| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 10:58:45 AM | Looks like the democrats will win the election.McCain is another version of Bush so he will probably lose(These are not my words, but a general consensus I get from the media).However if the U.S is attacked by a terrorist group(like 9/11) will the focus switch . .In other words, f the war in iraq, the economy, the housing problem etc.Then does McCain seem more likely to win over the democratic candidate.
If the democrats win does the US seem softer and more primed for an attack? | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 11:59:44 AM | | the arabs are laying low until our election is over. they know full well that a strong offensive on their part could sway the election. they want america to go back to sleep peacefully, so they will wait for now. if obama wins, they will resume activities then, if its mc cain, expect a harder reaction sooner. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 12:13:21 PM | .... welcome to the NEOCON circle jerk thread .....
nice logic trapper..... "its a wonder we can even feed ourselves" | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 12:30:24 PM |
If the democrats win does the US seem softer and more primed for an attack? Good question, but in my opinion, No. Simply being firmer is not necessarily the answer. For example, G W Bush's strategy in Iraq was a mistake. Iraq, as bad a place as it has been, has traditionally served as a counterbalance to Iran. Now it no longer serves that function. Thanks, George! In addition, much of the Arab world is against us, which was unnecessary.
Yes, there was and is Islamic terrorism and extremism. It should be addressed. I'm not convinced that Bush's policies have done this well. The 9/11 attackers were not from Iraq. They were members of Al-Qaeda, mostly Saudi Arabian, and based in Afghanistan. The Iraq war, while firm, diverted efforts which could have been more directly aimed at Al-Qaeda. We need to be smarter, not firmer.
I realize that there is some concern that we will somehow become too soft. I don't think we will be that stupid. That would not be a smart move either. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 2:06:39 PM | | I don't think it really matters who we have in office, our enemies know we have the strongest military in the world (aside from maybe China) and weapons most can't compete with. They also know that the president has military advisors, and that no one is going to be soft on this kind of crime. I think if anyone underestimates us, they'll find themselves sadly mistaken. No matter who is sitting in the chair. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 2:17:51 PM | >>>I think if anyone underestimates us, they'll find themselves sadly mistaken. No matter who is sitting in the chair.
Exactly. This thread is nothing more than fear mongering. Hell, if we were to embrace trappers Message, then the risk of terrorism would be irrelivant- because we'd already be allowing terrorists to terrorize us into making decsions we wouldn't normally make.... | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 2:19:16 PM | ^
Booyah!!!
The Al Qaeda made one fatal mistake. You dont go running into a roadhouse and piss in the biggest biker's beer. Yer gonna get flattened.
When they pulled that 9/11 crap they awoke a sleeping giant. Iraq down, 3 to go.
3 basic rules in life;
a. dont go screaming the N word in Harlem, yer gonna get slam dunked
b. dont piss in the Hells Angels beer, yer gonna get sliced and diced
c. dont attack the US on its own soil, yer gonna lose yer country | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 2:55:00 PM |
Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists
The menace of global terrorism has been labeled the greatest threat to western civilization since communism and yet swimming pools, peanuts and lost deer kill more Americans every single year.
As Ohio State University's John Mueller concludes in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity, "For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic."
To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month.
The principle goal of terrorists is to terrify populations and governments into acquiescing to their political demands.
And yet what do we see? George Bush and****Cheney frothing at the mouth predicting mushroom clouds over America.
By making these statements and continually recycling the hysteria, these entities are facilitating the goals of terrorists, driving forward an agenda that could not alone be fueled by relatively minor, rare and inconsequential attacks that take few human lives
Fear is a lie.
False
Evidence
Appearing
Real. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 3:08:16 PM | .
Bah!
Dubya could be on video lighting the fuse and the dumb asses in this country would say "well there is no way he could have known that a bomb was going to go off!"  
. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 3:38:35 PM |
Dubya could be on video lighting the fuse and the dumb asses in this country would say "well there is no way he could have known that a bomb was going to go off!" That might actually be true. He can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:00:32 PM | It seemed to me that 9/11 happened on a republican's watch. Why do reps. think they are more prepared for war? They don't see what a massive failure this war has been? Reps. should quit clinging to this issue because it continually reminds Americans what party royally f--ked this war up. Find Bin Laden, Omar or Zawahiri before you start spouting off about how effective you are at fighting terrorsim. Reps. had seven years to find these three people and failed because Bush loves him some Saudi. Tough on terrorism. Isn't it Bush and Cheney who walks hand in hand with Saudi Royalty? | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:05:46 PM | Now if neocons could only started telling the truth, maybe they'd have some credibility. But we all know that's not going to happen any time soon. Cult members take years to wake up.
Neocon circle jerk indeed. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:06:57 PM |
Iraq down, 3 to go.
'Down' meaning finished? Hardly.
Numbnuts had a heads up they were coming and he blew it. He invaded Iraq and blew it. And Dems are the ones who can't be trusted? What are you people drinking.
 | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:09:32 PM | .
Here on a serious note:
terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating
terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. (JP 3-07.2)
terrorist — An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in
pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. See also terrorism. (JP 3-07.2)
terrorist group — Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives. See also terrorism. (JP 3-07.2)
terrorist threat level — An intelligence threat assessment of the level of terrorist threat faced
by US personnel and interests in a foreign country. The assessment is based on a continuous intelligence analysis of a minimum of five elements: terrorist group existence, capability, history, trends, and targeting. There are five threat levels: NEGLIGIBLE, LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and CRITICAL. Threat levels should not be confused with force protection
545 As Amended Through 4 March 2008 JP 1-02 conditions.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
How many of you thought that the terrorist threat meant your back yard? See you should have looked it up!
force projection — The ability to project the military instrument of national power from the
United States or another theater, in response to requirements for military operations. See
also force. (JP 5-0)
(Posse comitatus: GONE!)
force protection — Preventive measures taken to mitigate hostile actions against Department
of Defense personnel (to include family members), resources, facilities, and critical
information. Force protection does not include actions to defeat the enemy or protect
against accidents, weather, or disease. Also called FP. See also force; force protection
condition; protection. (JP 3-0)
force protection condition — A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-approved program
standardizing the Military Services’ identification of and recommended responses to terrorist
threats against US personnel and facilities. This program facilitates inter-Service
coordination. Also called FPCON. There are four FPCONs above normal. a. FPCON
ALPHA — This condition applies when there is an increased general threat of possible
terrorist activity against personnel and facilities, the nature and extent of which are
212
As Amended Through 4 March 2008 JP 1-02 unpredictable, and circumstances do not justify full implementation of FPCON BRAVO measures. However, it may be necessary to implement certain measures from higher FPCONs resulting from intelligence received or as a deterrent. The measures in this FPCON must be capable of being maintained indefinitely.
b. FPCON BRAVO — This condition applies when an increased or more predictable threat of terrorist activity exists. Sustaining the measures in this FPCON for a prolonged period may affect operational capability and relations with local authorities.
c. FPCON CHARLIE — This condition applies when an incident occurs or intelligence is received indicating some form of terrorist action or targeting against personnel or facilities is likely. Prolonged implementation of measures in this FPCON may create hardship and affect the activities of the unit and its personnel.
d.FPCON DELTA — This condition applies in the immediate area where a terrorist attack
has occurred or when intelligence has been received that terrorist action against a specific
location or person is imminent. Normally, this FPCON is declared as a localized condition.
FPCON DELTA measures are not intended to be sustained for substantial periods. See also antiterrorism; force protection. (JP 3-07.2)
force protection working group — Cross-functional working group whose purpose is to conduct risk assessment and risk management and to recommend mitigating measures to the commander. Also called FPWG. (JP 3-10) force rendezvous — (*) A checkpoint at which formations assistance operations are those conducted outside the United States, its territories, and possessions. Also called FHA. See also foreign assistance. (JP 3-33)
foreign instrumentation signals intelligence — Technical information and intelligence derived
See what is happening here? The federal power grab at all levels?
. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:27:57 PM | If you do get attacked again how will you retaliate? attack Afghanistan? Iraq? or stick a pin in a map?
you can have the biggest army ever seen in the universe it won't be much use at stopping terrorism.
surprisingly, you'll have to find other techniques maybe by beginning with looking at yourselves. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:32:48 PM | | ^^^Wherever the attack comes from. Even it means going into Pakistan. I think we should already be a..hole deep in Pakistan. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:33:53 PM | Honestly I think terrorism can best be stopped by righting some of the wrongs we've caused in the world. And talking more and shooting less. Call me a bleeding heart tree hugger, I don't care. I'll stick a daisy in your gun.
But, the fact remains, whoever is in office will not be passive if we are attacked again. Hopefully we'll actually finish the job we started and not go off on some tangentical (is that a word) mission and invade another country that had nothing to do with it, but we won't be passive. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:39:29 PM | .
Bush laid the groundwork for his assault on Posse Comitatus on September 26, when he explained his decision to unleash the 82nd Airborne upon Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans: "I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people." The Louisiana National Guard, meanwhile, was stuck in Iraq.
"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," said Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on American soil an "extraordinarily Draconian measure." Even Gene Healy, senior editor at the right-wing Cato Institute, said Bush's proposal would undermine "a fundamental principle of American law" that "reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."
All this over avian flu, which to date has killed fewer than 100 people worldwide.
http://www.rinf.com/news/oct05/martiallaw.html
Worrisome civil liberty news censored by media
By Peter Phillips
MinutemanMedia.org
Published Friday, September 07, 2007
We need to broaden our understanding of censorship in the United States. No longer is the dictionary definition of direct government control of news adequate. The private corporate media in the United States significantly under-cover and/or deliberately censor numerous important news stories every year as well.
Project Censored at Sonoma State University has annually researched these stories for 31 years. Over 200 faculty, community experts, and students, select and rank the stories the media failed to cover. Hundreds of uncovered news stories are evaluated. The result is the annual listing of the top 25 most important ones that were censored.
Print Reply E-mail
The systemic erosion of human rights and civil liberties in the United States is the most common theme of censorship for 2006-07.
The corporate media last year ignored that habeas corpus can now be suspended for anyone by order of the president. With the approval of Congress, the Military Commissions Act MCA of 2006 allows for the suspension of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in "The New York Times" October 19, 2006, have given false comfort that American citizens will not be the victims of the measures legalized by this act, the law is quite clear that "any person" can be targeted. The text in the MCA allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for "any person" regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for all people in the United States deemed by the president to be enemy combatants.
Laws enacted last year allowing the government to more easily institute martial law is another civil liberties story ignored by the corporate media in 2006-07. The Defense Authorization Act of 2007 allows the president to station troops anywhere in the United States and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities to "suppress public disorder." The law in effect repealed the Posse Comitatus Act, which had placed strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement in the United States since just after the Civil War.
Additionally, under the code-name Operation FALCON — Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally — three federally coordinated mass arrests occurred between April 2005 and October 2006. In an unprecedented move, more than 30,000 "fugitives" were arrested in the largest dragnets in the nation's history. The operations, coordinated by the Justice Department and Homeland Security, directly involved over 960 agencies (state, local and federal) and are the first time in U.S. history that all of the domestic police agencies have been put under the direct control of the federal government.
Finally, believe it or not, the term "terrorism" has been dangerously expanded to include any acts that interfere with, or promote interference with the operations of animal enterprises. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, signed into law on November 27, expands the definition of an "animal enterprise" to any business that "uses or sells animals or animal products." The law essentially makes many protesters, boycotters or picketers of businesses in the U.S. potential terrorists.
Most people in the United States believe in our Bill of Rights and value our personal freedoms. Yet, our corporate media in the past year failed to inform us about serious changes in our civil rights and liberties. Despite busy lives, we want to be informed about serious decisions made by the powerful, and we rely on the corporate media to keep us abreast of important changes. When the media fails to cover these issues, what else can we call it but censorship?
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/090707/opi_197629094.shtml
Congress Quietly Repeals Martial Law Provision
April 17, 2008 in News by James Bovard | 170 comments
In late 2006, Congress revised the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act to make it far easier for a president to declare martial law. Those changes were repealed at the end of this January as part of Public Law 110-181 (HR 4986), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (signed into law by President Bush on January 28, 2008).
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), who championed the opposition to the original law, was also the hero of the repeal. It helped that all the nation’s governors opposed the 2006 law.
Boise State Professor Charlotte Twight, the author of the excellent Dependent on DC, alerted me to the change last night. I checked on Nexis and the only news coverage I found regarding the repeal was a 322-word Gannett News wire story from February 1 that focused on how the repeal made governors happy.
I first wrote about the Posse/Insurrection peril for American Conservative a year ago. My most recent piece on the subject was an article for the January issue of the Future of Freedom Foundation’s (FFF) Freedom Daily. The law was changed between the time the piece was published and when FFF posted the January article online on April 9.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/17/congress-quietly-repeals-martial-law-provision/
The fact that this happened in the first place is atrocious. I would ask if my last post scared anyone but I wonder how many people actually knew what that was.
The point is that our rights are being disassembled in stages and that window dubya could have legally declared martial law and became an american dictator.
So when you want protection be careful what you ask for as you just might get it in spades!
. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 4:43:09 PM |
^^^Wherever the attack comes from. Even it means going into Pakistan. I think we should already be a..hole deep in Pakistan.
Who ever they point the finger at is more like it
. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:02:00 PM | skoochie wrote:
^^^Wherever the attack comes from. Even it means going into Pakistan. I think we should already be a..hole deep in Pakistan.
so if a US airbase in the UK is truck bombed by a british born muslim terrorists you'll invade us?
by the way you'll never attack pakistan they have nuclear weapons, they can fight back. (yes - that is a 'joke' to wind you up). | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:03:24 PM | | ... mike, andy, even, sim.....ya'll make me want to cry as your points goes far beyond the same old shit. PLEASE for the sake of my children keep being attentive to these realities... | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:26:57 PM | so if a US airbase in the UK is truck bombed by a british born muslim terrorists you'll invade us?
Damn skippy. Republicans wouldn't but I would turn over every flat in Britain if I thought there were some terrorists there that were being funded by your gov. But reps. would come over and sell you some defense contracts.
I know that sounds rediculous but so was the hypothetical situation being offered.
Oh yeah...At least Obama is on record saying that he would go into Pakistan if he had credible evidence as to Bin Laden's whereabouts. Bush would send the Northern Alliance after him. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:33:32 PM |
h yeah...At least Obama is on record saying that he would go into Pakistan if he had credible evidence as to Bin Laden's whereabouts. McCain later scoffed at the notion. Who seems weaker?
...please let me be the firs to have you reword that.... | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:41:34 PM | | ^^^Ok I changed it Crash. Is that better? Feel free to reword what you like to suit your needs. I won't be offended. | |
|
| Terrorists
Posted: 5/11/2008 6:06:23 PM | skoochie can I reword it?
Oh yeah...At least Obama is on record saying that he would pull out of iraq and let the terrorists have free reign and without the support of our british heroic friends we in the US would still be stuck in the stoneage.
personally I don't think it matters who is in the white house between the three obvious candidates, if the UK experience is anything to go by every party and every leader takes a hard line on terrorism, mainly because that is what the public demands/expects and not to do that wouldn't win any votes. | |
|
Home
login 
