mikkey 0
why what an ingenious idea! That would stop terrorism for sure!
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Interesting discussion. I'll tell you what each and every one of you can do to fight terrorism and protect the Homeland. Email Northwest Airlines and the FSDO in Detroit Michigan and ask why Northwest gate agents seem to not give a flying shit about security. Their actions are risking YOUR lives and mine every day. I've fucking had it with those idiots.
PS If you can't tell...I just got home from work and I'm a little pissed off!
PS If you can't tell...I just got home from work and I'm a little pissed off!
Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I have said or are we inadvertantly arguing the same thing here?
Because this sounds a lot like the conspiracy shit that conservatives often attribute to liberals.
Did I say it wouldn't reduce the probability of another attack? No, all I said that capturing Bin Laden would not produce a permanent end to terrorism.
And that is my point exactly. Why divert resources to capturing Hussein when Bin Laden remains a real and present threat?
Quote
I'm saying it's possible. Neither you nor I know what type of strategy our military or govt. has. There are a lot of very intelligent people who engage in psychological and sociological evaluations of situations such as this and I can assure you the armchair stratagists on this site really have no clue what our real motivations may be or the reasons for them.
Because this sounds a lot like the conspiracy shit that conservatives often attribute to liberals.
QuoteQuoteAnd if you reread my previous post, you will notice that I never suggested terrorism would stop with the capture of bin Laden. My whole point was that it makes more sense to expend resources on capturing a direct American threat.
Why ??? What effect do you think the capture of OBL will have on terrorists attacks? It seems pretty clear in you previous post that you felt we needed to divert more resourses to capturing him. If you don't think it will reduce the probability of another attack, then why would we do as you suggest?
Did I say it wouldn't reduce the probability of another attack? No, all I said that capturing Bin Laden would not produce a permanent end to terrorism.
QuoteQuoteCelebrate if you want to, but Hussein's capture will have no effect on bin Laden's abilitiy to stage another massive terrorist attack.
My point exactly. So why divert resourses to capturing him?
And that is my point exactly. Why divert resources to capturing Hussein when Bin Laden remains a real and present threat?
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
kallend 1,683
Quote***QuoteIt's unfortunate that someone on the other side of the world can transmit a threatening e-mail for next to nothing, and our reaction is certain to cost millions. I hope that nothing does happen, but it is clear that we cannot afford to do this indefinitely.
What would you suggest we do?
Quit peddling panic and cosmetic solutions for political advantage, and try to get the intelligence CORRECT for a change.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
What would you suggest we do?
***Quit peddling panic and cosmetic solutions for political advantage, and try to get the intelligence CORRECT for a change.
Who and how does anyone gain political advantage? I could understand it to a certain degree if the elections were near, but they are almost 11 months away.
I'm trying to understand what benefit you see in capturing Bin Laden.
Thats all well and good in theory, Bill.
But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.
But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.
mikkey 0
QuoteI'm trying to understand what benefit you see in capturing Bin Laden.
What about reading the whole thread? Here is a suggesting from my post:
QuoteUBL is an important figure head of Al Qaeda – especially because it is loosely organised and not much/regular communication is going on between the groups. That is why it would be a great blow to capture or kill UBL as this would remove the rallying point. Why do you think that UBL does the video or audio tapes sent to satellite TV stations. It is probably currently the only efficient communication channel they have. Removing UBL from the picture might trigger some attacks in the short terms but would do great damage to the terrorist network in the medium term.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
I disagree. The only thing that is going to stop terror attacks is when there are either no more terrorists or the terrorists get what they want. I think its naive to think the death of OBL will permenantly damage a terrorists orginazation whose twisted interpetation of religion is based on destruction of the "Infidels".
mikkey 0
QuoteThats all well and good in theory, Bill.
But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.
You have not been attacked on US soil and we do not know if and when it will happen again and we do not know if the actions taken so far have prevented these attacks. However we know:
1) There is still a threat for attacks in the US or you would not have the alert. If you want to reduce the threat of attack you need to go after Al Qaeda (not Saddam).
2) There have been a number of terror attacks outside the US since 9/11: Examples:
Bali bombing killing 200+ people of this ~ 100 Australians (your allies) 20/30 or so Brits (your allies) and also a few Americans plus people from other "coalition" countries like Denmark.
Riyad bombing killing dozens including a number of Americans.
Istanbul * 2: Bombing of Synagogues and the bombing of the British targets. Hundreds killed in these attacks.
And there are a few more I could mention.
Now these attacks were not in the US but they were directed against both US interests and especially your allies. Now this is supposed to be a "global war" on terror. If you are happy for people being blown up outside the US as long as attacks do not happen within the US, then you will loose the international support very quickly. And you will be experiencing another 9/11 at some stage.
The only way to avoid these things is to work internationally and focus on Al Qaeda.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
QuoteQuoteThats all well and good in theory, Bill.
But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.
You have not been attacked on US soil and we do not know if and when it will happen again and we do not know if the actions taken so far have prevented these attacks. However we know:
1) There is still a threat for attacks in the US or you would not have the alert. If you want to reduce the threat of attack you need to go after Al Qaeda (not Saddam).
2) There have been a number of terror attacks outside the US since 9/11: Examples:
Bali bombing killing 200+ people of this ~ 100 Australians (your allies) 20/30 or so Brits (your allies) and also a few Americans plus people from other "coalition" countries like Denmark.
Riyad bombing killing dozens including a number of Americans.
Istanbul * 2: Bombing of Synagogues and the bombing of the British targets. Hundreds killed in these attacks.
And there are a few more I could mention.
Now these attacks were not in the US but they were directed against both US interests and especially your allies. Now this is supposed to be a "global war" on terror. If you are happy for people being blown up outside the US as long as attacks do not happen within the US, then you will loose the international support very quickly. And you will be experiencing another 9/11 at some stage.
The only way to avoid these things is to work internationally and focus on Al Qaeda.
True, but I was responding to Bill's assesment of US security here at home. Please re-read the discussion and try to stay focused.
Quite simply, if the bastards try fucking up our Christmas, we should cheerfully drop a nuke on their hly fucking city of Mecca and then tell them that's just a start.
And I'm a liberal Grateful Dead brown rice hippie type, so put that in your pipes and smoke it.
Yes that is "simple" - nuke a few hundred thousands innocent people and destroy Islam’s holiest site because you get attacked by a few terrorists who might be Muslims. Hmm, so if a catholic blows up a building in the US you would then put a nuke on to Rome & the Vatican I assume.
Your comments are extremely racist. "hly fucking city of Mecca" - why are you celebrating Christmas? You do not seem to understand even the most basic idea of Christianity.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.