3 Texas men terror plot foiled.
- Thread starter ccwolff
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Big Blue
When is this supposed "war" gonna end? When the word "terror" is removed from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, and thus the concept no longer exists?
How does one win a war on terror? How we will know when we've won? Is it possible for a war to go on forever, or do all wars have a beginning and an end? If the war goes on forever, does that mean we suspend our rights forever (or for at least as long as we live)?
If we can answer those questions, maybe we can get somewhere on understanding this so-called "war on terror". (Hint: There are no satisfactory answers, because it's actually a farce deliberately created to aggrandize the government's power; if it wasn't a complete farce, it would have been dubbed "the war on Osama Bin Laden & Al Quaida", which at least is theoretically winnable once objective criteria for victory are established).
Say what, I think the whole point is, we DON'T want every American searched; we want to preserve a strong 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches & seizures - that goes for everyone who is a citizen, and non-citizens who are in the country legally, regardless of surname or skin color. And please define "real life suspect". If the government strip searches YOU at an airport making you miss your plane because they suspect you are up to no good, without any evidence or probably cause, then YOU'd be a "real life suspect", wouldn't you? Or are defining that phrase some other way? If you are, please tell us the definition.
I suggest that you and many others like you are the real ones out of touch with reality.
Yes, absolutely. Without question.
When is this supposed "war" gonna end? When the word "terror" is removed from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, and thus the concept no longer exists?
How does one win a war on terror? How we will know when we've won? Is it possible for a war to go on forever, or do all wars have a beginning and an end? If the war goes on forever, does that mean we suspend our rights forever (or for at least as long as we live)?
If we can answer those questions, maybe we can get somewhere on understanding this so-called "war on terror". (Hint: There are no satisfactory answers, because it's actually a farce deliberately created to aggrandize the government's power; if it wasn't a complete farce, it would have been dubbed "the war on Osama Bin Laden & Al Quaida", which at least is theoretically winnable once objective criteria for victory are established).
Say what, I think the whole point is, we DON'T want every American searched; we want to preserve a strong 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches & seizures - that goes for everyone who is a citizen, and non-citizens who are in the country legally, regardless of surname or skin color. And please define "real life suspect". If the government strip searches YOU at an airport making you miss your plane because they suspect you are up to no good, without any evidence or probably cause, then YOU'd be a "real life suspect", wouldn't you? Or are defining that phrase some other way? If you are, please tell us the definition.
I suggest that you and many others like you are the real ones out of touch with reality.
Yes, absolutely. Without question.
We'll always be at "War". War on Drugs, War on Terror...both of which could one day lead to a War on Guns, War on Red Meat, War on Christian Fanaticism, War on Political Dissent...
Personally, no. But my chances of being hurt by a terrorist are only marginally higher than my chances of being detained without probable cause. I'm not too concerned about how all of this will affect my life, I'm more concerned about where it will lead fifty or a hundred years from now.
First Freedom,
First of all, the war on terror is very real, whether you choose to accept the fact or not. If it's something you can't accept due to the fact that you can't see an end to it, then the only alternative is to give up and allow these terrorists to run amoc in this country. The very fact that you need to seek an end to it shows that deep down you do accept that it exists. You asked if it's possible that it will go on forever, well if the support I'm seeing here at home can be used as a yardstick, it will probably go on until the next administration, so you have something to look forward to. If nothing else, it will prove to the terrorists our lack of testicular fortitude and that their terrorist methods work, but I may be wrong because you say I'm the one that's out of touch with reality and your probably an honorable man.
As for protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, you seem to conveniently skim over the word "unreasonable". We are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Matter of fact, since when did we bestow our Bill of Rights on foreigners and terrorists? I thought it was sort of an American thing, but I must be mistaken because you say I'm the one out of touch with reality, and I'm sure your an honorable man.
To get back to the point of profiling, why is it that whenever the left feels like using it against the law abiding citizens of this country it's a legitamate tool, but when it's used to identify terror suspects it's in violation of the terrorist Bill of Rights. I would think that every piece of anti-gun legislation that has come up is the result of profiling. Time and again the law abiding gun owner finds himself painted with the same brush of mistrust as that of the criminal. Time and again we find ourselves deprived of our right to keep and bear arms as the result of profiling. Yet you see fit to defend and apply the Bill of Rights to foreigners and terror suspects. Then again I'm probably wrong about this to, because you think I'm the one that's out of touch and surely you must be an honorable man.
Don
First of all, the war on terror is very real, whether you choose to accept the fact or not. If it's something you can't accept due to the fact that you can't see an end to it, then the only alternative is to give up and allow these terrorists to run amoc in this country. The very fact that you need to seek an end to it shows that deep down you do accept that it exists. You asked if it's possible that it will go on forever, well if the support I'm seeing here at home can be used as a yardstick, it will probably go on until the next administration, so you have something to look forward to. If nothing else, it will prove to the terrorists our lack of testicular fortitude and that their terrorist methods work, but I may be wrong because you say I'm the one that's out of touch with reality and your probably an honorable man.
As for protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, you seem to conveniently skim over the word "unreasonable". We are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Matter of fact, since when did we bestow our Bill of Rights on foreigners and terrorists? I thought it was sort of an American thing, but I must be mistaken because you say I'm the one out of touch with reality, and I'm sure your an honorable man.
To get back to the point of profiling, why is it that whenever the left feels like using it against the law abiding citizens of this country it's a legitamate tool, but when it's used to identify terror suspects it's in violation of the terrorist Bill of Rights. I would think that every piece of anti-gun legislation that has come up is the result of profiling. Time and again the law abiding gun owner finds himself painted with the same brush of mistrust as that of the criminal. Time and again we find ourselves deprived of our right to keep and bear arms as the result of profiling. Yet you see fit to defend and apply the Bill of Rights to foreigners and terror suspects. Then again I'm probably wrong about this to, because you think I'm the one that's out of touch and surely you must be an honorable man.
Don
I've been lookin' to unload on you for hours. This is gonna be fun 
Well allow me to give you a little history lesson:
The Brits threatened to stamp out this experiment in democracy before it even got started. Every man that signed the declaration was signing his own death warrant, yet they did it anyway. Then they faced the armed might of the entire British Empire. Twice. Those men "got it".
Our nation very nearly split in two because the two sides couldn't resolve their differences over which right was more dear. Those men "got it".
We have survived the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo. Lost millions in the process because they realized that there's some things more important than their own skins. Those men "got it".
When my father played tag with the ChiComms in MiG alley (with the scars to prove it) and returned home, a black man married to a white woman in the deep south in the '60s and faced down the Klan, He by God "got it".
I grew up with the Soviet Commies threatening to turn me into radioactive fertilizer and my entire nation into glass. I survived living in the inner-city projects in the '90s, which is a hazard I suspect you couldn't even begin to grasp. I put my own life on the line back in the gulf during Desert Storm because I "got it".
What you're trying to tell me is that a buncha half-ass zealots in a cave in Afghanistan is the biggest threat my country has ever faced, and I'm tellin you that you don't get it.
I have seen worse. I have beaten worse. Our country has survived threats to it's very existence that AlQaeda couldn't dream of.
"Dire threat"!
I'll tell you what's a dire threat: Our own government fear-mongering some boogey-man from the desert in hopes of gaining ascendancy over *my* rights, assisted by the weak-kneed, quivering cowards in my country who are too stupid and skeered to stand up for their own rights in the face of a non-existent threat, let alone anyone else's.
Would you really throw away your own rights and wipe your butt with the Bill of Rights just to feel safe?
You think these terrorists are scary? Do they make you lose control of your bladder? Reality check: You're more likely to die from being struck by lightning under your bed than at the hands of these people.
I face more serious threats every day, in every way, just driving across a set of railroad tracks in the rain while smoking a cigarette, and no, I don't give that much thought either.
Dear Lord! Whatever happened to the Republican party? I remember when Reagan stared down 20,000 nukes and didn't bat an eye. Now we're reduced to this. "Oh, please, Mr. Bush! I'll submit to whatever you say, just pleease don't let the bad men hurt me!" It's enough to make Burt the Turtle 'duck and cover' in disgust!
For God's sake, man! Grow a spine! If you just insist on going fetal under your blankie in abject terror, at least have the decency to not drag the United States of America down there with you! We are made of sterner stuff.
No "patriot" in the history of our great nation has ever said the things I hear coming from you. Patriots say "give me liberty or give me death". Do you have any idea what that means? That means a *true* patriot would rather die than betray the causes of freedom, equality, and justice. Would rather DIE!
Bring on the terrorists and sit there in your little corner sucking your thumb while us REAL Americans handle it.
I have sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States from *all* enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe in that with every fiber of my being. The terrorists aren't going to take it from me. George W. Bush isn't going to take it from me. Cowards like yourself aren't going to take it from me.
I will die someday, but America will live on. Because *I* "get it".
Wow...that was downright therapeudic....
Well allow me to give you a little history lesson:
The Brits threatened to stamp out this experiment in democracy before it even got started. Every man that signed the declaration was signing his own death warrant, yet they did it anyway. Then they faced the armed might of the entire British Empire. Twice. Those men "got it".
Our nation very nearly split in two because the two sides couldn't resolve their differences over which right was more dear. Those men "got it".
We have survived the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo. Lost millions in the process because they realized that there's some things more important than their own skins. Those men "got it".
When my father played tag with the ChiComms in MiG alley (with the scars to prove it) and returned home, a black man married to a white woman in the deep south in the '60s and faced down the Klan, He by God "got it".
I grew up with the Soviet Commies threatening to turn me into radioactive fertilizer and my entire nation into glass. I survived living in the inner-city projects in the '90s, which is a hazard I suspect you couldn't even begin to grasp. I put my own life on the line back in the gulf during Desert Storm because I "got it".
What you're trying to tell me is that a buncha half-ass zealots in a cave in Afghanistan is the biggest threat my country has ever faced, and I'm tellin you that you don't get it.
I have seen worse. I have beaten worse. Our country has survived threats to it's very existence that AlQaeda couldn't dream of.
"Dire threat"!
I'll tell you what's a dire threat: Our own government fear-mongering some boogey-man from the desert in hopes of gaining ascendancy over *my* rights, assisted by the weak-kneed, quivering cowards in my country who are too stupid and skeered to stand up for their own rights in the face of a non-existent threat, let alone anyone else's.
Would you really throw away your own rights and wipe your butt with the Bill of Rights just to feel safe?
You think these terrorists are scary? Do they make you lose control of your bladder? Reality check: You're more likely to die from being struck by lightning under your bed than at the hands of these people.
I face more serious threats every day, in every way, just driving across a set of railroad tracks in the rain while smoking a cigarette, and no, I don't give that much thought either.
Dear Lord! Whatever happened to the Republican party? I remember when Reagan stared down 20,000 nukes and didn't bat an eye. Now we're reduced to this. "Oh, please, Mr. Bush! I'll submit to whatever you say, just pleease don't let the bad men hurt me!" It's enough to make Burt the Turtle 'duck and cover' in disgust!
For God's sake, man! Grow a spine! If you just insist on going fetal under your blankie in abject terror, at least have the decency to not drag the United States of America down there with you! We are made of sterner stuff.
No "patriot" in the history of our great nation has ever said the things I hear coming from you. Patriots say "give me liberty or give me death". Do you have any idea what that means? That means a *true* patriot would rather die than betray the causes of freedom, equality, and justice. Would rather DIE!
Bring on the terrorists and sit there in your little corner sucking your thumb while us REAL Americans handle it.
I have sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States from *all* enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe in that with every fiber of my being. The terrorists aren't going to take it from me. George W. Bush isn't going to take it from me. Cowards like yourself aren't going to take it from me.
I will die someday, but America will live on. Because *I* "get it".
Wow...that was downright therapeudic....
FirstFreedom
Moderator
lol, just answer my questions, man. The fact that you do not even attempt to tells me you have absolutely no cogent argument. Are you going to answer them or not? Here, I'll repeat them for your convenience. Please take them one at a time:
1.When is this supposed "war" gonna end?
2. When the word "terror" is removed from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, and thus the concept no longer exists, or some other time?
3. How does one win a war on terror?
4. How we will know when we've won?
5. Is it possible for a war to go on forever, or do all wars have a beginning and an end?
6. If the war goes on forever, does that mean we suspend our rights forever (or for at least as long as we live)?
I'll answer any questions you pose, as long as you answer mine first. I asked first.
1.When is this supposed "war" gonna end?
2. When the word "terror" is removed from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, and thus the concept no longer exists, or some other time?
3. How does one win a war on terror?
4. How we will know when we've won?
5. Is it possible for a war to go on forever, or do all wars have a beginning and an end?
6. If the war goes on forever, does that mean we suspend our rights forever (or for at least as long as we live)?
I'll answer any questions you pose, as long as you answer mine first. I asked first.
azredhawk44
Moderator
TYME said:
The bridge is 5 miles long.
That's about 25,000 feet. Two sides to the bridge. Total length to cover, about 50,000 feet. One phone every 50 feet, the whole length, with an explosive package tied to it. Maybe go 1 package every 60-70 feet, and put lots of extra explosive around the pillars that support the deck, and at the anchors that support the bridge to the shore.
Detonate the first packages in either direction of traffic simultaneously, and you can stop any rescue or law enforcement folks from interfering until you can properly stage the rest of your explosives. A couple of large U-Haul trucks would be ideal for something like that. Maybe use acetone peroxide for the explosive, since they seem to like that recently (british airline issue and a muslim woman in west virginia caught with it today).
One thousand phones can be called very easily from an automated computer service, which I'm sure can be set up from Iran or other state-sponsoring terrorist organizations. Detonate 24 at a time with a single T1 trunk, dial the next batch, blow another 24. Probably get to about 200 a minute, so after 5 minutes the bridge would be under water. Simultaneous explosions could occur with a single T3 fax trunk (28 x T1 lines, or 672 lines), detonating the bulk of the bridge in one outgoing call and the remainder about 10 seconds later.
Very real threat, and very odd that these guys removed the phones from the packages and the batteries from the phones. Good grab.
Here it is directly from the makers mouth on the fact that is it possible to turn a profit from these phones.
http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=5279338
Note the last part where he states that retailers also do it.
I guess they must have lighter skin and common sounding names as they were not also tossed in jail.
Thats a very vivid description there azredhawk44. Tell me is that how you would do it?
https://tips.fbi.gov/
Careful what you wish, careful what you say...
http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=5279338
Note the last part where he states that retailers also do it.
I guess they must have lighter skin and common sounding names as they were not also tossed in jail.
Thats a very vivid description there azredhawk44. Tell me is that how you would do it?
https://tips.fbi.gov/
Careful what you wish, careful what you say...
Know how many cell phones I would need to blow up a bridge? One.
I would also need wire, igniters, and...oh yeah, explosives.
None of which these boys had....
2 guys climbing around a bridge undetected planting a thousand cell phones undetected is a scenario that's right out of a Benny Hill skit.
Seriously, take a deep breath and try to control your terror.
I would also need wire, igniters, and...oh yeah, explosives.
None of which these boys had....
2 guys climbing around a bridge undetected planting a thousand cell phones undetected is a scenario that's right out of a Benny Hill skit.
Seriously, take a deep breath and try to control your terror.
JuanCarlos
New member
Last I checked Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...
EDIT: Now for my "real" reply...
BigBlue said:
For the first part, of course I do. Because I can think rationally, and realize that in the last decade or so only about 3500 (or less) Americans have been killed by terrorists. I'm much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, or skin cancer, or be randomly murdered, than fall victim to a terrorist attack. Given that, I think that a general decline in the respect that law enforcement officers are required to have for our civil liberties is much more likely to affect me personally, especially given what an outspoken bastard I can be sometimes.
For the second part, as somebody else said, "real suspects" of what? In this instance, the three men arrested hadn't done anything wrong, and certainly nothing suspicious enough to warrant being arrested, taken to lockup, and have bail set at an amount so high as to constitute no bail at all. Oh, and as far as I can tell these three men are still in lockup (almost a week later) while prosecutors and authorities try to figure out what to charge them with in an attempt to avoid a big fat lawsuit.
Currently, again as far as I can tell, they're alleging that the men were going to alter the phones in order to defraud customers (arguing that the altered phones constitute "counterfeit goods"). Sounds bogus, because my guess is they were going to drop all the phones and accessories off where somebody else was going to commit the crime they are being charged with. At which point they may be guilty of conspiracy. Then again, if they had been anything but Arab, they'd never have been picked up in the first place; so plenty of white, black, and chinese guys have gotten away with the same crime because they're skin is the right color. Ahh, America, land of opportunity.
Also, I've found no mention of these three men (the ones arrested in Michigan) being illegal; I've gone through about 10 different news stories on them, and none mention their immigration status. Anybody care to provide a link where these guys are pegged as illegal? Because otherwise they're not exactly "foreigners and terrorists," and that Bill of Rights thing applies.
BigBlue said:
Man...what? Check his post history; he doesn't seem to dig anti-gun legislation. Nor do I. I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, both when it applies to myself and when it applies to random Islamic men. Hence the reason I took an oath to uphold it.
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
I had actually typed a portion of this last night, and accidentally closed the tab. I decided it was too good to let go, however.
So, @Kelly J
That's a great little pop quiz. While I'm sure it's great for right-wing cheerleading, it fails to stand up to any logic or reason. Of course if you limit your list to events involving Islamic terrorists or extremists, then the answer will always be the same and the case for profiling will look airtight. You missed a couple questions, though.
In 1995 a federal building in Oklahoma City was attacked, killing over 160 and wounding 800 (including children). This event still stands as the second-worst terrorist attack in US history. The bomber was:
A) a disgruntled postal worker
B) a crazed boy scout troop leader
C) an Middle-Eastern Islamic male between 17 and 40
D) a Caucasian male, who also happened to be a decorated Army veteran
Between 1978 and 1995, 3 were killed and 29 injured by bombs sent through the postal service. The mastermind behind these bombings was
A) a bitter Cubs fan
B) a black inner-city youth
C) an Middle-eastern Islamic male between 17 and 40
D) a Caucasian Harvard graduate, who had taught at Berkeley and had a PhD in Mathematics
Those are just two events. They easily debunk the idea that Muslims have the market cornered on terrorist all by themselves. However, let's not forget other non-Muslim terrorist groups, such as the IRA, ULA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, Shiv Sena, and others around the globe (some operating in recent history, some still currently operating). Here in the US you have Aryan Nation/Neo-Nazi elements that, were you to ignore them and focus solely on Arabs, would probably become an issue. They're white, dontchaknow. And, while they might seem "quaint" nowadays to those of us outside the south, let us not forget one of my favorite white Christian terrorist organziations, the Klu Klux Klan.
Are a majority of terrorist groups operating at the moment Muslim? Maybe...but I honestly refuse to simply accept that without proof; I merely acknowledge that it is both possible and likely. However, I offer to you that there are plenty of non-Muslim terrorists around the world, some of which might even pose a threat right here in the good ol' USA.
While I'm at it, I'd like to remind everybody that John Lindh, Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla were all non-Middle-Eastern as well. I failed to see them on your list. So even if a terrorist group is Islamic, and run by Middle-Eastern males, there is no guarantee that those carrying out it's plans will be Middle-Eastern.
So, if you're going to post anymore little quizes, try to make them a little more exhaustive. Because nobody with any critical thinking skills is going to be impressed with them otherwise.
So, @Kelly J
That's a great little pop quiz. While I'm sure it's great for right-wing cheerleading, it fails to stand up to any logic or reason. Of course if you limit your list to events involving Islamic terrorists or extremists, then the answer will always be the same and the case for profiling will look airtight. You missed a couple questions, though.
In 1995 a federal building in Oklahoma City was attacked, killing over 160 and wounding 800 (including children). This event still stands as the second-worst terrorist attack in US history. The bomber was:
A) a disgruntled postal worker
B) a crazed boy scout troop leader
C) an Middle-Eastern Islamic male between 17 and 40
D) a Caucasian male, who also happened to be a decorated Army veteran
Between 1978 and 1995, 3 were killed and 29 injured by bombs sent through the postal service. The mastermind behind these bombings was
A) a bitter Cubs fan
B) a black inner-city youth
C) an Middle-eastern Islamic male between 17 and 40
D) a Caucasian Harvard graduate, who had taught at Berkeley and had a PhD in Mathematics
Those are just two events. They easily debunk the idea that Muslims have the market cornered on terrorist all by themselves. However, let's not forget other non-Muslim terrorist groups, such as the IRA, ULA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, Shiv Sena, and others around the globe (some operating in recent history, some still currently operating). Here in the US you have Aryan Nation/Neo-Nazi elements that, were you to ignore them and focus solely on Arabs, would probably become an issue. They're white, dontchaknow. And, while they might seem "quaint" nowadays to those of us outside the south, let us not forget one of my favorite white Christian terrorist organziations, the Klu Klux Klan.
Are a majority of terrorist groups operating at the moment Muslim? Maybe...but I honestly refuse to simply accept that without proof; I merely acknowledge that it is both possible and likely. However, I offer to you that there are plenty of non-Muslim terrorists around the world, some of which might even pose a threat right here in the good ol' USA.
While I'm at it, I'd like to remind everybody that John Lindh, Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla were all non-Middle-Eastern as well. I failed to see them on your list. So even if a terrorist group is Islamic, and run by Middle-Eastern males, there is no guarantee that those carrying out it's plans will be Middle-Eastern.
So, if you're going to post anymore little quizes, try to make them a little more exhaustive. Because nobody with any critical thinking skills is going to be impressed with them otherwise.
Last edited:
azredhawk44
Moderator
1. I wouldn't do it.
2. That probably wouldn't work because there wouldn't be enough cell phone tower capacity to support that many simultaneous calls in the area of that bridge.
3. Point taken. But to destroy a target 5 miles long quickly will require multiple remote detonators, unless you have hours to quietly and clandestinely place explosives and tie them together.
I still contend that these guys were up to no good. Taking the phones out of the packaging and disassembling them demonstrates that. Their excuse/alibi of sales purposes doesn't hold up if the phones are disassembled and banging against each other in bulk boxes.
JuanCarlos
New member
How do we know they were banging against each other in bulk boxes? I didn't read that in the news reports. They might have been nicely arranged on layers of styrofoam, or in a big box full of syrofoam peanuts. At which point seperating batteries, chargers, and phones might have just been part of their agreement with whoever they were delivering the phones to. [EDIT: It'd actually make for a really efficient use of man-hours considering the long periods of driving between Wal-Marts...if I were buying these phones off the guys, I'd want them already broken down; no use paying them to screw off in the van the whole time!]
Besides which, if you're using the phones as a detonator or for anonymous communication for a terrorist cell, you'd need the battery in the phone. The removal of the batteries makes more sense for sales purposes than for any of the more nefarious plots some of you think they must be up to. I imagine Ali Al-Jihad would be right pissed if he got his new Terrorist-Cell Tracfone(TM) with no freakin' battery in it.
On a side note, if you wanted to detonate many charges at once (such as in your plan), you'd be more likely to use something like Motorola radios than cellphones. Or garage door openers. Or remote doorbells. There are actually quite a few options available that would be better than cellphones.
Last edited:
GoSlash27 , I will jump in here to make a couple of comments, Fisrt off You been watching to many rambo Movies, I don't doubt your patriotism for a second but you might back off a bit calling a man that served this Country Honorably before you were potty trained a COWARD those are insulting words to any of us that have served this country, I myself served from 1959- to 1967, son you weren't even a twinckle in your daddys eye then so back off calling people you don't know anything about a COWARD.
Secondly It is perfectlly alright to disagree and to state your different point of view without getting pumped up like you were the only Fighting Man that ever served in the defence of our country, or has a clue as to the state of affairs, we are in.
Make your point with respect and use some degree of decorum, and above all if you can not make your point with out the sort of accuation you threw around then you might be advised to sit down and shut the hell up. And no I don't need to insult or belittle other folks to make myself feel important in this world, and no it don't make me feel good to take a runt like you to task for getting out of line just becaused you served in the Desert Storm conflict, don't make you or your hero RAMBO a real Fighting Man. There are 58,913 good fighting men from the Viet Nam Conflict that are good fighting men and on their behalf let me say this, They are Patriots in the real sence of the word and even though they for the most part didn't want to Fight they did and died, so they are the real HERO'S in my opinion, and they EARNED THE TITLE, THEY DIDN'T CLAIM IT.
Secondly It is perfectlly alright to disagree and to state your different point of view without getting pumped up like you were the only Fighting Man that ever served in the defence of our country, or has a clue as to the state of affairs, we are in.
Make your point with respect and use some degree of decorum, and above all if you can not make your point with out the sort of accuation you threw around then you might be advised to sit down and shut the hell up. And no I don't need to insult or belittle other folks to make myself feel important in this world, and no it don't make me feel good to take a runt like you to task for getting out of line just becaused you served in the Desert Storm conflict, don't make you or your hero RAMBO a real Fighting Man. There are 58,913 good fighting men from the Viet Nam Conflict that are good fighting men and on their behalf let me say this, They are Patriots in the real sence of the word and even though they for the most part didn't want to Fight they did and died, so they are the real HERO'S in my opinion, and they EARNED THE TITLE, THEY DIDN'T CLAIM IT.
JuanCarlos , AS usual you go off of tangents, we are talking about, the threat of the Islamic, Muslim Terrorist, of the existing conditions of today, in this situation. If you want to go back in history there have been millions of terrorist, but they have absolutely nothing to do with today, NOW, I really don't know why I even bother as there is no way we can change your mind in any way, you are so hard headed and opinionated that your vision is totally clouded, all you see is ethnik profilling, Police Abuses, the FEDS are comming to get you and such, The whole lot of you guys are so cought up in ME, ME, ME that you cannot see anything else, we are a Country and what the terrorist would like to do as was demonstrated by the 9-11 attack is something that affects us all, and I would tell you this if the Cowardly Terrorist wanted to come here and face the people one on one so to speak, there isn't a one of us that wouldn't fight them, but terrorist don't fight like a Brave Fighter would that isn't in their game plan, they hide and blow things, and people up, then run out and pretend to be real macho big fighting men.
That is what we are up against, and that is the people that we must defend against, just a statement of fact. These are Religious Fanatics, that are fighting for an IDEAL, not a war.
Accusing people here of being cowards is both insulting and wrong, like all of us we are frustrated in that there is a war going on and we are seemingly not winning, so in our frustration we lash out at anyone that we can make a little victory over and shame on us for doing that to each other, if the terrorist win we all loose, no matter what we thouht then or later.
It is real easy to make all sorts of accuations and point a finger at others, and claim the Higher Moral Ground, but quite another to be civil and respectfull of others opinions, I guess what I am trying to say is this if you are havig a debate with tempers flairing and words yelled out in anger there is no way anyone will make any since of the thing, and absolutely nothing will be setteled. WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!
That is what we are up against, and that is the people that we must defend against, just a statement of fact. These are Religious Fanatics, that are fighting for an IDEAL, not a war.
Accusing people here of being cowards is both insulting and wrong, like all of us we are frustrated in that there is a war going on and we are seemingly not winning, so in our frustration we lash out at anyone that we can make a little victory over and shame on us for doing that to each other, if the terrorist win we all loose, no matter what we thouht then or later.
It is real easy to make all sorts of accuations and point a finger at others, and claim the Higher Moral Ground, but quite another to be civil and respectfull of others opinions, I guess what I am trying to say is this if you are havig a debate with tempers flairing and words yelled out in anger there is no way anyone will make any since of the thing, and absolutely nothing will be setteled. WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!
JuanCarlos
New member
The Unabomber's final bomb went off just over a decade ago. Same for Oklahoma City. Not exactly "back in history," unless you're counting in dog years. Also note that Richard Reid, John Lindh, and Jose Padilla (the three non-Middle-Eastern, though Islamic, examples I also gave to counter the argument that you posted for profiling) are all quite recent history, and relate directly to the matter at hand.
Also note that your silly little quiz (which I've seen in my inbox as well) goes quite far back in history (farther back that I did, as a matter of fact...to 1968) in trying to make the point for profiling. Additionally, it includes terrorist acts that did not involve US targets or US soil, so I figured we were talking about the history of terrorism here...at least from the second half of the twentieth century on. At which point while Middle-Eastern Islamic terrorists might be the stars of the show, they have plenty of supporting actors backing them up. And even today there are terrorist groups operating around the world that having nothing to do with Islam (and Islamic terrorists who do not appear Middle-Eastern).
And, at least in my posts, I don't see any yelling or tempers flaring. I'm trying to make thought-out and reasonable arguments using facts and logic, rather than bigotry and fear. I take a longer view of history than you do, because terrorism in this country did not start with 9/11, and it may well continue beyond our current Islamic threat. Because as soon as we, as a country, start forming policies (such as arresting Arabs who appear suspicious then figuring out what to charge them with later) and making decisions out of momentary fear, the terrorists have won...period.
Why do I say that? I leave you with this:
As soon as we change the way we operate as a society out of fear, we have allowed them to intimidate us. You, and others arguing your side, seem pretty intimidated to me. I'm not. I do not, have not, and will never fear terrorists. They can do whatever they want, but I'll continue to live my life regardless. They kill me, or even my family, so be it. But they will not intimidate me.
Last edited:
GoSlash27,
I guess it's YOU who are in need of a history lesson. This seems to be the one and only war you have ever heard of. Well go back in your history book a bit and try to understand it. The suspension of rights during times of war is a national FACT. Anybody here remember hearing about FDR's little crusade against the Japanese, and how the rights of Japanese Americans were handled? Do you honestly think the media coverage of that war wasn't censored by our government. They seem to be issues of contention when it comes to our Bill of Rights, but the people then understood the reason for it. It saved American lives. Lives which you seem all too willing to sacrifice as long as it isn't yours. Now are you about to call your parents and grandparents cowards for wanting to ensure their country's existance by denying rights to those that could harm them? How about Lincoln's treatment of the press and his denial of their freedoms during our little civil disturbance? Were your great great grandfathers cowards for allowing that? If you want to go about waving a history book in a futile attempt to make yourself appear to have an education, at least read it first. As for being a coward, You Sir are the one that is afraid of your own government, but then again maybe you have more reason to be.
Don
I guess it's YOU who are in need of a history lesson. This seems to be the one and only war you have ever heard of. Well go back in your history book a bit and try to understand it. The suspension of rights during times of war is a national FACT. Anybody here remember hearing about FDR's little crusade against the Japanese, and how the rights of Japanese Americans were handled? Do you honestly think the media coverage of that war wasn't censored by our government. They seem to be issues of contention when it comes to our Bill of Rights, but the people then understood the reason for it. It saved American lives. Lives which you seem all too willing to sacrifice as long as it isn't yours. Now are you about to call your parents and grandparents cowards for wanting to ensure their country's existance by denying rights to those that could harm them? How about Lincoln's treatment of the press and his denial of their freedoms during our little civil disturbance? Were your great great grandfathers cowards for allowing that? If you want to go about waving a history book in a futile attempt to make yourself appear to have an education, at least read it first. As for being a coward, You Sir are the one that is afraid of your own government, but then again maybe you have more reason to be.
Don