I've long said I'm sure that the authorities are conspiring (yes, conspiring, as people can and DO conspire, despite the supposed reputation for the concept of conspiracy to be virtually impossible and never-happening, and despite the word being used to attempt to discredit and discourage folks who can see what's obviously going on and say so) to cover up evidence found and conclusions made in investigations of incidents that appear for all the world, for all logic and reason, to be dry runs for terrorism or even attempted terrorism.
Now let's again look at the case of the guy who stole the little plane in Canada, crossed the border and led a couple of American F-16 Fighting Falcons on a four-state chase before landing for lack of fuel.
Remember, appearances can be deceiving. Whoever would've thought a white guy, a gulf war veteran, an American-born dude who served his country, would blow up a federal building, killing many? Well, that's what Timothy McVeigh did. (I understand that al Qaeda's Number Two, Ayman al-Zawihiri, was in the city shortly before the incident, for some reason, not that any connection was directly demonstrated, but it does raise suspicions as to possible AQ involvement).
Just because someone seems too nice and kind and happy doesn't mean they don't have a hidden agenda (like, you know, Barack Hussein Obama). After all, spies, saboteurs and terrorists are trained to deceive, to make others not think they're up to anything sinister. You just can't know just by interacting socially with folks, for some are masters of acting and deception, by virtue of training and/or experience.
Flashback: The Syrian "musicians" on Northwest Flight 327
Jihad Watch confirms that it was indeed terrorism. (Thanks, Maz2, for running that by me. I belive I missed that post!)
Flight 327 Update. Will all those who ridiculed Annie Jacobsen for "hysteria" over "musicians," and derided her for "racism," now apologize? What do you think?
And what about those who think the Flying Imams case is a legitimate one of racist profiling? Will they now acknowledge that there is a genuine threat to American air travel? Again, what do you think?
And why has DHS covered up all these probes and dry runs? Are they more concerned about a fictional "backlash" against Muslims than about preventing another jihad terror attack? Do they think that keeping the public ignorant, fat, and happy will help prevent another jihad terror attack? This goes hand-in-hand with the polite fictions about Islam and jihad that dominate the public discourse -- it's as if in both cases that the truth is just too terrifying to contemplate, and so we'd rather play pretend.
Well, if we wish to survive, maybe it's time to grow up.
Note- the article to which the Jihad Watch post links is no longer there, probably moved to a different location. But they did copy and paste from the Washington Times what it said.
An air marshal who told The Times that he has been involved personally in terror probes that were ignored by federal security managers, called such behavior typical.
"Agency management was not only covering up numerous probes and dry-run encounters from Congress and other federal law-enforcement agencies, it was also hiding these incidents from their own flying air marshals," said P. Jeffrey Black, an air marshal stationed in Las Vegas.
(Details... read at Jihad Watch)
The inspector general's two-year investigation was originally released in April 2006 but was then wholly redacted except for two sentences. The re-release stems from a Freedom of Information request by The Times on April 25, 2006, which was answered Friday.
Portions of the report remain redacted. However, current and former air marshals who reviewed a copy provided by The Times say the activities of the men details a dry run for a terrorist attack.
Yes... grow up and start using our brains. And take the authorities' claims of "not terrorism-related" with a grain of salt, especially when they say it almost immediately after they arrive on the scene of an incident (and haven't even had a frickin' chance to investigate yet!) and are questioned by the Big Media, who is as guillible as they come and who will not bother to ask tougher questions, you know, like tough questions they ask of, say, conservative politicians, of whom they're always suspicious and biased against. How about some suspiciousness and bias against authorities who incredibly seem to know the answers before they can even possibly see the evidence? And how about some suspiciousness and bias against evildoers' claims? Why trust everything the evildoers say, including "they just wanted to commit suicide but were too chicken" or that they're crazy and therefore not responsible for chopping off peoples' heads and eating them on buses? Damn, all you need to be excused from anything bad is to pretend to be frickin' nuts. It helps to "see a psychiatrist" prior to doing the bad thing, to establish a "history" for optics and to manipulate the thinking and perceptions of others. How clever! Anyone can make others think they're nuts... how hard is it to act like a nut even though one's perfectly sane, although still evil?
Of course, the hard-left propagandists lurking around this site will hate what I'm saying, and probably talk amongst themselves in their glorified echo chamber, saying, "Hey, another Muslim-hating redneck! Doesn't he know that Islam's a religion of peace and that only about a couple or three or four Muslims out of billions are terrorists and that the rest of 'em are the nicest, most tolerant, most peaceful, non-hateful, non-supremacistic, non-imposing, non-entitlist people on earth? Is he nuts? All Muslims except for two or three or four are nicer and way better than we are and so on and so forth... Just look at the Christians, the Jews, America and Israel... now there's baddies, eh! Ok, pass the joint, man; my brain ain't numb enough yet!"