Either we are safer, or we are not
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Thursday, October 19, 2006 06:20
VIEWED: 5565
PAGE 2 of 4
On a side note, there have been successes in our war on terrorism, they just have not been widely publicized. Here is an account of an arrest that happened 1 1/2 years ago. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on why this story was not brought to a nationwide audience. I'm just thankful that another terrorist was caught and imprisoned before he could do any damage:
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/03/48524168.shtml
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is your reference to the story about the right-wing paranoid schizophrenic with an arsenal at home? That's what I pull up from your link.
I'm not sure he's a good example of how we are safer from terrorists these days. "One of those passing motorists saw the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle on Smith's lap, the barrel pointed toward the school."
I've lived in some tough neighborhoods and even 30 years ago people would've called the PO-lice, and same would've come. It wouldn't have require homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, specialized response teams etc.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soupcatcher wrote:
Quote:
On a side note, there have been successes in our war on terrorism
See, this is the kind of thing that makes me wish we could have an investigation/panel about the alerts and the efficacy of our anti-terror campaign in general. I mean yes, alot of it is top secret and what-not, but it would nice to be able to see the statistics of attacks averted, known terrorists arrested, etc. Alot are probably available eventually, but really, if Homeland Security wants to say the patriot act should be installed permanently, give me some gorram statistics to prove that me losing any of my rights for the past two years has helped anyone.....beyond the lawyers for the prisoners at Guantanamo that is.
Instead, all we hear is "yellow, orange or red" combined with alot of evidence pointing to most of the alerts being politically motivated (you can't not tell me that they didn't realize that the data was so out of date last week! And yeah, it's good to know we should watch out for financial institutions other than those in NY, but wouldn't it have been nice for the government to have recieved that warning before 9/11? Added to the whistleblowers w/ the fbi and cia and the picture isn't pretty.
The Strawberry Monkey
http://p221.ezboard.com/bfireflyfanficawards
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But, to ramble off on another and only slightly related topic ....
Remember the days IMMEDIATELY after 9/11? Within days, the US was gonna get bin Laden. And Bush went from saying 'catch the perpetrator' to 'catch the leaders' to 'get the organization' to 'bringing down supporting governments'. DEAD OR ALIVE !!!! And less than a month after 9/11, with adrenaline high and everybody pumped, off the US goes to make war on Afghanistan. We bomb. A few months go by. The Northern Alliance does a lot of the fighting. The Taliban is deposed. But that wily bin Laden just never, but never, gets caught.
And dubya's ratings are sliding. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
With bin Laden still on the loose, and less than 1 1/2 years after going into Afghanistan, Bush sends US troops into another war. (Iraq war March 19, 2003 to Mission Accomplished! May 1, 2003.) And his ratings go up! People approve! Amazing. What short memories. Whatever happened to the search for bin Laden? Oh well. Whatever.
And just a few short month later, WMDs, Hussein and Iraq's connection with al Qaeda are all but forgotten. That's old news. We went in. We kicked *ss. Iraq's free. No problemo.
NOW the issue is - security! Safety! Terror alerts!
With no recollection of how the country was driven in the past from issue to issue, and no concept of being driven now. Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. It really feels like it.
Originally posted by rue:
Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
I'm not sure he's a good example of how we are safer from terrorists these days. "One of those passing motorists saw the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle on Smith's lap, the barrel pointed toward the school."
Yeah. That probably wasn't the best example since it's only because of an observant citizen that this terrorist was apprehended.
Another example would probably be this one, even though it is also a case of an alert citizen setting the wheels in motion:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
I've lived in some tough neighborhoods and even 30 years ago people would've called the PO-lice, and same would've come. It wouldn't have require homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, specialized response teams etc.
This is my position as well. We don't need the PATRIOT Act to deal with the threat of terrorism, either domestic or international.
What I was hoping to get across in my original post is my belief that domestic terrorists are a greater threat to this country than terrorist organizations based on the other side of the world. It's a simple matter of logistics. It took deep pockets for Al Qaeda to pull off 9/11. The Oklahoma City bombing, the Atlanta Olympics park bombing, the Unabomber, and these two cases were cheaper because the terrorists lived where they operated.
So why aren't we bringing these and other arrests and convictions forward as an example of successes in the War on Terror(ism)? Ordinary citizens noticed something wrong and brought that information to the proper authorities. The authorities conducted their investigations without the need of the new powers granted them under the PATRIOT Act. The terrorists were convicted. Tragedy was averted. Why wasn't this news plastered across the entire country?
I have my own cynical answers to that question based on my beliefs as to the motivations of this administration. But I'm probably not doing a good job of making my point
since I'm just throwing this stuff together.I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
And dubya's ratings are sliding. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Apologies for posting one after the other, folks. I just wanted to follow Rue slightly off-topic for a bit
. That chart is a pretty good one. One thing about the spike after 9/11 was that we really had nothing to compare it with. Gallup has been asking this question since Roosevelt was in office (I'm not sure if that included Pearl Harbor). Bush's job rating on 9/21/01-9/22/01 was the highest they had ever measured. Neither Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, nor Clinton ever had a job rating that was as high. Now does anyone believe that GW Bush did a better job as President than any of the previous 11?I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
With no recollection of how the country was driven in the past from issue to issue, and no concept of being driven now. Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.
Herded to the slaughter, no less.
Sometimes I just want to bang my head against a wall- it would feel better.
Thanks for the chart- informative, frightening and depressing. It happens every time, altho not on as large a scale as 9-11: Thatcher and Falklands, Bush(I) and Iraq (I), Johnson and Gulf of Tonkin. Maybe Cheney will jigger the terrorist alert, or let a terrorist attack happen (oops) or "discover" a significant threat in Iran and decide to invade just before the election. I wouldn't put anything past this weasly, callous, lying administration.
Doesn't anyone ever learn? You'd think after seeing this a half-dozen times or so people would catch on.
Oh, by the way, and also off-topic-
We can add Tommy Franks (US Army General, head of Centcom during Afghanistan and Iraq invasion) to the list of disaffected ex-employees. Along with Paul O'Neil (Treasury Scy), Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt-Colonel Air Force, member of OSP), Joe Wilson (Ambassador, last man in Kuwait embassy during the invasion), Valerie Plame and Anonymous (CIA officers), Shinseki (US Army General) and Richard Clarke (anti-cyber-terror). Every single one of them says that dubya wanted to invade Iraq before anything else, that dubya is a screw-up in fighting terrorism. Now, these people supposedly have the inside story- they sat at the same tables, they got first-hand info. What is Bush going to do THIS time? Call Franks a left-wing-nut job, like his minions did to Kwaitkowski? A sour-grapes ex-employee, a la Wilson? A person who was out of the loop- supposedly like O'Neill? A screw-up, like Clarke? Some people who post here could use a long look at the facts, except they will NEVER learn. And so, like the cattle they are, they'll be herded from one crisis to the next, looking for a daddy-figure to make it all better.
Sorry for the rant. I'm going to take an ibuprofin now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No one is putting words in your mouth and you feel free to get as pissed off as you like. It won’t affect me in the least.
Originally posted by Radhil:
You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.
A few points to consider on this last terror warning:
As far as the timing is concerned: 1) the threat of a terror attack is considered high because of the election. We know that Al Qeada had great success in changing the Spanish government to one that is more favorable to their politics, and it is reasonable to conclude that Al Qeada may attempt to affect the US outcome by staging an attack here as well. 2) Extremely tight security was in place shortly before, during and shortly following the recent Democratic Convention. In fact, there was more security there then there was for the Salt Lake City Olympics. It may be that HLS is more willing to release warnings at this time then they would at other times, but presuming this to be political move is premature at best and unfounded.
As far as the age of evidence is concerned: This recent evidence was probably seized in a recent Pakistan raid. Does that mean that these plans had been abandoned and we just stumbled on to worthless plans? Or does it mean that Al Qeada was still in the process of expediting these plans and pulled them out to make preparations on their first attempt? It’s impossible to know. But just because plans were drawn up three years ago does not mean that they will never be followed through. Or that they are, as some shortsighted individuals contend, “old.” For example: one of Al Qaeda’s plans was to bring down the World’s Trade Center. That scheme was hatched in 1991. It wasn’t until 1993 that the first attempt was made. And it wasn’t until 2001 that they actually managed to do it, 10 years after the original plans were made.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:No one is putting words in your mouth and you feel free to get as pissed off as you like. It won’t affect me in the least.
Originally posted by Radhil:
You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.
A few points to consider on this last terror warning:
As far as the timing is concerned: 1) the threat of a terror attack is considered high because of the election. We know that Al Qeada had great success in changing the Spanish government to one that is more favorable to their politics, and it is reasonable to conclude that Al Qeada may attempt to affect the US outcome by staging an attack here as well.
As I said, I'm aware that elections don't make us immune. This arguement would hold more water if we were actually closer to the actual elections. My concerns over the timing of the warning is not over what year or season it is, but what day. If the warning had been issued today, I wouldn't have blinked at it.
On a side note, I've yet to ever hear a reasonable explanation of why a new U.S. attack would stampede voters to Kerry. Other than "It worked in Spain," which shows great ignorance as to what actually happened in Spain, not to mention implying massive idiocy on the part of Americans. Not to mention ignoring our collective reactions (namely: rally and fight like hell) to every terrorist attack in history.
Quote:
2) Extremely tight security was in place shortly before, during and shortly following the recent Democratic Convention. In fact, there was more security there then there was for the Salt Lake City Olympics. It may be that HLS is more willing to release warnings at this time then they would at other times, but presuming this to be political move is premature at best and unfounded.
I took HLS at their word, despite doubts and as shakily as I view this administration, for days. I bought it, new information comes to light, and now I don't. I'm premature... how? When would be mature? What exactly would you like me to wait for before deciding? Ridge or Cheney to fall crying on the Lawn, shouting "I'm sorry"? Signed confessionals?
It's unfounded, I suppose. If you ignore everything I say, especially the concerns I laid out in a clear and consistent manner, and then call it unfounded. Which makes me wonder why I'm bothering to respond to this at all. Maybe waiting for some passerby or observer to assure me that I'm not just talking to myself and imagining your replies.
Quote:
As far as the age of evidence is concerned: This recent evidence was probably seized in a recent Pakistan raid. Does that mean that these plans had been abandoned and we just stumbled on to worthless plans? Or does it mean that Al Qeada was still in the process of expediting these plans and pulled them out to make preparations on their first attempt? It’s impossible to know. But just because plans were drawn up three years ago does not mean that they will never be followed through. Or that they are, as some shortsighted individuals contend, “old.” For example: one of Al Qaeda’s plans was to bring down the World’s Trade Center. That scheme was hatched in 1991. It wasn’t until 1993 that the first attempt was made. And it wasn’t until 2001 that they actually managed to do it, 10 years after the original plans were made.
And now, you're not just ignoring me, you're ignoring the article, which no where states "recently acquired" old information, nor does it imply it. And you're bothering to speak to me about unfounded. Go make stuff up on your own time.
Strange thing is, for all your stupid bluster, I actually agree with you. I doubt those plans are abandoned. There's possibly still a cell of 5 or 6 sitting in a warehouse or a cave somewhere trying to see if they can make it work. And when they figure it out, when they come, we won't be ready. It will be six months from now, twelve months from now, couple years even, when all this lit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME