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.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Next terrorist attack within Ninety days
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
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
So, Fern, what you're contending is that the best thing the admin can do from a political POV is to ignore all such warnings, like they did with 9/11, then, if such really occurs, exploit fear and outrage to serve their own agenda?
I wouldn't put it beneath them, at all, given their record...
And it seems like Chucky2 is just begging for it to happen...
I wouldn't put it beneath them, at all, given their record...
And it seems like Chucky2 is just begging for it to happen...
Lemon law
Lifer
This whole idea of its stupid to play cowboys and arabs in rural America--or the equally stupid ask an a native American how it turned out is all predicated on the idea that you will even see the perps in the first place. Rather than be accused of giving terrorists any ideas, the number of vulnerable targets, large and small, inside America are almost infinite. And just five or 10 teams traveling by automobile could go all over the country hitting a wide variety of soft targets. And then taking public credit for these Al-Quida attacks with provided proof would be more than enough to rapidly demolish the myth that GWB has made America safer or that GWB have them tied up over seas with Al-Quida too busy to also fight on American soil.
If done right, the chance of even being remotely suspected would be near zero. And even better, a whole bunch of totally innocent people will get accused. The native Americans got their butts kicked because they stuck around, were identifiable on sight, and tried to hold on to something.
Catching a mobile target that has no real roots or agenda other than mischief is a entirely different thing.
But the scenario I outlined is predicated on me predicting what Al-Quida wants. And I sure don't know if they even want to do what I outlined or don't have some other totally different scheme in mind. And those schemes could range from the fiendishly diabolical to the benign lets take a nap.
If done right, the chance of even being remotely suspected would be near zero. And even better, a whole bunch of totally innocent people will get accused. The native Americans got their butts kicked because they stuck around, were identifiable on sight, and tried to hold on to something.
Catching a mobile target that has no real roots or agenda other than mischief is a entirely different thing.
But the scenario I outlined is predicated on me predicting what Al-Quida wants. And I sure don't know if they even want to do what I outlined or don't have some other totally different scheme in mind. And those schemes could range from the fiendishly diabolical to the benign lets take a nap.
ProfJohn
Lifer
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.
OrByte
Diamond Member
no I dont need to accept it. I do need to live my life as an American citizen with all the freedoms and rights granted to me.
Terror is nothing new. neither is people wanting to do bad things to the US. SO as far as the "War on Terror" big whoop. if a terrarist gets me they get me...score one for the bad guy.
but they won't cower me. I won't change the way I want to live because some boogey man in a desert mountain on the other side of the world wants to kill America. Fvck em
Terror is nothing new. neither is people wanting to do bad things to the US. SO as far as the "War on Terror" big whoop. if a terrarist gets me they get me...score one for the bad guy.
but they won't cower me. I won't change the way I want to live because some boogey man in a desert mountain on the other side of the world wants to kill America. Fvck em
ProfJohn
Lifer
I never claimed that we should change our way of life.
In fact I advocated that we need to learn to ?deal with it? in the same way the Israelis deal with terror in their country.
I think we need to get beyond the point in which we freak out over every little incident and instead focus on the big picture. Let law enforcement work on stopping terror, be vigilant, and just go about enjoying life.
In fact I advocated that we need to learn to ?deal with it? in the same way the Israelis deal with terror in their country.
I think we need to get beyond the point in which we freak out over every little incident and instead focus on the big picture. Let law enforcement work on stopping terror, be vigilant, and just go about enjoying life.
Jaskalas
Lifer
We shouldn't change our way of life. We should change THEIR way of life. Screw with the bull and get the horns.
This is unacceptable, why let them in the front door in the first place? We know who they are.
September 10th all over again. We shouldn?t freak out over anything, but we SHOULD go beyond law enforcement and wage a social/ideological/cultural war against the ideology that has brought us this terror. We need to, with one voice, tell them we will not allow them to import into our country their third world values and contempt for human life. More specifically their contempt for us in our homes.
What we aren?t doing that we should? Condemn them, assimilate them, be proud and stand up for ourselves and our culture and our way of life. Cut off their financial and ideological import from the factions in the Middle East at war against us. We don?t need their sympathizers and foot soldiers in our country being sponsored and protected by us and our laws.
Where are we to harass them when they refuse to sell us pork in OUR store, in OUR country? Where are we to harass them every time they demand and clamor for special unique treatment that privileges them above everyone else?
Is that it, the limit of your bloviating, distortion, and outright lies? I thought you?d come up with more personal attacks against me instead of discussing the very real fact that our border is open and that our enemy is within, at our invitation. Maybe stating the obvious about that upsets you, maybe you?d like to keep it the way it is and for us not to speak of it?
You seem to pander to a group that has demons in its closet which needs to be cleaned out and dealt with. The longer you stand in opposition to us and in protection of them the more American blood they and you will be responsible for.
It is time to bring pressure on the moderates, if there are any to find, let them know that harboring radicals is unacceptable and intolerable and that we shall no longer allow that to continue. Let us force their hand to clean out their closet, and remove the skeletons they bring with from the Middle East. Let us purge the Islamists from our country.
There is still time to do it peacefully, by inviting forth a sweeping cultural movement that condemns the Islamist (supremacist) view, which promotes America and American culture ? within our own borders. This cannot be done by pandering to their sensibilities, by protecting their dark closet from reach of condemnation. It can ONLY be done if you join us.
Failure to do this will only bring forth what already seems inevitable, more bloodshed. You would have to be utterly naive or even complacent to believe it would not once again come from them. Then afterwards you might rightly begin to wonder when Americans would start responding in kind with the sort of fantasies you used above, in your effort to deflect the sort of things that need to be done. Help us stop them before it reaches such extremes.
I'm not begging for it to happen at all. Unlike jpeyton, I have no desire to see my fellow Americans maimed and/or killed.
I'm just saying, the worst place for them to strike is not Rural America, it's where the Libs and left wing folks reside...which is predominately the city and suburban environments.
Given that I work in downtown Chicago everyday, I'm not exactly hoping for a terrorist attack anytime soon...don't have to really aim for much around here to hit something important...
Chuck
Did I say I wanted it to happen OrByte? No.
Do I find it highly ironic that if it did happen the same people who are crying about Peace not War now would be yelling in the streets for the Fed to do something, anything? Yes.
I try and abide by the Forum rules, so I won't use you as an Exhibit B...pity... 🙁
Chuck
Lemon law
Lifer
And here I go to bed and the zanies come out at night spewing GWB kool aide in toxic amounts. But here we are in the USA relatively lucky compared to Europe. Here Europe, largely due to the sins of its colonial past, has been catching terrorist hell for the past forty years. And in the USA, we have had one major attack on domestic soil, and we go totally bonkers. And a case can be made that the terrorists were not really attacking the USA, but in fact were attacking the world trade center which only happened to be located in the USA.
But in terms of simple logic, almost rule number one is never generalize on a N of one. Which is exactly what we are doing here. And the dogma we have adopted is that we can go after terrorists like we would go after a fox to protect the hen house. And can use the hound and foxhunt method to track the fox to their den. And once the den is found we can dig the foxes out and summarily make an example of them. And that step one is to shake the trees and rattle the bushes until you can flush out the fox and then you can sic the dog pack on them.
The rub in this strategy is where the trees are shook and the bushes are rattled. Its simply not the private property of some fox hound host but rather its simple the rest of the world. And we are asserting the right to trespass on other peoples property and jab everything with sharp sticks. When the whole idea in the first place is to guard the hen house located in the USA. And meanwhile we are doing little or nothing to fortify our hen house to make it harder for the fox to do damage.
And the problem with that foxhunt strategy is exactly in that N of one thing. We went all these years without doing anything and got no foxes in the hen house, then we get one fox in the hen house, and we try plan A. And now for six whole years, we again have no foxes in the hen house. And we must realize that it may be flawed logic to attribute the lack of foxes to plan A. Because for years we did nothing and had the same results. And if plan A were rubbing our lucky rabbits foot, we would have equal logical basis to have faith in it.
But along come this troubling post and some drip under pressure tells us that we may have some attacks coming straight at our domestic chickens coops. OF course it may be a false alarm. Or it could come true.
But if indeed we are attacked domestically, not once, but quite a few times, the first causality may be the myth that going after the terrorists over there is the way to prevent terrorist here. After all it has not worked at all in Europe. And they have a much larger N to deal with. And they are not significantly joining with us or spending 2 billion/wk to play whack a mole games they well may KNOW BY EXPERIENCE DO NOT WORK.
As of yet we do not logically know with our N of 1---but after any such hypothetical attacks, we may well be forced to rethink our current anti-terrorist strategy which very well may be counter productive.
And until the attacks come--which is really the option of the attacker---we seem to stay stuck on the current strategy at the cost of 2+ billion/wk. And have no real clues why the foxes have not bothered to drop in for a visit. And may be missing the possibility that they regard our plan A as the best possible outcome for them. And if this is true, why would terrorists change what is a good thing for them?
But in terms of simple logic, almost rule number one is never generalize on a N of one. Which is exactly what we are doing here. And the dogma we have adopted is that we can go after terrorists like we would go after a fox to protect the hen house. And can use the hound and foxhunt method to track the fox to their den. And once the den is found we can dig the foxes out and summarily make an example of them. And that step one is to shake the trees and rattle the bushes until you can flush out the fox and then you can sic the dog pack on them.
The rub in this strategy is where the trees are shook and the bushes are rattled. Its simply not the private property of some fox hound host but rather its simple the rest of the world. And we are asserting the right to trespass on other peoples property and jab everything with sharp sticks. When the whole idea in the first place is to guard the hen house located in the USA. And meanwhile we are doing little or nothing to fortify our hen house to make it harder for the fox to do damage.
And the problem with that foxhunt strategy is exactly in that N of one thing. We went all these years without doing anything and got no foxes in the hen house, then we get one fox in the hen house, and we try plan A. And now for six whole years, we again have no foxes in the hen house. And we must realize that it may be flawed logic to attribute the lack of foxes to plan A. Because for years we did nothing and had the same results. And if plan A were rubbing our lucky rabbits foot, we would have equal logical basis to have faith in it.
But along come this troubling post and some drip under pressure tells us that we may have some attacks coming straight at our domestic chickens coops. OF course it may be a false alarm. Or it could come true.
But if indeed we are attacked domestically, not once, but quite a few times, the first causality may be the myth that going after the terrorists over there is the way to prevent terrorist here. After all it has not worked at all in Europe. And they have a much larger N to deal with. And they are not significantly joining with us or spending 2 billion/wk to play whack a mole games they well may KNOW BY EXPERIENCE DO NOT WORK.
As of yet we do not logically know with our N of 1---but after any such hypothetical attacks, we may well be forced to rethink our current anti-terrorist strategy which very well may be counter productive.
And until the attacks come--which is really the option of the attacker---we seem to stay stuck on the current strategy at the cost of 2+ billion/wk. And have no real clues why the foxes have not bothered to drop in for a visit. And may be missing the possibility that they regard our plan A as the best possible outcome for them. And if this is true, why would terrorists change what is a good thing for them?
Fern
Elite Member
I assume you are referring to this portion of my post?
"If this does occur, it will certainly change the landscape of the current Presidential race, IMO. The debate will likely shift dramatically, such issues as the firing of a few lawyers by the AG's office may fall off the scene big time, and the FISA debate may change directions as well. "
I don't see how it could possible be to the political benefit of the current administration, GWB can't run again. Don't see how it could help his "legacy" in any way, to the contrary his amin would be "bookended" by terrorist attacks.
No, what I'm trying to say is I think the debate will shift. More topics on preventing terrorist attack (Rudy won't be accused of fear mongering etc). Depending on how effective the response is we may have discussion on improving that.
I also think such attacks, if they happened, would prolly suck away all the air time to such issues as the Ast. AG firings & Gonzo.
Edwards may look foolish for saying the WOT is just a bumper sticker phrase, even if that's not what he really means (sound bites can come back to haunt you).
It's been what about 6 years since 9/11? So "Terrorism" is not now at the top of list of many people's concerns. That could change.
But if they do happen, I think "who & how" are gonna very important. If they are Middle Eastern Arabs, that's one thing. If they are "homegrown", that's something possibly quite different (i.e., why are we running around the M.E. chasing Arab terrorists when the ones living in our own backyard are killing us? What if they came over the Southern border illegally?).
If in hindsight the claim can be made that the proposed FISA rules could have helped uncover and prevent the attacks, well that debate is prolly over. It may become too politically difficult to oppose it.
I just think it'll have a big effect on our politics and the Pres elections if it happens.
I'm not predicting it'll be neccessarily to one party's advantage. Normally I might guess it could be to the Repubs advantage, but IIRC polling indicates that the Dems are more trusted now on national security etc now.
Fern
palehorse
Lifer
No, but I am able to recognize the parallels between their evil and that of Saddam (After all, he did bankroll the families of suicide bombers in Israel). I am also able to see and understand the strategic and humanitarian benefits of having a democratic Iraq.
I, for one, do know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - but I also feel that removing Saddam and installing a form of democracy in Iraq is quite honorable and necessary.
Either way, you failed to address the main issue which is that the premise of your OP in this thread is entirely bullsh*t. Par for the course...
good game!
Lemon law
Lifer
It is time to address the Palehorse74 contention. Which distills down to using rough men willing to do violence on our behalf will somehow prevent us in the USA from being attacked again. And now we have this Israeli expert saying it will not be so. But so far, we don't know one way or the other because we only had one big attack so far. And Al-Quida, if its only limited to Al-Quida, has not made a serious effort to demonstrate its not so since 911. And the question is, is it due to the rough men willing to do violence on our behalf prevents such attacks or due to the fact that terrorists feel its not in their present interests to attack the USA at this time? Since I do not presume to know the mind of Al-Quida, I must conclude we have no present evidence to assume anything either way on that vital question. But I think its fair to assume that rough men willing to do violence on our behalf do tend to anger terrorists world wide which may tempt terrorists to attack us.
And maybe we have to ask this same question of those in Israel and in Europe. Who have a wee mite more experience than we have in angering terrorists, have no shortage of rough men willing to do violence against terrorists, and have long experience on being attacked on a regular basis. How effective have they been in the past forty years?
And to what extent are they willing to join the USA in taking the fight to the terrorists in their supposed lairs ? Or are they perhaps more rational in not seeking to poke other somewhat non-terrorists types with sharp sticks? And thereby radicalizing those sitting on the fence. And somehow managing to transform the apathetic from neutral to violently opposed to them in the process?
But if this Israeli security expert is right, we may have a chance to answer those and other exciting questions. And although nothing could make it worthwhile, it may deflate
GWB, Cheney, and Guiliani who HAVE PROMISED THAT IF WE ELECT THEM, WE WILL BE IMMUNE FROM ATTACK. Its really kind of a bullshit promise given the piss poor job
we have done hardening our defenses.
And maybe we have to ask this same question of those in Israel and in Europe. Who have a wee mite more experience than we have in angering terrorists, have no shortage of rough men willing to do violence against terrorists, and have long experience on being attacked on a regular basis. How effective have they been in the past forty years?
And to what extent are they willing to join the USA in taking the fight to the terrorists in their supposed lairs ? Or are they perhaps more rational in not seeking to poke other somewhat non-terrorists types with sharp sticks? And thereby radicalizing those sitting on the fence. And somehow managing to transform the apathetic from neutral to violently opposed to them in the process?
But if this Israeli security expert is right, we may have a chance to answer those and other exciting questions. And although nothing could make it worthwhile, it may deflate
GWB, Cheney, and Guiliani who HAVE PROMISED THAT IF WE ELECT THEM, WE WILL BE IMMUNE FROM ATTACK. Its really kind of a bullshit promise given the piss poor job
we have done hardening our defenses.
Errr, Lemon:
1.) I don't think palehorse has ever said because people like him exist, there will be no violence, I believe his general gist is that they stand ready to respond to the folks who would do that violence if we can find them ahead of time...and also, the palehorse's of the world are actually looking for those folks. I don't think I've ever seen him claim that because we have men and women like him, we're now immune from attack.
2.) I don't believe GWB, Cheney, or Guiliani have ever said if they are elected, we will be immune from attack. Just that the other options on the table would less likely a.) take the terrorist/extremist threat as serious as they would, and b.) that they would be the better person to be elected if one did occur, rather than the other choices on the table.
The simple fact is that while I totally understand what you're saying (if you don't go whack the beehive, you're not likely to get stung), we could do absolutely nothing in the ME/Asiatic region, and we're still going to get fanatics coming after us for the simple reason is they have Leadership over there that is just plain nutzoid.
It's not 1950 anymore where it doesn't matter if they're crazy, because then there wasn't much they could do to harm us. In the age of international travel and N/B/C weapons, it matters now that they have some absolute crazies over there. Until their crazies are just gone (either by the people over there themselves or by other means), we're going to have to keep dealing with this. Taking a passive approach got us 9/11.
Chuck
1.) I don't think palehorse has ever said because people like him exist, there will be no violence, I believe his general gist is that they stand ready to respond to the folks who would do that violence if we can find them ahead of time...and also, the palehorse's of the world are actually looking for those folks. I don't think I've ever seen him claim that because we have men and women like him, we're now immune from attack.
2.) I don't believe GWB, Cheney, or Guiliani have ever said if they are elected, we will be immune from attack. Just that the other options on the table would less likely a.) take the terrorist/extremist threat as serious as they would, and b.) that they would be the better person to be elected if one did occur, rather than the other choices on the table.
The simple fact is that while I totally understand what you're saying (if you don't go whack the beehive, you're not likely to get stung), we could do absolutely nothing in the ME/Asiatic region, and we're still going to get fanatics coming after us for the simple reason is they have Leadership over there that is just plain nutzoid.
It's not 1950 anymore where it doesn't matter if they're crazy, because then there wasn't much they could do to harm us. In the age of international travel and N/B/C weapons, it matters now that they have some absolute crazies over there. Until their crazies are just gone (either by the people over there themselves or by other means), we're going to have to keep dealing with this. Taking a passive approach got us 9/11.
Chuck
palehorse
Lifer
What would you propose, specifically, to do, instead of hunting them down and destroying them in their lairs? By "those" I am referring to the ones who are already violent and fanatical.
Should we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist? Or worse, should we befriend them and hope they change their minds?
We've recently seen how well that worked out for 23 innocent Korean aid workers...
I do not recall ANY candidate, from either party, ever claiming that their election would make us "immune" from attack. Many have stated that they would make us more secure, or keep us safer; but I think you're full of it when you start claiming that they promised "immunity."
QFT!
Lemon law
Lifer
To palehorse74,
Who contends---I do not recall ANY candidate, from either party, ever claiming that their election would make us "immune" from attack. Many have stated that they would make us more secure, or keep us safer; but I think you're full of it when you start claiming that they promised "immunity."
You just flat out have not paid any attention to what Cheney , GWB, and Guiliani say and claim. And that they constantly remind us that if we elect a dimocrat---we are doomed because they are mired in pre 911 thinking. While ignoring the fact that the republirats have totally blown post 911 thinking.
But you asked me the fair question---namely---What would you propose, specifically, to do, instead of hunting them down and destroying them in their lairs?
Gotta somewhat love the question---because you have not gotten Bin Laden---and for that matter---have no idea where he is. Your are long on excuses and short on results.
And so are virtually every nation that decides it more expedient to ignore the issues that motivate terrorism and instead piss off everyone. And then you wonder where is the love man.
Who contends---I do not recall ANY candidate, from either party, ever claiming that their election would make us "immune" from attack. Many have stated that they would make us more secure, or keep us safer; but I think you're full of it when you start claiming that they promised "immunity."
You just flat out have not paid any attention to what Cheney , GWB, and Guiliani say and claim. And that they constantly remind us that if we elect a dimocrat---we are doomed because they are mired in pre 911 thinking. While ignoring the fact that the republirats have totally blown post 911 thinking.
But you asked me the fair question---namely---What would you propose, specifically, to do, instead of hunting them down and destroying them in their lairs?
Gotta somewhat love the question---because you have not gotten Bin Laden---and for that matter---have no idea where he is. Your are long on excuses and short on results.
And so are virtually every nation that decides it more expedient to ignore the issues that motivate terrorism and instead piss off everyone. And then you wonder where is the love man.
Jaskalas
Lifer
This is absolutely nothing to do with GWB, why are you fixating on him? Back to the subject.
We are lucky compared to Europe, should we permit and invite forth the sort of living conditions you say we?re lucky to have avoided? Why should we not set fort the traditional American standard where we refuse to put up with the sort of thing you consider normal by suggesting September 11th is minimal, or tolerable, or acceptable. We don?t have to accept it.
If accepting attacks like September 11th is your view of normal then the difference between us is markedly clear.
There?s a huge difference. We?ve invited the fox into our house to devour our hens at their discretion. We must remove the foxes from our house if we?re even going to so much as attempt to care about them eating our hens.
Although, given your idea that it?s normal in Europe, maybe you?re suggesting we allow the hens to be eaten. Is this how your analogy works? Take it from my own words in other posts; I?m fed up with George Bush chasing down fox dens in idiotic attempt to distract the foxes from their natural hunger for our hens by giving them a ?democracy?. I do not want us wasting time in fox dens we don?t have to be in.
However, that?s entirely separate from our very real and rational desire to drive the foxes out of our hen house and to STOP inviting them in. While we?re at it, completely cut off and isolate them from their dens back home so they stop receiving foreign marching orders.
Read two paragraphs above, I think that should cover this.
We have, and we?re inviting more every single day. Have you EVER heard of the shoe bomber, or the terrorist funding trials where dozens of people have been sent to jail for sponsoring terrorist groups?
Did you utterly miss this?!
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A Somali immigrant the government says plotted to blow up an Ohio shopping mall pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
Perhaps you are too fixated on George W Bush and Iraq to care about anything that happens over here in our home, but there are MORE than plenty of foxes in our homes. Do you not care, is this the basis of your argument, once again we are to accept the European standard of being blown to bits and attacked in our own home?
Then will you not join us in dealing with them over here in our home, where the true threat lives? Don?t tell us to accept some European standard of ?Europe, largely due to the sins of its colonial past, has been catching terrorist hell for the past forty years?.
Help us remove the foxes from the hen house! Our people do not have to die by the foxes we invite home to dinner.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
