kallend 1,623 #26 September 8, 2004 www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/ www.post-gazette.com/pg/04175/336246.stm Funny, but I couldn't find the story on Fox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #27 September 8, 2004 I don't think that taking Saddam out of control in Iraq did diddly squat for safety in the US. I think that 9/11 improved security out of basic necessity. I think that the misleading intelligence that got us into Iraq probably did make a difference in the intelligence system of the US, maybe that makes us safer, maybe not. I think that on an individual basis people probably pay just a little bit more attention to the world around them and the people and events in their immediate vicinity. That's probably a good thing but will continue to fade with time. So I can't really vote. I don't think that removing Saddam did shit, or perhaps pissed off a lot of people, both here and in that neck of the woods. I do think that other factors probably made it safer, so they probably cancel each other out. Jen Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 September 8, 2004 Quotewww.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/ www.post-gazette.com/pg/04175/336246.stm Funny, but I couldn't find the story on Fox. Perhaps you didn't want to try hard enough? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123386,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #29 September 8, 2004 While I will concede that we may have upset more extremists, I also think some countries who may be inclined to condone their activities as less inclined to do so. I also think the Iraqi people will be happier once the gangsters have been dealt with by law enforcement. I don't know that it's a good idea when it comes to oil though. What other strategies for dealing with our security are there (since sitting back led to 9/11)? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #30 September 8, 2004 It is weird how there are now more acts of terror in other countries across the world now than before 9/11, and in the years since, there hasn't been 1 in the USA. That is not to say there won't be, because there will, however, it may be that many attemps have been thwarted by The US Govnment. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #31 September 8, 2004 >and in the years since, there hasn't been 1 in the USA. Perhaps you missed the first-ever biological attack against the US. It's amazing how short our memories are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #32 September 8, 2004 Memories are short...especially in D.C. It is semantics I guess. I didn't really consider the Anthrax as a terrorist act. If you want to classify it as that, I guess you could. I could see that argument. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 September 8, 2004 QuoteI didn't really consider the Anthrax as a terrorist act. If you want to classify it as that, I guess you could. I could see that argument. What exactly would the other argument be? They were love letters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 September 8, 2004 QuoteMemories are short...especially in D.C. It is semantics I guess. I didn't really consider the Anthrax as a terrorist act. If you want to classify it as that, I guess you could. I could see that argument. I don't consider it a terrorist attack. If some psychopath put cyanide in aspirin bottles, I wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #35 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't really consider the Anthrax as a terrorist act. If you want to classify it as that, I guess you could. I could see that argument. What exactly would the other argument be? They were love letters? Could also be "run of the mill" crime. Not every criminal act is a terrorist one. Hmmm. I wonder if the opposite is also true? Perhaps...-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 September 8, 2004 Terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. The Anthrax attacks fit the text book definition of terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #37 September 8, 2004 >I don't consider it a terrorist attack. We didn't take the first WTC attack very seriously either. I hope it doesn't take 3000 people dead of anthrax before we decide that it's worth taking VERY seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #38 September 8, 2004 Do you think an attempt to frighten people (legally) in order to make them take (or be more amenable to) a certain course of action qualifies as "terrorism"?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 September 8, 2004 Quote>I don't consider it a terrorist attack. We didn't take the first WTC attack very seriously either. I hope it doesn't take 3000 people dead of anthrax before we decide that it's worth taking VERY seriously. Where did I say it shouldn't be taken seriously? I said I don't consider it a terrorist attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 September 8, 2004 Depends on how you define "legally". The first part of the definition is "the unlawful use of". As far as I know, mailing Anthrax spores to people with the intent of killing them is not legal, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #41 September 8, 2004 Actually, and I admit I'm surprised you haven't grabbed this thought and run with it, I was thinking of some scare tactics I've seen the government use to push through greater restrictions of personal freedom.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #42 September 8, 2004 I know exactly where you were going, and I agree. But that's a different thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #43 September 8, 2004 QuoteIt is weird how there are now more acts of terror in other countries across the world now than before 9/11, and in the years since, there hasn't been 1 in the USA. That is not to say there won't be, because there will, however, it may be that many attemps have been thwarted by The US Govnment. I doubt it, big things needs time. It is unblelievable that for putting 12 backpack with explosives in Madrid the preparations took well over 6 months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 September 8, 2004 For those of you who answered: "No - we're more at risk now", what would you have done differently, to make America "more safe"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thecap 0 #45 September 8, 2004 QuoteFor those of you who answered: "No - we're more at risk now", what would you have done differently, to make America "more safe"? Not start a bloody war in Iraq when almost the entire rest of the world and many Americans were against it. I think that America attacking Iraq perpetuates the stereotype of Americans being the self-appointed world police. Few people raised issues with America going after Al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan, but there has been little real support for American military action in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 September 8, 2004 QuoteFor those of you who answered: "No - we're more at risk now", what would you have done differently, to make America "more safe"? Focus the heat on Al Quaeda, since they are the ones who attacked us. Use the military to finish the job in Afghanistan. Also, in the days following 9/11/01, I would have had bin Laden's family members in America at least questioned, rather than flying them home when the rest of American flights were grounded. (WTF was up with that, anyway??I've never heard a good explanation for that.) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #47 September 8, 2004 QuoteFor those of you who answered: "No - we're more at risk now", what would you have done differently, to make America "more safe"? INS never had a handle on terrorists entering the U.S. They came and went as they pleased and they still do. Congressman Tom Tancredo is on the Bush shit list because he wants to reform immigration. He publically states that we don't deport anybody because their visa has been violated like those who commandeered the airplanes and crashed them into both the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Why not give INS some teeth and get serious with borders and expired or violated visas? The President himself is dragging his feet on this.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #48 September 8, 2004 QuoteFor those of you who answered: "No - we're more at risk now", what would you have done differently, to make America "more safe"? Built a true international coalition insead of pissing off our allies. It would only have taken a few more weeks. Those weeks could have been well spent in getting good intel to replace the bad. US taxpayers payed for only 5% of the costs of Gulf War I. Our allies payed the rest. Then Bush(43) pissed off the allies. The US taxpayer is paying 90% of the $200+ Billion cost of Bush's Iraq War.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #49 September 8, 2004 Quote...I would have had bin Laden's family members in America at least questioned, rather than flying them home when the rest of American flights were grounded. (WTF was up with that, anyway??I've never heard a good explanation for that.) I'm pretty sure the idea was to avoid mob violence by Americans against prominent Saudis, which would have made the situation even worse.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #50 September 8, 2004 Yeah... I would say more on the lines of criminal. Terrorist actions IMO usually involve mor consiracy and planning. I get the sense this was just some nutjob out there looking for trouble. Not to give terrorist too much credit, but I think they are smarter than anthrax in the mail. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
