Just get over it.

[Xenophon]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

Bullshit.

You could make things 100% safe, but it would require doing things this PC world won't tolerate.

 

[jillian]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

Bullshit.

You could make things 100% safe, but it would require doing things this PC world won't tolerate.

no... I don't think you can. all you can do is make things 100 times worse.

And even if we could be 100% safe by debasing ourselves and ruining everything that ever meant anything about this country, what would we be saving?

 

[Xenophon]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

Bullshit.

You could make things 100% safe, but it would require doing things this PC world won't tolerate.

no... I don't think you can. all you can do is make things 100 times worse.

And even if we could be 100% safe by debasing ourselves and ruining everything that ever meant anything about this country, what would we be saving?

You miss the point, as I said exactly what you did.

 

[barenakedislam]

We can not prevent all terrorists attacks.
We MIGHT be able to cut down on them if DHS was looking in the right places at the right people instead of focusing on dammit janet's boogey men, the 50+ white christain men who are military vetrens.
How about dumping her and getting a dhs leader that will look for the terrorists where there are actually terrorists.
never stop them all though

Deporting ALL Muslims sure would help. And not letting any more in.

Just think, if there were no Muslims in the world, would anyone even notice? Name one contribution to society in the last 100 years Muslims have made? And don't say oil because it was the West that developed their oil resources. They produce virtually nothing (maybe Egyptian sheets) of value, manufacture nothing, invent nothing, improve nothing....nothing with nothing. Just a waste of oxygen.

 

[Navy1960]

"Now [war] has come and we must meet it as united Americans regardless of our attitude in the past toward the policy our Government has followed. ... Our country has been attacked by force of arms, and by force of arms we must retaliate. We must now turn every effort to building the greatest and most efficient Army, Navy and air force in the world" Charles Lindbergh

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God. FDR


These were not meaningless words or over-reactions to generate fear. As I have contended for some time it is incumbent upon this nation to identify our enemy, seek them out and destroy them in a fashion that leaves no doubt as to the outcome. If we continue upon the path if trying to look for politically correct methods for fighting wars regardless of the political parties engaged in that , it serve no other purpose than to expend the lives of the brave young men and women of the military for no other reason other than to serve a political objective and does not qualify as a Military one or defending this nation by any means. Take for example policies of fighting wars on the cheap, or using the Military as a force to rebuild and socially engage thier enemy, that is not a task of the US Miltary. Take for example the first gulf war, it began with a MASSIVE air campaign that lasted for several weeks, designed to demoralize the enemy and stop thier will to fight. Then followed by a MASSIVE Infantry and Armor attack. Now contrast that with the current methods of political war fighting and an enemy that is willing to combat that and you end up with a situation of perpetual war. In other words if we are not in this "war" and make no mistake this is a war to win it, then we needlessly put the young men and women of our military in danger.

 

[Foxfyre]

We can not prevent all terrorists attacks.
We MIGHT be able to cut down on them if DHS was looking in the right places at the right people instead of focusing on dammit janet's boogey men, the 50+ white christain men who are military vetrens.
How about dumping her and getting a dhs leader that will look for the terrorists where there are actually terrorists.
never stop them all though

Deporting ALL Muslims sure would help. And not letting any more in.

Just think, if there were no Muslims in the world, would anyone even notice? Name one contribution to society in the last 100 years Muslims have made? And don't say oil because it was the West that developed their oil resources. They produce virtually nothing (maybe Egyptian sheets) of value, manufacture nothing, invent nothing, improve nothing....nothing with nothing. Just a waste of oxygen.

I don't think we have to deport all Muslims. I have Muslim neighbors that I would trust implicitly with my kids, my granddaughter, and my dog. I would be happy to give them the key to our house when we are out of town and I would trust them to have my back in a bad or dangerous situation.

But I think it is ludicrous to somehow think Muslims are no more dangerous than anybody else when the huge lion's share of threats, terrorist attempts, and actual attacks have come from radical Islamic extremists. If that many incidents had been identified with Presbyterians or Shriners, would our law enforcement people be out of line looking very closely at folks affiliated with those organizations? Especially if their leadership was not standing up and loudly condemning the threats, the attempted violence, the actual violence?

I want us to get past our squeamishness at profiling groups that have proved themselves to be more dangerous than others. And once we can do that, I think the danger will be much reduced.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

(Full body scans.. how stupid!)

You obviously don't fly much. If I have to be seen "naked" in order to assure that some fanatical religious nutjob jerkoff doesn't board with box cutters or a "DIY mix-it-yourself bomb" strapped to his person, so be it. I'll bet the passengers on the four 9-11 planes wouldn't opposed to full body scans in hindsight... It's a valid solution. As long as human beings will strive do things to inflict harm on others in confined places like planes and trains and densely populated cities, the more "regulations" you can look forward to. Get used to it - it ain't going away.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

12 year-olds such as yourself should use the internet to LEARN something, instead of posting mindless blather.

Or, give your mom her computer back.

 

[Samson]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

I was about to blame BushCheneyHalliburton......but, ok, if you insist

 

[barenakedislam]

We can not prevent all terrorists attacks.
We MIGHT be able to cut down on them if DHS was looking in the right places at the right people instead of focusing on dammit janet's boogey men, the 50+ white christain men who are military vetrens.
How about dumping her and getting a dhs leader that will look for the terrorists where there are actually terrorists.
never stop them all though

Deporting ALL Muslims sure would help. And not letting any more in.

Just think, if there were no Muslims in the world, would anyone even notice? Name one contribution to society in the last 100 years Muslims have made? And don't say oil because it was the West that developed their oil resources. They produce virtually nothing (maybe Egyptian sheets) of value, manufacture nothing, invent nothing, improve nothing....nothing with nothing. Just a waste of oxygen.

I don't think we have to deport all Muslims. I have Muslim neighbors that I would trust implicitly with my kids, my granddaughter, and my dog. I would be happy to give them the key to our house when we are out of town and I would trust them to have my back in a bad or dangerous situation.

But I think it is ludicrous to somehow think Muslims are no more dangerous than anybody else when the huge lion's share of threats, terrorist attempts, and actual attacks have come from radical Islamic extremists. If that many incidents had been identified with Presbyterians or Shriners, would our law enforcement people be out of line looking very closely at folks affiliated with those organizations? Especially if their leadership was not standing up and loudly condemning the threats, the attempted violence, the actual violence?

I want us to get past our squeamishness at profiling groups that have proved themselves to be more dangerous than others. And once we can do that, I think the danger will be much reduced.

That would be a good start.

 

[Liability]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

Assholes like usShitizen always prescribe "take two 'roll over and play dead' and fuck yourself in the morning" when confronted with any actual threat.

Neville Chamberlain approves his message!

 

[kyzr]

Totally agree. Worst case I'd push "Islam" to stop their radicals. I haven't seen any major initiatives by Islam to root out and stamp out their radical clerics and hate mongers. Then Barry calls it a "beautiful religion"??? Maybe he's a fan of "honor killings" and/or suicide bombers?

 

[Dr Grump]

Totally agree. Worst case I'd push "Islam" to stop their radicals. I haven't seen any major initiatives by Islam to root out and stamp out their radical clerics and hate mongers. Then Barry calls it a "beautiful religion"??? Maybe he's a fan of "honor killings" and/or suicide bombers?

Now you're just being ridiculous....

 

[barenakedislam]

Totally agree. Worst case I'd push "Islam" to stop their radicals. I haven't seen any major initiatives by Islam to root out and stamp out their radical clerics and hate mongers. Then Barry calls it a "beautiful religion"??? Maybe he's a fan of "honor killings" and/or suicide bombers?

I think Michelle is worthy of an honor killing the way the slut shows her arms in public.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Nothing we do will keep us totally safe from terrorists.
So just get over the false outrage.

?!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If terrorists are inevitable, are you suggesting that we should learn to love and tolerate them in our midst?

We must remember that our actions have consequences. Our own actions are largely responsible for the whole world hating us.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I am all for remaining sensible and not just running policy from hysterics. (Full body scans.. how stupid!) but these people who do these evil deeds need to understand our desire for catharsis when they do evil to us.

Ok, so their behavior is an outrage, so I am outraged. Then I serve revenge on their sick asses... cold.

They say the same thing- it's our foreign policy that's puts us in their sights.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

We can not prevent all terrorists attacks.
We MIGHT be able to cut down on them if DHS was looking in the right places at the right people instead of focusing on dammit janet's boogey men, the 50+ white christain men who are military vetrens.
How about dumping her and getting a dhs leader that will look for the terrorists where there are actually terrorists.
never stop them all though

We also might reduce them by ceasing to put puppet governments into poower that fuck their populace to look after our economic interests. America does not act within a vacuum.

 

[antipartisan]

1. Nothing will guarantee that you won't die in a fire tonight, either, but the odds of that are significantly reduced if you ensure that your wiring and heating is reasonably safe, you put a screen across your fireplace, you don't leave the burner on under a pan of grease, and you extinguish the candles before heading to bed. Should I not be concerned about fire?

2. Sorry, but when you assume that our outrage is false when there are people who are determined to destroy us and/or our way of life, that is a pretty extreme and absurd assumption.

I agree with these concepts. I just think that our current solution is not a good solution and has not proved to be a good solution to "keep us safe".

Going into Iraq and the mountains of Afsh*tholestan, risking American soldiers' live, spending billions of taxpayer $, to get the relatively few terrosists is not going to solve the problem. Honestly, I feel that Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are just excuses to go after oil/oil lines.

But for the sake of this thread, you don't have to agree with the oil issue...

What is important is that noone can tell me how these invasions are going to solve the problem when there are terrorists all over the world and amongst us? How is getting these few terrorists going to keep us safe? Anyone? Anyone? If all the terrorists in Afghanistan lined up and voluntarily gave themselves up, you'd still have the exact same threats of terrorism.

With that said, I do agree there should be behavior profiling to an extent, especially at our ports/borders.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Nothing will guarantee that you won't die in a fire tonight, either, but the odds of that are significantly reduced if you ensure that your wiring and heating is reasonably safe, you put a screen across your fireplace, you don't leave the burner on under a pan of grease, and you extinguish the candles before heading to bed. Should I not be concerned about fire?

2. Sorry, but when you assume that our outrage is false when there are people who are determined to destroy us and/or our way of life, that is a pretty extreme and absurd assumption.

I agree with these concepts. I just think that our current solution is not a good solution and has not proved to be a good solution to "keep us safe".

Going into Iraq and the mountains of Afsh*tholestan, risking American soldiers' live, spending billions of taxpayer $, to get the relatively few terrosists is not going to solve the problem. Honestly, I feel that Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are just excuses to go after oil/oil lines.

But for the sake of this thread, you don't have to agree with the oil issue...

What is important is that noone can tell me how these invasions are going to solve the problem when there are terrorists all over the world and amongst us? How is getting these few terrorists going to keep us safe? Anyone? Anyone? If all the terrorists in Afghanistan lined up and voluntarily gave themselves up, you'd still have the exact same threats of terrorism.

With that said, I do agree there should be behavior profiling to an extent, especially at our ports/borders.

The 9/11 attacks could not go unpunished without the USA signaling to al Qaida and every other world terrorist group that al Qaida had won a great victory. The cost of invading Afghanistan in blood and treasure almost certainly prevented us paying ten times that had we not done that. The Congressional House vote authorizing armed retaliation was 420 to 1 and I believe the Senate was similar. It's pretty hard to second guess that.

Iraq will be reviewed and debated for decades to come as to whether that was a good thing to do. And the ultimate verdict of history be deermind by what becomes of Iraq.

Though not all were willing to do anything about it, Congress essentially to a man/woman was convinced that Saddam had WMD and would use them against us or allies closer to him. All through the Clinton administration, there were numerous letters of petition from Democrats and Republicans sent to the Oval Office urging some kind of action. 9/11 was the ultimate excuse to go ahead and deal with it, not because there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, but because we were engaged in a war on terrorism and Iraq was a hotbed of it. The congressional House vote - bipartian - authorizing the invasion was 296-133 and even more decisive in the Senate. Some of the more volatile (and hypocritical) who later would condemn that invasion were among those who argued most earnestly for it and voted for it at the time.\

But all that is what it is however it plays out in history, and really does not have any bearing on what our policy should be to deal with the thugs, misfits, and opportunists who intend to hurt us as much as they possibly can. I think nobody can legitimately point to Afghanistan and/or Iraq as an excuse for not doing whatever we must do to keep the people at home as safe as possible.