Startling! Cnn Does News!

• News

Smurf
That's not news, that's more fear-mongering the-terrorists-are-out-to-get-us propoganda.

The Smoking Man
Smurf said:
That's not news, that's more fear-mongering the-terrorists-are-out-to-get-us propoganda.
A la they are not protecting dangerous factories, water reservoires etc. any better than they did on 9/11 etc.

Smurf
And as you can plainly see by all the attacks on cargo planes and factories and reservoires and oil fields.... we clearly will all die if we don't start protecting them from the aggressive war-mongering ameri... umm.. terrorists

The Smoking Man
Smurf said:
And as you can plainly see by all the attacks on cargo planes and factories and reservoires and oil fields.... we clearly will all die if we don't start protecting them from the aggressive war-mongering ameri... umm.. terrorists
I was so frightened, I moved to China however there have been people asking if I would like a new career in coal mining.

Gold Member
Smurf said:
That's not news, that's more fear-mongering the-terrorists-are-out-to-get-us propoganda.

Yes, becuase 9/11 didn't actually happen.

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
Yes, becuase 9/11 didn't actually happen.
Duh. Like these guys are going for high tech solutions!?

They are blowing up trains in the UK with liquid explosives held in Tupperware!!!

Are you going to license the sale of Tupperware in the USA?

Will you have a five day waiting period to buy turpentine and a burpable container?

Come on Pengwuino ... when you start with this shyte ... ohsama has won.

Townsend
The Smoking Man said:
ohsama has won.

Yeah...that ohsama guy... :rofl:

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I have to ask one question: What is the logic behind posting it in the news when you find a security weakness? Isn't that a bit like screaming "attack us here?"

Townsend
loseyourname said:
I have to ask one question: What is the logic behind posting it in the news when you find a security weakness? Isn't that a bit like screaming "attack us here?"

That is what I was thinking....

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Duh. Like these guys are going for high tech solutions!?

They are blowing up trains in the UK with liquid explosives held in Tupperware!!!

Are you going to license the sale of Tupperware in the USA?

Will you have a five day waiting period to buy turpentine and a burpable container?

Come on Pengwuino ... when you start with this shyte ... ohsama has won.

Well you sure did prove me wrong there! I guess terrorists ARENT out to get me as my previous post argued against. Thank you for clearing that up.
[/SARCASM]

Gold Member
loseyourname said:
I have to ask one question: What is the logic behind posting it in the news when you find a security weakness? Isn't that a bit like screaming "attack us here?"

Heres another question. We've been hearing these reports ever since 9/11 and we've been hearing that this target and that target and this and that is vulnerable (a few ACTUALLY being vulnerable.... as some people actually think slamming an airplane into a nuclear power plant will actually rupture the core or that pissing into a lake will kill a city) but why hasn't anything happened? I mean, if supposedly, CNN can just walk around placing bombs on airplanes.... why hasn't any terrorist done it? I mean im sure trained terrorists are better capable of doing it then a few 23 year old CNN secretaries...

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
Heres another question. We've been hearing these reports ever since 9/11 and we've been hearing that this target and that target and this and that is vulnerable (a few ACTUALLY being vulnerable.... as some people actually think slamming an airplane into a nuclear power plant will actually rupture the core or that pissing into a lake will kill a city) but why hasn't anything happened? I mean, if supposedly, CNN can just walk around placing bombs on airplanes.... why hasn't any terrorist done it? I mean im sure trained terrorists are better capable of doing it then a few 23 year old CNN secretaries...
Duh ... Because a terrorist by definition acts to create terror and draw attention to his cause.

When the interest wanes and you stop running around sticking your finger in the Dyke then they will hit you again.

Bin Laden's latest 'letter to America' stated he was out to bankrupt the USA but he was on a budget.

He LIKES Bush in the White House. He KNOWS he's scared to death and pumping massive amounts of money into Homeland Security.

You're being played like a cheap violin.

As soon as you stop making fortress USA, he will strike again to start you working at it again.

It's called poking you with a stick.

Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
Heres another question. We've been hearing these reports ever since 9/11 and we've been hearing that this target and that target and this and that is vulnerable (a few ACTUALLY being vulnerable.... as some people actually think slamming an airplane into a nuclear power plant will actually rupture the core or that pissing into a lake will kill a city) but why hasn't anything happened? I mean, if supposedly, CNN can just walk around placing bombs on airplanes.... why hasn't any terrorist done it? I mean im sure trained terrorists are better capable of doing it then a few 23 year old CNN secretaries...
I agree they could have attacked in many ways since 9-11. Put yourself in their shoes and think what strategy would be best for your cause. It is far more successful to focus efforts in Iraq, where they can make the war-mongering Americans look even worse, bleeding us slowly of our tax dollars, military, etc. while having a wonderful training ground for future terrorists. In the meantime the worst thing they could do is create another "rally around the flag" impetuous for Dubya and his good ole boys by attacking on U.S. soil. Same reason why we don't want Bush assassinated and made into a martyr, get it?

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
He KNOWS he's scared to death and pumping massive amounts of money into Homeland Security.
I agree with everything except this part...Bush, the alerts, and the media (like this article) are the terrorists we face. Homeland Security? :rofl:

Gold Member
SOS2008 said:
I agree with everything except this part...Bush, the alerts, and the media (like this article) are the terrorists we face. Homeland Security? :rofl:

See this is the attitude that makes me rather confused. The World Trade Center comes down and the Pentagon is hit and the thought process of hte liberal mind goes "There are no terrorists, they don't want to hurt us". No wonder they always say "Remember 9/11".... it looks like people tend to forget very easily.

And if i was a terrorist, screw Iraq, millions of dollars, thousands of people for only a few thousand news reports of crap from Iraq for 2 1/2 years. Bring a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and 2 or 3 people and set off in a nfl game or nba game or something and people will go ape**** and we'll end up paying billions upon billions and get thousands of news report within a few weeks. I mean there probably won't be much flag waving since the left-wing portion of this countries first reaction was to blame America first and try to find ways to blame Bush for it... pff, some flag waving.

Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
See this is the attitude that makes me rather confused. The World Trade Center comes down and the Pentagon is hit and the thought process of hte liberal mind goes "There are no terrorists, they don't want to hurt us". No wonder they always say "Remember 9/11".... it looks like people tend to forget very easily.

And if i was a terrorist, screw Iraq, millions of dollars, thousands of people for only a few thousand news reports of crap from Iraq for 2 1/2 years. Bring a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and 2 or 3 people and set off in a nfl game or nba game or something and people will go ape**** and we'll end up paying billions upon billions and get thousands of news report within a few weeks. I mean there probably won't be much flag waving since the left-wing portion of this countries first reaction was to blame America first and try to find ways to blame Bush for it... pff, some flag waving.
I never said there are no terrorists, and in fact I say they want to hurt us as they are doing in Iraq. I do blame America for our poor so-called Homeland Security if for no other reason than Bush and his open border policies. Why do conservatives always revert to "remember 9-11" in defense of Bush's bad policies? Because conservatives are clueless about terrorism (which is reflected in your post) causing terrorism to increase, not decrease. I am waving a flag, more than you, but you have blinders on (that's me over on your left waving a flag as hard as I can).

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
See this is the attitude that makes me rather confused. The World Trade Center comes down and the Pentagon is hit and the thought process of hte liberal mind goes "There are no terrorists, they don't want to hurt us". No wonder they always say "Remember 9/11".... it looks like people tend to forget very easily.

And if i was a terrorist, screw Iraq, millions of dollars, thousands of people for only a few thousand news reports of crap from Iraq for 2 1/2 years. Bring a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and 2 or 3 people and set off in a nfl game or nba game or something and people will go ape**** and we'll end up paying billions upon billions and get thousands of news report within a few weeks. I mean there probably won't be much flag waving since the left-wing portion of this countries first reaction was to blame America first and try to find ways to blame Bush for it... pff, some flag waving.
And that is why you're such a DICK.

Nobody has said any such thing.

As far as your second paragraph ... we are still waiting to find out from you just what it was that Saddam had to do with the WTC?

Your own government agencies deny any connection.

Gold Member
Oh come on!

Those are the terrorists we face? Most rational people think the terrorism comes when airplanes start crashing into buildings. I dont know about you but im a little more worried about buildings falling around me then news articles that have said roughly the same thing for the last few decades.

And TSM, please grow up and get rid of the childish insults. Everyone knows Iraq has been breaking sanctions for years, firing on US aircraft for years, and commiting REAL atrocities for years. You simply need to grow up and look at the whole picture.

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
Those are the terrorists we face? Most rational people think the terrorism comes when airplanes start crashing into buildings. I dont know about you but im a little more worried about buildings falling around me then news articles that have said roughly the same thing for the last few decades.
You still have not mastered this concept yet have you Pengwuino. Terrorism is not aimed at the people it kills. It is aimed at the people who observe it.

You can't incite terror into someone who is dead and probably didn't know what hit him at the time.

Terror is what the people who are left feel. Terror is aided and abetted by all the things he said forcing us to relive what happened and the measures taken to prevent attacks.

Pengwuino said:
And TSM, please grow up and get rid of the childish insults. Everyone knows Iraq has been breaking sanctions for years, firing on US aircraft for years, and commiting REAL atrocities for years. You simply need to grow up and look at the whole picture.
Maybe I am looking at the whole picture and you are just viewing it from the Neocon point of view?

As far as Childishness ... well have you objectively re-read your posts with reference to all these little liberals being out to get you?

For a 'thinking man's website' you are sadly out of place.

Manchot
Pengwuino, the point you're missing is that the world is not black and white. Someone who's saying that we shouldn't be worried about some obscure thing being utilized by terrorists is not saying that we should forget about 9/11. They're merely saying that the marginal benefit of worrying about something of little importance is negligible compared with the marginal cost.

You must agree that there is a fundamental limit to how safe we can be. At some point, no matter how much we sacrifice, we are not contributing to our safety at all: we are only limiting our freedoms. The question then becomes this: how much should we sacrifice to approach this limit? Face it, you are thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a terrorist attack. Nevertheless, we have come to live with that fact, because cars are useful, and illegalizing them would only hurt us. Similarly, no matter what we do, there will always be a terrorist threat. For every Osama out there that we can easily identify, there is a McVeigh and Kaczynski that we can't. Sure, we could prevent all Arabs from traveling on planes, outlaw fertilizer, and open up every letter to make sure that it doesn't contain a bomb, but what would be the point?

It would be a desperate game of Whack-a-Mole, and anybody who really wants to kill people to make a point can still do so. It is impossible to eliminate terrorism, so rather than turning into a fear-mongering, fascist state, we should just accept this fact, take reasonable precautions, and move on with our lives. I for one don't want to hear about the thousands of different ways that a terrorist could kill me, just as I don't want to hear about the thousands of different ways that my car could have a mechanical failure at 70 mph which causes my death.

Gold Member
Well the thing about car accidents is that cars arent capable of whiping out many square blocks of people if htey ever decided to. The very fact that many terrorist activities are... dreamed up in nations that either have nuclear weapons or are near nations that have a really bad time accounting for their own nuclear materials is a very good reason to worry and take precautions. We really ahve no reason to think car deaths are going to skyrocket anytime soon aside from the remote possibility of GMC marketing a rocket powered car for $5000 but we do have a reason to think terrorist related deaths can skyrocket at any moment. At any moment, one or even ten terrorists can walk in with radiological bombs and de-humanize a few square blocks in a city. And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I dont see anyone calling it fear mongering... And the actual point to be made is that terrorism, contrary to SOS's belief, comes from people trying to kill other innocent civilians on rather large scales... not news articles. I personally am more fearful of towers collapsing then i am of sensationalized CNN articles or MSNBC news reports Gold Member Pengwuino said: Those are the terrorists we face? Here's an article that discusses what I refer to: How Long Can the Country Stay Scared? Want to learn how to create and sustain psychosis on a national scale? Look carefully at the public statements made by the Department of Homeland Security. Here are a few random examples: "Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological or radiological agents or materials, cannot be discounted." "At least one of these attacks could be executed by the end of the summer 2003." "These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond." The DHS's threat warnings have been vague, indeterminate, and unspecific. The threat index goes from yellow to orange and back again, although no one is entirely sure what either level means. We've been warned that the terrorists might use helicopters, scuba gear, even cheap prescription drugs from Canada. New York and Washington, D.C., were put on high alert one day, and the next day told that the alert was based on information years old. The careful wording of these alerts allows them not to require any sound, confirmed, accurate intelligence information, while at the same time guaranteeing hysterical media coverage. This headline-grabbing stuff might make for good movie plots, but it doesn't make us safer. This kind of behavior is all that's needed to generate widespread fear and uncertainty. It keeps the public worried about terrorism, while at the same time reminding them that they're helpless without the government to defend them. ...A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective. Even worse, it echoes the very tactics of the terrorists. There are two basic ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. The second is to keep people living in fear. Decades ago, that was one of the IRA's major aims. Inadvertently, the DHS is achieving the same thing. ...The DHS's incessant warnings against any and every possible method of terrorist attack has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with politics. In 2002, Republican strategist Karl Rove instructed Republican legislators to make terrorism the mainstay of their campaign. Study after study has shown that Americans worried about terrorism are more likely to vote Republican. Strength in the face of the terrorist threat is the basis of Bush's reelection campaign. Speaking about terrorist threat warnings, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said: "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." Despite these words, it's increasingly clear that politics is at the heart of Bush's counter-terrorism program. http://www.schneier.com/essay-055.html Last edited: Gold Member The Smoking Man said: You still have not mastered this concept yet have you Pengwuino. Terrorism is not aimed at the people it kills. It is aimed at the people who observe it. You can't incite terror into someone who is dead and probably didn't know what hit him at the time. Terror is what the people who are left feel. Terror is aided and abetted by all the things he said forcing us to relive what happened and the measures taken to prevent attacks. So if we just ignored it, life is good? So im guessing obesity will just go away if everyone ignores it... I guess Saddam's atrocities wouldn't be so bad if no one investigated... Quit trying to play word games. Hell, some people call thsi whole little thing a "war" so i could just as easily say your a traitor because technically, you just ignored the enemy. Hell Osama calls it a war... many people here call it a war. Fact of the matter is, if we ignore it, it doesn't go away. You cant go back to '41 and tell everyone to ignore pearl harbor. The Smoking Man said: Maybe I am looking at the whole picture and you are just viewing it from the Neocon point of view? As far as Childishness ... well have you objectively re-read your posts with reference to all these little liberals being out to get you? For a 'thinking man's website' you are sadly out of place. No, your just looken at it from the ignorant armchair lawyer viewpoint. I think your very much out of place as I think you'd better enjoy the discussions that take place in Iraqi safehouses. Pengwuino said: Well the thing about car accidents is that cars arent capable of whiping out many square blocks of people if htey ever decided to. The very fact that many terrorist activities are... dreamed up in nations that either have nuclear weapons or are near nations that have a really bad time accounting for their own nuclear materials is a very good reason to worry and take precautions. We really ahve no reason to think car deaths are going to skyrocket anytime soon aside from the remote possibility of GMC marketing a rocket powered car for$5000 but we do have a reason to think terrorist related deaths can skyrocket at any moment. At any moment, one or even ten terrorists can walk in with radiological bombs and de-humanize a few square blocks in a city.
At this point, cars kill many many more people each year than do terrorists, especially in America. The rest of your argument on this point seems to be contradicting an earlier point you made: according to you, the terrorists can kill thousands of people, use nuclear weapons, etc. But also according to you, there are many vulnerabilities that they have not taken advantage of, in spite of their apparent opportunities. This indicates that either they don't have the sort of technology you think they have, or that they can't bring it to America and use it, or perhaps that they don't want to (which has been covered already in the thread). In any case, they aren't attacking the United States, and until there exists a realistic chance that they will, I'll continue to be more frightened of crossing the street than of terrorist attacks.

And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I dont see anyone calling it fear mongering...
Perhaps because the government can't really do anything to stop cars from crashing. Perhaps because people have no irrational fears concerning cars, as they do with terrorist attacks.

And the actual point to be made is that terrorism, contrary to SOS's belief, comes from people trying to kill other innocent civilians on rather large scales... not news articles. I personally am more fearful of towers collapsing then i am of sensationalized CNN articles or MSNBC news reports
Terrorism does not come from people trying to kill innocent civilians on any scales. This is a byproduct of terrorism, or rather, the most effective way for a terrorist to achieve his goals. As The Smoking Man said, terrorism's goals are to create fear/panic/hysteria, not necessarily to kill people. After all, a few civilian deaths are rather inconsequential to a terrorist seeking to topple an entire government or civilization. The resulting fear and willingness of people to surrender liberties in exchange for "protection," however, is not at all inconsequential.

Gold Member
SOS2008 said:

Thats odd because its well documented as to what each level means and many alerts have had reasons as to why they were authorized. The author doesnt seem to have a curious mind or else he could have easily gone out and even googled what the alert levels mean. Hell our police chief even had a conference on exactly what our city physically does when various levels are reached about a year ago.

And oddly enough, the media stopped showing what the levels were on a normal basis a long time ago! And again, oddly enough, you take strategic planning to be "fear mongering" when in fact, it is simply planning. I suppose you are right when you say the media is causing a lot of problems but your (and the essayists) accusation towards the DHS is false and misleading. This is equivalent to saying traffic lights are fear mongering and that the traffic department is at fault. I think yes, the more accurate accusation belongs with the media for dramatizing car accidents but it is certainly not the traffic departments fault for providing a system to call for physical actions for certain people (stop, try to beat me, and go)

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
So if we just ignored it, life is good? So im guessing obesity will just go away if everyone ignores it... I guess Saddam's atrocities wouldn't be so bad if no one investigated... Quit trying to play word games. Hell, some people call thsi whole little thing a "war" so i could just as easily say your a traitor because technically, you just ignored the enemy. Hell Osama calls it a war... many people here call it a war. Fact of the matter is, if we ignore it, it doesn't go away. You cant go back to '41 and tell everyone to ignore pearl harbor.
LOL ...

What the HELL are you talking about?

Sorry to burst your bubble and bring you back to that place we call reality but it was a man called Bin Laden who started this... Tall guy dragging a dialysis machine from cave to cave!? Surely you remember?

Did you start looking in Iraq because you thought the light was better or something?

Where is he?

Pengwuino said:
No, your just looken at it from the ignorant armchair lawyer viewpoint. I think your very much out of place as I think you'd better enjoy the discussions that take place in Iraqi safehouses.
I suppose that means you're looking at it from the redneck on the porch point of view then?

You took your eye off the ball and you just can't admit it can you.

You've got a guy in Jail in Iraq that can bury you if it gets to the world court. Even the Iranians have prepared a brief that they are presenting to the Iraqi Government naming the USA as accomplices.

Don't you SEE what is happening?

Don't you see that Iraq has opened up negotiations with Iran and has admitted fault in the starting of the war between Saddam and Iran? Who was holding Saddam's hand at the time ... Figuratively and literally?

Pull back a bit. You cant see the forest for the Neocons.

When are you going to stop quoting the rhetoric? When the indictment comes down?

Why do you think the USA is trying to heat up things in Iran right now?

Gold Member
Archon said:
At this point, cars kill many many more people each year than do terrorists, especially in America. The rest of your argument on this point seems to be contradicting an earlier point you made: according to you, the terrorists can kill thousands of people, use nuclear weapons, etc. But also according to you, there are many vulnerabilities that they have not taken advantage of, in spite of their apparent opportunities. This indicates that either they don't have the sort of technology you think they have, or that they can't bring it to America and use it, or perhaps that they don't want to (which has been covered already in the thread). In any case, they aren't attacking the United States, and until there exists a realistic chance that they will, I'll continue to be more frightened of crossing the street than of terrorist attacks.

Well it does confuse me a good deal but I suppose its closer to the truth to say that the country is not as vulnerable as the media makes it out to be. A few months ago about 5 people tried to cross the border near San Diego who were known terrorists and a year ago someone was arrested for attempting ot buy radioactive material in California.

Archon said:
Perhaps because the government can't really do anything to stop cars from crashing. Perhaps because people have no irrational fears concerning cars, as they do with terrorist attacks.

They put in traffic lights, traffic police, speed limits, maintained highways and put in barriers..... I mean i just got stopped a few months ago for speeding ina 40mph zone in an 8 lane road.

Terrorism does not come from people trying to kill innocent civilians on any scales. This is a byproduct of terrorism, or rather, the most effective way for a terrorist to achieve his goals. As The Smoking Man said, terrorism's goals are to create fear/panic/hysteria, not necessarily to kill people. After all, a few civilian deaths are rather inconsequential to a terrorist seeking to topple an entire government or civilization. The resulting fear and willingness of people to surrender liberties in exchange for "protection," however, is not at all inconsequential.

And like I said, we already do it in many cases. We have always gone through security in airports... everything i said about traffic laws... anything that may remotely possibly cause cancer gets a label on its product packaging...

Pengwuino said:
So if we just ignored it, life is good? So im guessing obesity will just go away if everyone ignores it... I guess Saddam's atrocities wouldn't be so bad if no one investigated... Quit trying to play word games. Hell, some people call thsi whole little thing a "war" so i could just as easily say your a traitor because technically, you just ignored the enemy. Hell Osama calls it a war... many people here call it a war. Fact of the matter is, if we ignore it, it doesn't go away. You cant go back to '41 and tell everyone to ignore pearl harbor.
What he said was hardly a word game: he was describing the purpose of terrorism. Think about it: if you were a terrorist, your primary goal wouldn't be to kill a couple of dozen civilians. This is pointless when you consider the big picture, and terrorists don't give their lives for something that is obviously pointless. They seek to inspire fear, because they believe that this will do more damage than a few deaths. Why go for civilians rather than government officials if your only goal is to kill the enemy?
As The Smoking Man said, one can't incite terror in a corpse, and there's a reason it's called terrorism. Furthermore, I doubt he was indicating that we should ignore terrorist attacks. Manchot already said it perfectly, so I'll just paraphrase the relevant point: there's a big difference between reasonable precautions and irrational, all-consuming fear allowing the government the freedom to repeal whatever liberties it wishes. He seems to be saying that we shouldn't let terrorism frighten us into this sort of loss of liberties, because this is (perhaps) the goal of the terrorists.

No, your just looken at it from the ignorant armchair lawyer viewpoint. I think your very much out of place as I think you'd better enjoy the discussions that take place in Iraqi safehouses.
Is this really necessary?

Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
Thats odd because its well documented as to what each level means and many alerts have had reasons as to why they were authorized. The author doesnt seem to have a curious mind or else he could have easily gone out and even googled what the alert levels mean. Hell our police chief even had a conference on exactly what our city physically does when various levels are reached about a year ago.

And oddly enough, the media stopped showing what the levels were on a normal basis a long time ago! And again, oddly enough, you take strategic planning to be "fear mongering" when in fact, it is simply planning. I suppose you are right when you say the media is causing a lot of problems but your (and the essayists) accusation towards the DHS is false and misleading. This is equivalent to saying traffic lights are fear mongering and that the traffic department is at fault. I think yes, the more accurate accusation belongs with the media for dramatizing car accidents but it is certainly not the traffic departments fault for providing a system to call for physical actions for certain people (stop, try to beat me, and go)
Granted this piece was written a year ago, and though the media quit reporting on the alert levels (I don't think the general population knew what these meant, probably because these were meaningless) the article in the OP shows the ongoing reporting of flaws in our homeland security.

In the meantime, are you really afraid you'll be blown to bits? I'm not. I'm afraid we are heading toward invasions of more countries. I'm afraid Bush will try to put the 2008 election on indefinite hold. I'm afraid of living in a one-party police state and losing all my civil liberties.

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
LOL ...

What the HELL are you talking about?

Sorry to burst your bubble and bring you back to that place we call reality but it was a man called Bin Laden who started this... Tall guy dragging a dialysis machine from cave to cave!? Surely you remember?

Did you start looking in Iraq because you thought the light was better or something?

Where is he?

Well ill try to help you come to sorts with reality instead of what various blogs tell you to think. You seem to think that as long as a word is different, then the whole situation is different. You seem to miss the really big point that its not at all intelligent to just ignore things. Hell I dont know how many liberals have cried that bush isnt doing enough to combat terrorism but when he does, they cry "fear mongering!". Such hypocricy. These people want a war and it is not at all going to stop them by simply ignoring them.

The Smoking Man said:
I suppose that means you're looking at it from the redneck on the porch point of view then?

You took your eye off the ball and you just can't admit it can you.

You've got a guy in Jail in Iraq that can bury you if it gets to the world court. Even the Iranians have prepared a brief that they are presenting to the Iraqi Government naming the USA as accomplices.

Don't you SEE what is happening?

Don't you see that Iraq has opened up negotiations with Iran and has admitted fault in the starting of the war between Saddam and Iran? Who was holding Saddam's hand at the time ... Figuratively and literally?

hmm lets see, ill disect this. 1 insult, 1 attempt to show how you want to change the subject because you know you have nothing, and well.. one change in subject. what exactly does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with terrorism. Besides that, what does this other guy know thats going to be oh so scary if the corrupt officials at the UN see it? Wheres the evidence? I'm sure you arent bringing up speculation and opinion into an argument are you?

They put in traffic lights, traffic police, speed limits, maintained highways and put in barriers..... I mean i just got stopped a few months ago for speeding ina 40mph zone in an 8 lane road.
These are necessary and reasonable precautions if order is to be maintained. The dangers associated with terrorism have encouraged similarly reasonable precautions, but have also created an atmosphere of fear which has allowed the government to take advantage of Americans by removing civil liberties and bringing the nation into a war without a foreseeable end. Hardly the same thing...

And like I said, we already do it in many cases. We have always gone through security in airports... everything i said about traffic laws... anything that may remotely possibly cause cancer gets a label on its product packaging...
These are reasonable precautions, but just like warning people that something may cause cancer will not prevent cancer from killing people, these precautions will not prevent terrorists from killing people. Again as Manchot said, we must balance precautions and liberties. We must accept that terrorism will happen regardless of precautions, and that our liberties are more important than some perceived safety from something that will effect very few Americans regardless.

Edit: fixed quote.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
SOS2008 said:
Granted this piece was written a year ago, and though the media quit reporting on the alert levels (I don't think the general population knew what these meant, probably because these were meaningless) the article in the OP shows the ongoing reporting of flaws in our homeland security.

In the meantime, are you really afraid you'll be blown to bits? I'm not. I'm afraid we are heading toward invasions of more countries. I'm afraid Bush will try to put the 2008 election on indefinite hold. I'm afraid of living in a one-party police state and losing all my civil liberties.

Well, since you don't actually read what other people say, ill refer you to simple google searches to find hte physical actions of each alert level.

You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears. I truely hope you never said terrorism was an irrational fear in the past...

Gold Member
Archon said:
These are necessary and reasonable precautions if order is to be maintained. The dangers associated with terrorism have encouraged similarly reasonable precautions, but have also created an atmosphere of fear which has allowed the government to take advantage of Americans by removing civil liberties and bringing the nation into a war without a foreseeable end. Hardly the same thing...

Well exaactly what liberties were taken away? I certaintly don't expect the usual 'patriot act' rhetoric without legitimate sourcing...

Archon said:
These are reasonable precautions, but just like warning people that something may cause cancer will not prevent cancer from killing people, these precautions will not prevent terrorists from killing people. Again as Manchot said, we must balance precautions and liberties. We must accept that terrorism will happen regardless of precautions, and that our liberties are more important than some perceived safety from something that will effect very few Americans regardless.

The precuations may very well may have prevented some deaths. Like I already pointed out, terrorists have been caught crossing hte border in California while also attempting to buy some rather nasty stuff (thank god it was a sting).

Pengwuino said:
Well, since you don't actually read what other people say, ill refer you to simple google searches to find hte physical actions of each alert level.

You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears. I truely hope you never said terrorism was an irrational fear in the past...
It IS an irrational fear in comparison to the countless other things that could kill you. Why does the way in which you die matter to you so much? No matter how it happens, you end up dead. Obviously, you're more likely to be killed by a car crash than a terrorist attack. Given this, why aren't you campaigning for car safety?

As for the first part: her contention is that, even though they officially have a purpose, the terror alerts don't actually mean anything. The terror alerts have no real effect on our daily lives, and they don't keep the country safe.