BrooklynRedLeg wrote:Anecdotal to be sure, but I do remember reading some comments online that said the only ones advocating violence in the militia movement in the 90s were government plants.
Well, yes and no. Without a doubt there were FBI agents looking for trouble in more than one sense of the word. On the other hand, we also had Tim McVeigh. Who was totally missed by the FBI.
Just because the FBI might be barking up some wrong trees doesn't mean there aren't trees that need to be investigated.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
None of these cases entail the FBI’s learning of an actual plot and then infiltrating it to stop it. They all involve the FBI’s purposely seeking out Muslims (typically young and impressionable ones) whom they think harbor animosity toward the U.S. and who therefore can be induced to launch an attack despite having never taken even a single step toward doing so before the FBI targeted them. Each time the FBI announces it has disrupted its own plot, press coverage is predictably hysterical (new Homegrown Terrorist caught!), fear levels predictably rise, and new security measures are often implemented in response (the FBI’s Terror plot aimed at the D.C. Metro, for instance, led to the Metro Police announcing a new policy of random searches of passengers’ bags).
BrooklynRedLeg wrote:Anecdotal to be sure, but I do remember reading some comments online that said the only ones advocating violence in the militia movement in the 90s were government plants.
Well, yes and no. Without a doubt there were FBI agents looking for trouble in more than one sense of the word. On the other hand, we also had Tim McVeigh. Who was totally missed by the FBI.
Just because the FBI might be barking up some wrong trees doesn't mean there aren't trees that need to be investigated.
Yeah, but what's being implied in this particular case is that they're basically targeting people and setting them up to take a fall rather than actually investigating serious plots. Quietly pushing a delusional young Muslim guy towards crafting a terrorist plot just doesn't seem all that necessary, when they could've just left him to shoot himself in the foot and looked elsewhere. The fact that they seem to be pulling out more of these than actual terrorist plots that actually have the *means* to do serious damage is rather disturbing.
Yeah, a friendly reminder to all posters: better not explain how to improve particular terrorist plans. Duh.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
^ Someone forgot to tell Tom Clancy, Stephen Coonts, and Vince Flynn that little piece of advice. Get a grip, Stas!
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Count Chocula wrote:^ Someone forgot to tell Tom Clancy, Stephen Coonts, and Vince Flynn that little piece of advice. Get a grip, Stas!
It is a general recommendation, not a strict demand to stop discussing the act. If you think my decision is wrong because Tom Clancy described fictional terrorist acts, whatever.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
A few days ago I saw a MacGyver rerun where he fly a RC plane with explosives towards the bad guys plane on a airstrip to distract them. I guess now that episode will be banned forever too... what a moron this guy. I don't get why people are that stupid to go on a killing spree out of any fucking ideology.
[signature]Insert cliche or funny statement here. [/signature]
I do wonder if RC aircraft would work as antiaircraft weapons by diving into the intake of some two engined airliner taking off. The piloting would be almost impossible though.
SWPIGWANG wrote:I do wonder if RC aircraft would work as antiaircraft weapons by diving into the intake of some two engined airliner taking off. The piloting would be almost impossible though.
Negligible. They are made of foam and wood, with little to none heavy, dense components (battery and engine.) A common bird would do much more damage. Given the suction of one of those engines, I wouldn't be surprised if you manage to do that, IF you manage to get close enough to the runway. Airports are a strict RC no-fly zone, and they'd react quickly.
So tl;dr - if you manage to get close enough to do that, it would be easier to use a home-made rocket or just shoot the pilots...
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
LaCroix wrote:Negligible. They are made of foam and wood, with little to none heavy, dense components (battery and engine.) A common bird would do much more damage. Given the suction of one of those engines, I wouldn't be surprised if you manage to do that, IF you manage to get close enough to the runway. Airports are a strict RC no-fly zone, and they'd react quickly.
So tl;dr - if you manage to get close enough to do that, it would be easier to use a home-made rocket or just shoot the pilots...
Yeah, about that "foam and wood" thing... You are aware that there are turbine jet engine powered RC aircraft these days? Granted, they're a lot more expensive than the sort of wood and foam prop or EDF powered RC aircraft you';re thinking of, but depending on the skill of the modeller and the time they're willing to take to build one, RC jets can get pretty goddamn big, can go pretty goddamn fast, and when they impact they can make can make a pretty decent fireball. Range isn't really much of an issue either, there are hobbyists that have gotten to where they can fly their RC aircraft upwards of 25km awa from where the pilot is.
So yeah, it's be a pretty goofball terrorist plot on par with Sharks With Frickin' Lasers for Dr. Evil level shenanigans, but it's doable.
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas GALEForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
All I have to say on this matter is that the freaking Toyman came up with a more legitimately threatening plan involving R/C planes way back in Superman: the Animated Series.
When your best plan comes up second against a doll-head-wearing man-child from a cartoon, perhaps you should spend some time rethinking your life choices.
After seeing some of the clowns we've been catching for plotting terrorism I think comparing them to failed Cartoon villain is an upgrade.
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas GALEForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
Elheru Aran wrote:
Yeah, but what's being implied in this particular case is that they're basically targeting people and setting them up to take a fall rather than actually investigating serious plots. Quietly pushing a delusional young Muslim guy towards crafting a terrorist plot just doesn't seem all that necessary, when they could've just left him to shoot himself in the foot and looked elsewhere. The fact that they seem to be pulling out more of these than actual terrorist plots that actually have the *means* to do serious damage is rather disturbing.
I honestly don't know what to say over this. Really, I'm speechless. I can understand the FBI monitoring those who it sees as likely to become Al-Qaeda agents, but even that is stretching it considering that they have rights and aren't bound by some law of science that says they MUST become terrorists, you know. It makes me think of stuff like ethnic profiling.
But this is like "thoughtcrime detection", or like the old idea that Satan would try to seduce people in order to prove their loyalty to God. Get impressionable young guys into concocting terror plots that are "foiled" by the FBI as they're about to be sprung into action. Its mostly the FBI's fault, since without their prodding these guys might never have plotted the attacks. It might remove a few potential terrorists, but then what? And this might not be just with Islamist candidates. It could transpire into false-flag attacks that will bring more removals to our freedoms over time. The floodgates are busted, what's next for us?
It reminds me of that Disney cartoon where Mickey Mouse (I think) visits an island where Hapiness is Mandatory. He imprisons some of his people (who of course become sad) and says "I'm great at preventing crime"
Damn you know it. You so smart you brought up like history and shit. Laying down facts like you was a blues clues episode or something. How you get so smart? Like the puns and shit you use are wicked smart, Red Letter Moron! HAHAHAHAH!1 Fucks that is funny, you like should be on TV with Jeff Dunham and shit.-emersonlakeandbalmer God is like the strict dad while Satan is the cool uncle who gives you weed. However sometimes he'll be a dick and turn you in.
I have difficulty putting anything less than a majority of the blame on a person who ultimately conducts (or attempts to conduct) a capital crime. Your mileage, apparently, may vary.
What's troubling is when the FBI becomes complicit in leading someone down the path to the commission of capital crimes- when they're routinely interacting with FBI plants who give them verbal encouragement when they commit lesser crimes, push them to act more aggressively, and even help them get their hands on the tools they would use... until the moment they shout "FBI! FREEZE!"
In a case like that, you're creating a terrorist where none might have existed if you hadn't done anything, not catching an existing terrorist. And the FBI's involvement in the process by which the would-be terrorist was radicalized into terrorism... it smacks of entrapment, to me.
I'm not sure a person should get off free, but the question in my mind is whether this is really what the FBI should be doing- does it catch terrorists? Or does it effectively manufacture pseudo-terrorists who can be paraded up and down in lieu of real terrorists, to justify continuing security presence and restrictions on our liberties?
Simon_Jester wrote:What's troubling is when the FBI becomes complicit in leading someone down the path to the commission of capital crimes- when they're routinely interacting with FBI plants who give them verbal encouragement when they commit lesser crimes, push them to act more aggressively, and even help them get their hands on the tools they would use... until the moment they shout "FBI! FREEZE!"
In a case like that, you're creating a terrorist where none might have existed if you hadn't done anything, not catching an existing terrorist. And the FBI's involvement in the process by which the would-be terrorist was radicalized into terrorism... it smacks of entrapment, to me.
I'm not sure a person should get off free, but the question in my mind is whether this is really what the FBI should be doing- does it catch terrorists? Or does it effectively manufacture pseudo-terrorists who can be paraded up and down in lieu of real terrorists, to justify continuing security presence and restrictions on our liberties?
All of the Goldsteinists are either secret Thoughtpolicemen or rebels who will be captured shortly by the Thoughtpolicemen. And the Eurasian Eastasian prisoners captured are of no consequence- the war will grind on forever regardless. It's rather disturbing if you compare some of this stuff. We had a topic like this near the beginning comparing America in 2002-2003 to Oceania, did we not?
Damn you know it. You so smart you brought up like history and shit. Laying down facts like you was a blues clues episode or something. How you get so smart? Like the puns and shit you use are wicked smart, Red Letter Moron! HAHAHAHAH!1 Fucks that is funny, you like should be on TV with Jeff Dunham and shit.-emersonlakeandbalmer God is like the strict dad while Satan is the cool uncle who gives you weed. However sometimes he'll be a dick and turn you in.
I think that may be overstating the case, but taking it to the extreme limit and showing how bad it can get does have its merits.
It's natural for police forces to try to root out criminals by engaging in this kind of sting, but there has to be some limit on how far you can justify carrying your stings. Otherwise you're turning basically harmless people into criminals, and criminals into more dangerous criminals, and it becomes nothing but the security forces' attempt to justify their own existence at the citizens' expense.
Simon_Jester wrote:I think that may be overstating the case, but taking it to the extreme limit and showing how bad it can get does have its merits.
It's natural for police forces to try to root out criminals by engaging in this kind of sting, but there has to be some limit on how far you can justify carrying your stings. Otherwise you're turning basically harmless people into criminals, and criminals into more dangerous criminals, and it becomes nothing but the security forces' attempt to justify their own existence at the citizens' expense.
This. ^
At the end you say about how the FBI false flag sting system turn innocents into actual terrorists. It's not the only one.
I'll tell you about a system that, while it may do plenty of good keeping dangerous people and potentially dangerous people off our streets, often makes innocents who commit trivial, non harming actions into vicious monsters.
PRISON. Seriously, there has to be lots of reform.
Damn you know it. You so smart you brought up like history and shit. Laying down facts like you was a blues clues episode or something. How you get so smart? Like the puns and shit you use are wicked smart, Red Letter Moron! HAHAHAHAH!1 Fucks that is funny, you like should be on TV with Jeff Dunham and shit.-emersonlakeandbalmer God is like the strict dad while Satan is the cool uncle who gives you weed. However sometimes he'll be a dick and turn you in.
LaCroix wrote:Negligible. They are made of foam and wood, with little to none heavy, dense components (battery and engine.) A common bird would do much more damage. Given the suction of one of those engines, I wouldn't be surprised if you manage to do that, IF you manage to get close enough to the runway. Airports are a strict RC no-fly zone, and they'd react quickly.
So tl;dr - if you manage to get close enough to do that, it would be easier to use a home-made rocket or just shoot the pilots...
Yeah, about that "foam and wood" thing... You are aware that there are turbine jet engine powered RC aircraft these days? Granted, they're a lot more expensive than the sort of wood and foam prop or EDF powered RC aircraft you';re thinking of, but depending on the skill of the modeller and the time they're willing to take to build one, RC jets can get pretty goddamn big, can go pretty goddamn fast, and when they impact they can make can make a pretty decent fireball. Range isn't really much of an issue either, there are hobbyists that have gotten to where they can fly their RC aircraft upwards of 25km awa from where the pilot is.
So yeah, it's be a pretty goofball terrorist plot on par with Sharks With Frickin' Lasers for Dr. Evil level shenanigans, but it's doable.
Yes, I am, since I am deep in that scene and even sold those things.
First, even getting you and this damn huge thing close enough to the airport that you can visually fly it into an engine intake (or even a plane) is hard. You can't crash these things into anything from 25 km, as you are not in the cockpit. Just ask a rc pilot how far away from the runway he would stand during a landing. That's the minimum safe distance to actually hit the strip. It means that you have to get really close, like <1000 ft close to hit the aircraft you're aiming for.
Getting good enough to actually perform this manouvre is even harder. You will certainly crash a couple of those planes before you are proficient to do it.
And even though they are huge, the only thing of weight are the engines. These rc jets are rather flimsy for their size (just enough composite material to stay in one piece), and would be shredded to pieces on impact on a aircraft hull, with little damage to the plane itself.
The Dr. Evil analogy is spot on.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
LaCroix wrote:First, even getting you and this damn huge thing close enough to the airport that you can visually fly it into an engine intake (or even a plane) is hard. You can't crash these things into anything from 25 km, as you are not in the cockpit. Just ask a rc pilot how far away from the runway he would stand during a landing. That's the minimum safe distance to actually hit the strip. It means that you have to get really close, like <1000 ft close to hit the aircraft you're aiming for.
Oh really now?
LaCroix wrote:The Dr. Evil analogy is spot on.
Sharks with frickin' lasers, man.
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas GALEForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
My Spanish is a bit rusty, but I think the final decent and landing was piloted by the on-site copilot. Also, they just landed a soaring plane on some field, not some marked spot. I do congratulate them on pulling this flight off, though. That was some good cooperation and nice tech.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
My Spanish is a bit rusty, but I think the final decent and landing was piloted by the on-site copilot. Also, they just landed a soaring plane on some field, not some marked spot. I do congratulate them on pulling this flight off, though. That was some good cooperation and nice tech.
And how much it'll cost to add a video system? Both in money and payload capacity? Even then, they'll need a good amount of practice and luck to hit a large airplane going at speed. And then they still have to cause enough damage to the target plane.
I don't know current rates, but it is in the ballpark of 4k $ for a system like they had in the video. (Amplifiers & antenna for the rc set, High-power video transmitter, big receiver antenna, monitors and video-goggles.)
Payload is negligible, my system was smaller than theirs (only 2000m) and weight was in the ballpark of 100-200 grams, depending on battery configuration.
To anticipate the question : Could they use this system to fly into an aircraft (engine, cockpit whatever)?
Yes, with practice, from a head-on approach. The camera view completely lacks depth perception, and I can tell from experience that relying on the camera instead of your eyes causes plane loss. Trying to intercept the aircraft in an angled approach is very hard to impossible. Head on is the only reliable way.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
is there a particular reason al the terror plots since 9/11 have been so pathetic? shoe 'bomber', UNDERWEAR 'bomber' (imagine if he succeded, how awkward Paradise would've been. "hey, houris, this 'martyr' lost his manhood to get here, let's mock him for eturnity!")
Seriously, a true threat would've been a guy w/ a chemistry degree who could MAKE his own explosives (or buy one of the many "how to make C4" books advertised in gun magazines) & make a shaped charge or FAE for said R/C plane, put a camera in it & fly out an apartment window a mile from the 2012 inauguration.
Took me 5 minutes to brainstorm, apparently islamic terrorists are dumbver than vilage idiots.
That fast jet in the youtube clip (red one, not the crashed F-22), how much time would HomeLandSec have to stop something like that lauched in the middle of DC? (the video description said it went ~300 mph, so 1 mile=12 seconds?)
On a side note, why are R/C jet engines thousands of dollars? I've seen home made turbines (turbojet, turbofan, turboshaft) that work just fine made for hundreds of dollars or less. Is it a 'niche market' thing?
1. Everyone blowing himself up with a dynamite corset per definition lost everything, including their manhood. Do you think they wind up in paradise as fine goop?
2. The ingredients to make explosives are also under scrutiny - just try getting your hands on any quantity of Potassium these days - just try.
3. Rc aeroplane bomb for assassinating a president - even more stupid than "I detonate something on a window seat, and I'll sneak it in by hiding it in the place least searched (underwear)"
4. Shaped charge or FAE instead of just making this thing a huge pipe bomb - even more needlessly overcomplicated and fail-prone than the real plots
5. Travel time for a bullet < 1 sec. Easier to hide, not as obvious a trail (buying the plane, engines, fuel!!!, needing place to train flying the plane (people knowing you) Also - starting the plane from an apartment window is risk, as they need to build up speed. (Given you have a window big enough to get it out.) Also, these engines have to run up for quite a time before launch - noise and fumes will give you away - another trail on you.
6. Miniature jet engines that run reliable, start without (too much) fuss, are light-weight and do not shake the whole plane apart/melt it/use fuel by the gallon == $pricetag$
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
We had a topic like this near the beginning comparing America in 2002-2003 to Oceania, did we not?
