Terror over Detroit

or Register to post new content in the forum

84 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 26, 2009 12:48 pm
Just had to get this in.
Last nights incident is a great argument for waterboarding. How on earth this guy got past security in Amsterdam is beyond me.
He claimed he was connected to Al Queda. That seems too easy, i wouldnt be surprised if upon further questioning he was just found to be a lone lunatic.
But if thats not the case, he makes a great argument for waterboarding. But no, we will do everything possible to make sure he is treated like any other civil criminal (as opposed to war criminal) we'll read him his rights, get him proper treatment and decide what evidence needs to be thrown out of court becasue it wasnt properly obtained.

America needs to wake up. Its only a matter of time before one of these maniacs blows himself up in Times Square, or on Rodeo Drive and takes hundreds with him (or her) and truly changes the way we live, forever.
 
Lou Dobbs for President. (or at least, John McCain)
 
Dec 26, 2009 12:51 pm

Of course, [email protected] and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.



Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.



The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.



Dec 26, 2009 2:21 pm

[email protected] believes a lone lunatic will eventually cause a mass terror event which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. Most likely, this will be carried out using a biological or chemical weapon - although, it could be nuclear.

Saying that waterboarding will protect us is naive. You can't waterboard enough people in order to reach all the Theo Kaczynskis, Tim McVeighs, and other people who believe they are noble in their pursuit.

I absolutely believe our only effective defense is the trust of the friends, families and acquaintances of these unstable individuals. (that's how we caught Kaczynski) We need these acquaintances to call the feds when they think their brother or cousin might be out to cause mass harm.

If I were an Arab-American, I would never call the feds even if my brother was clearly unstable. No one would call on their friends or family if they believe he might be tortured. I would call if I thought he would receive the help he needs.   

Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?

Dec 26, 2009 2:49 pm
[email protected]:

Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?





I know you don't. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn't childish.



Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama's speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.



These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don't believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I've never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.



I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.



My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.

Dec 26, 2009 3:09 pm

a lone lunatic is not getting his hands on nuclear weapons. Organized terrorists with money and tentacles all over the place do that.

I dont think we need the "trust" of the friends and family of these lunatics. Nor will we get it. We can get the same information from the terrorist lunatics themselves, and if the only way to do that and protect those tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives is to torture these people into vomiting up their "collegues" then thats what we should do.
 
I didnt know that iur military is now mirandizing terrorists. This is sad. It is insane. They are war criminals who hate us more than they love their children.
The slippery slope seems to get steeper every day.
Dec 26, 2009 3:18 pm
Moraen:
[email protected]:

   Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?





I know you don't. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn't childish.



Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama's speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.



These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don't believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I've never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.



I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.



My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.



Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power?  If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?

No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. ...and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that.

Dec 26, 2009 4:17 pm
[email protected]:

.

Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power? If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. ...and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that. [/quote]



Russia is violent. Look at Georgia.



Russia's issues stem from things other than violence. Nobody wants to fcuk with Vlad. How is Russia any different than most Western countries as far as extremists are concerned? I'll answer that for you. They are afraid of Putin. Terrified of him. They know that if they so much as twitch, he will bring the full power of the Russian Bear upon them. That is, they THINK that he will. Threat of violence.



David and Goliath doesn't apply here (fiction). Goliath was big and stupid. I am afraid of Davy with powerful weapons. Because we are not doing enough to stop it. That's WHY you should be afraid Still.



Dec 26, 2009 5:11 pm

You are missing my point. They are very afraid of Putin, yet Beslan and
Nord-Ost still occurred. London was part of the "coalition of the willing" yet the 7/7
bombings occurred. This seems to disprove your logic.

My D v. G reference was more to people who aren't afraid to take on a super power no matter how much they flaunt their supremacy. And powerful weapons are no longer difficult to find/make.

The atom bomb is old technology. It is from days before color TVs, before central air conditioning, before cell phones, before space travel... There's no reason that a guy who knows the physics behind designing a cell phone can not figure out how to build an atomic bomb.

There's no reason why the guy who knows how to develop new pharmaceuticals can not figure out how to develop a new chemical weapon.

In the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do. 

Dec 26, 2009 7:57 pm
[email protected]:

In the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do. 




The future that you describe, has arrived. That has been clear for some time, and was made CRYSTAL clear yesterday.
 
The answer is not to take the high road. Thats a nice way of saying be politically correct. With all of our power and might, and intelligence, and CIA, and FBI and Special Forces, and intel from our allies, we should be able to do a much better job of taking these people out than we are doing, except we are "taking the high road".
I dont expect that we could eliminate every last terrorist extremist lunatic on earth, but we could be doing a much better job, it seems to me.
 
I am no expert at this stuff, and am not particularly political, but i feel pretty strongly right now, when thinking about my childrens future, that this country is not well served by taking a Liberal, left of center, approach
Dec 26, 2009 8:59 pm

I think we need more information before you can draw these conclusions about yesterday.



Dec 26, 2009 11:12 pm

What is irrefutable is that we are not fighting a nation or an army, we are fighting an ideology and a bunch of fringe lunatics. what is irrefutalbe is that there are more and more "close calls" and incidents, inside the U.S. What is irrefutalbe is that there are soooo many extremists INSIDE the U.S., both homegrown and otherwise.


If anyone told me 10 years ago that today we would be facing the threat to our way of life that we face today, i would have thought that THEY were the lunatics.
They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.
I dont need any more information....i already know more than i want to,.
 
 
 
Dec 26, 2009 11:51 pm

You actually believe "our way of life" is being threatened?
It's sad that you live a life so full of paranoia.

Our way of life is as sound as ever...

Dec 26, 2009 11:56 pm

[email protected], no need to make it personal, do you see me making fun of the fact that your still at jones?>

trust me i aint paranoid. I go about my business, i go to football games, i go to work, and dont worry all day about getting blow iup. I'm not from the canned food and gun crowd. But All its going to take is 1 of them blowing himself up in a subway , heaven forbid, and our lives will change.
Just like it did on 9/11 but to another level.
 
 
Geez, look what happened today - nothing even happened, and within an hour the time you need to check into an airport got a half an hour to an hour longer.
 
Dec 27, 2009 12:25 am

What's funny is I'm not at jones. that's my irony.

Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you.

Sportsfreakbob:

They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.)


When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The "terrorists" will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways.

Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes...just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone.

But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect "my way of life."
If it happened every 2 days, it might.

Dec 27, 2009 12:37 am

I know you aren;t still at jones but i couldnt resist, besides, i made my point. Anyway, in the interest of keeping this thread intelligent, let me respond.

They havent beaten me. Yeah I;m scared, but in a healthy way. They beat me when they change my way of life. So far they havent done that. But i could see it happening if the current trend continues.
I used to travel to Europe 5-6 times a year, thru London, Paris, Frankfurt, Florence and Rome. It was so easy, moving thru airports, changing flights, etc. Now its extremely difficult to even check into the airport for a flight to the Carribean.
It starts somewhere, i sense that this has the POTENTIAL to change our lives in a serious way. Thats why i want my leaders to stop worrying about reading war criminals their miranda rights. I want my leaders to focus on destroying these people.
 
Thats all I'm saying. Our nice-nice ways are innappropriate to the current situation we face.
 
 
Dec 27, 2009 7:29 am
[email protected]:




What's funny is I'm not at jones. that's my irony. Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you.

Sportsfreakbob:

They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.)

When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The "terrorists" will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways. Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes...just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone. But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect "my way of life." If it happened every 2 days, it might.





You're worse than 52 - terrorism isn't the same as any of those things. Apples to oranges. It's like comparing indy to wire or Jones.



How about the fact that since 9/11, less soldiers have died in war than in peace the previous nine years. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean we should always be at war to save the lives of our soldiers?



It's a great argument for war.



But no, that isn't the answer. People dying in car wrecks isn't the answer. People who die in car accidents die for various reasons.



If a guy blew up a school in your neighborhood, it would affect your way of life.

Dec 27, 2009 10:46 am

You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.

Dec 27, 2009 11:53 am
[email protected]:

You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.







I'm not. They died in peacetime training exercises.



Here's an easy one:



1980-1985 13,807 deaths



2003-2008 10,011 deaths



Would you agree that 1980 to 1985 was peaceful?



My source is the CRS - liberals.



Also according to the CRS, there have been a total of 5015 deaths COMBINED from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (Iraq and Afghanistan).



Compare that to the 7500 that were killed from 1993 to 2000.



Here so you can check:



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf



Dec 27, 2009 2:57 pm
[email protected]:

You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.





By the way, 2% of our soldiers would be 30,000 troops, considering that we have 1.5 millions troops.



That's six times the amount that were actually killed.

Dec 27, 2009 5:50 pm

Thanks for the information. I like getting hard facts and this is a great source.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf


I was referring to losing 2% of the soldiers stationed in Iraq based on the estimated number of people on site; not, 2% of our entire military. I believe this number is still accurate. Iraq is a dangerous place. War doesn't make our soldiers safer. But, I think you know that.