Next terrorist attack within Ninety days

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Help us remove the foxes from the hen house! Our people do not have to die by the foxes we invite home to dinner.

If saving American lives is your concern then I suggest you look elsewhere because terrorist attacks don't even register on leading causes of death in this country. I'll quote what I said in another thread

I think we can all agree that the security of our country sucks. What I think many of us disagree on is how far we should go to secure ourselves, so lets try to establish why we are trying to prevent terrorist attacks. Maybe I've become misled, but I think the top reason that most people want to prevent terrorist attacks is to save lives. This is a great reason however if saving lives is one of our nation's top priorities then we should be focusing on events that claim tens to hundreds of thousands of lives per year (ex: car accidents, obesity, cancer, etc...) not terrorist attacks that claim maybe a few thousand lives per decade. One could also make the case that we should try to prevent terrorist attacks because that they have a serious, negative impact on the economy. This, however, does not seem like a worthwhile venture. 9/11's long term impacts on the economy seem virtually non-existent nowadays, and I would think that that our counter-terrorism efforts in response to 9/11 have had a much larger impact than the attack itself (I would appreciate it if our resident economic gurus could either qualify this claim or shoot it down).

So whats my answer to the question "how far should we go to secure ourselves"? I think the fact that our airports and train systems are not secure is not that big of an issue. I enjoy being able to quickly buy a NJ Transit ticket and hop on the train without having to wait in security lines. The chance of dying to a terrorist attack on a train or airplane is so ridiculously small that I think convenience should trump security in these cases. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they might as well loosen up some of the security measures in airports. They don't work anyways and it sure as hell isn't worth it to wait an hour longer in line just for more security.

I do, however, believe that we need to put more effort into securing our borders and monitoring what gets shipped into this country. While the threat of a nuclear attack is extremely small, the consequences of one would be so devastating that we shouldn't ignore the possibility. Furthermore, having the ability to reliably monitor all incoming cargo containers could help prevent other crimes/attacks as well. It also wouldn't severely inconvenience travelers.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Trell

Since when is NYC not considered Liberal?

It's not...and look how the mood changed there after 9/11.

Chuck

Not as much as it did in Bugdick, Texas. In fact, it hardly changed in NYC at all...at least not the way you mean the word. Most Americans woke up to the threat posed by terrorists, and most Americans (including those in "liberal bastions") are willing to confront that threat. It's only the Americans in "rural America" that seem to be obsessed with irrational responses that quite frankly do not make the world a safer place.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Attacking rural America is about the worst thing they could do.

I mean sure if they really want to start playing Cowboys n Arabs, but otherwise it is a dumb dumb idea. All they have to do is find a Native American and ask them how that turned out.

I respectfully disagree.

Attacking San Fran or some Lib bastion of society here in the US would be the absolute worst thing they could do.

In reality, once you move out of the cities, the general atmosphere, mood, views, and perceptions vary from just conservative to all out right wing Republican.

Just imagine how the tune would change for many of the pacifists when it was themselves, their family, their friends maimed and killed.

All of a sudden it'd go from D@mn Bush, Give Peace a Chance! to Go get them MotherFuk3r5!!!

Rural America already reached that stage on 9/11, all we need is something to happen to push the fence sitters and not completely hopelessly brainwashed Libs to action...

Chuck

Exhibit A: The fear freeper.

The idea that we are going to be attacked with in any 90 day period might be a little overboard, but we have to recognize that they want to attack us and will try and most likely succeed eventually.

We need to accept as a country that the war on terror is here for the near future and learn to deal with it.

Indeed, which would necessitate dealing with it in a reasonable and logical manner. It clearly is a long term problem, which makes this "EMERGENCY, AHH!!!!" spazzing from a lot of people completely stupid...and completely unmaintainable. We can't operate in a state of emergency for decades, which seems to be the preferred right-wing approach to the problem.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IGBT
..well according to pelosi and all the other psycotic progressive liberals all we have to do is bear our souls to Al Qaeda..mabe hold hands in a hot tub and all will be well.

I'm pretty sure Pelosi didn't say that, but even if she did, it would be among the LEAST stupid ideas on how to fight terrorism that have come up since 9/11. And I got to say, after 6 years of conservative bullshit, I'm ready to try to liberal approach...it couldn't possibly do a worse job of making the world a better place.

..sound like your ready for the hot tub.

Nah, in all honesty I'd rather try a GOOD idea. But if my two choices are "the hot tub" and "conservative" bullshit, it's not really a contest. Both choices suck, but the "all thrust, no vector" Rambo approach of the Republicans clearly isn't working.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Indeed, which would necessitate dealing with it in a reasonable and logical manner. It clearly is a long term problem, which makes this "EMERGENCY, AHH!!!!" spazzing from a lot of people completely stupid...and completely unmaintainable. We can't operate in a state of emergency for decades, which seems to be the preferred right-wing approach to the problem.

When you are decades behind the problem, you better get into something other than a "Bah, 3,000 here or there is sustainable long term, more die in traffic accidents!" mode until you at least get close to catching up. We need to do all three really: Operate in Red Jeopardy mode or at the least Yellow Jeopardy mode (or Orange if possible), have a reasonable approach, and go about it in a logical manner.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Not as much as it did in Bugdick, Texas. In fact, it hardly changed in NYC at all...at least not the way you mean the word. Most Americans woke up to the threat posed by terrorists, and most Americans (including those in "liberal bastions") are willing to confront that threat. It's only the Americans in "rural America" that seem to be obsessed with irrational responses that quite frankly do not make the world a safer place.

I didn't mean they became less liberal in their normal views, just that instead of knee jerk Let's think about the children type of BS type stuff, it was more of a something has to be done attitude.

I'll never expect people in large cities to react like people in rural areas, it'd be unreasonable and probably dangerous.

Chuck

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the hell does this have to do with Iran and Syria? Neither nation was mentioned in the article, on TV, or in Aviv's predictions themselves...?!? 😕

Because when I was googling this guy's name I found some references that he allegedly says Bush would use the next terrorist attack to start a war on Iran. And besides, it's not too far fetched when you recall how we invaded Iraq base don the 9/11 attack.

1) We did not invade Iraq "based on the 9/11 attack." We invaded Afghanistan for that reason. We entered Iraq for other reasons - some false, some flawed, and some honorable.

2) Please provide a link wherein Aviv predicts that the next attack will lead Bush to attack Iran or Syria. Since you found one already, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the link...

Name one honorable reason why Iraq was invaded and don't mention ANYTHING that was not a part of the pre invasion stated reasons.

While you and me might know why Iraq was invaded in the first place the general public was never told about it and would have never supported it if they had known.

But the real reason is hardly honorable.

Freedom from oppression for 27 million Iraqis, in both of Bush's televised addresses to the US public just before the military took action. Is that not honorable?