Just what Cleveland needs: lousy terrorists

Thanks, guys. You are just what Cleveland needs: another bad headline: “FBI arrests 5 accused of plotting to blow up Ohio 82 bridge in Cuyahoga valley.” Another in a long string of too-public humiliations: the Cuyahoga River catches on fire, the mayor catches on fire, the Drive, LeBron’s Big Kiss Off. And you wanted to be anarchist terrorists?

Maybe you didn’t hear, but anarchist terrorism is passe. Granted, four of you have bad hair and one of you has a full beard. But it takes more than a hirsute appearance to make one a terrorist. It takes brains.

As a colleague just commented in an email, “Don’t these guys watch TV? Any time you outsource a crime–murder, bomb making, etc.–the other guy is ALWAYS a cop.” I’m guessing that these guys watch too much TV, just not the right shows.

Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m glad they failed. We’re always glad when these guys fail. But their stupidity gives even the local non-Fox affiliate the ability to write headlines like, “FBI says Occupy Cleveland not under investigation” because Brian (top and center) got arrested at a foreclosure protest sponsored Occupy Cleveland. I’m just imagining what the Fox network will make of this.

The Occupy Movement got us talking as a nation about the 99%. Now the nation may be talking about how Five Rebels in Search of a Cause, the Cleveland Five (hereinafter CLE5), cast a movement that captured the attention of many Americans into disrepute. Yes, the Occupy Movement wanted to draw attention to the abuses of Wall Street, Big Banks, and government. But now they’ll be portrayed in a more negative light because of what these five did on their own, of their own free will. That’s not the way to draw attention to the bad guys, boys. It’s a good way to bring down the cause you might have had some sympathy for, or at least cause it significant damage.

So, once again, thanks. You’ve given the world another reason for people to scratch their heads in wonder and amazement when the word “Cleveland” is uttered.

16 replies »

  1. Sorry, not to be disrespectful, but what statement does bombing a bridge in Cleveland make? World Trade Towers and Ft. Hood, I get. The Federal building in Oklahoma City, I sort of get. Kinda. But a bridge in Cleveland? That’s like the targets of the SLA or Ted Kaczinski–huh?

  2. Trying to hang these doofuses on the Occupy movement is an insult to Occupy. If Occupy, which is populated by a lot of very smart folks (agree with their views or not, trust me, I know any number of them and they are NOT dumb) wanted to blow shit up, shit would be blown up.

  3. It carries a lot of local traffic and it’s high (for around here–150 feet), but it’s NOT a freeway. I-90 downtown, the Valley View bridge on 480: THOSE are bridges. Yeah, this would have been inconvenient, but not catastrophic.

    BTW, these guys are LUCKY that the bill got rejected that would have summarily hauled their sorry behinds to Gitmo. They could have occupied Cuba for a long time. But that’s not what they intended.

  4. Actually, Otherwise, serious terrorists … whether of the swarthy and Islamic persuasion or crackers like these guys would very much launch attacks against places in Cleveland or similar.

    Look at how scared Middle America got when they attacked a city that a good many Middle Americans hate for not being “real Murica” enough. Now imagine if they had followed that up with a shopping mall in Topeka, a country music concert in Nashville, a seemingly random bridge in Cleveland.

    If the point is to foster abject fear, then logically, you attack where people are least likely to normally feel fear…which also happen to be places that rarely have the kind of security that would stop a terrorist attack.

    And this is why i don’t buy the al Qaeda as an existential threat to my safety, because if they were, they would have been able to carry out a string of attacks like i described and actually done it.

  5. These five typify what I think of when I hear the word “occupy” now. They look like drugged up lazy children of the middle class who think they are really smart. They lack actual job skills and have little to contribute in life. The fact that these occupiers got arrested for planning an act of terrorism isn’t surprising.

  6. Wait, so the anarchist dynamiters group was infiltrated by a detective? It’s just like The Man Who Was Thursday! Also, Occupy is about justice, not anarchy. You’re thinking of the Sex Pistols.

  7. When you think about it, the DC snipers did an awful lot of terror with 2 guys and a beat up sedan. I’ve always been surprised that there is not more gun-based terrorism in the US. Especially since A) the outsourced terror suppliers are usually cops and B) guns are too easy to get. I could go off on this tangent, but I don’t want to give anyone ideas.

  8. Cat,

    I really hate what America has become since the big terror attacks. We have a bloated ultra-militaristic nationwide police force that does nothing beyond setting up and “taking down” would be terrorists while making the rest of our lives (the 99.999999%r’s) difficult and expensive. These five dupes just helped justify that police state for years to come. And after walking among occupiers I can say that these five DO certainly represent that movement, albeit the extreme militant end of the group. As to why we have not had more gun related acts of terrorism; it doesn’t have much to do with legal gun ownership. Mexico has been dealing with that for decades now and all it seems is necessary to keep it going is the will of the narco-terrorist and the demand for cheap weed… something the occupiers also tend to enjoy.

  9. Wow, Brian350 has an amazing ability to walk through crowds and telepathically determine that five people depicted in mugshots are representative of the entire crowd in some manner. Strangely, I see these five mug shots and think they’re representative of Wal-Mart at 3 AM.

    I’d respond to the bizarre connection between gun ownership and Mexican narco-terrorism, but the attempt to make it was incoherent enough as to defy sense.

    As for occupiers tending to enjoy “cheap weed” (I’ll indulge the begging of the question of its cheapness for a moment), I guess walking through one crowd (size/location unstated) now justifies generalizing from limited experience to broad swaths of the population elsewhere. Or maybe it was those telepathic abilities again. In any case, I feel far more confident now. When I see photos of veterans, old ladies, blue collar folks, and folks in office attire at an Occupy event, I can rest assured that they, like their more obviously unwashed compatriots, also like to spark one up for breakfast.

    In regards to so-called “cheap weed”, I guess The Amazing 350 missed the memo about prohibition, risk, and violence driving prices *UP* on prohibited goods.

    So much fun, so little time. Please do let us know what other unfounded generalizations you can make.

  10. Because of course, if five Tea Party members were plotting to blow up a bridge, you would likewise say it is not representative of the movement as a whole, right?

    Heck, if it had been Tea Party members, this would be the top story of every newscast and President Obama would already be talking about the dangerous threat from them in our society.

    Occupy isn’t a monolith, but a strange melange of various left wing ideas. Clearly, not all Occupy people want to blow things up…but there is also an anarchist element within it, who wants violence. We have seen too many altercations and near riots to dispute this. Occupy has attracted some of the same anarchist elements who break shop windows and riot at every NATO or G7 summit.

    • Because of course, if five Tea Party members were plotting to blow up a bridge, you would likewise say it is not representative of the movement as a whole, right?

      That would depend. If we examined them, would we find out that they embodied the stated beliefs of the Tea Party? Were they known and accepted by the Tea party? Or were they people who hung around the fringes and believed things the TP didn’t believe?

      There are unquestionably folks who hang around the Occupy movement who are pretty fringe. But Occupy has a clearly stated set of goals and it absolutely positively 100% rejects the use of violence and terror.

      But it raises a good question. If somebody claims a label or an affiliation, even though they violate the precepts of the organization or the candidate or whatever, must we then accept the inverse – that the candidate or organization endorses them? If so, then Christianity endorsed the genocide and the extermination of non-whites (because Hitler claimed to be Christian and every white supremacist group in America does the same). Ron Paul endorses the white supremacists who support him. The GOP now owns every fringe nutbag in the nation. Focus on the Family and other official anti-abortion groups are officially in favor of murdering physicians in church and bombing clinics. FOX News is now on the hook for a number of domestic terrorists. And so on.

      Does this seem right to you?

      Those five yahoos can call themselves whatever they like, but their beliefs and actions were demonstrably not in line with Occupy and I don’t know a single Occupy activist who’d do anything but condemn them out of hand as a bunch of idiots who really don’t get the goals of the movement at all. Here in America we have a history of loons acting in the name of things they don’t quite grasp – religion, politics, The White Album – and all too often people who represent the core of the belief or organization being misused sit quietly. I’ve railed at my Christian friends for decades about how they let people whose actions are openly hostile to the teachings attributed to Jesus take over their religion and execute a platform of ignorance and hatred in the name of Christianity.

      So believe it or not, but that won’t happen here. You can’t stop those morons from calling themselves whatever they want, but you can stand up and say hell no, you are NOT Occupy. Here’s why.

  11. This may be piling on after Sam’s post, but I think Tom would agree that hooligans (thugs, etc.) can be attracted to ANY cause. I’ve seen them turn out to oppose the KKK at their rallies and support the KKK at the same rallies. Some people are attracted to violence and are looking for a reason to be violent.

    In short, you can’t judge a group by its fringe. BUT you can judge a group by how it collectively reacts to the fringe over time, and more importantly, how it reacts to the fringe if those people exhibit violent behavior in the company of the group. Do members of the group try to defuse the fringe, isolate them, run away from them, report them to the police if necessary? Or do they cheer on the fringe?

    So far, I haven’t seen any reports of support for the CLE5 in the local area, no rallies to cheer them on. Sure, I’ve seen the articles calling this a frame, set-up, etc. But I’d expect that from conspiracy theorists on either end of the spectrum (and perhaps a Hallelujah Chorsus from them in harmony).

  12. Tom, you have me wildly curious now. Just what evidence do you have for your assertions?

    I’m not sure who the “you” is you address, it might be the author, Cat, or it might be me since your comment follows mine. Or it might be some nebulous “you” denoting whoever you think guilty of double-standard. If it’s Cat or me, by all means demonstrate where we’re guilty of the double standard. If it’s the generic “you”, then I’m sure you’re quite capable of finding examples. There’s intellectually lazy folk on all sides willing to lambast the Tea Party and its enthusiasts for various forms of cretinism.

    You also seem to allege a certain liberal bias in the media, insofar as you think they’d have been on this issue like flies on rotten meat were it nominal Tea Partiers who’d been caught. Data, please. I’d love to see the evidence for this alleged liberal bias. As for your claim about President Obama, are we thinking of the same President Obama? The one I’m thinking of has been woefully short on placing blame where it belongs. If you can think of an example of him maligning the Tea Party, please share. I seem to have missed it.

    As for attracting fringe elements, Sam and Cat already nailed that issue.

    So tell me, of which group are you the fringe?

    [Admin: Given there are no “anons” prior to this comment, please identify yourself, esp. since you specifically said you’d commented previously. Thanks.]