NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks. I wonder if we are indeed paranoid. Consider the following incidents, all of which have happened within the last couple of weeks and target America.

On June 22nd federal officers conducted a raid on a “home grown” terrorist cell in Miami. They were planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053

A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

Just yesterday, newspapers announced federal agents had broken up a plot to blow up subway tunnels connecting NJ and NY. They had hoped to “flood” New York.

Now realize, the two plots are the only ones we know about. Are there others? Should Americans be a little cautious or are we just plain paranoid.

What think you?

Well, I think that we are extremely cautious right now and I don't see that changing any time soon. If we are paranoid, I think to a certain degree yes.

I think some Americans are a lot more worried about terrorist than they should be.

As for me, I'm not worried at all. Terrorists have hundreds, if not thousands of more important targets than where I live.

While I believe terrorism is a legit threat, I am against Bush creating a culture of fear surrounding it...if we live our lives in fear of terrorism, they've already won.

damn, mis-clicked.

No, Americans are not paranoid, but that doesn't mean that we are not targets.

After 9/11, and with the amount of people who are hostile to the US, I am glad for tighter security. If the gov was any less concerned about terrorist attacks, then I would be worried.

Yes Americans should be very afraid of terrorist blowing them up or a family member or friend. This is why the call them terrorist.....Americans now cant feel safe because they arent safe. When the American goverment can do what they were put in office to do(To protect the People) Then the Americans can feel safe. Also when they leave the middle east terrorist might think less of what they call the United States of Infedels!

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks... Should Americans be a little cautious or are we just plain paranoid.

What think you?

Terrorism is the practise of changing govrnment policies, using fear as the engine of change.

The 'paranoia' of the US means that terrorists 'win', even if all they do is sit in their apartments. We are chaning the policies, through fear, even when there is NO 'terrorist activity'.

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.

Terrorism is the practise of changing govrnment policies, using fear as the engine of change.

The 'paranoia' of the US means that terrorists 'win', even if all they do is sit in their apartments. We are chaning the policies, through fear, even when there is NO 'terrorist activity'.

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.
actually, Terrorism is the practice of using terror as a means to achieve a goal.

Well after watching about 3,000 fellow Americans get blow away by a bunch of Islamofascist scum using our own airplanes, filled with people and fuel, damn straight I might be a little more apprehensive about my world.

Terrorism is the practise of changing govrnment policies, using fear as the engine of change.

The 'paranoia' of the US means that terrorists 'win', even if all they do is sit in their apartments. We are chaning the policies, through fear, even when there is NO 'terrorist activity'.

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.
They didn't change the policies the way they wanted to. Instead of us not doing anything we've decided to bomb the living s*** out of Osama and his crew.

What an idiotic poll, only a flaming left wing libtard would come up with something that slanted. :upyours:

There is no "good reason to be paranoid" - other than having a mental dysfunction. Paranoia is by definition an irrational fear; delusion. So unless you believe the USA is suffering from some sort of psychological disorder, there is no way you can agree there is a "good reason to be paranoid."

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.

If the "War on Terror is a lie, that means there is not war. If there is no war, terrorists can not be winning. :rolleyes:

There is no "good reason to be paranoid" - other than having a mental dysfunction. Paranoia is by definition an irrational fear; delusion. So unless you believe the USA is suffering from some sort of psychological disorder, there is no way you can agree there is a "good reason to be paranoid."
I consider in this case that paranoia will mean a little more apprehensive.

What an idiotic poll, only a flaming left wing libtard would come up with something that slanted. :upyours:

Bad first post. I doubt you will find many people on this forum that think I am "a flaming left wing libtard." :eek: Welcome to NS General. :fluffle:

I consider in this case that paranoia will mean a little more apprehensive.

I remember ignorant calls to "nuke the middle east," and invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of civilians. And I won't even get into domestic political changes all capitalizing on 9/11. Seems to me a bit more than a "little more apprehensive" of a reaction.

A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

Yes, I'm sure we're afraid we'll get attacked by a Taepodong, because it is such a horrifying name for a missile.

actually, Terrorism is the practice of using terror as a means to achieve a goal.

Well... If we want the OFFICIAL version, we have to go with the UN definitions, I guess:

Short form:

"Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime"

League of Nations form:

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

'Long' form:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

2004 UN Panel form:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."


If we look at dictionary definitions:

OED form:

"a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised."

Websters form:

"act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation."

American-Heritage form:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

If we look at 'regulatory' definition:


U.S. Code of Federal Regulations:

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


The one thing on which there seems to be consensus, seems to be that there IS no consensus.

However - looking at it objectively... the IRA wanted the British out of Ireland, Al Qaeda wanted the US out of the Middle East...

It seems that, in real terms, terrorism MAY have 'smaller' objectives, but that the over-arching 'cause' is forcing policy changes at the highest level.

While I believe terrorism is a legit threat, I am against Bush creating a culture of fear surrounding it...if we live our lives in fear of terrorism, they've already won.


Of course you would prefer we stick our heads in the sand!:rolleyes:


This "culture of fear" meme is simply the leftist loonies trying to undermine the President.

Bad first post. I doubt you will find many people on this forum that think I am "a flaming left wing libtard." :eek: Welcome to NS General. :fluffle:

Show me where that poll is not drastically slanted to the left and I'll gladly & publicly apologize.

LE

Terrorism is the practise of changing govrnment policies, using fear as the engine of change.

The 'paranoia' of the US means that terrorists 'win', even if all they do is sit in their apartments. We are chaning the policies, through fear, even when there is NO 'terrorist activity'.

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.


I guess you shouldn't be upset about us being in Iraq then, now should you? After all, WE AREN'T THERE - because the war on terror is a LIE!:rolleyes:

...Al Qaeda wanted the US out of the Middle East...

That didn't work out to well for them, did it?

Yes, I'm sure we're afraid we'll get attacked by a Taepodong, because it is such a horrifying name for a missile.
I heard after they launch the Taepodong(pronounced Type a dong), they will be testing the Big Fat Schlong.

Of course you would prefer we stick our heads in the sand!:rolleyes:
This "culture of fear" meme is simply the leftist loonies trying to undermine the President.
Last time I checked, libertarian =/= leftist. Nice ad homenim, though. :rolleyes:
And undermime the President? That's bullsh*t on a stick right there. Terrorism is rearing its ugly head in the outlying regions of Afghanistan again, I don't see Bush supplementing our meager troop force there.

I guess you shouldn't be upset about us being in Iraq then, now should you? After all, WE AREN'T THERE - because the war on terror is a LIE!:rolleyes:

And, Iraq is related to that war, how?

The 'terrorism' in Iraq became a factor AFTER we deposed their leaders and occupied their country.

We claimed WMD's. We claimed humanitarian concerns.

But it looks more like we were pissed at faceless Islamic attacks, and just rolled tanks into the likeliest looking nation.

Your poll sucks. Paranoia is never with a good reason. That's why it's called paranoia.

That didn't work out to well for them, did it?

Look at the history. Taliban resistance finally triumphed over the last 'evil empire' that occupied their land. They'll wait. And they'll fight a guerrila war. And eventually - if history is any example - we'll get sick of sending our boys to die on their terms, and we'll go home.

Yeah terroism is horrible (more stupid than horrible in my opinion) but I think the people of the US have way more to fear from they're own government.

Look at the history. Taliban resistance finally triumphed over the last 'evil empire' that occupied their land. They'll wait. And they'll fight a guerrila war. And eventually - if history is any example - we'll get sick of sending our boys to die on their terms, and we'll go home.
Only if we become a bunch of faceless pussies like we did in Vietnam.

Yeah terroism is horrible (more stupid than horrible in my opinion) but I think the people of the US have way more to fear from they're own government.

Only if the democrats take over the house/ senate in '06, until then we'll be just fine.

Show me where that poll is not drastically slanted to the left and I'll gladly & publicly apologize.

LE

Option #1. Your apology is accepted in advance.

The only reason I put in option #3 is so all the "left wing it's all Bush's fault" crowd would have an answer acceptable to them and I wouldn't have to listen to their whining. :p

Option #1. Your apology is accepted in advance.

The only reason I put in option #3 is so all the "left wing it's all Bush's fault" crowd would have an answer acceptable to them and I wouldn't have to listen to their whining. :p
I don't know, but my preferred answer as a leftist would be a simple yes, without the 'good reason' attached.

Only if we become a bunch of faceless pussies like we did in Vietnam.

You might not have looked at the National debt, lately. The only thing stopping us from bankrupting ourselves in this 'war', is the merciful fact we are already bankrupt.

As for the Vietnam comparison... it's a GOOD one... we can't SEE the enemy, they look like everyone else, and they can just keep killing our soldiers at whim.

The thing about this situation that differs, however, is that THIS 'war' is a non-traditional war, that has NO borders.

Your poll sucks. Paranoia is never with a good reason. That's why it's called paranoia.

Sorry but...I'm not from the politically correct crowd. I've also heard Americans called paranoid so many times in this forum I guess it kind of slipped out. (Maybe I should have taken my tongue out of my cheek before I wrote that, but...)

Anyway, if you want to write a less snide more politically correct poll, you have my permission.

The one thing on which there seems to be consensus, seems to be that there IS no consensus.agreed there.

However - looking at it objectively... the IRA wanted the British out of Ireland, Al Qaeda wanted the US out of the Middle East...

It seems that, in real terms, terrorism MAY have 'smaller' objectives, but that the over-arching 'cause' is forcing policy changes at the highest level.
and Al Qaeda failed in that respect, so how can you say that they are winning?

policy changes occure when ever a tragedy occures.

to do nothing will make the Govenment just as guilty as those who committed the acts of Terror.

I'm not paranoid at all. :)

...

*eyes narrow* Why? Who's been saying that I am? I WANT NAMES!!! :mad:

You might not have looked at the National debt, lately. The only thing stopping us from bankrupting ourselves in this 'war', is the merciful fact we are already bankrupt.

As for the Vietnam comparison... it's a GOOD one... we can't SEE the enemy, they look like everyone else, and they can just keep killing our soldiers at whim.

The thing about this situation that differs, however, is that THIS 'war' is a non-traditional war, that has NO borders.
As that is true, then, as horrible as this is, you must fight fire with fire. Not necessarily suicide bombings, but you have to win the psychological aspect of this war, its crucial. As Sun Tzu once said: "Strike one, scare a thousand."

Look at the history. SNIP And eventually - if history is any example - we'll get sick of sending our boys to die on their terms, and we'll go home.

I didn't know we got sick of sending our boys to die on their terms during WW I, WW II, and Korea. :rolleyes:

Look at the history. Taliban resistance finally triumphed over the last 'evil empire' that occupied their land. They'll wait. And they'll fight a guerrila war. And eventually - if history is any example - we'll get sick of sending our boys to die on their terms, and we'll go home.
but that's not terrorism, but Guerrila warfare. big difference.

Option #1. Your apology is accepted in advance.

The only reason I put in option #3 is so all the "left wing it's all Bush's fault" crowd would have an answer acceptable to them and I wouldn't have to listen to their whining. :p
however, you did leave out an "No, not paranoid, but we are targets." option.

Option #1. Your apology is accepted in advance.

The only reason I put in option #3 is so all the "left wing it's all Bush's fault" crowd would have an answer acceptable to them and I wouldn't have to listen to their whining. :p

Poll Options
Are Americans parinoid about terrorists attacks. Pretty typical left accusation right there that it's paranoia, (of course caused by republicans)
Yes, and they have goo reason to be parinoid. A far more balanced way to limit this to something more fair would be to either edit this one to not paranoid but vigilant
Hell no, there is no evidence anyone is plotting against them.
It is all the fault of GWB. If they get rid of him there will be no problem. As for the rest if it was meant as a joke you have my apology

My problem with your poll is that there is no logical choice there for the rational to pick. I'm in no way paranoid about another terrorist attack yet I do know that @ some point there will be other attempts on American soil. Therefore the only logical thing for any sane person to do is to be vigilant of their surroundings and people's actions. I know I'm sick to death of hearing that our rights are being trampled on, I have yet to meet ANYONE who has been violated by the NSA spying programs, financial transaction watchdogs, or any of the other tin foil hat conspiracies that seem to be running so rampant as of late.

LE;)

And, Iraq is related to that war, how?

The 'terrorism' in Iraq became a factor AFTER we deposed their leaders and occupied their country.

We claimed WMD's. We claimed humanitarian concerns.

But it looks more like we were pissed at faceless Islamic attacks, and just rolled tanks into the likeliest looking nation.

Iraq wasn't the likeliest looking nation...

Only if we become a bunch of faceless pussies like we did in Vietnam.

Because of the anti-war crowd like Fonda, Biaez, Kerry, etc., and the liberal press the politicians didn't let the military do the job they were trained to do. We couldn't cross the DMZ to persue the enemy. We couldn't bomb their supplies in the North, etc, etc. :mad:

As that is true, then, as horrible as this is, you must fight fire with fire. Not necessarily suicide bombings, but you have to win the psychological aspect of this war, its crucial. As Sun Tzu once said: "Strike one, scare a thousand."

In other words, 'terrorism' (which is what you are effectively describing), is a valid tool?

I didn't know we got sick of sending our boys to die on their terms during WW I, WW II, and Korea. :rolleyes:

Okay.

Irrelevent, but okay.

None of those were parallel to the War on Terror, in any way... but, whatever.

but that's not terrorism, but Guerrila warfare. big difference.

No - not really. Guerrila tactics often ARE 'terror' tactics... and our 'enemy' is not a solid force with a given nationality.... the war on terror is a war against a worldwide guerrila force.

Iraq wasn't the likeliest looking nation...

On the contrary... we'd been there recently, we'd damaged them a few years earlier and knew their troop strength... they had oil reserves, and we knew they couldn't defend themselves.

Pretty 'likely-looking' target, all in all.

My problem with your poll is that there is no logical choice there for the rational to pick.

My poll was not meant to be logical, in that you are correct. It was meant to be snide and cynical. As you get to know the NS General forum better you will find there are many left leaning, America bashing, Bush hating individuals here, some of whom have been calling American paranoid. That's why I used that term. The whole point is to show that we are not paranoid and that in spite of their ranting there are people out there who "want to get" us. As you get to know me better, I think you will find out our political views are similar. Again, welcome to NS.

Okay.

Irrelevent, but okay.

None of those were parallel to the War on Terror, in any way... but, whatever.

Well, you did say "history repeating" so I threw in some history. Also, history can not be repeating itself in the War on Terror because this is the first war on terror we have fought.

No - not really. Guerrila tactics often ARE 'terror' tactics... and our 'enemy' is not a solid force with a given nationality.... the war on terror is a war against a worldwide guerrila force.

No guerrila tactics are not terror tactics. Gorilla tactics are used against military targets, not civilian targets. Terror tactics are primarily against civilians.

I heard after they launch the Taepodong(pronounced Type a dong), they will be testing the Big Fat Schlong.

I hear it spreads a deadly chemical called "Cream of Sun Yun Gai."

I heard after they launch the Taepodong(pronounced Type a dong), they will be testing the Big Fat Schlong.
and I bet that too will come out short, fail after a great start and all out be just as big a flop as the Taepodong. :D

Well, you did say "history repeating" so I threw in some history. Also, history can not be repeating itself in the War on Terror because this is the first war on terror we have fought.

But not the first 'war' of this KIND, we've fought.

We have fought one war like this previously, where we tried to carry the 'war' to an enemy that is not an army, is not able to be differentiated from the populace, and feels no need to fight a 'declared' war.

We got it handed to us from the minute we got there. We acheived nothing, short of a lot of our people dead, and a lot of their people dead... civvies and combatants on both sides.

The ONLY thing that's keeping the official death tolls down this time - is that we hide half the statistics... by 'outsourcing' things like transport, where so many of the casualties are.

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks. I wonder if we are indeed paranoid. Consider the following incidents, all of which have happened within the last couple of weeks and target America.

On June 22nd federal officers conducted a raid on a “home grown” terrorist cell in Miami. They were planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053

A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

Just yesterday, newspapers announced federal agents had broken up a plot to blow up subway tunnels connecting NJ and NY. They had hoped to “flood” New York.

Now realize, the two plots are the only ones we know about. Are there others? Should Americans be a little cautious or are we just plain paranoid.

What think you?
Some few are being paranoid, but I think most Americans have a realistic attitude about terrorist plots. Your poll didn't allow for that option. :p

Okay.

Irrelevent, but okay.

None of those were parallel to the War on Terror, in any way... but, whatever.
What, you mean those were wars that could actually be fought, let alone won?

I hear it spreads a deadly chemical called "Cream of Sun Yun Gai."

Thank you Jon Stewart! ;)

As for the War on Terror... it's not a war (Congress did not make an official declaration of war), and it definitely isn't a war on terrorism (you can't declare war on a tactic, no matter how repugnant). In other words, the War on Terror is just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on *fill in the blank*... and we all know how those "wars" have turned out.

Edit: As for the original topic... we're paranoid about terrorists when we shouldn't be, and we aren't paranoid about terrorists when we should be. Wonderful country, eh?

No guerrila tactics are not terror tactics. Gorilla tactics are used against military targets, not civilian targets. Terror tactics are primarily against civilians.

A quick look across at Wiki shows the following:

"Guerrillas in Iraq (since 2003)
Many guerrilla tactics are used by the Iraqi insurgency against the US-led coalition. Such tactics include exploding vehicles, people and other forms of suicide bombing, ambushes, and hit and run raids . They have injured more than 18,000 coalition troops and killed over 2,700, coalition troops including over 2,500 US soldiers. And have established control dominance over the Al Anbar Governorate.


These are all tactics that have been employed against military and civilian targets. It is a guerrilla war, no matter who the target.

What, you mean those were wars that could actually be fought, let alone won?

Exactly. You can't fight a war against an opponent you can't identify... hell, can't even detect!

Exactly. You can't fight a war against an opponent you can't identify... hell, can't even detect!
hell, I'll even leave my passive nature, and will promise upon pain of death that I will beat, torture, abuse, and kill a "terror" if someone can present me with one or tell me where I can find one.

I don't think most americans care.

hell, I'll even leave my passive nature, and will promise upon pain of death that I will beat, torture, abuse, and kill a "terror" if someone can present me with one or tell me where I can find one.

Here, I've caught one. See?

Ah crap... it was here a minute ago....

Here, I've caught one. See?

Congratulations! God Bless the USA!

Ah crap... it was here a minute ago....

... you traitor.

Congratulations! God Bless the USA!

... you traitor.


Nooo, come on. Have you ever tried pinning one down?

My poll was not meant to be logical, in that you are correct. It was meant to be snide and cynical. As you get to know the NS General forum better you will find there are many left leaning, America bashing, Bush hating individuals here, some of whom have been calling American paranoid. That's why I used that term. The whole point is to show that we are not paranoid and that in spite of their ranting there are people out there who "want to get" us. As you get to know me better, I think you will find out our political views are similar. Again, welcome to NS.

So what you're really saying is that my original analysis of the poll was dead on. I just didn't know you well enough to know that it was a joke.

Thanks again for the welcome and I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing eye to eye on lots from what I can tell. ;)

Nooo, come on. Have you ever tried pinning one down?
wormy little bastards, they are. *nod*

Nooo, come on. Have you ever tried pinning one down?

Well, in 1991 I wrestled with an Aggression.

But I hear those are extinct now.

Someone famous and now long dead once said that those willing to give freedom for safety should be allowed neither. I'm inclined to agree.

While I believe terrorism is a legit threat, I am against Bush creating a culture of fear surrounding it...if we live our lives in fear of terrorism, they've already won.
Exactly

Bush is paranoid how ever look at this.
http://newsmax.com/archives/article...2412.shtml?s=us


ACLU Sues Over Security for Bush Protest


Friday, July 7, 2006



Quote:
MEDFORD, Ore. -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging the U.S. Secret Service and state and local police protecting President Bush during a 2004 campaign appearance discriminated against protesters when they cleared the streets outside where the president was eating dinner.


The class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court contends that police acting on orders from the Secret Service used unreasonable force to move some 200 people peacefully protesting against the Iraq war in Jacksonville while allowing pro-Bush demonstrators to remain standing on sidewalks.


"Our primary motive is to prevent this kind of activity from happening again in the future," said David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon ACLU.


On Oct. 16, 2004, President Bush made a campaign speech at the Jackson County fairgrounds and later had dinner on the patio of the Jacksonville Inn within earshot of protesters before spending the night at an inn cottage.

IT WAS A PEACEFULL PROTEST ya bush is a nut case

Yes because we aren't used to them. We've really only had two major ones: WTC 2001 and Oklahoma City...or maybe that's jus me because I was born a few years before WTC 1993.

Last time I checked, libertarian =/= leftist. Nice ad homenim, though. :rolleyes:
And undermime the President? That's bullsh*t on a stick right there. Terrorism is rearing its ugly head in the outlying regions of Afghanistan again, I don't see Bush supplementing our meager troop force there.

We don't need to. Have you not heard about the recent initiatives? Not that this is relevent to the Left aiding and abetting the terrorists.

We don't need to. Have you not heard about the recent initiatives?

I have. I hear the Taliban are making a great comeback in the Helmand Province.

"Far-Away Wars: Episode Two- The Taliban Strike Back"

*deep trumpeting music*

I hear it spreads a deadly chemical called "Cream of Sun Yun Gai."

My friend's Guild Wars name is Cream of Sum Yung Gai

People will fear whatever they are told to fear. Tell them that 'dihydrogen monoxide' has been found in every tumor or that it's the top contributer to the greenhouse effect and they'll try to ban it. In fact someone did just that in Aliso Viejo, California.

Paranoia. Fear. Panic. They do no one any good so don't. Don't panic. Don't be afraid. Don't be paranoid.

Of course, are you still paranoid if they're really out to get you? *X-Files music*

And, Iraq is related to that war, how?

The 'terrorism' in Iraq became a factor AFTER we deposed their leaders and occupied their country.

WRONG!!!! Current events isn't your strong point, is it?

We claimed WMD's. We claimed humanitarian concerns.

We FOUND the WMD's that we asked Saddam to prove he destroyed!
See the Duelfer report annex "f" and the recently declassified report from the Senate select intelligence committee.
WE KNOW there were humanitarian concerns! (violent deaths have significantly decreased since we got rid of Saddam (reduced from well over 71,000 per year to less than 20,000.)

But it looks more like we were pissed at faceless Islamic attacks, and just rolled tanks into the likeliest looking nation.


Perhaps you should actually think before you post - or at least read the actual reports that the press has misreported on.

The Americans seem to have a desperate need to fear something. The fall of the USSR seemed to leave a void. They soon found that "terrorism" filled that void nicely.

The Americans seem to have a desperate need to fear something. The fall of the USSR seemed to leave a void. They soon found that "terrorism" filled that void nicely.

If you knew anybody that actually died in a terrorist attack, then you can talk.

I knew two. And our office was only 5 blocks from WTC.

So I ask you in the most polite way to please shut the fuck up.

The Americans seem to have a desperate need to fear something. The fall of the USSR seemed to leave a void. They soon found that "terrorism" filled that void nicely.

Yep, that little thing on Sept. 11th, 2001 was our imagination. Right??:rolleyes:

If you knew anybody that actually died in a terrorist attack, then you can talk.

I knew two. And our office was only 5 blocks from WTC.

So I ask you in the most polite way to please shut the fuck up.

Thank YOU!

I was in the WTC on the day before it was attacked.

Thank YOU!

I was in the WTC on the day before it was attacked.

Trippy! :eek:

We've logically relocated to Chrysler since then. That way, whomever wants to bomb it, Grand Central, the UN, St. Patricks, MSG, or the Empire State stands a pretty good chance of getting us as well. :headbang:

...I voted for Stamford. But noooooooooooooo.... :(

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks. I wonder if we are indeed paranoid.

American's, particularly the hawkish types, are paranoid about Islamic fundamentalism, and the terrorism militants do in it's name. When it's a homegrown white man, or something that identifies with an American, it gets brushed under the carpet.

Case example, the bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh. Just after the bombing, everyone was on the lookout for a suspect of Muslim or Arabic descent. Responses, judging by those that were derived from the 9/11 incident, were both virulent and hateful against the middle eastern community despite no hard evidence linking them. Nobody suspected that a white could have done it.

And when it did come out that a white man was behind the incident, it was relatively pushed under the rug.

In conclusion, Americans are more racist than paranoid, the result of constant "we whites are superior to everyone" indoctrination that has occured over many generations. The paranoia is merely a extension of that particular ideology.


A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

A missile by most accounts, failed to even take off in one piece and fizzled early. Taking this as a sign of anything more than a local power trying, and failing, to flex it's limited muscles is fear mongering and paranoia.


Just yesterday, newspapers announced federal agents had broken up a plot to blow up subway tunnels connecting NJ and NY. They had hoped to “flood” New York.

If this is the same article that supposedly was learned from forum postings, I believe there was a thread about this not too long ago. Close examinations revealed that no funds were sent to make this plot feasible, nor where there any purchases of critical components made. Unless the report lied, there was no indication that this plot was anymore serious than your typical NS general "evil overlord" plot.


What think you?

Conclusion: Yes, Americans are paranoid. One reason I forgot to list regarding that paranoia is a feeling of invulnerability that Americans in general were fed, seperating them from the realities of war, terrorism, and the bloody consequences. The limited cases where they did occur on American soil either were small in scale, lacked significant casualties and/or lacked a foreign component to direct that paranoia to.

Timothy McVeigh and 9/11 both proved that the American paranoia that currently grips the nation is one that occurs because it appeals to the popular "clash of civilizations" and is more easily identifiable with simple moral equivalences of good and evil as well as caters to instilled senses of racial superiority.

If you knew anybody that actually died in a terrorist attack, then you can talk.

I knew two. And our office was only 5 blocks from WTC.

So I ask you in the most polite way to please shut the fuck up.

Ah, right, sorry. I forgot that if I'm not part of the minority who knew someone in world-trade-center I'm not allowed to have an opinion. :rolleyes:
So far, I'm only allowed an opinion on car-crashes, heart-attacks and cancer.
I remember a couple of terrorist attacks when I lived in Paris though, so maybe I'm allowed? Please?

Anyway, I still think America is wallowing in paranoia and fear.

Wanker.

I'm not paranoid at all. :)

...

*eyes narrow* Why? Who's been saying that I am? I WANT NAMES!!! :mad:

The Goofballian Goofster? Paranoid? No, it can't be. You must be an imposter.

But to test it....*throws bowling ball in LG's general direction. Watches it change direction mid flight, hitting him squarely in the groin*

If he gets up, laughs and throws himself into a mud patch, it's LG alright. Otherwise, he's a fake.

Ah, right, sorry. I forgot that if I'm not part of the minority who knew someone in world-trade-center I'm not allowed to have an opinion. :rolleyes:
So far, I'm only allowed an opinion on car-crashes, heart-attacks and cancer.
I remember a couple of terrorist attacks when I lived in Paris though, so maybe I'm allowed? Please?

Anyway, I still think America is wallowing in paranoia and fear.

Wanker.

Oh no, you're perfectly allowed to have an opinion.
Likewise, I'm allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up about how you think I feel.

...So tell me about France? How many thousands died when the purpetrators flew two airbuses into the Lourve and Eiffel Tower?
Oh, that's right! That didn't happen! :rolleyes:

Look, I have a lot of respect for folks that have lived through anything.
But -- were you actually THERE, on the street when the thing happened? Did you have to deal with conspiracy theorists in the press saying that "All the Jews left WTC in time", or "It was an inside job"?

Americans in general don't fear much, barring general chaos and uncertain death. Consider what if 9/11 happened in YOUR city and how you would react.

It is all the fault of GWB. If they get rid of him there will be no problem.

^ BS. I guess by this line of thought after the USS Cole attack,we should have gotten rid of William J Clinton?

* sigh *

It is all the fault of GWB. If they get rid of him there will be no problem.

^ BS. I guess by this line of thought after the USS Cole attack,we should have gotten rid of William J Clinton?

* sigh *

Brilliant! :)

Hey, we should have gotten rid of FDR! Hitler would have given back Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxemborg, Belgium and France for sure! :D

Oh no, you're perfectly allowed to have an opinion.
Likewise, I'm allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up about how you think I feel.

...So tell me about France? How many thousands died when the purpetrators flew two airbuses into the Lourve and Eiffel Tower?
Oh, that's right! That didn't happen! :rolleyes:

Look, I have a lot of respect for folks that have lived through anything.
But -- were you actually THERE, on the street when the thing happened? Did you have to deal with conspiracy theorists in the press saying that "All the Jews left WTC in time", or "It was an inside job"?

Americans in general don't fear much, barring general chaos and uncertain death. Consider what if 9/11 happened in YOUR city and how you would react.

I'm not saying anything about "how I think you feel". I'm just saying americans are paranoid. And they are.

I wasn't actually there when any of the bombs in Paris exploded, but I remember the chaos, the police in the street and the lids on the trashbins etc.

As for Americans in general not fearing much. You're just wrong. Come on now. I've seen American news, it's all "is YOUR family at risk of contracting bird-flu from a soft-drink?" and "How safe are YOU AND YOUR FAMILY from suicidal pelikans?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD9QBPo71cc

Americans in general don't fear much, barring general chaos and uncertain death. Consider what if 9/11 happened in YOUR city and how you would react.

Why the Hell would someone want to ram San Jose with a plane when San Francisco is only a few minutes away (on a plane, I mean)?

I'm not saying anything about "how I think you feel". I'm just saying americans are paranoid. And they are.

I wasn't actually there when any of the bombs in Paris exploded, but I remember the chaos, the police in the street and the lids on the trashbins etc.

I'm an American. You're saying I'm paranoid. I'm saying you should STFU. It's a pretty easy sequence of events.

As for Americans in general not fearing much. You're just wrong. Come on now. I've seen American news, it's all "is YOUR family at risk of contracting bird-flu from a soft-drink?" and "How safe are YOU AND YOUR FAMILY from suicidal pelikans?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD9QBPo71cc

Dude, that's the MEDIA. You think we don't read between the lines? Okay, .010% of us DID go buy silver coins, bottled water, huge stacks of canned tuna and a generator for Y2K. But that's about the same amount of numbskulls as ANY population would have.

Going by that logic, the French must all love Dean Martin, since they keep watching Jerry Lewis films!

Why the Hell would someone want to ram San Jose with a plane when San Francisco is only a few minutes away (on a plane, I mean)?

Angry Canadians that REALLY hate the Sharks?

Sorry but...I'm not from the politically correct crowd. I've also heard Americans called paranoid so many times in this forum I guess it kind of slipped out. (Maybe I should have taken my tongue out of my cheek before I wrote that, but...)

Anyway, if you want to write a less snide more politically correct poll, you have my permission.
Wow dude, you'll whip that boogy man out no matter how tenious, won't you. I now imagine you blaming missing the trash can in a toss on political correctness. I think what you where going for in this situation might be grammatical correctness, or contextual correctness. I honestly don't see how you could possibly get "political" correctness out of this, so I am forced to dust off The Stretchy:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/AmelieLabarthe/strecharmstrong.jpg
Mr. Armstrong would be proud.

I'm an American. You're saying I'm paranoid. I'm saying you should STFU. It's a pretty easy sequence of events.



Dude, that's the MEDIA. You think we don't read between the lines? Okay, .010% of us DID go buy silver coins, bottled water, huge stacks of canned tuna and a generator for Y2K. But that's about the same amount of numbskulls as ANY population would have.

Going by that logic, the French must all love Dean Martin, since they keep watching Jerry Lewis films!

Americans, in general, are very paranoid.

Ever see your president speak? The man invokes 9/11, terrorism and "freedom" in almost every sentence. And you guys voted for him twice.

70% of you guys think Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
We're talking about the country where Orson Welles caused a mass panic when the martians landed in his radio theatre. Have you ever seen those propaganda films from the 50's and 60's? Communists eat children and your neighbor might be one...etc.
What's the logic used by NRA and gun-enthusiasts? "Dude might come at me". The reason for the war in Iraq? "Dude's up to something"...etc etc etc.

And I don't think you guys "read between the lines". There may be some who do, but you guys aren't exactly famous for your intelligence.

Great generalization there of an entire nation of people.

Great generalization there of an entire nation of people.

Yep. Welcome to the forums.

You'll note that there is no substantiation, either. ;)

Angry Canadians that REALLY hate the Sharks?

Why would they hate the Sharks? They suck.

And when it did come out that a white man was behind the incident, it was relatively pushed under the rug.

That is a bunch of hog shi. and you know it. Pushed under the rug...get real.

In conclusion, Americans are more racist than paranoid, the result of constant "we whites are superior to everyone" indoctrination that has occured over many generations. The paranoia is merely a extension of that particular ideology.

I think you have been listening to a bit to many Louis Farrakhan speeches.

A missile by most accounts, failed to even take off in one piece and fizzled early.

The missile took off OK. Fortunatly it broke up 47 seconds into flight. If you are going to debate, at least get your facts right.

If this is the same article that supposedly was learned from forum postings, I believe there was a thread about this not too long ago.

The least you could do is check out the link. Again, you are wrong. It has nothing to do with a "not long ago" post on NS. It has to do with real news events that happened within the last couple of days.


Conclusion: Yes, Americans are paranoid. One reason I forgot to list regarding that paranoia is a feeling of invulnerability...

Conclision: You don't even have a clue about the definition of paranoia. It has nothing to do with "a feeling of invulnerability. Why don't you check out www.dictionary.com for the definition.

Americans, in general, are very paranoid.

Ever see your president speak? The man invokes 9/11, terrorism and "freedom" in almost every sentence. And you guys voted for him twice.

70% of you guys think Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
We're talking about the country where Orson Welles caused a mass panic when the martians landed in his radio theatre. Have you ever seen those propaganda films from the 50's and 60's? Communists eat children and your neighbor might be one...etc.
What's the logic used by NRA and gun-enthusiasts? "Dude might come at me". The reason for the war in Iraq? "Dude's up to something"...etc etc etc.

And I don't think you guys "read between the lines". There may be some who do, but you guys aren't exactly famous for your intelligence.

Okay, I'll reply to this as you're replying (with mighty, sweeping generalities):

Yep! That's because anyone who isnt an American doesn't really matter anyway.

That's because Islamic men keep blowing themselves up to kill us. And, DID YOU SEE THE COMPETITION? Gore's new movie is as exciting as his campaign, and Kerry's only forward thinking action was to sell the Italian Villa, since most of his core don't have one.

That's because he was! Don't you watch the news?
Communists DO eat people. I cite North Korea as an example -- they're always sending out for Japanese!
Dude! Other people AREN'T up to something? Or are the recent French riots, the London and Madrid bombings and the Gaza kidnapping are all just "fake news"?

That's okay. The rest of the world isn't exactly reknown for winning, either.


There you go, a nice pile of generalities back at you. Feel free to come back when you want to actually DEBATE and not just sling mud around. :rolleyes:

Why would they hate the Sharks? They suck.

There you go! :D

I'm just saying americans are paranoid. And they are.

No, we are not paranoid, but we have every reason to be cautious as recent news events suggest. I don't understand why people who think like you keep calling us paranoid. Our concern of a terrorist attack is not unfounded not is it irrational. I posted this thread to point out just how irrational and un-justified individuals like yourself are when you call us paranoid.

Why the Hell would someone want to ram San Jose with a plane when San Francisco is only a few minutes away (on a plane, I mean)?

Because San Francisco is expecting it but San Jose is not?

There you go! :D

I knew we should've had a baseball team instead...

Because San Francisco is expecting it but San Jose is not?

There's not much to hit here except the Sharks, like he's said.

Yep. Welcome to the forums.

You'll note that there is no substantiation, either. ;)

Thanks. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

the American people as a whole i believe are not worried about terrorist attacks. rather just media magnifying certain cases and certain groups.

i also beleive your poll was near one of the worst polls ever.

70% of you guys think Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Source of the 70% please.


Communists eat children...

I was born in 1943 and never heard that in the 50's, 60's, or at any other time. Source of Communists eating children please.

There is a saying, If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shi.. So far, your brilliance is not shining through.

Great generalization there of an entire nation of people.

Welcome to NS General.

Sorry but...I'm not from the politically correct crowd. I've also heard Americans called paranoid so many times in this forum I guess it kind of slipped out. (Maybe I should have taken my tongue out of my cheek before I wrote that, but...)

Anyway, if you want to write a less snide more politically correct poll, you have my permission.
Wow dude, you'll whip that boogy man out no matter how tenious, won't you. I now imagine you blaming missing the trash can in a toss on political correctness. I think what you where going for in this situation might be grammatical correctness, or contextual correctness. I honestly don't see how you could possibly get "political" correctness out of this, so I am forced to dust off The Stretchy:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/AmelieLabarthe/strecharmstrong.jpg
Mr. Armstrong would be proud.

There's not much to hit here except the Sharks, like he's said.

Maybe, but sharks don't suck, catfish suck. :D

i also beleive your poll was near one of the worst polls ever.

Thank you. My objective has been met. :eek:

Source of the 70% please.




I was born in 1943 and never heard that in the 50's, 60's, or at any other time. Source of Communists eating children please.

There is a saying, If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shi.. So far, your brilliance is not shining through.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


As for the communists eat children thing...uhm...It was kind of obvious I didn't mean it literally. Wasn't it? There are plenty of examples of the communist scare though. I don't have to provide examples of that, do I?


http://static.flickr.com/23/25702137_821f578a1e_o.jpg
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/cover_01.html

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks. I wonder if we are indeed paranoid. Consider the following incidents, all of which have happened within the last couple of weeks and target America.

On June 22nd federal officers conducted a raid on a “home grown” terrorist cell in Miami. They were planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053

A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

Just yesterday, newspapers announced federal agents had broken up a plot to blow up subway tunnels connecting NJ and NY. They had hoped to “flood” New York.

Now realize, the two plots are the only ones we know about. Are there others? Should Americans be a little cautious or are we just plain paranoid.

What think you?
Obviously, we can't just ignore the possibility completely. That is idealistic and bloody stupid, the virtues paraded about by those on the American left disatisfied with Bush's policies that are too ignorant and too bull-headed to do anything but support that which is the exact opposite of what they don't like. In other words, the sheep. On that same token, those on the American right that would have us be so paranoid that we might as well just stay in bed forever, not moving an inch, are being equally stupid. Common sense, with some caution and a lot of careful watching, ought to do the trick.

Most American citizens, however, should not worry. They are in no real position to prevent terrorist attacks anyway, so it's not as if they could do something about one. Let those who are watching, those who have the technology and the manpower to stop such attacks worry. That's what I think. Will we be attacked again if we completely drop our guard as some far-left Democrats might suggest? Absolutely. Are we ever going to actually be that foolish? I don't think so. Those who say electing ANY Democrat would lead to such an outcome are idiotic, just as much as those who say electing any Republican would lead to the opposite, total paranoia situation.

So, in essence, I'll sum it up: be cautious, but don't worry too much about it.

why is the poll so biased? I'm starting to think bushanomics is your puppet.

Well, im not worried, becuase I live in Vermont. Unless the terrorists want to blow up Ben & Jerries ice cream, Cabot, or the Maple Syrup industry im pretty sure ill be fine.:p

Plus, I doubt the terrorists would like the cold in winter, or the bugs in summer.

There are plenty of examples of the communist scare though. I don't have to provide examples of that, do I?


http://static.flickr.com/23/25702137_821f578a1e_o.jpg

No, you do not.

I'm surprised that 70% of the American public is so naive to believe there was a link between Saddam and 9-11. I don't recall Bush or anyone in the government making that claim although Bush did say there were links to terrorists. Iraqi government documents that have recently been translated do show a link to terrorists but not 9-11.

Obviously, we can't just ignore the possibility completely. That is idealistic and bloody stupid, the virtues paraded about by those on the American left disatisfied with Bush's policies that are too ignorant and too bull-headed to do anything but support that which is the exact opposite of what they don't like. In other words, the sheep. On that same token, those on the American right that would have us be so paranoid that we might as well just stay in bed forever, not moving an inch, are being equally stupid. Common sense, with some caution and a lot of careful watching, ought to do the trick.

Most American citizens, however, should not worry. They are in no real position to prevent terrorist attacks anyway, so it's not as if they could do something about one. Let those who are watching, those who have the technology and the manpower to stop such attacks worry. That's what I think. Will we be attacked again if we completely drop our guard as some far-left Democrats might suggest? Absolutely. Are we ever going to actually be that foolish? I don't think so. Those who say electing ANY Democrat would lead to such an outcome are idiotic, just as much as those who say electing any Republican would lead to the opposite, total paranoia situation.

So, in essence, I'll sum it up: be cautious, but don't worry too much about it.

This is the best post I have seen about this thread so far. Thank you very much for your input.

why is the poll so biased? I'm starting to think bushanomics is your puppet.

Please see post #49. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490993&page=4

If the American public was paranoid about terrorism, there would have been a whole lot more bitching at Dear Leader's Guest Worker Amnesty program. So far though is "as long as the dirty brown people kill our boys and each other over there instead of here, who gives a fuck?"

No, you do not.

I'm surprised that 70% of the American public is so naive to believe there was a link between Saddam and 9-11. I don't recall Bush or anyone in the government making that claim although Bush did say there were links to terrorists. Iraqi government documents that have recently been translated do show a link to terrorists but not 9-11.

I was surprised too.
But it almost makes sense in a strange way. If the public has no interest in news or politics and then see Bush&co invade Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation after 9/11, naturally they assume Saddam and the taliban must have been responsible.
I bet Bush could even invade Korea using the shadow of 9/11 (not that I think he will).

Oh, and I didn't vote in the poll...Didn't like any of the options :)

On June 22nd federal officers conducted a raid on a “home grown” terrorist cell in Miami. They were planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053


Wait, are you talking about these guys (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=71067)?

This poll sucks.

Because the options absolutely suck, I have my own opinion to toss in. No, I'm not particularly worried. I know that there are definitely deluded nutjobs thousands of miles away that would love nothing more than to murder as many innocent civilians as possible, and possibly themselves in the process, but I'm not worried. If I was constantly worried about the possibility of another terrorist attack, how would I be able to live my daily life?

Let those who have the power to do something about an attack worry.

Oh, and I didn't vote in the poll...Didn't like any of the options :)

I've taken a lot of heat over the poll. I did it intentionally. I wanted to stimulate debate. Good night, it’s 12:30 AM here and time for bed.

I've taken a lot of heat over the poll. I did it intentionally. I wanted to stimulate debate. Good night, it’s 12:30 AM here and time for bed.



Myrth is always a safe option.

I've taken a lot of heat over the poll. I did it intentionally. I wanted to stimulate debate. Good night, it’s 12:30 AM here and time for bed.
isn't it great how you can explain the poll about a dozen times in a thread, and someone still bitches?

Read the thread, people. Then post. Yes? yes.

Myrth is always a safe option.

I wish Myrth was President, and Melkor the SecDef.

And throw Kat in there as Secretary of cuddly things.

Wait, are you talking about these guys (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=71067)?


The same could have been said about McViegh and his group of rejects.

Well, im not worried, becuase I live in Vermont. Unless the terrorists want to blow up Ben & Jerries ice cream, Cabot, or the Maple Syrup industry im pretty sure ill be fine.:p

Plus, I doubt the terrorists would like the cold in winter, or the bugs in summer.

Ice cream is the work of the infidel! DIE! :mp5:

ALL YOUR COLBY JACK ARE BELONG TO US.

I wish Myrth was President, and Melkor the SecDef.

And throw Kat in there as Secretary of cuddly things.
Suck up much?

That is a bunch of hog shi. and you know it. Pushed under the rug...get real.

Pushed under the rug as in there wasn't any particularly great outcry against whites, caucasians, or Americans in general. But when compared to what came out when nobody knew who was responsible, it's easy to see the inherent "it's a dirty arab/commie/mexican/etc" mentaliy.

That, you can't deny.


I think you have been listening to a bit to many Louis Farrakhan speeches.


Never heard of him, never heard of his speeches. Attack my points as they are, and not because you think they belong to somebody else. Furthermore, I dare you to refute the point that inherent superiority has been drummed into the American people for a great many generations stemming way back to the days of slavery. It was a form of population control to keep the voting public from focusing their grieviences on their economic standings because they were still superior to something.


The missile took off OK. Fortunatly it broke up 47 seconds into flight. If you are going to debate, at least get your facts right.

I will grant you the fact that it took off intact. But it doesn't change the fact that it fizzled early. And given what I have come across, it appears that performance wise, it wasn't any better than the first missile.


The least you could do is check out the link. Again, you are wrong. It has nothing to do with a "not long ago" post on NS. It has to do with real news events that happened within the last couple of days.

You provided no link regarding the incident of an alleged plot to blow up tunnels in NY and NJ. Asking me to inspect a link that does not exist can only be either the results of misinterpretation of what I said or plain lack of awareness.

Either way, there was as I mentioned, a thread regarding said incident that was fairly recent. It dealt with the surveillance of a supposed extremist website, and the arrest of certain members based on their postings. However, it was also apparent that the resources and components required to carry out such a plot simply were not there at the time of the arrest, leading many to believe the posts were nothing more than the antics of wannabes.


Conclision: You don't even have a clue about the definition of paranoia. It has nothing to do with "a feeling of invulnerability. Why don't you check out www.dictionary.com for the definition.

I do not have to because for a very simple reason. You attempted to create a link where there was none, and ignore the existing one. I will elaborate.

Americans in general prior to 9/11 had this relatively invulnerable feeling. War happened to other people. Terrorism, mass bombings, etc, etc, were things that happened in far away places where you could watch it on TV and go "oh my, how terrible" while walking away not thinking very much about it.

After 9/11, despite the relatively small loss of life when compared to major conflicts, or traffic accident fatalities for that matter, the feeling of invulnerability was lost. The American public got a great deal of nose rubbing in the dirt that is reality. How did they respond?

Very much like a child who has been hurt for the first time, which is to be expected, but not lauded. Lashing out at everything and everyone, clinging to a mother/father figure in hopes of protection.

This is what I meant by that feeling of invulnerability.

Now then, I do wonder if you will bother to seriously debate my points, or merely use ad-hominems and other such short cuts that are the trademark of poor debaters?

Paranoid might be too strong a word, but many Americans do seem rather fearful and distrusting. Every Muslim, on any who looks like a Muslim, is automatically a fundamentalist and terror suspect. And the whole of the Middle East is out to get you.

It seems to me that America likes this “life of fear”. It gives you a purpose. It gives you something to oppose as a nation. It gives you something to fight against. It gives you a “higher destiny” to aim for.
But this fear is, for the most part, a fantasy – build upon a single terrorist attack. I’m not saying that 9/11 was “nothing” – the loss of life is always “something”. But compared to the terror in Europe, IRA, ETA, and RAF springs to mind, 9/11 was just a single attack – not a decade long terrorist campaign. Yet, we Europeans have learned to live with the threat of terrorism and to get on with our lives. We have realized that we cannot allow the terrorists to dictate our lives and politics. America, on the other hand, lets the terrorists dictate the politics. Freedoms have been lost and wars have been started, all in the name of the “war on terror”.

No, I wouldn’t say that Americans are paranoid, but I’m saying that they let terrorism play a way to big part of their everyday life.

Paranoid might be too strong a word, but many Americans do seem rather fearful and distrusting. Every Muslim, on any who looks like a Muslim, is automatically a fundamentalist and terror suspect. And the whole of the Middle East is out to get you.

It seems to me that America likes this “life of fear”. It gives you a purpose. It gives you something to oppose as a nation. It gives you something to fight against. It gives you a “higher destiny” to aim for.
But this fear is, for the most part, a fantasy – build upon a single terrorist attack. I’m not saying that 9/11 was “nothing” – the loss of life is always “something”. But compared to the terror in Europe, IRA, ETA, and RAF springs to mind, 9/11 was just a single attack – not a decade long terrorist campaign. Yet, we Europeans have learned to live with the threat of terrorism and to get on with our lives. We have realized that we cannot allow the terrorists to dictate our lives and politics. America, on the other hand, lets the terrorists dictate the politics. Freedoms have been lost and wars have been started, all in the name of the “war on terror”.

No, I wouldn’t say that Americans are paranoid, but I’m saying that they let terrorism play a way to big part of their everyday life.



Or perhaps we are tired of putting up with evil and have finally decided to do something about it.

Or perhaps we are tired of putting up with evil and have finally decided to do something about it.

It is precisely that sort of thinking that marks Americans as paranoid. Evil? In what sense? Insurgents fighting occupation are evil? All muslims are terrorists? Islam is a religion of terror? All of these things have prominently displayed themselves in American mentality before, and almost always been portrayed as evil, regardless of the cause, or factual inaccuracy.

Fear mongering, hate building, persecution complex, these are hallmarks of paranoia.

I was going to post, but then I saw this. An accurate assessment of my thoughts and observations too.
*thumbs up*
Americans in general prior to 9/11 had this relatively invulnerable feeling. War happened to other people. Terrorism, mass bombings, etc, etc, were things that happened in far away places where you could watch it on TV and go "oh my, how terrible" while walking away not thinking very much about it.

After 9/11, despite the relatively small loss of life when compared to major conflicts, or traffic accident fatalities for that matter, the feeling of invulnerability was lost. The American public got a great deal of nose rubbing in the dirt that is reality. How did they respond?

Very much like a child who has been hurt for the first time, which is to be expected, but not lauded. Lashing out at everything and everyone, clinging to a mother/father figure in hopes of protection.

This is what I meant by that feeling of invulnerability.

I think it would be stupid not to be wary of future attacks, but at the same time, our Government is trying to make us as paranoid as possible about them, so as to maintain support for thier global warfare agenda.

Our media has hounded every snippet relating to terrorism, and makes such spectacle at the smallest mention of the term.

how many times have we seen such reports on terrorism, and the proper use of duct tape and plastic sheeting in case of a gas or chemical attack since 9/11?

Every day.

Our media tries to keep us in a state of fear.

Think about this:

In America, since the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building (NOT done by Al-qeada) we have seen approximately 3000 deaths from terrorism.

That means your odds of becoming a victim of such an attack are about 1 in 93,333.

Thats pretty damn good.

You are more likely to be killed in a car accident, or from prostate cancer, or from the Bird Flu, than in a terrorist attack.

I have. I hear the Taliban are making a great comeback in the Helmand Province.
"Far-Away Wars: Episode Two- The Taliban Strike Back"
*deep trumpeting music*
Wouldn't it be episode Five? :p

Pushed under the rug as in there wasn't any particularly great outcry against whites, caucasians, or Americans in general. But when compared to what came out when nobody knew who was responsible, it's easy to see the inherent "it's a dirty arab/commie/mexican/etc" mentaliy.

That, you can't deny.



Um, in case you hadn't noticed, we executed the guy.:rolleyes:

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, we executed the guy.:rolleyes:
Swoosh!
That's the sound of the point flying right over your head.

Swoosh!
That's the sound of the point flying right over your head.

I got the point, but given actual history, was it all that wrong to look to fanatical muslims first?

That is not to excuse what some idiots did to our Arabic friends, but the stereotype exists for a reason.

I think it would be stupid not to be wary of future attacks, but at the same time, our Government is trying to make us as paranoid as possible about them, so as to maintain support for thier global warfare agenda.

Our media has hounded every snippet relating to terrorism, and makes such spectacle at the smallest mention of the term.

how many times have we seen such reports on terrorism, and the proper use of duct tape and plastic sheeting in case of a gas or chemical attack since 9/11?

Every day.

Our media tries to keep us in a state of fear.

Think about this:

In America, since the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building (NOT done by Al-qeada) we have seen approximately 3000 deaths from terrorism.

That means your odds of becoming a victim of such an attack are about 1 in 93,333.

Thats pretty damn good.

You are more likely to be killed in a car accident, or from prostate cancer, or from the Bird Flu, than in a terrorist attack.



It is also accurate to state that as a US citizen, since the start of the Clinton administration, your chances of being killed on US soil as a result of terrorism increased by over 1 million percent (infinity actually).:rolleyes:

It is also accurate to state that as a US citizen, since the start of the Clinton administration, your chances of being killed on US soil as a result of terrorism increased by over 1 million percent (infinity actually).:rolleyes:
The chance is still extremely low. And besides there is no point in worrying about it. There is nothing you can personally do about it.

Thriceaddict is right, theres no point in worrying about things beyond your control. While most US citizens remain vigilant for anything out of the ordinary, we trust in our goverment agencies to protect us. I don't believe there is any goverment conspiracy to keep us all on the edge of our seat to keep the war effort going, but of course life is stranger than fiction sometimes...

The chance is still extremely low. And besides there is no point in worrying about it. There is nothing you can personally do about it.

Maybe not personally, but I can have an impact. I can work my keister off to keep morons and traitors from being elected.

Maybe not personally, but I can have an impact. I can work my keister off to keep morons and traitors from being elected.

So you'll be keeping neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists out of our government right? Thank you, America appreciates it.

Or perhaps we are tired of putting up with evil and have finally decided to do something about it.

Are you suggesting that the English police have done nothing about IRA, the Spanish police nothing about ETA, and the German police nothing about RAF?

Are you suggesting that the English police have done nothing about IRA, the Spanish police nothing about ETA, and the German police nothing about RAF?
What's the Germans' beef with the Royal Air Force these days, anyway? I mean c'mon, the war's been over for sixty years, now.

Some people have accused Americans of being paranoid about terrorist attacks. I wonder if we are indeed paranoid. Consider the following incidents, all of which have happened within the last couple of weeks and target America.

On June 22nd federal officers conducted a raid on a “home grown” terrorist cell in Miami. They were planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053

A Japanese newspaper reported that the Taepodong-2 missile launched by North Korea on July 4th was aimed at Hawaii.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/6/213626.shtml?s=ic

Just yesterday, newspapers announced federal agents had broken up a plot to blow up subway tunnels connecting NJ and NY. They had hoped to “flood” New York.

Now realize, the two plots are the only ones we know about. Are there others? Should Americans be a little cautious or are we just plain paranoid.

What think you?

There is nothing wrong with a little caution and precautionary measures. But yes, Americans are paranoid, arguably rightfully so. However, much of this paranoia is the result of the government--actually, the international community at large, including the media--and its efforts to project and maintain a certain level of fear among the populace.

Maybe not personally, but I can have an impact. I can work my keister off to keep morons and traitors from being elected.
You haven't been doing a good job of that lately. I've got stuff growing in my fridge witht a higher IQ than Bush.

What's the Germans' beef with the Royal Air Force these days, anyway? I mean c'mon, the war's been over for sixty years, now.

They don’t have problems with the Royal Air Force (at least non that I know of), but they did have some issues with the Rote Armee Fraktion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction).

Are you suggesting that the English police have done nothing about IRA, the Spanish police nothing about ETA, and the German police nothing about RAF?

No, like the Good Little Bushevik he is, he's saying that only Brown-Skinned Muslims commit Evil.

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, we executed the guy.:rolleyes:

See that? That's a scarecrow. Full of straw and nothing else. No substance. None at all. At least he burns well.


I got the point, but given actual history, was it all that wrong to look to fanatical muslims first?

Yes, it was wrong to look at fanatical muslims first. Why? Because it was nothing more than boogeyman hunting. McCarthyism at it's finest. People have had their lives ruined, or in the case of whacko reactionists, ended, because of nothing more than mass paranoia caused by "the evil outsider" syndrome.

It is ALWAYS wrong to blame someone without evidence to back up the claim. It was wrong to blame Timmy for stealing the cookies cause you didn't know who did and it's still wrong now to pick on people by their ethnic groups for a crime you don't even know if one of said group did commit it.

How about this? In South East Asia, a murder occurs. No one knows who did it. But whites have been known to visit, and some committed crimes. As a result, mass anti-white paranoia occurs. All caucasians are summarily shunned by the society, some get beaten up by nationalistic thugs, others killed. Is this more wrong than if it the ethnicity had been reversed?

Anyone who thinks yes is nothing more than a racial supremacist. The kind who should have died out a long time ago with the dinosaurs.

Mass paranoia does NOTHING good. It only serves to divide a nation and create a 'them or us' mentality that can only lead to their ultimate destruction regardless of innocence or guilt.

It is also accurate to state that as a US citizen, since the start of the Clinton administration, your chances of being killed on US soil as a result of terrorism increased by over 1 million percent (infinity actually).:rolleyes:

And you have statistics to back this up? Something that you didn't just pull out of a dark, smelly, lightless place somewhere near your nether region?

Yes, and they have good reasons to be paranoid.

America will not be safe until the culture that gave birth to Al Qaeda has been removed - completely, utterly, and totally.

Yes, and they have good reasons to be paranoid.

America will not be safe until the culture that gave birth to Al Qaeda has been removed - completely, utterly, and totally.

Is it JUST America though?

Is it JUST America though?

I'd say that applies to most of the non-muslim world.

I'm going to quote the words of a chap I rather admire:

Yes, when thousands of Americans, peacefully going about their business, get blown to bits by foreign fanatics, it means war.

To some, on the Left and even in the libertarian movement, this is not at all obvious. To them, it is our own fault that these people hate us, and so we should apologize, apparently, to them for making them commit suicide in order to get our attention and persuade us of the evil of our ways.

So the questions are, (1) is it our own fault? and (2) does it make any difference?

The answer to the second question first: NO. Our fault or not, it is too late. They hate us, they are after us, they are organized, protected, and well financed. And so it is literally them or us. Being nice to them, understanding their anger, doesn't mean a damn thing to them. At this point, it only earns their contempt. That means that we have to do what we are doing, which is to go in, blast them to pieces, overthrow governments, root them out, hunt them down, and then blow their brains out or grab them and put them in cages. The gloves are off.

This is certainly a dangerous moment for civil liberties and libertarian principles. The crowd that all along has been for national identity cards, for confiscating weapons, for stamping, folding, and spindling every American, and for all the devices of a police states, now have a great opportunity to push their agenda. War is the life of the State. However, the peril of the moment right now is greater from the terrorists than from the government. We are just going to have to grit our teeth and do what is necessary.

But the worst thing about many recent "security" measures has been their irrationality. Because the U.S. government is afraid to arm airline pilots (they are going to hijack their own airplanes?), they are reduced to confiscating fingernail clippers and knitting needles from passengers. This is idiotic. Terrorists can conceal military plastic knives in their underpants and get by any of the ordinary screenings that are now being used. What is needed is to have someone, or many, on the airplane who will have the means to resist such a terrorist so armed. If all passengers were armed with knives, we know what would happen: The passengers of United Flight 93 fought the hijackers, and on several aircraft since then passengers have subdued unruly or threatening people, including one bona fide terrorist, the "shoe bomber." But the simplest thing is simply to arm the pilots, a large proportion of whom are from the military and are familiar with carrying and using weapons in the first place. Military pilots don't "need" guns when flying in combat, since they don't pull out a .45 to shoot at other planes; but they always carry a gun, in case they are shot down.

Another gross irrationality is that random checks of passengers are liable to wave through the young Arab man and minutely inspect the elderly Norwegian woman. This is absurd. Middle Easterners and Muslims are suspects. It is not their fault, but it is the fault of the terrorists. That is the terrorist strategy, to infiltrate, to blend in, and so to find safety in anonymity and numbers. Calling it "profiling," and then saying that this is "wrong" (as the Secretary of Transportation has done) when more attention is paid to those more likely to be suspects, is ridiculous. With limited opportunities to search people carefully, it is simply rational behavior, and common sense, to look first at the people who are going to be the more likely suspects. This doesn't mean that you round up Arabs and send them to concentration camps, but it does mean that they are going to be at the head of the line for a bit more reasonable attention. Those who protest such procedures require security resources to be wasted on people with very low probabilities of being terrorists. This protects the terrorists, and the ACLU and other protesters should be aware that this is what they are accomplishing. "Equal protection of the law" does not mean an irrational agnosticism when it comes to the real factors that constitute evidence of "probable cause" for searches.

This controversy is instructive, however, since its origin is in "anti-discrimination" law that restricts individual liberty in private economic transactions and forces businessmen to act in irrational ways. The folly and wrongfullness of this has been examined elsewhere.

Now for the first question. Is it our own fault that the terrorists hate us? Again, the anwer is NO. Libertarians who would answer "yes" tend to say that an "interventionist" foreign policy is responsible for provoking hatred. Relevant "interventions" tend to fall under three headings: (1) supporting Israel, (2) supporting Cold War allies against foreign and domestic opposition, and (3) supporting, overthrowing, or threatening governments in support of particular American economic interests.


Israel: A State that is constitutionally established for the Jewish People is going to be in an awkward position when it comes to the status and rights of non-Jewish inhabitants. When such a State is surrounded and vastly outnumbered by the very people in whose interest the State was not founded, this is a situation that spells trouble no matter how one looks at it. If the State is founded to give a religious preference, this is contrary to American, and all modern, principles of government. However, the idea in the founding of Israel was that it would be a secular state, with a preference, not for Judaism, but for the Jewish People as an ethnic and national group. This theory is one whose coherence can be questioned, especially when secular Jews tend to leave Israel and religious Jews, with their own political parties, tend to immigrate to it, but it also merely substitutes for religious conflict the elements of ethnic conflict such as are so distressingly familiar from other areas of modern strife, like the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Kashmir, etc. So the theory did not necessarily address the conflict that would be engendered by the creation of the State. As it happens, the problem has become more polarized in religious terms as time goes on. Israeli leaders for many years deceived themselves that the "Arab-Israel" conflict would simply be solved by peace treaties with leading Arab powers. Just such treaties with Egypt and Jordan, however, have not ended the bloodshed just because they ignored, as Israeli leaders ignored, the sentiments of the Palestinians, who saw the treaties as sell-outs and by whom the whole conflict is now driven. Also, the peace treaties were entered into out of prudential consideration by largely authoritarian Arab leaders despite overwhelming popular antipathy to Israel and sympathy for the Palestianians in their own countries. There is no telling, therefore, when such governments might get overthrown and the treaties repudiated.
This whole embrogilio and powder keg is something that in fact it might be better for the United States to walk away from. However, it is already too late for that. If Israel is overthrown or conquered by its enemies, the result is going to be the massacre and/or deportation of its inhabitants, probably with some uncontrollable emphasis on the former. There are humanitarian reasons why the United States cannot allow this to happen, but it is also something that American public opinion, both Jewish and Christian, is not going to be able to countenance. If the United States is damned by Arabs or Muslims for supporting Israel, and radical Palestinians are really not going to allow a compromise solution, then we are just going to have to fight it out.


Cold War Interventions: There are those of an isolationist persuasion who do not think it was necessary to resist the Soviet Union with all the means at our disposal. The Soviet Union was going to collapse under its own weight, so we just could have ignored what it was doing. This is ridiculous. The Soviet Union didn't do a lot of things very well, but it had a huge nuclear arsenal, a more an adequate missile force to deliver them, and an army large enough to have conquered Western Europe without much difficulty. It would not have profited us to have been destroyed by the Soviet Union before it went down to inevitable collapse. Nor would we have enjoyed the effects of future trading partners, like South Korea and Taiwan, being overrun and crushed by North Korea and China. It was bad enough when this happened to South Vietnam. Thank God Ronald Reagan did not accept that defeat as a defeat.
Internationally, this was a struggle in which, as the Left still likes to say, "Which side are you on?" Even the "non-alligned" movement, founded by Nasser, Tito, and Nehru, was basically socialist and more sympathetic with the Soviets than with the West. At a meeting of "non-alligned" nations not many years ago, Fidel Castro was given a standing ovation. This tells the tale. Those who complain about the treatment of nations that fell afoul of the United States in the Cold War years are really saying that a pro-Soviet government was a good thing and that the United States, and the West, had no right to defend itself with the same kinds of interventions that the Soviet Union practiced constantly and never apologized for. In the real world, the United States was simply practicing a "forward defense," which means getting at the enemy at distance and keeping them away from you.

Do not be deceived, the Cold War is not over. All the old Soviet propaganda about imperialism and colonialism is alive and well, pouring out of American universities and radical "circles." The American media carefully conceal this from broad public attention, but one can easily find radicals spouting anti-American and anti-Capitalist rhetoric on cable or Sunday morning news shows. All of this blends seemlessly with the Islâmic Fascism of the terrorists. We are bad, not just because we support Israel, but because we "exploit" the underdeveloped world, I have even heard the word "rape" used, through imperialism and colonialism, i.e. Capitalism. "Intervention" is thus not landing the marines and overthrowing governments, but pushing for free trade, foreign investment, and "globalism."

Complaints about American foreign intervention are thus either going to be from those actively hostile to freedom, but who may conceal their true sentiments under a certain layer of sophistry, or from those who naively think that the United States can withdraw from a forward defense and the world will conveniently sort itself out in agreeable ways, without the United States ever really being in danger. Both of these are properly to be rejected.


Finally, pushing around governments in support of particular American economic interests: In theory, this is neither justified nor necessary. Overthrowing some Central American government to protect the property of an American fruit company is not proper international behavior. However, it must be kept clear that the kind of government that would be confiscating the property of an American fruit company is not better for the people of that country. Socialist governments hold people in poverty. People complaining about American intervention in such cases usually believe that capitalism is evil and that nationalizing foreign economic interests is noble and worthy behavior. Even so, it is not the duty of the United States to protect everyone in the world from the follies of their own government. In many countries, which are not culturally or historically prepared for democracy, the only alternative to radical socialist governments are dictators whose pratices rise to various levels of distaste. It is better if the United States can disssociate itself from either alternative.
On the other hand, if those radical socialist governments became active allies of the Soviet Union (Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia, etc.), then they did indeed choose sides in the conflict between freedom and slavery. That is one thing. When we get down to cases, we find other things. Protesters did not believe that the United States should have helped liberate Kuwait from Iraq. Their argument seemed to be that the compelling reason why it was none of the business of the United States was that is was in the economic interest of the United States to prevent Iraq from created a monopoly by conquest of Gulf oil -- as though anything in one's own interest is wrongful. That a member of the United Nations was invaded and conquered by another country, one that had plenty of its own oil for whatever purposes it might want, apparently didn't count. What did count, for the Left anyway, was that the hated America could have been harmed if Saddam Hussein really could have created his own Middle Eastern empire.

Thus, while there are going to be some cases of American military intervention in countries merely in behalf of private American economic interests, this is not enough to engender the kind of hatred that is actually found, which almost always accompanies hatred based on anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, and anti-democratic principles. The depth of this hatred is obvious in a continuing leftist cause célèbre, over Chile. The Marxist President, elected by a small plurality in 1970, Salvador Allende, was overthrown and killed in a coup in 1973, with the help of the United States. A military dictatorship was then headed by Augusto Pinochet. The number of people murdered by the dictatorship was considerable, but trival next to the the murders of most Communist regimes, which run into the tens of millions. In 1989 a civilian government was elected, and Pinochet gradually was eased out of the rest of his power. Nevertheless, while Fidel Castro, with at least an equal number of murders to his credit, remains in respected power and is visited by fawning celebrities, Pinochet and his regime are targets of continuing vitriol and action in every way the Left can think of. When an aging and ill Pinochet was in Britain for medical care in 1998, the Labour Government actually violated his diplomatic passport and arrested him on a warrant from Spain for murders committed, not in Spain, but in Chile. Eventually, he was released. Divided opinion in Chile itself is probably the only reason that its government did not pronounce this violation of diplomatic immunity an Act of War. Castro, who has never allowed honest elections and is being eased out of no power, seems to be under no such threat.

The terrorists hate us, then, for the same vicious and confused reasons that the United States has been hated for many years, by the kinds of people who think that wealth becomes concentrated, not through enterprise and production, but through theft. If the United States is rich, then it must be stealing. Since all they understand is theft, that is all they can think to accuse us of, and all that they actually want to do themselves. It is now a very strange alliance that we find between the old Left and the new Islâmic fanatics, but there is plenty that they can agree on about hating America, Capitalism, and Jews -- yes, for all the Jews in leftist politics over the years, it has been the tendency of the Left, from Marx himself to the Soviet Union of the 1980's, to identify Jews with Money. Since anti-Israeli propaganda tends to swallow whole Nazi anti-Semitism as well -- it is a popular belief in the Middle East that no Jews were killed in the World Trade Center because they had all been warned not to go to work -- we find a great syncretism of Hilterism and Stalinism in this most modern of anti-modern ideologies. This is all what we are up against, and it is no joke. It means a continuing deadly struggle, not just against the murderous terrorists, but against the home grown ideologues who despise every single one of the founding principles of American government.

And you have statistics to back this up? Something that you didn't just pull out of a dark, smelly, lightless place somewhere near your nether region?


First off, my point was that the post I responded to had a meaningless statistic.

Secondly yes I can back it up. Before the first attack on the WTC and the Oklahoma Federal Building, we had ZERO attacks of the type I described and Zero deaths. We could have had just ONE death instead of the several thousand and what I posted would still have been true.

It was not an attack on your beloved Clinton so much as it was a protest against using a meaningless statistic as "evidence".

Well, this particular American isn't paranoid, but man, many people are.

I figure that if it's my time, I'll go according to the schedule. I'll do all I can to avoid death, but if it's a terrorist, or if it's an earthquake, if it's my time to bow out, there will be nothing I can do to stop it. Worrying about it seems like a colossal waste of mental energy...which many Americans can't spare.

You haven't been doing a good job of that lately. I've got stuff growing in my fridge witht a higher IQ than Bush.

Get back to me when you graduate from Harvard with a higher GPA than John Kerry.

Get back to me when you CONSTANTLY run circles around the "brilliant" people in the Democratic Party.

Get back to me when you graduate from Harvard with a higher GPA than John Kerry.

Get back to me when you CONSTANTLY run circles around the "brilliant" people in the Democratic Party.


Oh please, Shrub was a Legacy Admission to Harvard and even Dear Leader's former professors said so. Not to mention he got a C in Business Management and to top that off, afterwards he bankrupted not one, not two, but three companies that Daddy gave him to run.

Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

Oh please, Shrub was a Legacy Admission to Harvard and even Dear Leader's former professors said so. Not to mention he got a C in Business Management and to top that off, afterwards he bankrupted not one, not two, but three companies that Daddy gave him to run.

Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

Regardless of how one feels about dear little Shrub, one cannot waste time on that issue when there is the more important issue of the complete removal of the tumor of wahhabism of the face of this planet to deal with.

Thou shallt not suffer a wahhabist to breathe air!

First off, my point was that the post I responded to had a meaningless statistic.

The post you responded to was mine. And there was no statistics there. You're explanation fails.


Secondly yes I can back it up. Before the first attack on the WTC and the Oklahoma Federal Building, we had ZERO attacks of the type I described and Zero deaths. We could have had just ONE death instead of the several thousand and what I posted would still have been true.

Then mathematically, you've failed. Probability applies regardless of whether there was a matching incident or not. Probability indicates that in x amount of lottery tickets bought, you will get a winning one. And yet you could buy x amount of lottery tickets, and still not get a winning one.

The probability was always there. Much like the probability of being struck by lightning, hit by a moving vehicle, suffering a heart attack, etc, etc. Probabilities rise when certain factors appear to increase the likelihood of it occuring. For example, standing in an open field during a thunderstorm increases the likelihood you will do the electric tango whereas if you were in a building equipped with a lightning arrestor, that probability drops to negligible levels. Nowhere does the probability of you being struck change whether you do get struck or not.

Similarly, terrorist events do not increase the probability of them occuring. It merely indicates that the probability percentage was reached at that point of time. They increase when stupid things are done, like creating terrorist training hotbeds, inciting terrorism via antagonism and other such actions.

Probabilities do not increase when an event it predicts occurs. It only increases when a factor appears that increases the likelihood of it occuring.


It was not an attack on your beloved Clinton so much as it was a protest against using a meaningless statistic as "evidence".

I care nothing for Clinton. He wasn't my president anyway. Again, you mention the word statistic and evidence. But you argued using my post, which had no statistic to begin with, but an observation of sociological behaviour which is both factual and recorded.

So either you have used the wrong post to quote or you also have trouble comprehending basic English.

To those of you here who are critical of Celtlund's question - may I remind you that he wants you only to answer the question at hand without this needless criticism & procrastination. If you wish to procrastinate about this, go somewhere else and let those more interesting submit their views on this - PLEASE.

Yes, and they have good reasons to be paranoid.

America will not be safe until the culture that gave birth to Al Qaeda has been removed - completely, utterly, and totally.

That'd be us, wouldn't it? By sponsoring the Taliban against the 'communist threat', we created EXACTLY the sort of environment that spawns militarist charismatic figures, we helped them develop their 'partisan' war strategy, and we supported the original groups out of which Al Qaeda would eventually be born.

What you are, in effect, saying is: America will not be safe until America has been removed - completely, utterly, and totally. A curiously NON-patriotic view...

That'd be us, wouldn't it? By sponsoring the Taliban against the 'communist threat', we created EXACTLY the sort of environment that spawns militarist charismatic figures, we helped them develop their 'partisan' war strategy, and we supported the original groups out of which Al Qaeda would eventually be born.

What you are, in effect, saying is: America will not be safe until America has been removed - completely, utterly, and totally. A curiously NON-patriotic view...


Irrelevant bulldust.

Our priorities are simple:
complete and total eradication of the opposition.
As always.

If you are an american, you are remarkably thinking like a traitor.

I'd say that applies to most of the non-muslim world.

I'm going to quote the words of a chap I rather admire:

Yes. Far easier to recycle someone else's paranoid delusions, than to constantly have to write your own...

Yes. Far easier to recycle someone else's paranoid delusions, than to constantly have to write your own...

Ah, the usually random snippityness of InG.

I'd nominate you for a long stay in Gitmo.

Irrelevant bulldust.

Our priorities are simple:
complete and total eradication of the opposition.
As always.

If you are an american, you are remarkably thinking like a traitor.

So - anyone that doesn't agree with your particular brand of genocide is a traitor?

I notice you fail to address the issue, though... WE made Al Qaeda. And now we sit looking shocked when our junkyard dog bites at our hand.

Ah, the usually random snippityness of InG.

I'd nominate you for a long stay in Gitmo.

It's not that difficult, it's only three letters. Ah well.

So now, anyone who disagrees with you 'idol' deserves illegal internment?


Curious. I'd taken you for an American, but you seem more than willing to wipe your arse on the Constitution....

So - anyone that doesn't agree with your particular brand of genocide is a traitor?

I notice you fail to address the issue, though... WE made Al Qaeda. And now we sit looking shocked when our junkyard dog bites at our hand.

No. Failure to think in terms of 'ow to make OUR nick of the woods unassailable despite living there' is quite enought to brand one a traitior.

What made al qaeda is quite irrelevant.
What matters is how to eradicate the threat.

Yes Americans are paranoid just look at airport security. I went to England and nobody check my bags. Flying to the US on the other hand is a nightmare.

Terrorism is the practise of changing govrnment policies, using fear as the engine of change.

The 'paranoia' of the US means that terrorists 'win', even if all they do is sit in their apartments. We are chaning the policies, through fear, even when there is NO 'terrorist activity'.

The War on Terror is a lie. Terror is winning, right here... because we are letting it do so.


Dude after i flip on the news and go oh look another bombing, i don't say there is no terrorist activity.

Dude, when an event like 9/11 happens it's called tightning security not paranioa, because theres actualy somthing to be afraid of. Paranioa is a mental illness, in which one is afraid of somthing that doesn't exist, and if you think terrorists don't exist, your living in a dream world.

Is this a trick question?

Dude, when an event like 9/11 happens it's called tightning security not paranioa, because theres actualy somthing to be afraid of. Paranioa is a mental illness, in which one is afraid of somthing that doesn't exist, and if you think terrorists don't exist, your living in a dream world.

This would be a viable argument if we knew nothing of 9/11 before it happened. Tighten security all you want, it doesnt make up for ignorance and incompetence.

No. Failure to think in terms of 'ow to make OUR nick of the woods unassailable despite living there' is quite enought to brand one a traitior.

What made al qaeda is quite irrelevant.
What matters is how to eradicate the threat.

It was YOUR idea... you wanted to eradicate the culture that caused the formation of Al Qaeda.

Well - big shock - the culture that caused the formation of Al Qaeda was US.

Now, once you've been 'schooled', you've decided THAT wasn't what you wanted at all.

One can't make 'our neck of the woods unassailable'. The best we can do - is watch each other's backs. Unfortunately, the US has a history of saying screw you to each other, rather than helping each other.

So - either we start working on ways to help people get along, here... or we start indiscriminate killing outside our borders.

Problem is, of course, that the last 'batch' of terrorists were homegrown. This is NOT an external problem.

So - you see - if one of us is a 'traitor'... it is you, not I. I'm looking at the country objectively, and thinking of actual ways to address the issue. You are advocating random genocides... which CAN'T work, because 'terror' is not specific to one culture or race.

Too much talking, and not enough explosives.
Next suspect.

*turns to Provost Marshall*

Just drop him in an oubliette, and toss away the key.

Dude after i flip on the news and go oh look another bombing, i don't say there is no terrorist activity.

Which bombing? In terms of actual terror activity, the US has been pretty quiet since 9/11.

Too much talking, and not enough explosives.
Next suspect.

*turns to Provost Marshall*

Just drop him in an oubliette, and toss away the key.

Random comment not addressed to any given point? One has to assume... since it would be a nonsense as a response..

What made al qaeda is quite irrelevant.
What matters is how to eradicate the threat.

Who set your house on fire is irrelevant. What matters is that you put out the fire. Nevermind that the culprit will do it again.

Too much talking, and not enough explosives.
Next suspect.

*turns to Provost Marshall*

Just drop him in an oubliette, and toss away the key.

If your story is true, I have to wonder what your wife would think now that you've become the very same thing that killed her.

If she was vaguely human, she would be disgusted at you.

Yes Americans are paranoid just look at airport security. I went to England and nobody check my bags. Flying to the US on the other hand is a nightmare.
Not to mention the whole thing is a dog and pony show - it doesn't make anything safer and the inherent need for a speedy process causes what they would catch doing it slower (which would be very little)to go through anyway. Any idiot could get "contraband" on a plane if they wanted to.

Dude, when an event like 9/11 happens it's called tightning security not paranioa, because theres actualy somthing to be afraid of. Paranioa is a mental illness, in which one is afraid of somthing that doesn't exist, and if you think terrorists don't exist, your living in a dream world.
So international terrorism just suddenly appeared on the world scene when 9/11 happened?
You might want to tell Europe, Asia, Africa, and people who worked at the WTC back in the '90s that little fact. You shouldn't go around insulting people when you are a blind-to-the-world, uneducated little fart.

As the news come to me...

European news headlines

"Building crumbles in Manhattan" is the more or less ordinar line there.

USA news healines

"White House discards the Manhattan's crumble is a terrorist attack"

There is something, even as you are indeed "discarding" the fact...The fact that you are using the word "terrorist" implies that it was the main possibility? I think the USA media likes to keep their people in fear, they are even saying between lines that the crumble is interesting just because it COULD be a terrorist attack.

Just highlighting an anomaly, or a curiosity. You just judge about it, for me it's a little bit paranoid.

The media and the government are trying to make Americans paranoid about terrorism. I don't know if that is a calculated decision or a result of the media and government's own emotional reactions. But any objective look at the situation will show that the focus on terrorism is far out of proportion to its actual impact. For example, the number of Americans killed by terrorists on "9/11" was no greater than the number of Americans killed by heart disease every two days. Yet there isn't the slightest hint of a governmental "war on heart disease", and certainly no Springsteen albums about the problem.

Of course, this bias has always been a part of human nature. Even before the attacks, people were often afraid to fly because of plane crashes, even though flying was and is statistically safer than driving. Death seems to have more of an emotional impact when it's a bunch of people in the same place at the same time, on national television, even if many more people are dying in isolation from some other cause. (In case we've lost count, heart disease has killed the equivalent of nearly a thousand "9/11s" since the day of the terrorist attacks.)

To be honest, what has struck me most about terrorist activity against the U.S. is how weak and ineffective it has been, compared to what could have been done.

I cant speak for all "Americans" in general, only myself and family. None of us are "paranoid". More concerned and paying attention.
We are aware that the news will take every opporotunity to sensationalize any event- a small plane crash, a warehouse fire in an urban area-They will nearly always suggest some terror possibilty.

I dont feel vigilance and preparedness as being paranoid though. My personal preparations for any major terror situation are also very appropriate in the event of flooding, major storm, power outage, etc... which are more likely.

A wise man once said: "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."

The reason I find that relevent, is that the great strength of a faction devoted to reducing the personal and international freedoms of a nation... to making people feel afraid, and wary... has been SHOWN to force the state to imitate it, to cause exactly the SAME reaction... here in the US.

Its sad that we live in a world in which, when a building collapses, we need to be told its not terrorism.

Sad, sad, sad.

A wise man once said: "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."

The reason I find that relevent, is that the great strength of a faction devoted to reducing the personal and international freedoms of a nation... to making people feel afraid, and wary... has been SHOWN to force the state to imitate it, to cause exactly the SAME reaction... here in the US.


You are soooooo far overstating the case its not even worth ridiculing .
All the US did was take some common sense approaches to combatting exploding people and flying bombs disguised as air liners..and the people of the US FOUGHT that tooth and nail..hence the revised patriot act and the coloring book called homeland security...

we poor oppressed Americans are quaking with fear at the thought of the next jerkhadist attack..thats why all the polls list terrorism behind economics as a voting point .

We want to kill all the terrorist and are getting around to it but first we have to stop at Wallmart .

You are soooooo far overstating the case its not even worth ridiculing .
All the US did was take some common sense approaches to combatting exploding people and flying bombs disguised as air liners..and the people of the US FOUGHT that tooth and nail..hence the revised patriot act and the coloring book called homeland security...

we poor oppressed Americans are quaking with fear at the thought of the next jerkhadist attack..thats why all the polls list terrorism behind economics as a voting point .

We want to kill all the terrorist and are getting around to it but first we have to stop at Wallmart .

If my point wasn't worth ridiculing... why the 'joke' post?

Its sad that we live in a world in which, when a building collapses, we need to be told its not terrorism.

Sad, sad, sad.
It was a three-story building to-not exactly a terrorist target. However, as someone in New York City, a place that has as good a reason as any to be paranoid, not one person I talked had terrorism even cross their mind when they found out.

Its sad that we live in a world in which, when a building collapses, we need to be told its not terrorism.

Sad, sad, sad.

That's because people think in absolutes. People call George Bush a 'terrorist' and the U.S. government a 'terrorist organization.' I guess that all depends on what your definition of terrorism is. As far as I know, the general accepted definition of terrorism is the use of violence specifically directed against civilians to further political agendas.

9/11 was terrorism. And despite the intelligence blunders before Iraq we still have every reason to believe that al Qaeda still wants to destroy the U.S. and the West in general. Every now and then we still get a bombing plot or a sniper. We should be on our guard. I don't think this gives the government full authority to violate our privacy rights but our so called 'paranoia' certainly isn't without warrant.

That's because people think in absolutes. People call George Bush a 'terrorist' and the U.S. government a 'terrorist organization.' I guess that all depends on what your definition of terrorism is. As far as I know, the general accepted definition of terrorism is the use of violence specifically directed against civilians to further political agendas.

9/11 was terrorism. And despite the intelligence blunders before Iraq we still have every reason to believe that al Qaeda still wants to destroy the U.S. and the West in general. Every now and then we still get a bombing plot or a sniper. We should be on our guard. I don't think this gives the government full authority to violate our privacy rights but our so called 'paranoia' certainly isn't without warrant.


Another way to put it:

I've always carried a pistol here in the US, ever since I was old enough to own one.

I don't carry it thinking that "today, I will get into a gunfight with someone who tries to rob or kill me".

I carry it, hoping that nothing will happen, but knowing that if something does, I won't be standing there wishing I had one.

Another way to put it:

I've always carried a pistol here in the US, ever since I was old enough to own one.

I don't carry it thinking that "today, I will get into a gunfight with someone who tries to rob or kill me".

I carry it, hoping that nothing will happen, but knowing that if something does, I won't be standing there wishing I had one.

And - if something 'goers down', and you DO kill someone...

And, what if it turns out you didn't have all the facts, and you killed an innocent?

And - if something 'goers down', and you DO kill someone...

And, what if it turns out you didn't have all the facts, and you killed an innocent?

I've used it three times. Each time, it was not necessary to fire a single shot.

Having all the facts means that someone shows a weapon and makes a threat and/or demand.

I'm completely successful, and without having to wait 45 minutes for the police to show up.

And just to respond to one of the options in the poll, no, it's not George Bush's fault. Al Qaeda hit us during the earlier part of his administration when we were not carrying out pre-emptive wars, didn't it? Al Qaeda hit us during Clinton's administration, didn't it? Al Qaeda has made up its mind. It's not demanding a sum of money or that we release prisoners or that we pull out of a particular country. Al Qaeda asks that we die and has been asking that for years. I really don't think they needed George Bush to convince themselves of that.

I've used it three times. Each time, it was not necessary to fire a single shot.

Having all the facts means that someone shows a weapon and makes a threat and/or demand.

I'm completely successful, and without having to wait 45 minutes for the police to show up.

Which means you have a MUCH better batting average than our nationwide 'equivalent' to your defense, AND you have the benefit of being constitutional and operating within the law.

Not much of a parallel to the 'real world' situation, at all...

Which means you have a MUCH better batting average than our nationwide 'equivalent' to your defense, AND you have the benefit of being constitutional and operating within the law.

Not much of a parallel to the 'real world' situation, at all...

That may be because individuals have a much better perception of their longevity (or immediate lack thereof) than nation-states.

When you're staring at the muzzle of a 45 a few feet from your forehead, it's very sobering. Getting diplomatic missives from the US, UN, or other countries is probably cause for general hilarity until they actually invade you.

That may be because individuals have a much better perception of their longevity (or immediate lack thereof) than nation-states.

When you're staring at the muzzle of a 45 a few feet from your forehead, it's very sobering. Getting diplomatic missives from the US, UN, or other countries is probably cause for general hilarity until they actually invade you.

Which, I take it, is your way of saying 'yes, there is no parallel'?

Al Qaeda asks that we die and has been asking that for years. I really don't think they needed George Bush to convince themselves of that.

Just because a terrorist attack happens doesnt mean it was that current presidents fault. I mean, we all remember Reagan's role in the Afghan-Soviet conflict...right?

The options there don't cover what I feel. While we are over-paranoid about terror attacks, there are two things we are forgetting or over looking.

A) Most importantly, living in a free society is dangerous. Totalitarianism is much safer, well for the state at least, because the state always knows what people are doing. Could you imagine crime in the Big Brother land of Oceania? Remember your Franklin about security and liberty. We have fallen for the belief that we can be 100% free and 100% safe, while that is not the case at all.

B) These new threats are overexaggerated, partly by the administration because they want to make themselves look competent. From what I understand about the New York plans, and maybe Miami as well, they didn't amount to much more than people who hated the government and the country talking in chat rooms about how great it would be if Americans died. Personally, I see no crime there. Disgusting, but no crime.

Also, the Taepodong-2 pointed at Hawaii? I think if there was any truth to that, we'd be hearing it on Fox News 24/7. Or even a shread of truth, like the fact that a missle was pointed to the Pacific. That's all Fox would need. But that isn't terrorist, it's from a sovereign state with a recognized government. Not terrorist in the least.


And so we don't forget, is it because of GWB that there have been no terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 (or the anthrax maybe), or is it just coincidence. You have a better chance of dying in a car accident than dying from a terrorist in America.

Which, I take it, is your way of saying 'yes, there is no parallel'?
Not a good parallel, anyway.

But as an individual, if there's a suicide bomber on the train, and I see the explosives, it would be best not to get in the line of fire.

Not a good parallel, anyway.

But as an individual, if there's a suicide bomber on the train, and I see the explosives, it would be best not to get in the line of fire.

In the UK incidents, the explosives were left in a backpack, weren't they? THus - if you shoot the person next to, or even holding the explosives, you could easily be shooting an innocent, who had just happened to expose the plot before you...

In the UK incidents, the explosives were left in a backpack, weren't they? THus - if you shoot the person next to, or even holding the explosives, you could easily be shooting an innocent, who had just happened to expose the plot before you...

There are multiple suicide bomber incidents in Israel that were stopped by ordinary civilians shooting the bomber in the face.

One I remember in particular was a middle-aged woman who drew her pistol and shot the bomber three times through the forehead before he could drop to the ground.

There are multiple suicide bomber incidents in Israel that were stopped by ordinary civilians shooting the bomber in the face.

One I remember in particular was a middle-aged woman who drew her pistol and shot the bomber three times through the forehead before he could drop to the ground.
Sooo, because it worked once, it will work always?

Sooo, because it worked once, it will work always?
It's not "once". It's happened many times in Israel.

It's not "once". It's happened many times in Israel.

Yeah, those darn 3 and 10 year olds on the beach with their bombs...

There are multiple suicide bomber incidents in Israel that were stopped by ordinary civilians shooting the bomber in the face.

One I remember in particular was a middle-aged woman who drew her pistol and shot the bomber three times through the forehead before he could drop to the ground.

Or maybe, some middle-aged woman shot her husband's boyfriend, and planted suspect looking devices near the body... capitalising on the 'hang 'em all' mentality to let her get away untouched.

These discussions are frivulous. No, the majority of Americans are not paranoid about a terrorist threat, in fact, most of them don't really give it a second thought. Should they? That's debatable, but the majority don't consider the thought of their plane being highjacked or their bus being taken over by a crazed band of anti-American terrorists. The "paranoia" that is sweeping the nation is a fabrication of the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and State, along with most, if not all of the major news networks in the United States. Why? Well, primarily, we don't have an attention span capable of thinking about the dangers that await us...either that, or we, like most level-headed beings, know that it makes for a sad and degrading lifestyle to constantly live in fear of a threat. We don't worry about crashing cars when we wake up in the morning, why would we stop to think about terrorism every five minutes?

Another thing I have noticed is that the paranoia is less in places that were most affected by 9/11 such as NJ, NY, and DC. Some farmer in Oklahoma is probably paranoid of terrorism because, you know, they are totally after his corn. Maybe he sells pork, thats probably what they are pissed about.

Or maybe, some middle-aged woman shot her husband's boyfriend, and planted suspect looking devices near the body... capitalising on the 'hang 'em all' mentality to let her get away untouched.

Not with all the witnesses in the grocery store.

It's effective - that's why the Israeli government encourages not only military and police to always carry their issue weapons, but civilians are encouraged as well.

Not with all the witnesses in the grocery store.

It's effective - that's why the Israeli government encourages not only military and police to always carry their issue weapons, but civilians are encouraged as well.

Effective isn't akin to right, or even 'just'. It might simply mean lots of people get shot.

Yes, we are paranoid.
Yes, we have reason to be.
The world hates us, sad but true.
"Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

Effective isn't akin to right, or even 'just'. It might simply mean lots of people get shot.

If Israel had a high violent crime rating per capita, I might believe that. :D

If Israel had a high violent crime rating per capita, I might believe that. :D

Is 'per capita' a play on words? Given that we were talking about someone getting shot three times in the head?

What are Israel's current violent crime rates per capita? They were astronomical a couple of years back.

Is 'per capita' a play on words? Given that we were talking about someone getting shot three times in the head?

What are Israel's current violent crime rates per capita? They were astronomical a couple of years back.

Well, sorta. ;)

No clue, I'm asking.

The post you responded to was mine. And there was no statistics there. You're explanation fails.




I think you are responding to the wrong post. The post I responded to was Backwoods Sasquatch - Here:

That means your odds of becoming a victim of such an attack are about 1 in 93,333


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11325326&postcount=139


I'm sorry, but that looks like a statistic to me.