will the Republicans in Congress to greet this with the same level of skepticism as Clinton's attacks on aspirin factories during his impeachment hearings?

  • R C Dean||

    I've noticed a few posts and comments on lefty blogs pointing out that the Clinton administration foiled the Millenium Plot without warantless searches and such.

    My recollection is that the Millenium Plot was basically stopped by a single alert border guard. Hard to say the Clinton Administration stopped it, or that warrantless searches might not have made it less a matter of being lucky.

  • Timothy||

    Clinton's attacks on aspirin factories? HUH? I must be too young to remember.

  • ||

    Dave W,

    You are utterly wrong about Flight 93. Everyone knows it was being flown by remote control, just like the other three planes.

    My theory is that one of those green-laser pointers fried the modem and caused it to crash.

  • ||

    RC Dean,

    Actually, if you think about it, the Millenium plot was foiled by a warrantless search. ;-)

  • Dave W.||

    Crimethink,

    They have admitted that the passengers never got into the cockpit. The idea now is that all the unholy knocking on that cockpit door scared the pilots into crashing the plane. I mean, come the freak on . . .

    Notwithstanding my perjorative comments above on this thread, I think it is only a 30% probability that the plane was brought down (maybe more now that they have admitted that no passengers got in the cockpit), in some manner, by the US military. I just always get a kick out of how libertarians cannot acknowledge even this, despite supposed mistrust of the gov't.

  • ||

    Gerald Posner was on The Countdown last night criticizing the timing of the announcement, the seriousness of the threat, and questioning the methods used to prevent the plot (his sources indicate that NSA surveillance did not contribute to this effort). Crooks and Liars has the video.

  • ||

    Well, how about the "80% of number twos dead" thing. That strikes me as rather good.

  • ||

    Timothy,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

  • ||

    No, Woycechowsky, I'm saying you're a troll because you state as fact something that contradicts all contemporaneous evidence including everything known as a result of conversations between passengers and people on the ground. And in doing so, you slander without proof and without apparent good reason -- aside from the indulging of your own paranoiac mind and conspiracy-theory bent for your own entertainment -- the names of people who appear to have done a little bit of good in the world.

    That's my final word on the matter. Let somebody else address it.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    Since I don't have the ability to start a thread off-line, I wrote Nick yesterday making the point several others have made above--this is not, by the remotest stretch of the imagination, a plausible hijacking scenario. Exactly how would the supposed hijackers use their 'shoe bombs' to blow open the cockpit--would the first class passengers and flight attendants just sit there and watch? And given that fingernail scissors were being removed from passengers at that point, how would the 'hijackers' defend themselves?
    And once the cockpit door was open, what would they do next?
    I work in computer security, and one of the things we do is think about how the bad guys are likely to act ('threat assessment') and this is one bad Hollywood fantasy.
    Not to mention the timing--during a campaign to justify illegal wiretaps.
    While we're at it, if someone wants to do an investigative article for REASON, google 'CALEA' and 'university', or read the current issue of the Chronicle for Higher Ed (unfortunately, subscription required).

  • Dave W.||

    Phil, you are as hit eating motherfucking jerkoff and should die. That is my last word on the matter.

  • ||

    And given the continuing appearance of crap like this, the Bush Administration has simply lost the luxury of the benefit of the doubt from me. I assume that everything they say is a lie until I hear otherwise.

  • Dave W.||

    die phil

  • ||

    To try and answer the question =

    �Second, what were the means used to discover and bust up the plot? I realize we'll never learn the details..�

    I�d guess they were referencing the 2002 captures of Ramzi Bin al Shib, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi/Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad/ alias Shaykh Saiid.

    These 2 guys were a) the planner/direct manager and b) the chief financier of the Sept 11 attacks, respectively, according to govt citations. So if they had any inside info on �another� plane-based attack, these guys were the likely sources.

    I�d also agree that the claim of having �foiled� such an attack is absolute nonsense. I don�t think it was probably ever put in motion, and that they simply learned of contingency plans in the event 9/11 was aborted or failed. Using this as supporting evidence of the value of domestic snooping or the Patriot Act doesn�t hold water in my view.

    However, it MAY say something about the value of thumbscrews, genital electrocution, etc..  I think these guys were probably some of the first to be set upon by an unrestricted CIA. At the time it was arguably perceived as a real �ticking time bomb� scenario, and I�m pretty sure the gloves came completely off with these guys, as well as Khalid Mohammed the following year.

    JG

  • Dave W.||

    hope you get cancer phil

  • Dave W.||

    hope an arab catches you and cuts off your fucking head phil

  • Dave W.||

    hope you get diabetes and lose your feet phil

  • MP||

    Phil,

    Can you draw cartoons? Maybe you can get Dave to start a jihad.

  • ||

    Woycechowsky? He of "the secret designers who make the secret designs" fame?

  • Dave W.||

    hope your wife is fucking some other guy phil

  • ||

    Dave, Dave, you're doing it again. If you want to insult Phil, find some flaw in his arguments, or figure out a clever way to twist something he said. Simply saying "die Phil" or "hope you get cancer, Phil" does NOT make Phil look bad; it makes you look like a two-year-old having a temper tantrum. "Die, Phil." "Phil is a poopyhead." "Phil is a boogerface."

    Same damned thing.

  • ||

    Umm, Dave, I was serious about the remote control.

  • Timothy||

    Apparently Dave has lost his mind. Or what there was of it.

  • Dave W.||

    I argued quite a bit in favor of the remote control hypothesis on a thread here a while back. Right now I am pre-ocupied with a piece of sub-human scum infesting this board though.

  • Timothy||

    Just get Phil a subscription to the Corn Syrup of The Month club if you want him to get diabetes. Don't bother the rest of us with your tripe.

  • ||

    DW: Easy, Lennie. You're heading for a banning.

  • Dave W.||

    Jennifer,
    I wasn't upset at him about the troll thing. I don't care about being called a troll.

  • ||

    I think Dave jumped the shark.

  • ||

    Um, didn't Jennifer get banned for behavior several orders of magnitude less threatening than what Dave is doing here? Towards a non-poster, no less?

  • ||

    I don't care about being called a troll.

    Considering some of the comments you've made here, it looks like you're ttrying damned hard to be one. Phil hasn't been my favorite person either, lately, but do you actually think that saying things like "I hope you get cancer and then an Arab chops off your head, Phil," is going to win you any admirers, or convince people that you are right and Phil is wrong? About this, or any other topic?

  • ||

    Do anti-seizure drugs also work for Tourette's Syndrome? (sorry if I spelled it wrong)

    Mix in a little corn syrup with the anti-seizure drugs and you won't notice the nasty flavor.

  • Sandy||

    Let's see, the government goes out of its way to advertise several missile attacks taking out the various Al Qaeda #Xs out there, and wayne still thinks that spooks run the show in this administration and protect sources and methods. He believes an attack on a plane would work even though there were other documented instances of passengers taking out potential threats to planes post-9-11. Awww, innocence is so cute.

    And before he objects that missile attacks are hard to hide, he should remember something about a certain female CIA officer being outed by this administration. I'm sure those African sources and methods have been sleeping very soundly since then.

  • Dave W.||

    I think Phil shouldn't be researching my identity and posting the results. The way to respond in kind would be to research his identity and post the results, but I don't want to do that. So I am complaining in this manner instead.

  • ||

    No, he's apparently mystified by the idea that a) he posts under his real name, and b) someone can do a WHOIS on the domain that he links to with every single post.

  • ||

    Phil, it's interesting to see libertarians come out in favor of censorship as soon as someone wishes them ill. Very interesting.

  • ||

    Mix in a little corn syrup with the anti-seizure drugs and you won't notice the nasty flavor.

    The old Poppins technique. I hear it works better with natural cane sugar.

  • ||

    My identity is easily available by looking at my website, Dave. It's www.phildennison.net . There's photographs of my, info about my personal life, and everything. From it, you can glean my full name, my wife's name, the fact that I live in Fairfax, VA, and even an approximate idea of where in Fairfax I live. Enjoy!

  • ||

    Phil, it's interesting to see libertarians come out in favor of censorship as soon as someone wishes them ill. Very interesting.

    See, Dave? That is what you should be doing here--turn Phil's words against him! Much better than "I hope Phil gets cancer and diabetes and AIDS and then an Arab chops off his head after fucking his wife I hate him I hate him I hate him."

  • ||

    Also, notably, Dave, since you've apparently forgotten, you've posted under your full name, all on your own, more than two dozen times before, and every time you posted as "David Woycechoswky," you also linked to farceswannamo.com. No research was actually necessary.

    Now, I think you owe me about a dozen apologies. You revealed your identity on Hit & Run, not me.

  • Dave W.||

    Crimethink,

    I have been relying on the conventions of this board which dictate, in my case, that somebody can find me if they are interested, but not thru a casual GOOGLE search. That is not the government imposed convention. Rather it is a private understanding that Phil has violated. While this margin of anonymity might not be important to you, it was important to me.

    You aren't suggesting that I should have censored MY response, ru Crimey?

  • ||

    I cannot prove this, of course, but I suspect a lot of people currently reading this thread are laughing their asses off. And rolling their eyes hard enough to run the risk of said eyes falling right out of their heads.

  • ||

    Back to the issue at hand:

    I'm wondering if Karen Cox isn't just an invention of Jennifer's to liven things up a bit

    I find this to be unlikely, considering how whenever Jennifer changes her name for a joke post, she forgets to change it back. Are you suggesting she would be more dilligent with non-joke names?

  • ||

    I find this to be unlikely, considering how whenever Jennifer changes her name for a joke post, she forgets to change it back. Are you suggesting she would be more dilligent with non-joke names?

    Sad but true--my incompetence proves my honesty.

  • ||

    The question we have to ask ourselves is this:

    Who does/did/does Al Qaeda's Number 2 work for?

    And why can't we use the < strike>< /strike> tags?

  • ||

    I cannot prove this, of course, but I suspect a lot of people currently reading this thread are laughing their asses off. And rolling their eyes hard enough to run the risk of said eyes falling right out of their heads.

    Dave's string of curses had me rolling.

  • ||

    Thoreau, considering the high death rate of al-Qaeda Number Twos, I'd say they work for the same employment agency that provides drummers for Spinal Tap.

  • ||

    Heh -- Jennifer, I'd like to see news stories referring to Ayman "Stumpy" al-Zawahiri.

  • ||

    I still haven't seen that movie all the way through. It's in my Netflix queue. I need to move it up.

    I believe that right now it's number 11 in my queue :)

  • dhex||

    "I open the floor to ideas for Schwarzie's "funny line" at this point. "

    'the shoe is on the other foot!' as he crams the shoe bomb back onto the terrorist's leg. and then it blows up and rips the dude's leg off. which he then uses to fight other terrorists off with.

  • Timothy||

    I have lost an eye due to Dave's hilarity, rolled plumb out of my head. I'm filing suit. The truth will come out in discovery.

  • ||

    thoreau, <s> and <strike> are deprecated--you should be using stylesheets :)

    I've been curious about which HTML tags will work here, but I've never bothered to research it before. I took a look at what the default is in a Movable Type form and came up with--


    a href, b, br, p, strong, em, ul, li, blockquote



    That looks about right for Hit & Run's comments' form, though the staff here could've added additional tags. No, wait, I know <i> is allowed, too, so either that was left out of the list or was added by Reason.

  • ||

    I�m really offended

    Someone recently compared me to Dave W. in a previous thread. What the hell? I don�t deserve that...

    I thought the �secret designers who make the secret designs� thread was the apotheosis of Hit&Run. I will remember that phrase until my dying days.

  • VM||

    Phil:

    is there a chance that DW was speaking in tongues from his imaginary friend? or he was speaking german: "die Phil" like "die Katze". (reference: "the simpsons")

    or maybe the fact that he, like every other fundie, is actually a violent fuck. some of them have been playing with matches of late, as you know!

    your guess is as good as mine.

    but H&R is not a place of violence. that's not cool. if anybody else is bothered by that language, just ignore DW. cold sholder. people who argue are okay. assholes can be tolerated. but violence is never tolerated. ignore. people like that aren't welcome.

    (thoreau: who did #2 work for was a great reference)

    happy friday.

  • ||

    "die phil"

    That? Oh, no, that's German for "The Phil."

  • ||

    Sorry, guys, I'm not really Jennifer, although I always enjoy her posts. I only learned of this site in December when a coworker directed me to "Arts and Letters Daily."

    Jennifer, if you're ever in Austin, Texas, I'll buy you a beer.

    To everyone else, if you'll let me visit occasionally, I promise solemnly to always keep to the subject being discussed and to make sure all my typos are funny. Thanks, KJC

  • ||

    I meant to put this in the last post:

    A few weeks ago Scott Adams had a hilarious post on "The Dilbert Blog" about being the #3 guy for al - Qaeda, whose job duties apparently require him to get blown up repeatedly. He said that the first thing he'd do if he were #3 would be to kill off #2 and move up. Seems like this recent bit of information made Adams' plan obsolete.

  • ||

    Wayne,

    Yes. The original PATRIOT Act was passed in Oct. of 2001.

  • ||

    hope your house gets infested with potato bugs, Phil

  • ||

    Wow. I missed all the excitement earlier.

    die phil

    Comment by: Dave W. at February 10, 2006 10:21 AM

    ---

    hope you get cancer phil

    Comment by: Dave W. at February 10, 2006 10:23 AM

    ---

    hope an arab catches you and cuts off your fucking head phil

    Comment by: Dave W. at February 10, 2006 10:23 AM

    ---

    hope you get diabetes and lose your feet phil

    Comment by: Dave W. at February 10, 2006 10:24 AM

    ---

    hope your wife is fucking some other guy phil

    Comment by: Dave W. at February 10, 2006 10:26 AM

    You've convinced me, Dave. You are not a troll.

  • ||

    hope you burn the roof of your mouth on a really hot piece of pizza, Phil

  • ||

    hope your car window gets stuck in the down position during a blizzard, Phil

  • ||

    hope your local paper stops running your favorite comic strip, Phil

  • ||

    hope a real douchebag moves into the house next door to yours, Phil

  • ||

    Do anti-seizure drugs also work for Tourette's Syndrome?

    Hey! Don't * GREAT GANYMEDE! * make fun * WELL, BLAST MY JETS! * of people * LEAPING LUNAR LIZARDS! * with Tourette's, it's not * BY THE RINGS OF SATURN! * funny!

  • ||

    The fake "Dave W" above is not me, by the way -- and that was freakin' funny!

  • ||

    Dave W.,

    That is my last word on the matter.

    If only that were true. :) So much for the peace, love, etc. commentary Christians like to associate themselves with.

    MP,

    Can you draw cartoons? Maybe you can get Dave to start a jihad.

    Funniest thing I've seen all day.

    Timothy,

    Just get Phil a subscription to the Corn Syrup of The Month club if you want him to get diabetes. Don't bother the rest of us with your tripe.

    Ha ha ha. :)

  • ||

    GILMORE

    You have my heartfelt apology.

    VM,

    We need to keep Dave W. around for comedy relief.

  • ||

    This report suggests that they found out about the plot from a guy that turned himself in--in Malaysia.

  • ||

    For future reference. If someone has a *real* problem with something posted here they should write Cavanaugh or Gillespie.

    Phil - I hope you find out that you are out of fructose only after you cook your stone cut oats.

    Dave W - I think it's Steve Knopper who says that, eventually, everyone's naked picture ends up on the internet. Just relax.

  • ||

    hope you get cancer phil

    Don't know which hat you were wearing, but it sounds like its a tad too tight.

  • ||

    Don't know which hat you were wearing, but it sounds like its a tad too tight.

    I enjoyed coming here to discuss issues. I think it is disgusting that a poster could play around with my privacy to force out of here, but that is what happened. It is not fair and my anger should be understandable for that reason.

  • ||

    I think it is disgusting that a poster could play around with my privacy

    You've posted with your full name before, and your name here usually links to your personal website. How was your privacy violated? To hear you talk, you'd think Phil posted your mailing address, photograph, social security and PIN numbers, and directions on how to bypass any security systems you've installed in your house.

  • ||

    He violated the level of privacy that mattered to me -- that is operative in my situation. Besides he was clearly indicating an intention to make me uncomfortable with publicity about my personal information -- it is not like he had any real reason for doing that other than to drive me off. That was the creepy part for me. You guys should all be happy. It is not everyday that a "troll" like me gives up and leaves.

  • ||

    I do want to apologize to you, Jennifer. The time we got into a confrontation, I really ratcheted up the rhetoric in a mean and personal way. That was wrong of me and I am sorry about that. Bye.

  • ||

    Jennifer, "Finishing Up My Affairs Department" is not me. ;-)

  • ||

    Dave W.,

    IMHO, the expectation of privacy on the internet is pretty low. So what you feel is appropriate, your subjective appreciation, is not the primary means by which to judge what level of privacy is appropriate. Just because you feel you were violated doesn't mean that is a reasonable conclusion.

    As to the whole "feeling uncomfortable" bit, that is a pots and kettles issue. Here you are, a Christian, spitting curses on someone, and you dare make an accusation about someone making you feel uncomfortable? Heh.

  • ||

    Dave W., if you don't want somebody to find your crazier theories when they google your name, maybe you shouldn't have used your last name in the "secret designers of the secret designs" thread.

  • ||

    Besides he was clearly indicating an intention to make me uncomfortable with publicity about my personal information -- it is not like he had any real reason for doing that other than to drive me off.

    If he took it upon himself to announce information that you, personally, had never posted here, you'd have a legitimate complaint. But all he did was mention something YOU YOURSELF have mentioned before on this very blog! That's like me complaining that someone "violated my privacy" for mentioning that I grew up in Virginia, or have a boyfriend named Jeff. I myself have said this many a time, and thus have no right to complain if people happen to remember and mention it.

  • ||

    This isn't the first time he pulled this stunt. Whatever "consent" I may have given by using my real name a long time ago -- that was cancelled when I let him know last time how I felt. This was no accidental violation. He said what he said to make me stop posting. No other reason. Mission accomplished.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    You're right, this IS a funny thread. All those, "hope your eyes fill up with puss and you can't unzip your pants in time to not pee down your leg, Phil" posts are pretty funny. I am not taking sides against Phil here, BTW.

    What was this thread about anyway, I can't remember.

  • ||

    Let me demonstrate my chat board ignorance here. I know that a troll is a monster that lives under bridges and eats goats and frightens children. Obviously, there is a chat board "troll" that I am unfamiliar with. Why is it bad to be called a "troll".

    On another note, I reread all of Dave's, "hope ..., Phil" posts and the one that strikes me funniest is the, "Hope an Arab catches you and cuts off your fucking head" post.

    It's not the beheading part that is funny, it is the visual of a wild-eyed Semite in a turban chasing a "Phil" that just gets my funny-bone. I know this is a serious topic and perhaps not appropriate for laughter, but that just cracks me up.

  • ||

    Somebody (can't remember who) earlier remarked on my "innocence" because I am willing to believe the tale told by Bush regarding thwarting the shoe-bomb-cockpit-door-destroying-thwarted-hijack-story.

    Maybe I am innocent. Frankly, innocence is an appealing characteristic and I prefer it to hard-bitten cynicism, although I sometimes fall into the grip of cynicism.

    I really see no reason why believing that Muslim terrorists would try to hijack an airplane in the manner described displays innocence, or its very close cousin naivette. Given what has been going on in the world for at least the last twenty years, I am astonished that so many of you are spouting the, "it's absurd... it would never work... the passengers would not allow it, hence the Muslims would not try it..." line. It makes me wonder who is naive here.

    Hope a camel takes an amorous liking to you, Phil... :-] That REALLY was a well intentioned joke, Phil.

  • ||

    wayne, the scenario you describe is the sort of thing that can only work once. Never again. Since 9/11 passengers have mitigated one terrorist attack (the plane still crashed, but the passengers prevented them from destroying a building), stopped another (the shoe bomber) and demonstrated their hair-trigger nerves and refusal to be victims in several other instances where they tackled disruptive people who seemed to pose a threat.

    Terrorists might yet succeed in blowing up more airplanes, but they'll never again succeed in using airplanes as guided missiles.

  • ||

    One other thing, wayne: I wouldn't characterize my stance as naive. I'd characterize it as confident. Terrorists who try to take over a plane will get their murderous asses kicked by pissed off passengers. I'm not trying to diminish the threat posed by terrorists, but I have confidence that the American people will take care of business.

    If only our government trusted us, and focused its efforts on stoing bombs rather than treating everybody who owns a tweezers like some sort of criminal.

  • ||

    T, Your confidence is commendable. I agree that things will be more difficult for would be hijackers, but I am not so certain as you are about the outcome. Terrorists are not dumb. All it takes is innovation to be successful.

    Let me pose a simple technique that MIGHT work: Suppose you got aboard an airplane with a small explosive, maybe the size of the heel of your shoe, say three ounces of plastic explosive. Besides the explosives, you also bring aboard a cannister of oxygen and a mask with regulator. You wait for the airplane to get to 35,000 feet and go to the restroom and put on your oxygen mask and then set up two ounces of the explosive against the fuselage of the airplane and after enough delay for you to get out of the blast zone, you blow a hole in the side of the airplane. Decompression at 35,000 feet literally cause everybody on board the aircraft to pass out, or die within seconds. You use the remaining small bit of explosive to blow open the cockpit door and take the controls.

  • ||

    "Terrorists who try to take over a plane will get their murderous asses kicked by pissed off passengers. I'm not trying to diminish the threat posed by terrorists, but I have confidence that the American people will take care of business."

    T, I tend to agree that terrorists will have a tougher go in the future, but that is really not the point here. Many of you have said GWB's tale of a shoe bomber on an airplane is a big fat lie, and to prove your case you have said, "it will only work once, etc". Whether it works or not, it seems exceedingly myopic to believe they won't TRY it, hence I see no reason to doubt that they DID try it on that plane, which they intended to land in a skyscraper in LA. Having said that, I also have no doubt that GWB is using the incident for his own gain, he is a politician after all.

  • ||

    Hope your wife hits early menopause and loses all interest in sex, Phil.

    Hope your local radio station never plays any song other than Stairway to Heaven, Phil.

    Hope your favorite DVDs all get scratched, Phil.

  • ||

    "Hope your wife hits early menopause and loses all interest in sex, Phil."

    Some things are not funny, Jennifer :-].

  • ||

    Well, I guess I'm jumping in here pretty late.

    wayne,
    I would say the claims about your innocence/naivete are based more in a perceived trust in what the government claims happened rather than any details in the story they were spinning.

  • ||

    "I would say the claims about your innocence/naivete are based more in a perceived trust in what the government claims happened rather than any details in the story they were spinning."

    Maybe so. There might be some spin on this story, but I think it is fundamentally true. A better reason to be skeptical is that this story gets trotted out just in time to bolster the president's case for the patriot act. If the patriot act was not in trouble, this story would most likely never have seen light of day. I would be surprised if there are not more incidents which we know nothing of.

    I am no fan of the patriot act though. I don't think that we can have a better society by giving up our freedom, or dismantling (what is left of) the constitution.

  • ||

    He said what he said to make me stop posting. No other reason.

    Not that anybody's still reading this, but this is unequivocally untrue and relies on a mindreading foul of unprecedented proportions. And Dave dragging my wife's name into things was incredibly ugly, as she doesn't post here. Not that I expect better behavior from a self-proclaimed theist who dares to ask where us atheists derive our morality.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement