I don't know what I find most disturbing about this story, maybe it's the former boss's paranoia pinpointing an ex-employee as a terrorist.
Perhaps its that a few, in the scheme of things, trivial events have created the surveillance state or put another way a East German like stassi state has been reborn, but this time in the West:
Quote
Michele Catalano in writing out loud ยท 5 min read
pressure cookers, backpacks and quinoa, oh my!
It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday morning. Little did we know our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things was creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.
Most of it was innocent enough. I had researched pressure cookers. My husband was looking for a backpack. And maybe in another time those two things together would have seemed innocuous, but we are in "these times" now. And in these times, when things like the Boston bombing happen, you spend a lot of time on the internet reading about it and, if you are my exceedingly curious news junkie of a twenty-year-old son, you click a lot of links when you read the myriad of stories. You might just read a CNN piece about how bomb making instructions are readily available on the internet and you will in all probability, if you are that kid, click the link provided.
Which might not raise any red flags. Because who wasn't reading those stories? Who wasn't clicking those links? But my son's reading habits combined with my search for a pressure cooker and my husband's search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters.
That's how I imagine it played out, anyhow. Lots of bells and whistles and a crowd of task force workers huddled around a computer screen looking at our Google history.
This was weeks ago. I don't know what took them so long to get here. Maybe they were waiting for some other devious Google search to show up but "what the hell do I do with quinoa" and "Is A-Rod suspended yet" didn't fit into the equation so they just moved in based on those older searches.
I was at work when it happened. My husband called me as soon as it was over, almost laughing about it but I wasn't joining in the laughter. His call left me shaken and anxious.
What happened was this: At about 9:00 am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband's Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.
Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.
A million things went through my husband's head. None of which were right. He walked outside and the men greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands.
"Are you [name redacted]?" one asked while glancing at a clipboard. He affirmed that was indeed him, and was asked if they could come in. Sure, he said.
They asked if they could search the house, though it turned out to be just a cursory search. They walked around the living room, studied the books on the shelf (nope, no bomb making books, no Anarchist Cookbook), looked at all our pictures, glanced into our bedroom, pet our dogs. They asked if they could go in my son's bedroom but when my husband said my son was sleeping in there, they let it be.
Meanwhile, they were peppering my husband with questions. Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.
They searched the backyard. They walked around the garage, as much as one could walk around a garage strewn with yardworking equipment and various junk. They went back in the house and asked more questions.
Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb? My husband, ever the oppositional kind, asked them if they themselves weren't curious as to how a pressure cooker bomb works, if they ever looked it up. Two of them admitted they did.
By this point they had realized they were not dealing with terrorists. They asked my husband about his work, his visits to South Korea and China. The tone was conversational.
They never asked to see the computers on which the searches were done. They never opened a drawer or a cabinet. They left two rooms unsearched. I guess we didn't fit the exact profile they were looking for so they were just going through the motions.
They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don't know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I'm not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to.
45 minutes later, they shook my husband's hand and left. That's when he called me and relayed the story. That's when I felt a sense of creeping dread take over. What else had I looked up? What kind of searches did I do that alone seemed innocent enough but put together could make someone suspicious? Were they judging me because my house was a mess (Oh my god, the joint terrorism task force was in my house and there were dirty dishes in my sink!). Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety. This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.
All I know is if I'm going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I'm not doing it online.
I'm scared. And not of the right things.
CLARIFICATION AND UPDATE
We found out through the Suffolk Police Department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house.
I did not lie or make it up. I wrote the piece with the information that was given. What was withheld from us obviously could not be a part of a story I wrote based on what happened yesterday.
The piece I wrote was the story as we knew it with the information we were told. None of it was fabricated. If you know me, you know I would never do that.
If it was misleading, just know that my intention was the truth. And that was what I knew as the truth until about ten minutes ago. That there were other circumstances involved was something we all were unaware of.
Thank you.
https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 (https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724)
More here:
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/02/michele_catalano_home_visit_after_googling_backpacks_and_pressure_cookers/ (http://m.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/02/michele_catalano_home_visit_after_googling_backpacks_and_pressure_cookers/)
The worm is now in the apple yes.
Even if all the terrorists were eliminated overnight - the habbit of watching & recording has been acquired. Profiling is so useful after all. Imagine you can prevent crime in advance!
G.
Lulz, JTTFs. A mishmash of local yokel cops, with a Fed or two jammed in there to make it all official-like.
It took me a while to realise this wasn't the Suffolk Constabulary from sleepy East Anglia. I suspect their terrorism operation is somewhat underfunded.
If no-one's had a word considering what I Google for work, I think I'm pretty safe.
As a side note, there should be lessons in schools on how to stay the right side of the law on the internet.
It sure seems like they made the US a much worse place to live.
Typical, my teams never seem to win on penalties.
Quote from: Brazen on August 02, 2013, 07:59:43 AM
It took me a while to realise this wasn't the Suffolk Constabulary from sleepy East Anglia. I suspect their terrorism operation is somewhat underfunded.
If no-one's had a word considering what I Google for work, I think I'm pretty safe.
As a side note, there should be lessons in schools on how to stay the right side of the law on the internet.
How do you teach people to hit an always moving target?
I'd read that this was because she'd been doing searches at work. Her boss got a bit overexcited an called the police or whoever.
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2013, 08:34:32 AM
How do you teach people to hit an always moving target?
Once the next bombing event uses a different device, that will be all the rage for the Po-Po to over-analyze, and backpacks and pressure cookers will have been forgotten, because that's how cops think.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2013, 08:35:39 AM
I'd read that this was because she'd been doing searches at work. Her boss got a bit overexcited an called the police or whoever.
Yes, hence my comment on that issue in the first line of the OP, additionally she amended her blog post at the end to reflect this new information.
Do keep up dear boy. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 08:37:39 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2013, 08:34:32 AM
How do you teach people to hit an always moving target?
Once the next bombing event uses a different device, that will be all the rage for the Po-Po to over-analyze, and backpacks and pressure cookers will have been forgotten, because that's how cops think.
Oh dear, that's not unsurprising, but to be expect as you say.
And what with you being an expert in the field from two different angles, it's depressing to know it's true. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2013, 08:35:39 AM
I'd read that this was because she'd been doing searches at work. Her boss got a bit overexcited an called the police or whoever.
More like a combination of the Boston event being in the fresh recent past and her proximity to Boston/NY. This was the JTTF that covers NY. I sincerely doubt a similar internet search in North Platte, Nebraska would garner the same attention.
After they hit her house, those 3 black SUVs went and investigated the brunch buffet at the local Bob's Big Boys.
Okay. So boss calls police, police then have to choose to ignore potential terrorist plot or report it up the chain. There's nothing wrong with this story. Except for her moaning about it <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2013, 08:46:45 AM
Okay. So boss calls police, police then have to choose to ignore potential terrorist plot or report it up the chain. There's nothing wrong with this story. Except for her moaning about it <_<
I think your transformation to future tool of the Blairite system is complete. :cool:
Thank Hod we've reached the point where we can draw public-policy conclusions based on an unsubstantiated blog entry. The old days of sources, fact-checking, and editing made it virtually impossible to believe in black helicopters, the one-world-government conspiracy at the UN, and Bigfoot - and what fun was that?
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
Bloggers. It is a wonder she didn't post on Jezebel about the mean PATARICHY too.
Bitch needed a motorcycle helmet put on her head.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
What about if the next bombing event involves unopened wargames? ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2013, 08:46:45 AM
Okay. So boss calls police, police then have to choose to ignore potential terrorist plot or report it up the chain. There's nothing wrong with this story. Except for her moaning about it <_<
But it is so timely!
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
What about if the next bombing event involves unopened wargames? ;)
All my games are open, shithead. How the hell else can I roll around in the maps all naked and stuff?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
What about if the next bombing event involves unopened wargames? ;)
All my games are open, shithead. How the hell else can I roll around in the maps all naked and stuff?
Yeah please stop snapchatting me those.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2013, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
What about if the next bombing event involves unopened wargames? ;)
All my games are open, shithead. How the hell else can I roll around in the maps all naked and stuff?
Yeah please stop snapchatting me those.
CdM said we were exclusive. :mad:
Seriously, if the NSA or GCHQ or POT are going to spy on everybody I sort of expect them to use that info for something useful. Yes the government has people looking for potential terrorists. These people seem rather good at their jobs considering the conviction/successful attack ratio.
The thing was here in norway ABB was flagged by the POT based on electric surveillance and police informants inside extremist mileus and they did nothing. Not even the friendly knock on the door to make sure all the crazy loons realized that they were actually being watched. POT was collecting the information but wasn't doing anything with it.
I want the police to look into potential terrorists, I want them to profile to make sure their time is spent well and I the interaction this woman wrote about is precisely the interaction that should be happening from time to time. I want the police's profile to include lots of innocent people who can be ruled out by a simple investigation rather than permitting a grey area where potential murderers do exist but the police don't investigate.
I want more green jobs.
I want apple bottom jeans. :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2013, 08:56:29 AM
Thank Hod we've reached the point where we can draw public-policy conclusions based on an unsubstantiated blog entry. The old days of sources, fact-checking, and editing made it virtually impossible to believe in black helicopters, the one-world-government conspiracy at the UN, and Bigfoot - and what fun was that?
Since this is a first hand account, what other information would need to be added to meet 'your standard'?
Most sightings of aliens are reported as first hand accounts. :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2013, 06:07:25 PM
Since this is a first hand account, what other information would need to be added to meet 'your standard'?
A second source would be good, and a publication in a new medium that engages in fact-checking would help.
But stories don't have to meet my standards for you to draw conclusions about public policy. Feel free to continue to follow tabloid-journalism standards of evidence, and ignore that background noise (which is all the sensible people laughing at you). Trust me - you can't hurt your rep at this point.
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2013, 07:24:42 PM
Trust me - you can't hurt your rep at this point.
Burn!
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2013, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
When the next bombing event involves Dieskau 6-pdrs, grumbler's is going to be the first house hit.
What about if the next bombing event involves unopened wargames? ;)
All my games are open, shithead. How the hell else can I roll around in the maps all naked and stuff?
Yeah please stop snapchatting me those.
What, the sight of all those hexagons too exciting for you? :P
Oh baby! Rough terrain! +1 to my boner!
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2013, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2013, 06:07:25 PM
Since this is a first hand account, what other information would need to be added to meet 'your standard'?
A second source would be good, and a publication in a new medium that engages in fact-checking would help.
But stories don't have to meet my standards for you to draw conclusions about public policy. Feel free to continue to follow tabloid-journalism standards of evidence, and ignore that background noise (which is all the sensible people laughing at you). Trust me - you can't hurt your rep at this point.
I feel sorry for you, what drives your need to insult people?
Hopefully it's curable. :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 06:05:10 AM
I feel sorry for you, what drives your need to insult people?
Hopefully it's curable. :unsure:
:lol: Maybe my "need to insult people" is "curable," maybe not. Your rep isn't curable.
You needn't worry about it, though. I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them as you are that a blog entry isn't going to tell us either that "the war on terror is over," or that "the terrorists may have won on penalties." Your claim that this story shows that an "East German like [sic] stassi [sic] state [sic] has been reborn [sic], but this time in the West" is amusing enough (especially with the fractured English) that I would encourage you to create more howlers like it.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 09:46:30 AM
I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them
How is that working out for you?
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 09:46:30 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 06:05:10 AM
I feel sorry for you, what drives your need to insult people?
Hopefully it's curable. :unsure:
:lol: Maybe my "need to insult people" is "curable," maybe not. Your rep isn't curable.
You needn't worry about it, though. I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them as you are that a blog entry isn't going to tell us either that "the war on terror is over," or that "the terrorists may have won on penalties." Your claim that this story shows that an "East German like [sic] stassi [sic] state [sic] has been reborn [sic], but this time in the West" is amusing enough (especially with the fractured English) that I would encourage you to create more howlers like it.
Do continue, you certainly have an amusing personality defect. :cool:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2013, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 09:46:30 AM
I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them
How is that working out for you?
Quite well. Being sure of things is better when they are actually true, as opposed to being sure of things (like the "fact" that the British were getting ready to evacuate Cairo in 1940) because you read it in a novel. I'll bet there are still people laughing at you for that one.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 12:19:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2013, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 09:46:30 AM
I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them
How is that working out for you?
Quite well.
Excellent, for a while I was concerned that your mean spirit was caused by some small amount of self awareness of how ridiculous you look when you go on the attack.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2013, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 12:19:09 PM
Quite well.
Excellent
I am glad you have learned to recognize excellence when you see it. I am, of course, too modest to call myself excellent, but I don't mind it when you do it. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2013, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 12:19:09 PM
Quite well.
Excellent
I am glad you have learned to recognize excellence when you see it. I am, of course, too modest to call myself excellent, but I don't mind it when you do it. :cool:
I'm glad this thread turned into another opportunity for Grumbler to display his tact and modesty. :ccr:
So Grumbles is insane right?
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 05:23:15 PM
I'm glad this thread turned into another opportunity for Grumbler to display his tact and modesty. :ccr:
So am I. It started out pretty feebly, but got stronger towards the end. :ccr:
So the converse of your life story.
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 05:39:51 PM
So the converse of your life story.
I dare say you have no more idea about my life story than you do the "War on Terror." :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 06:09:34 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 05:39:51 PM
So the converse of your life story.
I dare say you have no more idea about my life story than you do the "War on Terror." :cool:
You've ended up here arguing the toss with people you regard as inferior, so the story of decline is a given. :hmm:
I for one embrace the new GWOT. Grumbler's War on Threads.
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2013, 08:34:32 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 02, 2013, 07:59:43 AM
It took me a while to realise this wasn't the Suffolk Constabulary from sleepy East Anglia. I suspect their terrorism operation is somewhat underfunded.
If no-one's had a word considering what I Google for work, I think I'm pretty safe.
As a side note, there should be lessons in schools on how to stay the right side of the law on the internet.
How do you teach people to hit an always moving target?
Too easy:
(time of bullet flight in sec) X (target speed in feet per sec) = lead in feet
(lead in feet) X 304.8 = lead in meters
(lead in meters) / (range to target) = lead in MILs
Now aim your rifle with MIL-dot scope, select your point of aim, which is lead in mils from your crosshair in the direction the target is coming, engage when target is on point of aim. This is the Trapping technique.
I do not recommend the Tracking technique unless the target is relatively close to you or moving very fast, because it involves moving your rifle tracking the target while trying to maintain your point of aim and then squeezing a shot.
Quote from: Siege on August 04, 2013, 11:32:26 AM
(lead in feet) X 304.8 = lead in meters
Do you miss a lot?
Quote from: Maximus on August 04, 2013, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 04, 2013, 11:32:26 AM
(lead in feet) X 304.8 = lead in meters
Do you miss a lot?
obivously, he was trying to hit to the left of the three but his poor aim put the bullet hole between the 4 and the 8. Either that or he meant "millimeters".
Quote from: Maximus on August 04, 2013, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 04, 2013, 11:32:26 AM
(lead in feet) X 304.8 = lead in meters
Do you miss a lot?
:lol:
Siege is an Arab, so shooting right up in the air is part of his special skillset.
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
You've ended up here arguing the toss with people you regard as inferior, so the story of decline is a given. :hmm:
Ah. Don't be coy, now. Who are the "inferior" people to whom you refer?
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 06:19:52 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 03, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
You've ended up here arguing the toss with people you regard as inferior, so the story of decline is a given. :hmm:
Ah. Don't be coy, now. Who are the "inferior" people to whom you refer?
I see your reading comprehension fails you:
Quote
with people you regard as inferior.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FObama-Vid-Bin-Laden-300x163.jpg&hash=52fbc400a6f38eac638f4be50ea67c63b964b070)
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 06:32:22 AM
with people you regard as inferior.
Don't be so coy; tell me who it is that I regard as inferior. You keep beating around the bush.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 08:56:36 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 06:32:22 AM
with people you regard as inferior.
Don't be so coy; tell me who it is that I regard as inferior. You keep beating around the bush.
No need for me to do that, a fair part of your posting history here demonstrates that for itself.
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:08:01 AM
No need for me to do that, a fair part of your posting history here demonstrates that for itself.
So you are going to weasel out of naming names, eh? I suppose I will never discover who it is here that I "regard as inferior." :(
OTOH, I suppose I can live with that. :w00t:
This is turning into the Sitzkrieg.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 09:28:37 AM
This is turning into the Sitzkrieg.
I think it is over. Mongers will tell me what I think, but not in enough detail to be really interesting. I can still live out a full and happy life, though.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 09:26:41 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:08:01 AM
No need for me to do that, a fair part of your posting history here demonstrates that for itself.
So you are going to weasel out of naming names, eh? I suppose I will never discover who it is here that I "regard as inferior." :(
OTOH, I suppose I can live with that. :w00t:
Notice how you weaselled out earlier on your claim that it was
I that regard others as inferior, whereas I'd said
you regarded.
Don't worry your posts and posting style will stand the test of time as proof regards you condescending attitude to some others here.
What I am surprise about in this exchange is your failure to bring out 'old grumblers nugget' about how it was the other poster who was first to resort to ad hominem.
That claim of yours was always good for a laugh, so overall I'll have to mark down a bit and give your contribution a B+ on entertainment value. :)
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 08:56:36 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 06:32:22 AM
with people you regard as inferior.
Don't be so coy; tell me who it is that I regard as inferior. You keep beating around the bush.
You want him to tell you what you think about people?
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 09:43:18 AM
You want him to tell you what you think about people?
He's the one who brought it up, so he must know. I'd like to know that myself.
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:38:37 AM
Notice how you weaselled out earlier on your claim that it was I that regard others as inferior, whereas I'd said you regarded.
Ah, it is always more fun when you drop the weasel in favor of the outright lie! :thumbsup: I never said anything about you regarding people as inferior.
QuoteDon't worry your posts and posting style will stand the test of time as proof regards you condescending attitude to some others here.
A whole weasel farm, here. :( If you had actual examples of me telling people they are "regarded as inferior" you would presumably be posting them, so can we presume that you have nada?
QuoteWhat I am surprise about in this exchange is your failure to bring out 'old grumblers nugget' about how it was the other poster who was first to resort to ad hominem.
That claim of yours was always good for a laugh, so overall I'll have to mark down a bit and give your contribution a B+ on entertainment value. :)
Sorry, are you posting here about what I am actually posting, or what you wish I would have posted? Giving a grade on something never posted seems a bit dotty to me, but to each, his own.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 09:28:37 AM
This is turning into the Sitzkrieg.
You were right, I was wrong! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:38:37 AM
Notice how you weaselled out earlier on your claim that it was I that regard others as inferior, whereas I'd said you regarded.
Ah, it is always more fun when you drop the weasel in favor of the outright lie! :thumbsup: I never said anything about you regarding people as inferior.
QuoteDon't worry your posts and posting style will stand the test of time as proof regards you condescending attitude to some others here.
A whole weasel farm, here. :( If you had actual examples of me telling people they are "regarded as inferior" you would presumably be posting them, so can we presume that you have nada?
QuoteWhat I am surprise about in this exchange is your failure to bring out 'old grumblers nugget' about how it was the other poster who was first to resort to ad hominem.
That claim of yours was always good for a laugh, so overall I'll have to mark down a bit and give your contribution a B+ on entertainment value. :)
Sorry, are you posting here about what I am actually posting, or what you wish I would have posted? Giving a grade on something never posted seems a bit dotty to me, but to each, his own.
You entertainment me, I appreciate it. :)
The grading was a pointer as to how you might still further improve you performance.
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 10:14:22 AM
You entertainment me, I appreciate it. :)
You English funnily. I appreciate it. :lol:
QuoteThe grading was a pointer as to how you might still further improve you performance.
Alas, you seem to have graded something that didn't exist, so "you" grading system needs work.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 10:18:21 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 10:14:22 AM
You entertainment me, I appreciate it. :)
You English funnily. I appreciate it. :lol:
QuoteThe grading was a pointer as to how you might still further improve you performance.
Alas, you seem to have graded something that didn't exist, so "you" grading system needs work.
Trust me, it exists, plenty of people laugh at your antics.
One can only wonder how much better this thread would have turned out if Grumbler had not spewed all over it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
One can only wonder how much better this thread would have turned out if Grumbler had not spewed all over it.
Well, now that you have posted, it can't get much worse! :lol:
Sorry to challenge the popular-but-unsupported narrative, but that's gonna happen again, so get used to it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
One can only wonder how much better this thread would have turned out if Grumbler had not spewed all over it.
This thread started pretty poorly so I don't think grumbler really did damage to it.
Also does it make sense to capitalize a non-capitalized name?
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 12:19:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2013, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 09:46:30 AM
I am sure that many people live quite happy lives, as unaware of the fact that others laugh at them
How is that working out for you?
Quite well. Being sure of things is better when they are actually true, as opposed to being sure of things (like the "fact" that the British were getting ready to evacuate Cairo in 1940) because you read it in a novel. I'll bet there are still people laughing at you for that one.
I'm still laughing at you for your steadfast belief that Wavell told O'Connor
before the second day of Compass that he was taking 4th Indian Division from him when O'Connor's own words, historians of the period, even exchange officers doing theses at West Point on O'Connor's generalship (!) all disagree with you. :P
-
--
---
----
What was this thread about again? :unsure:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM
I'm still laughing at you for your steadfast belief that Wavell told O'Connor before the second day of Compass that he was taking 4th Indian Division from him when O'Connor's own words, historians of the period, even exchange officers doing theses at West Point on O'Connor's generalship (!) all disagree with you. :P
Still beating that dead horse, eh! :lol: None of your sources actually said what you claim they said. O'Conner was surprised by the timing; the move of the 4th had been in the works for months.
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
One can only wonder how much better this thread would have turned out if Grumbler had not spewed all over it.
This thread started pretty poorly so I don't think grumbler really did damage to it.
Wingman action I see.
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
One can only wonder how much better this thread would have turned out if Grumbler had not spewed all over it.
This thread started pretty poorly so I don't think grumbler really did damage to it.
Wingman action I see.
Hardly, I think I made my disgust known (as many did) before grumbler and you started going toe-to-toe.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM
I'm still laughing at you for your steadfast belief that Wavell told O'Connor before the second day of Compass that he was taking 4th Indian Division from him when O'Connor's own words, historians of the period, even exchange officers doing theses at West Point on O'Connor's generalship (!) all disagree with you. :P
Still beating that dead horse, eh! :lol: None of your sources actually said what you claim they said. O'Conner was surprised by the timing; the move of the 4th had been in the works for months.
:P
Believe what you will. There's not one single source that agrees with you, from the Wikipedia page (named solely because it's the first result on google, not because of it's quality) onwards.
Even books on the generalship of General Wavell don't agree with you - try this link:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bob1Oq72K-EC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=richard+o'connor+generalship&source=bl&ots=l5VuE2ESDc&sig=W5yc_8Q2AXvem7RxA4vaNs9Z9Gw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RRcAUsnNOKWA0AXJioHwDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=chapter%206&f=false
The critical passages are in chapter 6, page 100 onwards, and includes the following -
"O'Connor, who was unaware of this plan, received his order on the 11 December 1940, 'a most unwelcome piece of news, namely that the 4th Ind. Div. was to be withdrawn as early as possible for service in the Sudan'." This is referenced from Connor's own report on Operation Compass.
Further on we learn the sequence -
02.12.40 - 08.12.40: Sometime between these dates Wavell, under pressure from London and Smuts, makes the decision to send 4th Indian to Sudan (as of the 2nd he's still expressing doubts concerning transport issues and stating that offensives must be launched even if they will be slow - not saying that he's going to transfer troops.)
08.12.40: Wavell telegraphs Dill in London to say that he would transfer 4th Indian "later in the month if situation permits."
09.12.40: Operation Compass begins - Wavell contacts Platt to give tentative details of the transfer, again subject to situation on Western Desert Front.
10.12.40: With the "good news" from the western desert, Wavell decides to bow to the political pressure and expedite the transfer.
11.12.40: O'Connor is told he is to lose the division.
At the very earliest the decision to send 4th Indian cannot be pushed back before the 26.11.40 because that is when he received the cable from Dill expressing London's (and Smuts') disappointment at proposed delays in Cunningham's offensive. Before that cable came offensive operations were due to be delayed until May 1941 instead of commencing in January.
It's also very difficult to square the telegram to Dill on the 8th (which is the first London heard of the transfer) with any suggestions that this was planned with O'Connor in conjunction with Compass since he was already with his men at the front well before this date.
You state two things.
(1)
O'Connor knew. From his own words and the timing of the decision we know he did not.
(2)
That the move of the 4th Division had been "in the works for months". Which it wasn't; at the most it had been in the works for 2 weeks, and at the least for 3 days before the critical date.
The fact that none of the division boarded ships before the 28th (despite being withdrawn on the 11th and in a position to do so by the 20th) is yet another sign that the decision was not planned far in advance but taken and implemented hastily.
So I'll just continue laughing at you as you continue to tilt at windmills over the issue. :lol:
If so, it would give a new meaning to the regrettable derogatory "Indian Giver"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 05:06:46 PM
If so, it would give a new meaning to the regrettable derogatory "Indian Giver"
I had to google the phrase to work out what you meant; it doesn't seem to have transferred to British English.
Now I have done so, though, all I can do is :D.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:03:17 PM
Believe what you will. There's not one single source that agrees with you, from the Wikipedia page (named solely because it's the first result on google, not because of it's quality) onwards.
...
The critical passages are in chapter 6, page 100 onwards, and includes the following -
"O'Connor, who was unaware of this plan, received his order on the 11 December 1940, 'a most unwelcome piece of news, namely that the 4th Ind. Div. was to be withdrawn as early as possible for service in the Sudan'." This is referenced from Connor's own report on Operation Compass.
Further on we learn the sequence -
02.12.40 - 08.12.40: Sometime between these dates Wavell, under pressure from London and Smuts, makes the decision to send 4th Indian to Sudan (as of the 2nd he's still expressing doubts concerning transport issues and stating that offensives must be launched even if they will be slow - not saying that he's going to transfer troops.)
08.12.40: Wavell telegraphs Dill in London to say that he would transfer 4th Indian "later in the month if situation permits."
09.12.40: Operation Compass begins - Wavell contacts Platt to give tentative details of the transfer, again subject to situation on Western Desert Front.
10.12.40: With the "good news" from the western desert, Wavell decides to bow to the political pressure and expedite the transfer.
11.12.40: O'Connor is told he is to lose the division.
At the very earliest the decision to send 4th Indian cannot be pushed back before the 26.11.40 because that is when he received the cable from Dill expressing London's (and Smuts') disappointment at proposed delays in Cunningham's offensive. Before that cable came offensive operations were due to be delayed until May 1941 instead of commencing in January.
None of this disagrees with my assertion that O'Conner knew before the 11th that he was going to lose the 4th at some time ('when conditions in the Western Desert permit," as Wavell put it), and that "the plan" he "knew nothing about" was Wavell's plan to pull out the 4th at the earliest opportunity. There would be no reason for Wavell to hide this knowledge from O'Conner, and many reasons why he would want O'Conner, and the 4th, to know what he planned for the 4th. Major troop movements don't happen overnight; they have to be planned for, and most of the planning is carried out by the unit. Why would Wavell keep this a secret?
QuoteIt's also very difficult to square the telegram to Dill on the 8th (which is the first London heard of the transfer) with any suggestions that this was planned with O'Connor in conjunction with Compass since he was already with his men at the front well before this date.
Why suggest that "this was planned with O'Conner in conjunction with Compass" at all?
QuoteYou state two things.
(1) O'Connor knew. From his own words and the timing of the decision we know he did not.
(2) That the move of the 4th Division had been "in the works for months". Which it wasn't; at the most it had been in the works for 2 weeks, and at the least for 3 days before the critical date.
(1) I state that O'Conner knew that the 4th was destined to go to the Sudan, but not when. This is entirely in consonance with the evidence, and the contrary position, that Wavell for some reason was keeping his plans for the 4th secret from O'Connell, makes no sense and lacks motive.
(2) Wavell notes in his dispatch (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/37628.pdf (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/37628.pdf)) that he had "always intended if possible to send the 4th Indian Division to reinforce the Sudan during the winter 1940/41, in order to enable our forces in the Sudan to recapture Kassala and to take the offensive against the enemy. I had proposed to relieve them in the Western Desert by the 6th Australian Division as soon as this was ready and equipped." That's a primary source. Your timeline has the earliest date for such a decision as Dec 2, though how you get that is a mystery. Certainly the Wavell book doesn't say that's the earliest possible date, and the fact that he talked about relieving them "at the earliest possible date" doesn't imply it would be in two weeks, because he would know the status of the Australians much better by that date. His dispatch seems to me to imply that the decision was made weeks or months, not days, before it was implemented.
QuoteThe fact that none of the division boarded ships before the 28th (despite being withdrawn on the 11th and in a position to do so by the 20th) is yet another sign that the decision was not planned far in advance but taken and implemented hastily.
Ah, the innocence of civilians! :lol:
Something can be planned in advance and still go awry. Hasty implies fuckup, but fuckup doesn't imply hasty.
QuoteSo I'll just continue laughing at you as you continue to tilt at windmills over the issue. :lol:
So I'll laugh right back at your concept of the grand (though unexplained) Wavell Conspiracy of Silence.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 06:02:58 PM...more Grumbler denial of reality...
:lol:
I'm not arguing this any further with you. Every book on the subject, even one about Wavell, follows O'Connor's line that he knew nothing of the impending transfer of the 4th. They take this directly from O'Connor's report on Compass written while he was an Italian POW in 1941-43; this report, while unfortunately not on-line, is clearly footnoted and referenced to by the various authors (in other words, they are not relying on each other's works.)
The sole evidence you present is a report in the Gazette which dates from 1946 and is almost certainly an edited and expanded version of the original despatches. While one can make assumptions based on it it nowhere contains the critical timings for the decision provided by other documents - in particular, the known fact mentioned by all these authors that the first mention in the regular communications between Cairo and London of the transfer of the 4th Division is a communication to Dill one day before Compass was due to be launched (on the 08.12.40.) This is so despite the document providing copious dates and timings for just about every other aspect of the planning and execution of operations, strangely enough.
In fact, I agree with one thing you've said - that being that it makes no sense for Wavell not to have told O'Connor before Compass that he was going to lose the 4th Division. However, according to O'Connor this is the absolute truth and the timings do provide Wavell with some excuse for this since the planning for Compass was largely completed by the time London started pressurising Wavell (with the communication of the 26.11.40) to do something about the proposed delays in the East African offensives.
----
As for your comment concerning "the innocence of civilians" I can only conclude that you chose not to read the chapter I directed you to since my comment was a paraphrase, albeit perhaps excessively shortened, of a section of that very chapter. The author in question being a US army veteran.
http://www.hraugh.com/bio.html
I would strongly recommend you do read that chapter; it contains a very interesting letter that Wavell sent to O'Connor in June 1945 which reads almost as a rehearsal for that section of the 1946 Gazette printing. It's a shame that the author doesn't go into more detail concerning the circumstances of the letter being written; it does strike one as slightly odd that Wavell would be writing to O'Connor about Compass four years after the fact considering that they were both stationed in India with a still belligerent Japan to the east at the time.
We are right where we were before you re-opened this issue. There are two arguments, your and mine. Yours requires Wavell to be a liar and a fool, and despite the fact that you argue that every source agrees with you, you can't point to any sources that does so unambiguously. I have an argument that fits all the facts we have as well as your argument does, and requires no one to be a liar or a fool. You insist yours is right, and mine laughable. I assert that mine is plausible, and that it fits the facts better than yours.
There won't be any change in either position barring new evidence, so you probably don't need to bring it up a third time, unless you actually have some new evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 07:34:46 PM
We are right where we were before you re-opened this issue. There are two arguments, your and mine. Yours requires Wavell to be a liar and a fool, and despite the fact that you argue that every source agrees with you, you can't point to any sources that does so unambiguously. I have an argument that fits all the facts we have as well as your argument does, and requires no one to be a liar or a fool. You insist yours is right, and mine laughable. I assert that mine is plausible, and that it fits the facts better than yours.
There won't be any change in either position barring new evidence, so you probably don't need to bring it up a third time, unless you actually have some new evidence.
:lol:
O'Connor, who was unaware of this plan, received his order on the 11 December 1940, 'a most unwelcome piece of news, namely that the 4th Ind. Div. was to be withdrawn as early as possible for service in the Sudan'. You really have to twist the English language into a pretzel to claim the above passage is "ambiguous"!
Anyway, have a good evening; when I'm a bit wealthier I may have to visit King's College London (my alma mater and holder of Richard O'Connor's papers) and the National Archives but that's not happening for a good while yet. So as it's past 2am here I'll bid you adieu.
He's going on about something that CC said half a decade ago.
tiny boats for all!
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 09:56:21 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 05, 2013, 09:51:08 PM
tiny boats for all!
:yeahright:
i don't even remember what that thread was about, all I remember was that there were many pages discussing what is the definition of a tiny boat.
Quote from: HVC on August 05, 2013, 10:01:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 09:56:21 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 05, 2013, 09:51:08 PM
tiny boats for all!
:yeahright:
i don't even remember what that thread was about, all I remember was that there were many pages discussing what is the definition of a tiny boat.
Well I need a big ass boat, ok?
Ever the size queen :( :D
I like the thread title change. :lol: Though grumbler is not capitalized and it is win friends, not make.
man, this thread is a bit silly, isn't it?
QuoteI think your transformation to future tool of the Blairite system is complete.
this post says it all, really, before there are any posts from grumbler
Quote from: LaCroix on August 10, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
man, this thread is a bit silly, isn't it?
QuoteI think your transformation to future tool of the Blairite system is complete.
this post says it all, really, before there are any posts from grumbler
You can't have my point. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2013, 09:38:47 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 10, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
man, this thread is a bit silly, isn't it?
QuoteI think your transformation to future tool of the Blairite system is complete.
this post says it all, really, before there are any posts from grumbler
You can't have my point. :angry:
:hmm: