S3v3N wrote:
ZOMG! CODE ORANGE.. or Purple.. or blue or whatever fucking color they've picked from the rainbow
I finally agree with you on something....LOL....Honestly, I don't even watch our local news any more because it so filled with crap that you would think the end of the world is coming. Same goes for the national news....NBC, ABC and CBS. Just watch it one night and you will not hear anything positive.m3thod wrote:
Scare mongering to maintain the culture of fear.
There was a perfect example in the movie "Bowling for Columbine" (Im not a Michael Moore fan) but he did hit the nail on the head on this one. There was a seen where they were in California near the seen of the LA riots and all the sudden a whole bunch of media trucks showed up. There was a rumor that there was a person shot or a gun battle.....well, there wasn't...but one media outlet heard it and a swarm developed in the area. When Michael Moore asked about around, the media guys would rather tape a story about a shooting rather than the pollution they were all breathing. Basically, always go for the most negative. Good stories just don't cut it.
In my opinion...no news is good news. Our media has to take a lot of blame for how many Americans think. Again, watch the news...every food, every drug, EVERYTHING is going to kill you. Honestly, it is sickening to hear that crap day in and day out, so I turn it off.
It could contain a Geiger counter, an A-rab sensor, several American flags to wave around patriotically, and some diapers for when they piss themselves with fear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I wonder if I could market a terrorism defense kit...
You keep mentioning "fear". Who the hell said they were AFRAID??? Please do not confuse PISSED-OFF with fear. If we were afraid we would be a cowering, appeasing nation like the liberals want us to be. Instead we stand and fight and take that fight to their lands and away from ours....topal63 wrote:
Terrorism is mindless poking. It's objectives lack clarity and purpose beyond the "fear" reason. A terrorist objective does not in any way have the same agenda as a real war effort. The larger the enemy - the more likely a terror objective - can achieve absolutely nothing of consequence in the end. The west will not end & the great Satan is not bothered by these mosquitoes. This "we will scare you" crap - only works if you get scared. I am not. There is no serious terrorist threat to the US. It is not to be likened to a serious war effort (like Nazi Germany; and our entrance into that war is complicated and is nothing like the region de-stabilizing war-effort objective we are currently involved in).lowing wrote:
I guess this is where we disagree on this thread. I do not consider Al Qaeda as only "mindless poking at the US" when it attacked us and killed seversal thousand of our citizens, blew up our warship, destroyed 2 of our embassies. I also do not stop at believing what Al Queda does to the US as the only threat. I consider EVERYTHING they have done to ALL countries as one threat to our society as a whole. It is a war against western civilization and hardy a "mindless poking". At what point will you take pause and deem their presence as worthy of your attention, if not now? Then my question will be, why did you let it esculate t othat point? So be prepared.topal63 wrote:
I am not following your logic.
Everything that was not, and then became something, starts from a small group in the beginning. So what. In the same number of years that the Nazi party rose to power in Germany - what has Al Qaeda done? Beyond mindless insignificant poking at the West? How is Al Qaeda in a nearly twenty year period (1989-2007) - a major international war-threat and equal to Nazi Germany (1933-1945)?
1.) I am not as privileged as you - in assumption or knowledge - that 9/11 happened in a way that I can discount culpability to the current Administration (i.e. that it did not serve someone's pre-conceived middle-east agenda).
2.) National Security issues - do not equal - the need to form a war effort. Securing the border, dealing with terrorism in any form (home grown, or influenced from afar), etc - are not war efforts - any more than a "war on drugs" is an actual war. National Security issues, crime in any form, social concerns do not amount to a war. No one is saying a Nation should not have an army, a police force, or be unconcerned about threats to it. I am saying it is clearly a distortion - this so-called "war on terror" and the threat from militant Islam. They have crafted an enemy based upon a pre-conceived agenda. These types of reports are part of that agenda.
3.) Every Al Qaeda activity you mentioned - proves my point. That they have achieved nothing. Any "fear" generated by their activities serves another group's agenda more so than their own.
4.) Putting it into perspective - even if you let a 9/11 event - happen once every year - for a ten year period. It would not remotely dent the infrastructure of the West. It would not be in any way equal to the number of deaths at the hands of Americans to other Americans (3,000 x 10 years of unchecked terrorism would equal 30 buildings an 30,000 deaths; and 10 years of murder equals zero major buildings and 150,000 deaths). But no one is saying you should just let it happen, I am saying it is a clear distortion that lacks any perspective.
+
5.) What he said, Kmarion wrote: I'm confused. When there are no specific credible threats they issue warnings. When our hard working intelligence officials have determined specific areas of concern it is kept secret for "operational reasons". http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 … of-gl.html
OK cougar, It took reading everything to figure out what you are saying. At first I thought you were going nuts! LOLCougar wrote:
Not ignoring threats, but godamnit if your going to warn us, actually give us some sort of info, not just a:lowing wrote:
And I can not follow your logic that by ignoring a threat and letting yourselves get attacked that the threat will go away and not get worse. Did we not ignore the attacks all through the 90's and let the attacks go unpunished? Did the attacks not steadily get worse over the years that we ignored them?GATOR591957 wrote:
My question is AQ was not the all powerful presence prior to 9/11 that is is now. See the current terror warning. I think this administration has made the country aware of how powerful the US can make an enemy.
TERRORIST ARE GOING TO ATTACK, BE CAREFUL
Thats just stupid and not necessary. The fact this shit comes through every week is what I'm talking about. If they actually WARNED us not to do or go somewhere in particular, then that is a proper warning.
I do think we all should be on alert all the time but not to the point that the media is fulfilling the terrorists wishes to make us freeeek out.
Here in the US an attack or multiple attacks are totally doable. In fact, I think homeland security is a joke if we don't close and secure our borders.
Until that happens, homeland security means nothing to me but another waste of money.
Even if we got a warning on a particular attack, there is nothing we can do. Our government is to concerned with bickering about Iraq and illegals and not doing anything about it.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that terrorists will always try to kill us. That's a given.
What people should be asking themselves is: does invading countries really make us any safer as a society? So far, the answer seems to be no.
What people should be asking themselves is: does invading countries really make us any safer as a society? So far, the answer seems to be no.
It's not a matter of if another attack will happen. Every knows just as I do that there will be some sort of attack in the future. Whether it's the near future or far, it's going to happen. Hell, look how easy it is to get in our country. No other country in the world has such a free-for-all entry like we do. The next attack will be due to our own stupidity.
The mere fact that you respond like this is a good indication that there is a certain fear of a terrorist attack.lowing wrote:
You keep mentioning "fear". Who the hell said they were AFRAID??? Please do not confuse PISSED-OFF with fear. If we were afraid we would be a cowering, appeasing nation like the liberals want us to be. Instead we stand and fight and take that fight to their lands and away from ours....topal63 wrote:
Terrorism is mindless poking. It's objectives lack clarity and purpose beyond the "fear" reason. A terrorist objective does not in any way have the same agenda as a real war effort. The larger the enemy - the more likely a terror objective - can achieve absolutely nothing of consequence in the end. The west will not end & the great Satan is not bothered by these mosquitoes. This "we will scare you" crap - only works if you get scared. I am not. There is no serious terrorist threat to the US. It is not to be likened to a serious war effort (like Nazi Germany; and our entrance into that war is complicated and is nothing like the region de-stabilizing war-effort objective we are currently involved in).lowing wrote:
I guess this is where we disagree on this thread. I do not consider Al Qaeda as only "mindless poking at the US" when it attacked us and killed seversal thousand of our citizens, blew up our warship, destroyed 2 of our embassies. I also do not stop at believing what Al Queda does to the US as the only threat. I consider EVERYTHING they have done to ALL countries as one threat to our society as a whole. It is a war against western civilization and hardy a "mindless poking". At what point will you take pause and deem their presence as worthy of your attention, if not now? Then my question will be, why did you let it esculate t othat point? So be prepared.
1.) I am not as privileged as you - in assumption or knowledge - that 9/11 happened in a way that I can discount culpability to the current Administration (i.e. that it did not serve someone's pre-conceived middle-east agenda).
2.) National Security issues - do not equal - the need to form a war effort. Securing the border, dealing with terrorism in any form (home grown, or influenced from afar), etc - are not war efforts - any more than a "war on drugs" is an actual war. National Security issues, crime in any form, social concerns do not amount to a war. No one is saying a Nation should not have an army, a police force, or be unconcerned about threats to it. I am saying it is clearly a distortion - this so-called "war on terror" and the threat from militant Islam. They have crafted an enemy based upon a pre-conceived agenda. These types of reports are part of that agenda.
3.) Every Al Qaeda activity you mentioned - proves my point. That they have achieved nothing. Any "fear" generated by their activities serves another group's agenda more so than their own.
4.) Putting it into perspective - even if you let a 9/11 event - happen once every year - for a ten year period. It would not remotely dent the infrastructure of the West. It would not be in any way equal to the number of deaths at the hands of Americans to other Americans (3,000 x 10 years of unchecked terrorism would equal 30 buildings an 30,000 deaths; and 10 years of murder equals zero major buildings and 150,000 deaths). But no one is saying you should just let it happen, I am saying it is a clear distortion that lacks any perspective.
+
5.) What he said, Kmarion wrote: I'm confused. When there are no specific credible threats they issue warnings. When our hard working intelligence officials have determined specific areas of concern it is kept secret for "operational reasons". http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 … of-gl.html
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.Spark wrote:
The mere fact that you respond like this is a good indication that there is a certain fear of a terrorist attack.lowing wrote:
You keep mentioning "fear". Who the hell said they were AFRAID??? Please do not confuse PISSED-OFF with fear. If we were afraid we would be a cowering, appeasing nation like the liberals want us to be. Instead we stand and fight and take that fight to their lands and away from ours....topal63 wrote:
Terrorism is mindless poking. It's objectives lack clarity and purpose beyond the "fear" reason. A terrorist objective does not in any way have the same agenda as a real war effort. The larger the enemy - the more likely a terror objective - can achieve absolutely nothing of consequence in the end. The west will not end & the great Satan is not bothered by these mosquitoes. This "we will scare you" crap - only works if you get scared. I am not. There is no serious terrorist threat to the US. It is not to be likened to a serious war effort (like Nazi Germany; and our entrance into that war is complicated and is nothing like the region de-stabilizing war-effort objective we are currently involved in).
1.) I am not as privileged as you - in assumption or knowledge - that 9/11 happened in a way that I can discount culpability to the current Administration (i.e. that it did not serve someone's pre-conceived middle-east agenda).
2.) National Security issues - do not equal - the need to form a war effort. Securing the border, dealing with terrorism in any form (home grown, or influenced from afar), etc - are not war efforts - any more than a "war on drugs" is an actual war. National Security issues, crime in any form, social concerns do not amount to a war. No one is saying a Nation should not have an army, a police force, or be unconcerned about threats to it. I am saying it is clearly a distortion - this so-called "war on terror" and the threat from militant Islam. They have crafted an enemy based upon a pre-conceived agenda. These types of reports are part of that agenda.
3.) Every Al Qaeda activity you mentioned - proves my point. That they have achieved nothing. Any "fear" generated by their activities serves another group's agenda more so than their own.
4.) Putting it into perspective - even if you let a 9/11 event - happen once every year - for a ten year period. It would not remotely dent the infrastructure of the West. It would not be in any way equal to the number of deaths at the hands of Americans to other Americans (3,000 x 10 years of unchecked terrorism would equal 30 buildings an 30,000 deaths; and 10 years of murder equals zero major buildings and 150,000 deaths). But no one is saying you should just let it happen, I am saying it is a clear distortion that lacks any perspective.
+
5.) What he said, Kmarion wrote: I'm confused. When there are no specific credible threats they issue warnings. When our hard working intelligence officials have determined specific areas of concern it is kept secret for "operational reasons". http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 … of-gl.html
I think he (Topal) is alluding to the idea that certain factions have a vested interest in creating and maintaining a culture of fear in the United States. I may be mistaken though.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.Spark wrote:
The mere fact that you respond like this is a good indication that there is a certain fear of a terrorist attack.lowing wrote:
You keep mentioning "fear". Who the hell said they were AFRAID??? Please do not confuse PISSED-OFF with fear. If we were afraid we would be a cowering, appeasing nation like the liberals want us to be. Instead we stand and fight and take that fight to their lands and away from ours....
You're right there. It doesn't matter what the US or anyone else does terrorism will exist forever and the west will always be a target as long as it prospers. There is little that can be done about it other than to try and prevent acts of terror from occurring. The problem will never cease to exist, ever.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.
The threat is somewhat overstated I have to say however, especially with respect to the US (as against Europe which is closer to the 'action' so to speak).
Wait a sec. Cam, by saying DeathBecomesYu is right, when he says I am right. Does that mean you think I am right???!!!! Why, I think it does!!!CameronPoe wrote:
You're right there. It doesn't matter what the US or anyone else does terrorism will exist forever and the west will always be a target as long as it prospers. There is little that can be done about it other than to try and prevent acts of terror from occurring. The problem will never cease to exist, ever.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.
The threat is somewhat overstated I have to say however, especially with respect to the US (as against Europe which is closer to the 'action' so to speak).
Sorry lowing no. Mainly because you said 'we take the fight to their lands'. These guys have no affiliation to 'lands' or 'countries', only to death and destruction. That is what makes them so hard to deal with: they are global nomads...lowing wrote:
Wait a sec. Cam, by saying DeathBecomesYu is right, when he says I am right. Does that mean you think I am right???!!!! Why, I think it does!!!CameronPoe wrote:
You're right there. It doesn't matter what the US or anyone else does terrorism will exist forever and the west will always be a target as long as it prospers. There is little that can be done about it other than to try and prevent acts of terror from occurring. The problem will never cease to exist, ever.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.
The threat is somewhat overstated I have to say however, especially with respect to the US (as against Europe which is closer to the 'action' so to speak).
So far the Afghanistan mission hasn't been a success. The Iraq mission, Iraq being a country which previously had no Islamic terror, simply opened a floodgate for the bastards.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-17 16:30:48)
Rats, foiled again!! Oh well.CameronPoe wrote:
Sorry lowing no. Mainly because you said 'we take the fight to their lands'. These guys have no affiliation to 'lands' or 'countries', only to death and destruction. That is what makes them so hard to deal with: they are global nomads...lowing wrote:
Wait a sec. Cam, by saying DeathBecomesYu is right, when he says I am right. Does that mean you think I am right???!!!! Why, I think it does!!!CameronPoe wrote:
You're right there. It doesn't matter what the US or anyone else does terrorism will exist forever and the west will always be a target as long as it prospers. There is little that can be done about it other than to try and prevent acts of terror from occurring. The problem will never cease to exist, ever.
The threat is somewhat overstated I have to say however, especially with respect to the US (as against Europe which is closer to the 'action' so to speak).
So far the Afghanistan mission hasn't been a success. The Iraq mission, Iraq being a country which previously had no Islamic terror, simply opened a floodgate for the bastards.
lollowing wrote:
Rats, foiled again!! Oh well.
My first thoughts when I read this:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200707 … KKBG1.html
was:
oh, shut the fuck up.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200707 … KKBG1.html
was:
oh, shut the fuck up.
On my end. . . . .
There is nothing I can do except. . . . Stay vigilant, keep my shotguns and pistol loaded, not put myself in areas or situations that could be potential target areas. I am just aware that in this day in age, shit can go down at any moment.
I dont live my life in fear whatsoever, however I am cognizant that there are people who wish me and my fellow countrymen/women harm. . . .
btw that Lewis Black video is hilarious!! Black on Broadway is great!! LOL!!
There is nothing I can do except. . . . Stay vigilant, keep my shotguns and pistol loaded, not put myself in areas or situations that could be potential target areas. I am just aware that in this day in age, shit can go down at any moment.
I dont live my life in fear whatsoever, however I am cognizant that there are people who wish me and my fellow countrymen/women harm. . . .
btw that Lewis Black video is hilarious!! Black on Broadway is great!! LOL!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-07-17 17:37:50)
What's funny is that if they attack us on our own soil it will actually mean that we will more likely to attack them, but if they just keep our troops busy in Iraq and Afghanistan we will pull back because of the Doves in our Congress.
They could even keep attacking Europe and we wouldn't do much...but another 9/11 then we will attack Iran. And if it was a Nuclear Bomb from Canada then we will probably invade both Syria and Iran.
They could even keep attacking Europe and we wouldn't do much...but another 9/11 then we will attack Iran. And if it was a Nuclear Bomb from Canada then we will probably invade both Syria and Iran.
...and because of people in government that actually realize we can't keep spending $6 billion a week on this.Harmor wrote:
What's funny is that if they attack us on our own soil it will actually mean that we will more likely to attack them, but if they just keep our troops busy in Iraq and Afghanistan we will pull back because of the Doves in our Congress.
...and probably Canada.Harmor wrote:
They could even keep attacking Europe and we wouldn't do much...but another 9/11 then we will attack Iran. And if it was a Nuclear Bomb from Canada then we will probably invade both Syria and Iran.
Actually, there is something more that we could do:fadedsteve wrote:
On my end. . . . .
There is nothing I can do except. . . . Stay vigilant, keep my shotguns and pistol loaded, not put myself in areas or situations that could be potential target areas. I am just aware that in this day in age, shit can go down at any moment.
I dont live my life in fear whatsoever, however I am cognizant that there are people who wish me and my fellow countrymen/women harm. . . .
btw that Lewis Black video is hilarious!! Black on Broadway is great!! LOL!!
We, as a nation, could unite in the cause of saving our country from Islamic extremism.
By all the political bickering, we have put our politicians jobs on the line. This in turn forces them to handle this issue with kid gloves so they do not piss off their constituents and get voted out.
This then rolls down hill to the troops on the line who are forced to endure BULLSHIT ROE, and not be allowed to handle their business.
Instead, every death is scrutinized by the press and the politicians and a soldier will then face possible charges if, in the split second he had to react, he didn't react correctly in the eyes of Geraldo Rivera and Nancy fuckin' Grace. Or 30 insurgents are not taken out because the troops had to call it in and get permission to fire, all the while the insurgents set up their IED's or disappear into a crowd and can no longer be singled out.
This war, if it is being lost, is being lost at the hands of the American public who do not have the gumption to be bothered with defending itself and has sent that message to Washington and is felt by the troops.
Last edited by lowing (2007-07-17 22:43:42)
Lowing too many would rather submit to appeasement. For some it is more honorable to live on their knees than die on their feet.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How do people like that go through life?Kmarion wrote:
Lowing too many would rather submit to appeasement. For some it is more honorable to live on their knees than die on their feet.
They prefer disgrace over danger?usmarine2005 wrote:
How do people like that go through life?Kmarion wrote:
Lowing too many would rather submit to appeasement. For some it is more honorable to live on their knees than die on their feet.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sorry to hear that.Kmarion wrote:
They prefer disgrace over danger?usmarine2005 wrote:
How do people like that go through life?Kmarion wrote:
Lowing too many would rather submit to appeasement. For some it is more honorable to live on their knees than die on their feet.
DBY, you're right about that: So the aim is to tackle the terrorists. But do you only go after the existing ones, or wouldn't it be better to take on the causes of terrorism, so less reasons to become a terrorist will remain.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No,,,he is just not naive to think that all will be roses and rainbows even after Iraq. He is smart enough to know that it won't end no matter what we do and we will always be a target as long as terrorism has legs. Its not fear, its called rational thought and looking at the big picture.