Comments on: A Confederacy of Dunces?

By: Bruce Moomaw

Bruce Moomaw — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:40:30 +0000

Can’t we just compromise by calling them “evil idiots”? (As I understand it, they were looking for UNIFORMS, presumably labeled “OFFICIAL TERRORIST”.) But then I remember that one comparable moron, Richard Reid, came within a hair of blowing a jetliner to kingdom come with exploding shoes…

By: Dave F

Dave F — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:00:59 +0000

A bunch of independents has already sown death in the London Underground. The general level of idiocy of such freelance groups is not reassuring or amusiung —it is more worrying, since their behaviour is much less predictable and may well pass under the radar. Random terror is a far scarier prospect than the purposeful variety.

By: Cian

Cian — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:01:08 +0000

“Cadburys recalling a million chocolate bars are more exciting”

Actually to be fair, the Cadbury’s thing was probably a bigger story – they made the decision to put salmonella infected chocolate into the shops. I mean come on.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:20:42 +0000

Why, if the story is that “this isn’t really a story, just a bunch of hype” – then they will go with that story. But someone important – a celebrity – has to say it out loud. And repeat it a few times. Then it’s a story.

By: luci

luci — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:26:00 +0000

I decided to count the days until it was overtly recognised as [high farce]…How long til the mainstream press picks it up?

On the liberal NPR (National Public Radio in the US), I’ve heard 2 or 3 terrorism “experts” soberly discussing the seriousness of the homegrown terrorist threat, and their relief that law enforcement apprehended them before they could realize their ambitions.

The incentives of a for-profit media really work against a press outlet reporting, “this isn’t really a story, just a bunch of hype.” They know where their bread is buttered….

“Next up on Live at Five: Could your kitchen sponge be killing you?”

Like the WMD nonsense, when politicians AND the press have their incentives aligned, we’re screwed.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:37:23 +0000

there is a special Al Qaeda for stupid people; I think the British 21/7 bombers were part of it.

By: Doormat

Doormat — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:55:48 +0000

Yeah, I’m with Brett actually: even on the day it happened, the BBC news in the evening was making a big point about how “there was never any serious threat”. And the news cycle moves so fast: we have had some people arrested recently in the UK on serious (if not exactly by “international terrorism” standards) terrorism charges, but the World Cup and Cadburys recalling a million chocolate bars are more exciting. I do take Brendan’s point though: there does seem to be this “meme” (for want of a better word) that the interesting terrorists are hardline arab muslims with plans on the scale of 9/11. This is a problem, as it’s the other guys who are actually far more common, and they will be caught by usual police methods, not over-the-top new laws…

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:28:49 +0000

Actually, we lost interest when we found out they were incompetent dweebs who probably wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:54:00 +0000

Isn’t it interesting, incidentally, how the right wing blogosphere simply lost all interest in this story as soon as they found out that it wasn’t Muslims (or at least not orthodox Muslims) or Arabs who were involved? (So did the mainstream media at least in the UK). But gosh, as they keep on telling us, they’re not racist or anything…I mean they keep on saying they aren’t and they wouldn’t lie would they?

So what could the explanation be for this extremely mysterious fact?

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:28:53 +0000

It’s weird. If I were an FBI guy running a sting like this, I would’ve kept it running until I get something substantial; I mean, hopefully this would lead to finding some real cells, or hopefully a whole network, which is what a sting operation is supposed to be all about.

This is more like: – hey, wouldn’t it be fun to see this building blown up? – yeah, I suppose so. – uh-huh, you’re under arrest, buster!

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:03:26 +0000

I’m inclined to hang with Henley’s take:

On December 22, Narseal Batiste sketches a grand vision of “wag[ing] war on the United States from within” – and then gives the “al Qaeda representative” everybody’s shoe sizes.

On December 29, Batiste’s “Islamic Army” take delivery of their cool new military boots.

In all likelihood, these are not the terrorists we’re looking for.

By: Maria

Maria — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:01:05 +0000

It reminds me of some would-be IRA heads my brother defended a couple of years ago. They wanted to do a robbery to show what good provos they could be, if let in. Somehow the heist plans required them to have police uniforms. So they got them – 15 years out of date – and drove to a suburb outside of Dublin, got out them out of a van and started to kit up. But they’d chosen a neighbourhood that’s notorious for being full of retired Gardai (police) and taxi drivers and were immediately dobbed in.

Then, when the poor incompetents were convicted and sentenced(no amount of good lawyering could prevent that), the real IRA (as opposed to the Real IRA) refused to have them on the political wing of Portlaoise prison. Now that’s farce.

By: etat

etat — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 04:47:19 +0000

This story had the marks of high farce from the start. I decided to count the days until it was overtly recognised as such. One day later it seems pretty clear in this part of the blogosphere. How long til the mainstream press picks it up?

Batiste et al may have had seriously evil intentions, but since the Steve Kurtz arrest, I cannot take security forces on their word about the seriousness of a person/situation. It may be that Batiste is an inarticulate and not-quite-sane individual who would otherwise be wandering the streets, and who is in no position to mobilise resources against an overhyped and near-slanderous accusation by a security agency.

Kurtz – as a relatively well-off academic – is in a position to defend himself against agency bollocks. Batiste – who may be less of a threat than your neighbourhood squeegee merchant – sounds like he has zero resources. A perfect victim.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 04:02:44 +0000

I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been arrested. Henley’s question (and this may differentiate them from the Canadian crew) is whether they were ever really planning to do anything besides con an “Al Qaeda Contact” out of some goodies. On the other hand, the economic rationality theory needs to be set against the fact that you’d have to be a fucking idiot to think this was the easiest, least-risky way to make some money. (Even the least-risky illegal way.)

By: Mary Catherine Moran

Mary Catherine Moran — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:46:39 +0000

Well, yes. But.

The same might be said of the jackasses who were recently arrested up in Canada. Witless wannabes every last one of them. But it doesn’t take a genius for evil to set off a bomb in a subway car. The terrorist as freelancer—inspired by, but with no real connection to, Al Qaeda—is a bit worrisome.