or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How important is terrorism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How important is terrorism?

post #1 of 91
Thread Starter 
I have survived a terrorist bombing in my hometown Vienna Austria in the late 70s. I do not understand why Bush seems to give it so much more importance. Terrorism is only important if we make it important. I look in terror upon the campaign ads. Does that mean our political parties are terrorists?
I feel terror when I fill up my car...

Is terrorism the excuse to spend billions on new weapons which, no matter in whose hands they are, will make the world a more dangerous place. It is an absolute truth that any weapon ever created will eventually used against it's creator.

Right now terror has won already. Vote for war and you vote for terror. Buy gas and you buy bullets for terrorists and for the army.

200 billion extra security would have easily prevented 911. For this kind of dough we could have gotten strip searches by professional strippers at every airport for 40 years.

Now do you see the waste???
post #2 of 91
I think it was that pentagon-shaped hornet's nest they flew that plane into.

(The reaction was pretty typical of any nation, anywhere.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #3 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
I have survived a terrorist bombing in my hometown Vienna Austria in the late 70s. I do not understand why Bush seems to give it so much more importance. Terrorism is only important if we make it important. I look in terror upon the campaign ads. Does that mean our political parties are terrorists?
I feel terror when I fill up my car...

Is terrorism the excuse to spend billions on new weapons which, no matter in whose hands they are, will make the world a more dangerous place. It is an absolute truth that any weapon ever created will eventually used against it's creator.

Right now terror has won already. Vote for war and you vote for terror. Buy gas and you buy bullets for terrorists and for the army.

200 billion extra security would have easily prevented 911. For this kind of dough we could have gotten strip searches by professional strippers at every airport for 40 years.

Now do you see the waste???

Terrorism is the new justification for the corporate military-industrial complex's monstrous slice of the national pie. The Soviet Union was the visible bogeyman that we were all indoctrinated to fear, as the dastardly evil always poised to invade and destroy our culture and way of life. (In reality, the USSR was incapable of feeding its own people, let alone attacking and taking over a distant superpower for no reason. They even got their asses whopped in Afghanistan). Now the Soviet Union is gone, and a replacement bogeyman was required....and what could be better than an invisible threat without borders, or territories, or armies or governments? Terrorism, the perfect fear mechanism, always present, unseen. poised to strike anyone, anywhere, Just like the threat of 'the big one', re. earthquakes: you never know when its going to happen, or where, how severe its going to be, or what fault's going to shift. Of course, we've just had 'the big one', in the case of 9-11...and the fear factor is now neatly in place...and the pre-planned, pre-written agendae of those who benefit from a perpetual unwinnable war on terrorists, real or imaginary, is already unfolding, in the form of an endless series of military actions abroad, and a domestic program to gradually dismantle the legacies of a democratic societiy, replacing them by rule by unelected, parasitic, privately owned (but often pubicly funded), and unaccountable organizations.

Is the international terrorist threat in the US overplayed? I believe so. Before 9/11, how many incidents of that type have there been in my own lifetime? I can hardly recall anything, apart ftom the WTC bombing in 1993, and the circumstances surrounding that event are most peculiar ,to put it mildly. Domestic terrorist threats and incidents, despite being equally effective at causing death and destruction, don't really count with this government, because the blame lies with parties here at home, and big military might is inappropriate in dealing with abortion clinic bombers, anthrax mailers, serial snipers and right-wing Texas militiamen manufacturing chemical weapons.

No amount of security clampdowns will stop or prevent terrorist incidents, if the perps want to do it. At the Democratic Convention in Boston earlier this year, they city of Boston spent some $80 miilion in security, but according to experts in terrorism, anyone with basic military training could have smuggled an automatic weapon into a sensitive location, or detonated a bomb in the city, with absolutely no problem whatsoever. Also, just look at what's been going down in the airports: since 9-11 there have been hundreds of incidents where items that could be used in a terrorist attack on a plane have been successfully smuggled on board, sometimes with the purpose of pointing out to the authorities that the security sucks. If these security lapses are so commonplace, then a terrorist actually dedicated to hijacking a plane could have probably achieved that aim by now. If airport security was so (comparatively) shoddy before 9/11, then where were all the terrorist incidents on planes, and hijackings during that period also? These types of plane hijacking incidents have virtually disappeared from the international scene over the last 20 years or so, even around unstable nations. Then there's our ports, nuclear facilities and chemical plants.....security at many of these places is non-existent. For fanatical people of the terrorist mindset, it would be really simple to pull off an attack. In a densely industrial society like ours, with so many high profile targets, there is always somewhere that can be attacked, and cause massive damage and loss of life, and/or huge inconvenience and $$cost. It is impossible to secure everything, everywhere.

One of the most obvious aspects of international terrorism in the US is its rarity. As I mentioned, the number of international incidents in the US up until 9/11 could barely be counted on the fingers of one hand over a many decade period, and the number of deaths involved is far far less than those killed by lightning, for example.

A typical terrorist attack, such as a what the IRA was pulling in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, or what ETA does in Spain, or Hamas in Israel would not be spectacular enough, or damaging enough to warrant a fullscale 'global war on terrorism": the American people would never have bought it. What was required, according to the PNAC section of the Bush administration, was a "new Pearl Harbor" to initiate their policy dreams and aspirations, namely rebuilding America's defenses worldwide and embarking on a global war. And in 9-11, which was a huge public spectacular display of unparalled horror and massive destruction lasting several hours, played out on every televison screen throughout America and the world, they got exactly what they wanted, and planned for.

........

There are several far more effective ways of preventing terrorism than clamping down on domestic liberties: that is by never putting foreign policies into effect that create disenfranchised populations; they end up with little or nothing to lose, and they are prepared to lose even that. Also, we must end once and for all the fatally flawed practise of regarding the 'enemy of our enemy as our friend". It always blows up in our faces. Then there is the practise of supporting and funding brutal regimes, or nations run by religious fanatics, more often than not for the gain of privately owned commercial entities, either US or foreign owned: Successive United States governments of both major parties have indulged in these nefarious practises for many decades; Kissinger et al call it realpolitik', it is evil in disguise. If all this involves sublimating excess machismo baggage, then so be it. I would welcome any of it as a necessary step forward in international relations.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #4 of 91
Excellent post, Sammi Jo. I like that signature of yours as well. Independent thinking is becoming a rarity these days.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #5 of 91
Thread Starter 
sammyjoe,
which ballot are you running on. I think you need to be in public service. You made my point far better than I ever could. When a bomb blew up next to my car and an entire city block's windows came down unto the street, I thought oh well I lived, it wasn't my time. But since then I am absolutely not afraid of terrorists or of hardly anything.

The money we spend on security could do so much more if used to improve the lives of peoples everywhere. Promoting spiritual tolerance, economic equality and education is the only weapon against terrorism. I do not hear anybody talk about this. Indeed this would create huge new markets for our holy corps (I mean corporations) and ecxel knowledge in all areas. It might be that Goverment has ceased to be useful.
post #6 of 91
I'm more afraid of my own government than terrorism.

Unfortunately, the new, never-ending 'war on terror' means more government AND more terrorists. The invasion of iraq has destabilized a whole region and is breeding terrorists by the thousands.



The 'war on terror' is not only taking our freedom, it is also completely counter productive. You can never kill all your enemies and attempting to do so only creates more.

The 'war on terror' is impossible to win.
post #7 of 91
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #8 of 91
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #9 of 91







I think it's real important.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #10 of 91
Please be aware that we have killed more civilians in our 'war on terror' than were killed in the WTC. Remember 'Shock and Awe'?

Why aren't you also posting pictures of dead children and civilians on the streets of Iraq?
post #11 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man

To answer the original question: terrorism is SO important that:

You let those responsible for the events depicted in Mr Man's pictures get away with it.

You totally forget about them and turn your attention to another country that had nothing to do with it.

You sit talking about goats for 20 minutes while the events in Mr Man's pictures play out.

Yep - that's how important it is......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #12 of 91
if you look at other countries
eg india

there have been attacks every other week by pakistani
funded militants. ive survived quite few bombings
in bombay & life went on

is it just my perception does america always needs
to have or create new enemies all the time
i live here & i still dont get the paranoid streak
that runs through this country
post #13 of 91
The "letting them get away with it " line is old. OBL is not yet accounted for, however, the war on terror is so much more than OBL! He will be caught or killed, but this war is so much more than that! This is what the left and the Kerry camp can't seem to get.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #14 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
The "letting them get away with it " line is old. OBL is not yet accounted for, however, the war on terror is so much more than OBL! He will be caught or killed, but this war is so much more than that! This is what the left and the Kerry camp can't seem to get.

What the right don't seem to get is that the WOT is an ontological oxymoron - there cannot be a war on a concept.

There can of course be an opposition and repression of an ideal - even attempts at eradication of thought (in the Orwellian sense) such as we see in most totalitarian dictatorships and quasi-fascist oligarchies.

Perhaps this is what confuses the right-wing absorbers (I hesitate to use the word 'thinkers') and leads them to believe that the US lurches in this direction do in fact represent a war rather than aimless and mindless floundering in a quagmire of their own devising.

It is also possible that, being over-enamoured (not to mention over-excited) by the thought of war, many wingers satisfy their quasi-erotic propensities in this direction by fanstasies of 'big guns' and 'huge choppers' and thus the extension of the war concept into an area where it manifestly doesn't apply is for them, perhaps in the nature of a perversion - albeit a legitimised one. A sort of rape of the English language in a Lacanian sense.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #15 of 91
Two thirds of all known al-qaeda leadership have been captured or killed. There have not been any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11/01. The President has a duty to protect his people. To take the fight to the terrorists and those who harbor them. Terrorism has proven what it can do, and if left alone it stops at nothing to do worse. Terrorism is very important, for the world entire.
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #16 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
The "letting them get away with it " line is old. OBL is not yet accounted for, however, the war on terror is so much more than OBL! He will be caught or killed, but this war is so much more than that! This is what the left and the Kerry camp can't seem to get.

Now where did I hear that one before hmmm?

Quote:
And Bush the Great spoke the wise words from his sky
And secondly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden._The war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass destruction._That's what the war on terror is about._

In related news: The war in Iraq made sure that the terrorist organizations ended up with some of the means for weapons of mass destructions
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Now where did I hear that one before hmmm?

In related news: The war in Iraq made sure that the terrorist organizations ended up with some of the means for weapons of mass destructions

If you think about it though - if Bush and the Common one are correct it is mind-boggling evidence of a gargantuan stupidity that can no more be comprehended or assimilated than the concept of an infinite expanding universe.

Let me put it this way - to say the WOT is more than OBL is essentially indistinguishable from the following scenario:

Freddy Jones commits a crime - let's call it the murder of Granny Smith.

The authorities do not try to arrest him - or if they do, they soon give up and instead devote all the energies to promoting a 'War on Murder'.

When anyone asks if Freddy will be arrested or brought to justice for the murder of Granny Smith it is brushed aside (and the person asking such questions labeled as a 'troublemaker' and possibly an accomplice) as being 'not important' and secondary (or tertiary) to the 'War on Murder'.

And all the while - the authorities constantly wheel out Granny Smith's memory as their trump card and the reason for why the 'War on Murder' must be accelerated.

And the most insane and frightening thing of all is that some of the sheep being fed this BS start to appoint themselves as freelance unpaid prostletysers of the madness......and on it goes.........
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #18 of 91
As a coincidence, I have just been reading Juan Cole's blog and he is making some brilliant points about the concept of a WOT.

I paraphrase some quotes on what is meant by the WOT, Cole says:

Quote:
It is clear that they do not mean a war on "terror." They are completely uninterested in "terror" in general. What has the United States done about Basque terrorism in Spain? About Israeli settler terror against Palestinians? Or for that matter about Hamas terror against Israel? As I argued Friday, Bush hasn't even bothered to do anything serious to Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Jihad al-Islami, which was part of the 9/11 attack and hit Taba.

He goes on to make a further point:

Quote:
Almost all the governments in the Muslim world are strong allies of the United States. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc., etc. Even Libya has at least correct relations with the US now. Virtually no Muslim government is in an active posture of enmity toward the US with no qualifications. Even Iran is divided on the issue.

So the US simply is not at war with the sultan of Morocco or the king of Jordan or the president of Egypt.

He observes that Bush and co are at pains to point out they are not at war with Islam or with any civilians of muslim countries so - that really leads to the 64 Million Dollar question:

Quote:
If the Bush administration is not at war with terrorists like ETA, not at war with Muslim governments, not at war with Muslim publics, then with whom exactly is it at war, and why?

It's an excellent question and despite the fact our resident wingers are blissfully uncomprehending even of the nature of such a problem, let alone an answer, I think it is one that we are going to need to answer for ourselves pretty soon.

Or maybe it will become very obvious.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #19 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
As a coincidence, I have just been reading Juan Cole's blog and he is making some brilliant points about the concept of a WOT.

Pretty good blog...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #20 of 91
The left seems to see this war as revenge for 911. This war is about never allowing a terrorist organization to again become so organized and so strong that it can pull of f a 911-like attack. We can never kill them all. The best we can hope for is weaken them to the point that where they are unable to act.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #21 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by DanMacMan
Two thirds of all known al-qaeda leadership have been captured or killed.

What's kind of funny about this oft-repeated assertion - aside from that no-one can make up their mind if its 2/3 or 3/4 - is that right after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI published a "most wanted" list of 22 international terrorists.

Three years later, 19 of the 22 remain at large.

It seems like we're defining "al-Qaeda leadership" as the subset of al-Qaeda we've captured of killed, plus OBL and a few other hard-to-forget guys. Given that we didn't even know many of the guys we captured were part of the leadership until we captured them...
post #22 of 91
Common Man:

We have all seen those pictures a hundred gazillion times.

Now please tell me why the USAF was stood down for over an hour, while large commercial airplanes went off course, rammed national landmarks, and killed thousands? There are elaborate procedures in place to prevent this type of thing from happening, and these procedures have been in place for decades, and have worked effectively. Then on 9-11, everything went so wrong. There are about 70 ot 80 incidents each year where planes go off course by *tiny* amounts: when a plane goes off course by (15º over 2 miles qualification), FAA automatically contacts NORAD, which in turn contacts the *nearest* USAF base, which scrambles jets. There are pilots ready suited up, and planes at USAF bases ready to go at a second's notice, solely to cater for this type of emergency: from receiving the scramble order, those pilots literally sprint across the tarmac and they can be be at 1500 mph and at 30,000 ft within three minutes. That is the standard.

But not on 9-11. Every normal procedure was bypassed of not adhered to, at best. At worst, the USAF was deliberately stood down, but that's another subject for another thread. The point is: The United States has an annual defense budget of some $400 billion. Just what the hell are we playing at, when we spend such vast sums to supposedy defend our homeland, then when the real deal happens, the whole shebang is rendered redundant? Then, in the aftermath, nobody was fired, or even reprimanded, in the most incompetent episode of bungling incompetence, negligence of criminal proportions in recent history! The whole affair is staggering. Bush was the Commander in Chief and Rumsfeld the Sec. of Defense. The buck stops with them. They failed the United States in its time of dire need, and for that, they should have had the book thrown at them. And Bush even had the gall and audacity to refuse an official investigation for 411 days!

Common Man, or anyone who believes that conducting a 'war on terror' should be done by overwhelming military might, then the record of the Bush crew is about as bad as it could possibly be. As a result of current foreign policy, and current military campaigns, expect many further problems as regards terrorism into the future. The Bush way is creating terrorism, and that might just be the intent: his crew need somewhere to hang their hats, and without terrorism, a war against it would become redundant.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #23 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler

The 'war on terror' is impossible to win.

Correct.
post #24 of 91
"war on common sense" would be a more apt description
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #25 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Now please tell me why the USAF was stood down for over an hour, while large commercial airplanes went off course, rammed national landmarks, and killed thousands? There are elaborate procedures in place to prevent this type of thing from happening, and these procedures have been in place for decades, and have worked effectively. Then on 9-11, everything went so wrong. There are about 70 ot 80 incidents each year where planes go off course by *tiny* amounts: when a plane goes off course by (15� over 2 miles qualification), FAA automatically contacts NORAD, which in turn contacts the *nearest* USAF base, which scrambles jets. There are pilots ready suited up, and planes at USAF bases ready to go at a second's notice, solely to cater for this type of emergency: from receiving the scramble order, those pilots literally sprint across the tarmac and they can be be at 1500 mph and at 30,000 ft within three minutes. That is the standard.

I believe this answers your question:

Quote:
Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11:
It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked. Click here for that article.

The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. Click here for that video clip and article. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"

More fuel for the fire:
Quote:
9/11 "Drills" and the Rabbit Hole:
According to a recent Zogby poll, half of all New Yorkers believe that the government was involved in 9/11. In August a lawsuit was filed by the families of the 9/11 dead, alleging that Bush and his administration planned, ordered and facilitated the 9/11 attack. Stanley Hilton is leading the suit. He is not your typical conspiracy nut. He's a very credible and successful lawyer, and Bob Dole’s former chief of staff.

Here's the guy that we've all been waiting for, who's willing to take a large personal risk for our Constitution. Read the (long) interview with him below and learn more.
post #26 of 91
Bush blames others when the time comes. He never takes responsibility.

This is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF talking:
--------------
BUSH: I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?"

I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?"

And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
--------------

That is blaming the generals.

"Military people"? Bush, you're the Commander in Chief.

You are "military people" and the highest one. You decide, you take responsibility.

He didn't for this war and he didn't on 9/11.



He sat and did NOTHING while people died.

His excuse? He didn't want to scare the children.

I guess the kids watching their parents jump from the WTC were, what, not scared?

Get Bush and his cohorts out of office.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #27 of 91
And what should he have done?

As far as "blaming the generals" his point was that he gived his military what they want. He listens to them. That is not blaming them ! You are the oned who think there is something wrong that someon eneeds to be blamed for. The President is not blaming anyone for anything. Now pull out your Paul Bremer quotes so I can relay what he really said.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #28 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
And what should he have done?

As far as "blaming the generals" his point was that he gived his military what they want. He listens to them. That is not blaming them ! You are the oned who think there is something wrong that someon eneeds to be blamed for. The President is not blaming anyone for anything. Now pull out your Paul Bremer quotes so I can relay what he really said.

You honestly think there is nothing wrong with the Iraq situation?
post #29 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
And what should he have done?

1. Excused himself and left the school. Immediately. Right after Card's notification.
2. Gotten into his secured limousine.
3. Gotten on Air Force One.
4. Gotten to a secure location.
5. Addressed the American people as soon as possible, even by radio if needed.

And no, that didn't happen. Instead, he sat, at risk (one would assume - presuming the threat is truly unknown), made the brief initial announcement (again, why do they think he's still safe?) and once he did leave he left America in the dark the entire day even though he had broadcast capability throughout the day. No amount of spin can defend that.

But this is all moot. His actions are one of a man who knows a plan is unfolding on schedule and that he is safe where he is, NOT of a man that is facing an unknown threat.

He knew he was safe. He knew the terrorist plans didn't involve Florida.
He knew he was safe. He knew the terrorist plans didn't involve Florida.
He knew he was safe. He knew the terrorist plans didn't involve Florida.

This is based on an honest evaluation of his actions, not any paranoid website's wacky theories.

How did he or the Secret Service know he was safe at that school? It was public knowledge the President was going to be there. What was so inherently safe about that school, as opposed to, say, the Pentagon or the WTC? What made them so sure a plane wasn't heading to the school?

The administration knew of the attack and they did nothing. It is a manna from heaven Reichstag-type event. A perfect excuse. They needn't devise a plot, just let a know one transpire.

Keep your "tinfoil hat" barbs, this president and his administration is guilty for letting 9/11 happen. Everyone knows it in their hearts. Few admit to it thanks to the ridicule that follows expressing such beliefs.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean Bush/the administration isn't responsible for 9/11. I'll never forgive them for that, nor should you.

But you've got the flag pulled down over your eyes.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #30 of 91
dbl post
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #31 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
1. Excused himself and left the school. Immediately. Right after Card's notification.

I could be wrong on this, but didn't Bush find out about the first plane hitting the WTC before arriving at the school? I agree with your post by the way.
post #32 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
I could be wrong on this, but didn't Bush find out about the first plane hitting the WTC before arriving at the school? I agree with your post by the way.

I think you're right. Card supposedly told him that the 2nd plane had hit. (I say supposedly because what Card said he told told the president and what Bush said Card told him differed)
post #33 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
I could be wrong on this, but didn't Bush find out about the first plane hitting the WTC before arriving at the school? I agree with your post by the way.

Carl Rove informed him upon arrival at the school, at 8:55, yes.

Oh, yeah, when I said "Excused himself and left the school. Immediately. Right after Card's notification" I mean of the second plane attack.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
1. Excused himself and left the school. Immediately. Right after Card's notification.
2. Gotten into his secured limousine.
3. Gotten on Air Force One.
4. Gotten to a secure location.
5. Addressed the American people as soon as possible, even by radio of needed.

1. no, no, no, (and no) when you are on (or under) fire, you DO NOT RUN like some flushed grouse
2. his limo was secure? I'd be willing to bet someone checked
3. secure too? since it was 'public knowledge' that the Great Evil Bush was in town, no one was standing in the fligh path with an SA-7 handy? Good to know.
4. Ah yes, the "Secure location", they stay secure all by themselves, and like the pentagon itself, are immune from attack
5. This is probably the best one, since no one knew for quite some time what was going on

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #35 of 91
Whatever the circumstances, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to hear that a jetliner has just hit one of the world's financial centers and still go ahead with a meaningless photo-op.
post #36 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
1. no, no, no, (and no) when you are on (or under) fire, you DO NOT RUN like some flushed grouse
2. his limo was secure? I'd be willing to bet someone checked
3. secure too? since it was 'public knowledge' that the Great Evil Bush was in town, no one was standing in the fligh path with an SA-7 handy? Good to know.
4. Ah yes, the "Secure location", they stay secure all by themselves, and like the pentagon itself, are immune from attack
5. This is probably the best one, since no one knew for quite some time what was going on

1. This is just stupid!!! He's the fucking president for fuck's sake. Getting up and doing his job is not flushing and running!!!

The rest of your rebuttals make little to no sense as usual. Have you seen the president's limo? Do you honestly think a passanger plane could be guided to hit a moving vehicle? Do you think NORAD would be damaged if 100 747's ran into the mountain? Do you think the terrorist's know where all the presidents secret secure hiding places are when few people in America do? No one knew? Four fucking planes disappeared. The pres had a PDB that warned about this. The pentagon studied this very scenerio. One plane accident then I could see the president sitting there. Actually, I'd expect him to comment on the tragedy ASAP but I'd let is slide. Bush knew bad JuJu's where upon us and he stayed for the cameras. He stayed because he was a scared indecisive little boy more concerned with dumping the ABM treaty and building a missle defense shield.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #37 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
1. no, no, no, (and no) when you are on (or under) fire, you DO NOT RUN like some flushed grouse
2. his limo was secure? I'd be willing to bet someone checked
3. secure too? since it was 'public knowledge' that the Great Evil Bush was in town, no one was standing in the fligh path with an SA-7 handy? Good to know.
4. Ah yes, the "Secure location", they stay secure all by themselves, and like the pentagon itself, are immune from attack
5. This is probably the best one, since no one knew for quite some time what was going on

1. No grouse. President. You get up calmly, walk over to the teacher, smiling, apologize and say "I'm sorry but I have urgent business to attend to" and you go get on the ball. You LEAD. That's "presidential".

2. Yes, his limousine can withstand rocket attacks.

Oh, did you forget that the Secret Service introduced a new beefed-up limo for the president? How convenient. </church lady>

"Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said there are plans to use the new limo, a 2001 Cadillac, for inaugural activities Saturday. But he said the vehicle was not purchased for President-elect Bush or the inaugural ceremony. The replacement just coincides with the presidential transition, he said."

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=...1President.asp

It is a new version able to withstand an RPG attack. Good luck finding details anymore, post 9-11.

3. He has plenty of protection with Air Force One, namely fighter escorts if needed. Besides, you're saying a rocket to his plane is more dangerous than a rocket to a school classroom?

4. He could go to any number of military bases that are indeed secure. The Pentagon should have been protected but it is no replacement for a true military base.

5. Hourly updates speaking to his safety , ongoing efforts and the general status and security at each point would have helped calm people and would have been the presidential thing to do. Much WAS known throughout the rest of the day yet is was all thanks to the networks/Cable channels, not the president.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #38 of 91
Good info:

http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...ne/print.phtml

Quote:
Every inch of the limo's metal skin is backed by military-grade armor, which offers the highest level of protection with the least weight and bulk penalty. The car's windowswhich do not openare actually transparent armor. All the car's armor is at least 5 in. thick, giving the president maximum protection in the event of any attack. The interior is also environmentally sealed to protect the occupants from chemical and airborne germ-warfare terrorism.

With 5 in. worth of ballistic armor under its skin, and added height and length, the presidential limo tips the scales at close to 4 tons. It's probably based on a modified Escalade platform, riding on run-flat tires. The dark leather interior is environmentally sealed against chemical attack.

What timing.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #39 of 91
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
1. This is just stupid!!! He's the fucking president for fuck's sake......Have you seen the president's limo? Do you honestly think a passanger plane could be guided to hit a moving vehicle?

no match for an RPG---remember johnq said it was common knowledge where he was at that time.


Quote:
Originally posted by faust9 Do you think NORAD would be damaged if 100 747's ran into the mountain? [/B]

he's got to get there first---en route, SA-7's actually do work from time-to-time

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9 Do you think the terrorist's know where all the presidents secret secure hiding places are when few people in America do? No one knew?[/B]

again, he has to get to a "secret location" first -- I'll bet the Pentagon hit got their attention.


Quote:
Originally posted by faust9 Four fucking planes disappeared. The pres had a PDB that warned about this....... [/B]


This last statement belies the trouble you people get into leaning on demonizing Bush for support:

The pure-and-simple truth is that you don't run out the front door when someone lobs a rock through a window. Also, no one knew how serious the situation was, ESPECIALLY after the Pentagon was hit -- how many forms of terror were in store, how much of that Clancy-esque nightmare was going to come true.

Here's a question for you -- how can you be sure that if it was the SS's first choice that Bush was EVEN in the air after he left that meeting? What makes you think that -- since "EVERYONE" -- knew where AF1 was, that it was a good idea?

It's just not that simple.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #40 of 91
Quote:
RPG-7 / RPG-7V / Antitank Grenade Launcher
The RPG translates to both English Rocket-Propelled Grenade and Russian as Raketniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, "a rocket anti-tank grenade launcher".

The RPG-7 is a recoilless, shoulder-fired, muzzle-loaded, reloadable, antitank grenade launcher. It fires a variety of 85-mm rocket-assisted grenades from a 40-mm smoothbore launcher tube. The launcher has two hand grips; a large optical sight; a thick, wooden heat guard around the middle; and a large, flared blast shield at the rear of the tube. The launcher is 953 mm long without grenade and 1,340 mm with grenade. The launcher weighs 7.9 kg and the grenade 2.25 kg.

The RPG-7 is light enough to be carried and fired by one person. However, an assistant grenadier normally deploys to the left of the gunner to protect him from small arms fire.

The internal rocket motor of the PG-7 grenade ignites after traveling 10 meters, giving the projectile higher velocity (sustained out to 500 meters), flatter trajectory, and better accuracy. Accuracy is further enhanced by four large, knife-like fins at the rear of the projectile which unfold when the round leaves the tube, and by smaller, offset fins at the very rear which produce a slow rotation. The maximum effective range is 500 meters for stationary targets and 300 meters for moving targets. Maximum range is 920 meters at which point the projectile self-destructs. The PG-7 grenade, with a shaped-charge warhead, has very good armor penetration (330 mm), capable of defeating all known armored vehicles.

The RPG-7V model can be fitted with a telescope and both infrared and passive night sights. All RPG-7 models have an optical sight which can be illuminated for night sighting, and open sights are provided for emergency use.

The RPG-7 is employed as the standard squad antitank weapon (one per squad) in motorized rifle units and is also found in reconnaissance units.

The RPG-7V requires a well-trained gunner to estimate ranges and lead distances for moving targets. Crosswinds as low as 7 miles per hour can complicate the gunner's estimate and reduce first-round hit probability to 50% at ranges beyond 180 meters. An RPG projectile screen of chain link fence will completely neutralize 50 percent of the rounds and degrade the penetrating capability of the remaining rounds.

In addition to AT role, can be used against personnel and for bunkerbusting and as a side-attack mine system. Other countries have developed rounds for RPG-7V.

Reloading and re-aiming the RPG-7 requires a minimum of 14 seconds. Firing leaves noticeable signatures in the form of flash, smoke, and noise, and the unprotected gunner is extremely vulnerable to suppressive fires.


330 mm of armor penetration -- yikes

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How important is terrorism?