Skip to comments.Eavesdrop if you must, but the get facts straight (STONE BASHING)
Posted on 09/21/2002 11:17:50 AM PDT by Rumierules
Eavesdrop if you must, but get facts straight David Porter
September 21, 2002
I know how Eunice Stone must have felt.
Stone is the woman who was eating in a restaurant near Interstate 75 in Georgia last week when she heard fragments of a conversation that she suspected might have been part of a terrorist plot. The three young Arab men who had been engaged in the conversation were stopped later in Florida and detained for 17 hours while they were checked out by authorities.
When you overhear snatches of someone else's conversation, it's easy to reach a distorted conclusion about the discussion.
I know this because, on Thursday, I went for lunch in the food court of Fashion Square Mall in Orlando. At one table there were two guys talking about needing money. Hmmm. Could they be contemplating knocking over an armored truck?
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
When they oughta be pinning a MEDAL on this broad??
Instead THIS is what our "Protectors of Liberty" in our shameless Lamestream media's come up with in an attempt to SMEAR this concerned citizen??
All I can say is the Liberal-Socialist scum are really slipping.
In that it took the quislingS over a week to come up with the angle to this pathetic hit piece??
The pinheads dumb enough to waste their hard earned money buying that rag don't even know who the leaker's talking about.
...after a day or two.
"Overhearing snatches" is not the same as "eavesdropping" unless the listener is on the other side of a door or bugging a conversation.
I'm curious-----Does David Porter want Eunice to
A**hole works better for me
And just what do we learn?
How many words should we overhear before reporting suspicious behavior? I wish Porter would spell it out.
As his article stands, Porter leaves us with the impression we should pay more attention to conversations going on around us.
Is that what he really wants?
The last I heard on this subject on Chicago radio was that that LE was considering filing a felony charge against the informant!!--who also BTW--was a patron, not the waitress.
When it comes to the lamestream media--we can't believe a thing they say! If the truth is ever known, we won't see it on the front pages of the papers or the nightly, liberal TV news.
On the one hand we are told that we are all supposed to be vigilant and report anything suspicious, yet this woman is being vilified for doing that very thing.
They sell those nifty little sound bubble thingy's at the toy store these days. Every restaraunt should have one.
I found your above titled article from the Orlando Sentinel to be rather stupid. You slam Eunice Stone for jumping to conclusions because you claim she only got snatches of the conversation between the three young Arab men at the Georgia Shoney's Restaurant. How do you know this to be the case? Were you there sitting next to her? Or are you psychic?
I guess her statements citing full and complete sentences uttered by these individuals, become only snatches of gossip in your biased eyes. Why is it that each time these so-called men retold their story, they felt compelled to add to it? For example, when they were first interviewed by the media that Friday after being released, they claimed that they had been talking about their new semester at school. Then, when they gave their press conference that Sunday, they stated they had been talking about a car. And when they appeared on Fox News, Donahue, Larry King, and MSNBC last week, they reported that their conversation dealt with even more topics: meeting new friends at school, new experiences out of classroom, hospital, etc. Yet through all this, Mrs. Stone's statements have remained the same. I might add, that on Fox News and Donahue, Mrs. Stone said she was willing to take a Polygraph. Yet when the three Arab men were asked the same question, their lawyer jumped in, would not let them speak, and would not accept the invitation. I guess they were holding out until they could pick their only Polygraph Operator, as Gary Condit did.
Did it ever enter your mind that perhaps these men did in fact make the comments attributed to them by Mrs. Stone? It's obvious that when they walked into the Shoney's Restaurant they felt singled out. I say this because this concern was the emphasis of all of their appearances on TV. In fact, one of the men named Kambiz stated that they had "drawn the whole restaurant's attention" when they walked in. I'm sure this didn't set very well with them, and the bigoted comments about the South that they made to the press right after being released, made it all too obvious as to what their feelings were when they walked into that place. It's my belief that they probably noticed the looks and atmosphere in the place, quite possibly even noticed Mrs. Stone listening in on their conversation. And what went through their mind was this: If we're going to be looked at as if we're terrorists, why not play along. It's highly possible and more than probable that that is exaactly what happened. Even Mrs. Stone's son thought they had been joking and told her so. Mrs. Stone even questioned the validity of the conversation, and wondered if the men had indeed been joking with her. She admits to this freely. If she was lying or even trying to make more out of what these men had said, would she have even brought this possibility up?
I think you need to go back and check through all the facts of the case. It appears that you have been just as guilty of distorting what transpired at that Shoney's Restaurant as you claim Mrs. Stone is.
Sorry I was quoting old Dave Letterman shows again.
Seriously though, good letter.
2. He wasn't killed. He cried (in Greek), "Rejoice, we conquer" -- and dropped dead from his exertions.
3. A few days earlier, he had indeed run much farther to warn of the Persian invasion, helping to alert some of the troops who then marched to defend Greece. Again, no one killed him.
At least, those are stories of classical antiquity, and they're sticking to them!
I do not support any of the above FRiend. I stay aware of what is going on in the lamestream through FR and other sources. We do need to stay aware of their position, as that is the only way we can refute them and their socialist agenda.
You're a hell of a fine patriot, too. IM-neverbe-HO
You might've found me next to you for the donnybrook, at that.
I'd have been on your Right.
...why can't I have even ONE neighbor like you. Damnit!
Simply excellent and without equal.
Nice job, Mr. DeLong; very nice, indeed.
...think the pinhead urinalist will understand a single word? ;^)
Does "bring it down" -- words spoken by the Arab men during the restaurant discussion -- refer to detonating explosives to bring down a building? Or were the men talking about bringing another car down to Florida?
The "bring down a car" story was not floated out until Sunday night when they consulted with their legal team.
Eunice did hear "bring it down" correctly by the students' own admission.
Eunice did hear correctly what the students' destination was.
Eunice did not state that the men where speaking in Arabic (as the press reported).
Eunice was not a waitress at Shoney's (as was reported).
Eunice did not use her (18 year old) son's crayons to write down the information.
Eunice's son did hear the same conversation, he thought that they may have just been pulling her leg (razz the locals).
The students did alledge that she "added some salt and pepper" to her story.
She was called a liar (because she reported her suspicions).
She was called a racist (because of who she claimed made the statements).
Nothing that has come out has cleared the men of making jokes in bad taste at the restaurant. They have shown themselves to be arrogant.
If police stopped me and I knew that I had done nothing wrong, I'd be wary about answering their questions, too. Remember part of the Miranda warning that police give suspects goes like this: "Anything you say can be used against you."
How can something be used against you when you didn't do anything in the first place? "Anything you say can be used against you" is to prevent you from confessing your crimes without proper legal counsel. Ever answer a cop when he pulls you over and asks, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
If the men did deliberately razz the woman, then yes they have committed a terrorist hoax. Same as a jealous woman sending "anthrax" to her competitor. Nothing to back up the threat but the threat was made all the same.
Say you were working in a strip joint and 3 young middle eastern men -- all training to be pilots -- are making statements derogatory statements about America and claiming, "just you wait until tomorrow". Oh, that's right, some people don't believe that terrorists would reveal their plans in English.
And as far as the scholarly background, Osama's right hand man was a doctor, Arafat was an engineer, and a Jewish doctor in Miami was turned in by his wife for planning to blow up some mosques. Naw, I guess that only unemployed high school drop outs commit acts of terrorism.
Nice letter. I may use it as a model for my e-mail to this idiot reporter...if you don't mind.
Looks like the Hate America; Hate Americans bunch is still at it.
If this incident would have happened just twenty years ago, what would the likely outcome have been? These three foreign scholars would likely have gotten a well deserved ass whoopin' for their insolence. Isn't tolerance wonderful?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.