Startling! Cnn Does News!

  • News
  • Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date
  • #26
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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)
 
  • #27
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?

God, your dumb.

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?
 
  • #28
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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...
 
  • #29
Archon
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?
 
  • #30
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
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.
 
  • #31
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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?
 
  • #32
Archon
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:
  • #33
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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...
 
  • #34
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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).
 
  • #35
Archon
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.
 
  • #36
Archon
Pengwuino said:
Well exaactly what liberties were taken away? I certaintly don't expect the usual 'patriot act' rhetoric without legitimate sourcing...
I'll point out something really obvious: the government has the authority to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them the rights usually afforded to people who are arrested. And guess who decides whether someone is a suspected terrorist?
Now tell me: how would you feel if the government decided to arrest you, and you weren't allowed to see your family or an attorney, and you were held for weeks or months without being charged? Wouldn't you call this an infringement of your Constitutional rights?

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).
If the proportion of terrorists caught crossing the border is anything like the proportion of Mexicans caught crossing the border (and we have no reason to think otherwise), then we really haven't done anything significant to protect Americans.
 
  • #37
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Archon said:
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?

Because, like you said, we have taken precuations to prevent traffic related deaths. It does not matter how we die, it only matters how can we prevent a larger # of people from dieing. We know we can prevent people from dieing in cars but we can surely do something to curb that toll. Same with terrorist/acts of war.

Archon said:
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.

Thats a useless assumption. If ANYTHING, the country is safer. There has not been a single attack since 9/11. I have heard many people that say its unreasonable to say that the country is safer simply because there hasnt been an attack since 9/11 but its far more unreasonable to say we are in more danger in light of that fact!
 
  • #38
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Archon said:
I'll point out something really obvious: the government has the authority to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them the rights usually afforded to people who are arrested. And guess who decides whether someone is a suspected terrorist?
Now tell me: how would you feel if the government decided to arrest you, and you weren't allowed to see your family or an attorney, and you were held for weeks or months without being charged? Wouldn't you call this an infringement of your Constitutional rights?

Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.


Archon said:
If the proportion of terrorists caught crossing the border is anything like the proportion of Mexicans caught crossing the border (and we have no reason to think otherwise), then we really haven't done anything significant to protect Americans.

Well hell thats because the liberals say we must allow everyone to come in. Hell, people are out there trying to defend the border with civilian militia groups but a bunch of idiots come out and call everyone racist and disrupt their actions. They get airtime instead of jail time.
 
  • #39
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Pengwuino said:
You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears...
Assuming there might be another terrorist attack, what are the chances you or I will be in a building, bus, train, etc. that's bombed?

In comparison to:

The chances that Bush will take us into another war (or more)? Then perhaps declare a state of emergency and suspend elections in 2008 (as he tried to do in 2004)? After which he could forge ahead with a one-party government (which we almost are already) that could strip away our civil liberties one after another until we live in a police state.

I'm not saying the later will happen. I'm saying I believe it to be more likely, and I fear what is more likely.
 
  • #40
Pengwuino said:
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.
Blogs?!

I asked a simple question.

Where is bin laden?

Pengwuino said:
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?
Well, the Iran Iraq war was done with banned substances the technology of which was supplied by the USA and the satellite intel to release it.

It is currently applicable because the government that is starting to emerge from the smoke in Iraq seems to be increasingly more and more Islamic in nature and is currently rubbing elbows with the sworn enemy of the USA.

"Corrupt officials in the USA" ... that wouldn't be a lame attempt at a subject change would it, P.?

Where's the evidence?

Why that would be all the companies given permission to trade in goods for military applications, dual use and biologicals prior to his activities.

There is a list.


It's the same old joke about how they knew there were WMD in Iraq ... They still have the invoices.
 
  • #41
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*
 
  • #42
Pengwuino said:
Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.
Er? ... Ya wouldn't be trying to be an 'armchair lawyer' now would ya' chief?
 
  • #43
Archon
Pengwuino said:
Because, like you said, we have taken precuations to prevent traffic related deaths. It does not matter how we die, it only matters how can we prevent a larger # of people from dieing. We know we can prevent people from dieing in cars but we can surely do something to curb that toll. Same with terrorist/acts of war.
You're missing the point. The precautions we take to prevent car-related deaths are reasonable and effective, while the precautions we take to prevent terrorist attacks are (at least to some extent) unreasonable, excessive, and ineffectual.
My point about the way one dies being irrelevant is that to the people who die, there is no difference between being killed by a terrorist and being killed by a car. In this sense, fear of terrorism is irrational, especially consider the miniscule number of terror-related compared to car-related deaths in America each year. To concentrate on terrorism over car safety, especially at the cost to America that has developed, is illogical.


Thats a useless assumption. If ANYTHING, the country is safer. There has not been a single attack since 9/11. I have heard many people that say its unreasonable to say that the country is safer simply because there hasnt been an attack since 9/11 but its far more unreasonable to say we are in more danger in light of that fact!
Demonstrate how America is concretely safer because of the terror alerts. Until you do so, you haven't contested my point.

Incidentally, what you're saying is very much like saying that America was safe from terrorist attacks before 9-11, just because there hadn't been one for a long time. Obviously, this wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
 
  • #44
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
The Smoking Man said:
Blogs?!

I asked a simple question.

Where is bin laden?

We're having a little problem finding one man in a few million square miles of mountain ranges... along with a suspected terrorist nation. I suppose thats not the least bit excusable?

The Smoking Man said:
Well, the Iran Iraq war was done with banned substances the technology of which was supplied by the USA and the satellite intel to release it.

It is currently applicable because the government that is starting to emerge from the smoke in Iraq seems to be increasingly more and more Islamic in nature and is currently rubbing elbows with the sworn enemy of the USA.

"Corrupt officials in the USA" ... that wouldn't be a lame attempt at a subject change would it, P.?

Where's the evidence?

Why that would be all the companies given permission to trade in goods for military applications, dual use and biologicals prior to his activities.

There is a list.


It's the same old joke about how they knew there were WMD in Iraq ... They still have the invoices.

I think your post jumped between 5 different subjects without making note of it. And oddly enough, have you "read the news today"? Any UN officials admitting of bribes lately?

And lets see, surely you did not just say the US gave Iraq illegal weapons after saying Iraq didn't have the WMD's that the US said they had to go to war! Surely you want to get your story straight before posting next time right?
 
  • #45
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
The Smoking Man said:
Er? ... Ya wouldn't be trying to be an 'armchair lawyer' now would ya' chief?

Well when it comes to actually wanting facts from a legal document... yes , yes i would
 
  • #46
Pengwuino said:
Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*
Like Sushi?

The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program

>>> Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere.

Now, that part of the report has been leaked. The leftist German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung received portions of the original, uncensored 12,000-page dossier. (The names of the corporations have been blacked out of the version of the report given to the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council.) The paper has printed the list, presented below.


[read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)]

Key

A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and building of military plants



USA

1. Honeywell (R, K)

2. Spectra Physics (K)

3. Semetex (R)

4. TI Coating (A, K)

5. Unisys (A, K)

6. Sperry Corp. (R, K)

7. Tektronix (R, A)

8. Rockwell (K)

9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)

12. Dupont (A)

13. Eastman Kodak (R)

14. American Type Culture Collection (B)

15. Alcolac International (C)

16. Consarc (A)

17. Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)

18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19. Electronic Associates (R)

20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

21. Bechtel (K)

22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)

23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

"In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."
 
  • #47
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Archon said:
You're missing the point. The precautions we take to prevent car-related deaths are reasonable and effective, while the precautions we take to prevent terrorist attacks are (at least to some extent) unreasonable, excessive, and ineffectual.
My point about the way one dies being irrelevant is that to the people who die, there is no difference between being killed by a terrorist and being killed by a car. In this sense, fear of terrorism is irrational, especially consider the miniscule number of terror-related compared to car-related deaths in America each year. To concentrate on terrorism over car safety, especially at the cost to America that has developed, is illogical.

Well since you have not demonstrated any basis to the idea that Americans have given up any important liberties, I believe your stastement is completely false.


Archon said:
Demonstrate how America is concretely safer because of the terror alerts. Until you do so, you haven't contested my point.

Incidentally, what you're saying is very much like saying that America was safe from terrorist attacks before 9-11, just because there hadn't been one for a long time. Obviously, this wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.
 
  • #48
468
4
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.
You didn't address my point. (Yes, a dirty bomb exploding in a city would be a terrible occurrence. No one disagrees with that.) My point is that some amount of terrorism is bound to occur, no matter what you do, just as with car accidents. Are you suggesting that terrorist attacks are somehow worse than car accidents, simply because terrorist attack deaths occur all at once and car accident deaths occur at a relatively constant rate? Obviously, since the number of deaths is greater for car accidents, from a purely mathematical standpoint, this makes no sense. Clearly, then, you are saying that the psychological impact of a terrorist attack is greater (a fact which can be gleaned from the word "terrorist").

Nevertheless, the point you attempted to make is irrelevant, and the car accident analogy was just that: an analogy. Whether a dirty bomb is worse than a thousand car accident fatalities is partially a matter of opinion, and has no effect on what I'm saying whatsoever. (Since the difference is purely psychological, the analogy still stands). If some terrorists did get their hands on some radioactive material and wanted to explode a dirty bomb in a city, they would be able to. No one would be able to stop them, unless they were caught at the border with the material. Face it, even if one were to employ a group of people with Geiger counters running around every city all day, they could easily avoid detection by shielding their bomb with lead. The only tried and true way to stop terrorist activity is to become a police state, and even that doesn't always work.

And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I dont see anyone calling it fear mongering...
Reporting on car accidents is not fear-mongering because it is reporting events that actually happened, and is not trying to illicit a response of any kind (except possibly empathy for the victims). Reporting on minor insecurities in our nation is fear-mongering, because it is reporting on events that probably won't happen, and attempt to illicit a fearful response.

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
Personally, I'm more fearful of sensationalized articles, because they are indications that terror is in fact being instilled in people. I have no fear whatsoever about being killed in a terrorist attack, because death is death, and I'm more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by a terrorist attack.
 
  • #49
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Hmmm Germany eh? Might want to get a more realistic source then that since they are one of the #1 suspects in the oil-for-food program having many german officials and companies accused of financing the Iraq regime.
 
  • #50
Archon
Pengwuino said:
Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.
a) Do you not know about this? Seriously?
b) Opinion does matter, since as I recall, America is still (nominally) run on Democratic principles. This is precisely because opinion does matter.




Well hell thats because the liberals say we must allow everyone to come in. Hell, people are out there trying to defend the border with civilian militia groups but a bunch of idiots come out and call everyone racist and disrupt their actions. They get airtime instead of jail time.
Really. Don't resort to some varient of the "Liberals are traitors to America. Terrorist attacks are their fault" routine. If I remember correctly, the President (i.e. the one with the real power to stop this) is a Republican, as are the House and the Senate.
Civilian Militia Groups=Not Government Officials=No Business Keeping People Out of Our Country.
You shouldn't get jail time for thinking this way in, accordance with freedom of speech, as set out in Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791. Remember that one?
 

Related Threads on Startling! Cnn Does News!

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
26
Replies
640
Views
50K
Top