NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one highly believe that we are much safer today than before 9/11.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.

Well, we haven't been attacked again and we've foiled several attempts to do so, so I would say we are safer today than we were on 9/11.

there were attacks before September the 11th?

And no its not at all safer you just have some laws now that make me question how safe you are from your own government

edit: on the plus side-ish now terrorist groups attack the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan so less chance o terrorist putting the effort in to attack American soil

there were attacks before September the 11th?

World trade centre bombing, Timothy McVey in Oklahoma... I should be able to list more, but I've just woken up

World trade centre bombing, Timothy McVey in Oklahoma... I should be able to list more, but I've just woken up

and as you can see not too many and none particularly major

And what laws have made America safer exactly?

Land of the 'fraid, home of the safe...

Absolutely not. I have never before felt as threatened by my government.

World trade centre bombing, Timothy McVey in Oklahoma... I should be able to list more, but I've just woken up

The USS Cole too. But those were Clinton years, and therefore we werent safe. :rolleyes:

I dunno, I dont feel safe, not with elections. Because we all know terrorists attack prior to Nov 2 then take a break for 2 years until the next Nov 2.

and as you can see not too many and none particularly major

Oklaholma City killed 168 people and injured 800, and the first WTC attack injured over 1,000 people. They're not as bad as 9/11 but they're pretty damn serious.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.

Not so fast. The Miami thing is obviously just a polticial move from the Republicans. Someone was THINKING of PLANNING to ATTEMPT to blow something up? That's hardly a threat. The shoe bomber? Please. That's hardly the best that Osama-and-Pals can do. This recent airline bomber thing? I'd give that one to you, except for the fact that American authorities had nothing to do with the case and that the British saved a few thousand lives there.

Personally, I think we're a bit safer. Probably just because the average American now knows what a "terrorist" IS and is probably more likely to report suspicous activity. The Bush Administration can take no credit for that, and if anything they lose point because they have LOST the battle for hearts and minds.

and as you can see not too many and none particularly major

You just declared that the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't "major."

Wow.

Well, we haven't been attacked again and we've foiled several attempts to do so, so I would say we are safer today than we were on 9/11.

The world has become a safer place indeed...:p

Our fighter jets are more frequently flying in the skies, not for training excercizes, but for patrols just in case a commercial airliner gets off the track, I'm sure the FAA is montoring the routes by the second now,too.

Also, I highly believe (although, I can't offer any concrete evidence) that our government has a lot of secrets that no body knows about, that inevitably makes us more safer.

God Bless America

Oklaholma City killed 168 people and injured 800, and the first WTC attack injured over 1,000 people. They're not as bad as 9/11 but they're pretty damn serious.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't an Islamic terrorist however so he doesn't count.

As to the question of safety, if anything Bush's policies in the Middle East is making things even more dangerous for America. It seems everything Bush does is designed to anger Muslims. Then you have the fact that our civil rights are being affected so we need to be more fearful of our own government.

God Bless America

If god blessed America why did he put all the oil under people who hate us?
--Jon Stewart

Our fighter jets are more frequently flying in the skies, not for training excercizes, but for patrols just in case a commercial airliner gets off the track, I'm sure the FAA is montoring the routes by the second now,too.

yeah fuck the ozone and those millions of dollars in fuel Those SAM’s can’t be trusted!

Also, I highly believe (although, I can't offer any concrete evidence) that our government has a lot of secrets that no body knows about, that inevitably makes us more safer.

How does that make you safer?!

God Bless America

Why just America? I thought we were allies!:mad:

Timothy McVeigh wasn't an Islamic terrorist however so he doesn't count.

Being killed by a Christian survivalist is better than being killed by an Islamic terrorist? How so?


and as you can see not too many and none particularly major

Oklahoma works out as five Omagh's, or fifty-six David Copeland's.

there were attacks before September the 11th?


edit: on the plus side-ish now terrorist groups attack the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan so less chance o terrorist putting the effort in to attack American soil

Bollocks. By the way -

"US report says Iraq fuels terror
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.
The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim that going to war has made the world safer. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

Theres an older more accredited brit report that says similar.

I do believe that the Sears Tower in Chicago was a target but the plan did indeed got foiled, and as for the commercial airliner incident in the UK it was foiled, hence America is safer.

The question was is the USA safer today, it wasn't is the USA safer because of the USA? Pay attention and think before you answer. Thank you.

Yes there has been several attempts to strike America after 9/11 and all of them were foiled.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't an Islamic terrorist however so he doesn't count.

I don't think it really matters if we're just talking security; non-Islamic terrorism is still terrorism and it could happen today if we aren't careful. There's still plenty of nuts willing to attack the US out there who have nothing to do with Islam...

As to the question of safety, if anything Bush's policies in the Middle East is making things even more dangerous for America. It seems everything Bush does is designed to anger Muslims. Then you have the fact that our civil rights are being affected so we need to be more fearful of our own government.

That's true. But the question was more about the security side than the actual fight against terrorism; I would say infrastructure security, especially at airports and other transportation hubs, has been greatly improved since 9/11. Of course, the problem is that we're also doing things that make us more likely to be attacked, so it's sort of cancelling out the gains in security by encouraging more attacks.

As I've never visited the place I can only be an observer. In my opnion I do not think it is safer but this isn't because of terrosrists ( because as I see it there have always been terrorists and unfortunatly there always will) but because of the government. I'm all for the government protecting the citizens but as soon as more of that 'protection' comes from the loss of some freedoms and liberties I tend to get wary. I see the UK on this same slippery slope and it upsets/scares me. In my opnion the government is like the mafia and the freedoms become the protection money.

Being killed by a Christian survivalist is better than being killed by an Islamic terrorist? How so?

Well this safety question is the worry of those evil, evil Muslims right? You don't have people scared that some paranoid survivalist is going to kill you. It is that Middle Eastern fellow that causes people to get fearful. It is wrong but its just the way it is.

*shrugs*

As for the NY Times, it is a treachorous paper that I find very useful. They need to be tried for Treason.

(I allow my dog to crap on it) That's the best use I am able to find for it. :D

That's true. But the question was more about the security side than the actual fight against terrorism; I would say infrastructure security, especially at airports and other transportation hubs, has been greatly improved since 9/11. Of course, the problem is that we're also doing things that make us more likely to be attacked, so it's sort of cancelling out the gains in security by encouraging more attacks.

Well ok, I'd say that we are safer if a massive attack is actually lauched as we are more alert to the possibility. Still, I'd say that some measures are frankly ridiculous such as what you see at airports. It really doesn't matter what security you put in if it effects your productivity or if it is ineffectual. If someone really wants to hurt you they will get through. Just the way it is.
Regardless it may not matter in the end. A couple of men with assault weapons could cause massive casualites. It may not be as spectacular as 9/11 but it will get the job done of spreading terror.

Though al-Qaida may have more difficulty operating, its ideology is thriving, due to the war on terror. The war on terror provides ample PR opportunities for Global Jihadism…

Hence the focus on home-grown terrorism; You and I could start an al-Qaida cell tomorrow, without even contacting al-Qaida…. That’s the real danger…

The current conflict is a struggle within Islam for religious primacy, and the Jihadi’s are gaining ground due to the stupidity of this Government…

Ps.. no real need to strike at home (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

The USS Cole too. But those were Clinton years, and therefore we werent safe. :rolleyes:

I dunno, I dont feel safe, not with elections. Because we all know terrorists attack prior to Nov 2 then take a break for 2 years until the next Nov 2.

Wouldn't it be simply more to the point to round up those who foster terror, rather than let them run in America's elections?

you are the most gullible perosn on the planet, methinks. because the terrorist see no point in attacking america, as bush is taking away the freedoms just as the terrorists wanted him to. they are prolly laughing at you americans.

you are the most gullible perosn on the planet, methinks. because the terrorist see no point in attacking america, as bush is taking away the freedoms just as the terrorists wanted him to. they are prolly laughing at you americans.

hmmm.....a lot of people keeping talking about how our rights are being takin' away....I for one disagree wholeheartedly.....What I was doing before 9/11 is pretty much the same after 9/11....I don't feel any of my rights have diminished and I do feel much safer now than before too.

Yes it is, but not tremendously so.

On the plus side, nothing has gone boom in 5 years now.
On the minus side, we're probably going to have at least 5-15 more years of intervention in the Middle East.

Is the US 100% safe? No. But it's more secure than it was on 10 September 2001.

hmmm.....a lot of people keeping talking about how our rights are being takin' away....I for one disagree wholeheartedly.....What I was doing before 9/11 is pretty much the same after 9/11....I don't feel any of my rights have diminished and I do feel much safer now than before too.
do you live under a rock??

I for one highly believe that we are much safer today than before 9/11.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.
Yes, and when before 9/11 came the previosu strike? 1941?

Honestly, the hyped up security is just a sign that the west, particularly America, is losing the War on Terror.

Yes, and when before 9/11 came the previosu strike? 1941?

WTC 1993.
Oklahoma City 1995.
Centennial Park Atlanta Olympics 1996.

WTC 1993.
Oklahoma City 1995.
So, why wasn't security beefed up then?

No, I don't feel safer.

I feel my essential liberties and personal wellbeing are being threatened by an increasingly agressive and totalitarian movement in the US. IF we take away liberties and replace them with false security, then the terrorists have already won.

I also feel less safe with under equipped, poorly used troops being deployed oversea in a fight that is only creating more terrorists and provididng a REAL terrorist training ground. I feel less safe under a president who I cannot trust to tell the truth about national security. I feel less safe under a diplomatically skillless government. I feel less safe under a government willing to use unaccurate information attained from Human Rights abuses to carry out it's war on American Freedoms.

So no, I feel much less safe.

Safer from old grannies...

Land of the 'fraid, home of the safe... :gundge:


We wouldn't be chasing terrorist all ove the world if we were afraid GN. I for one would welcome a chance on a one on one, face to face confrontation
with one of the people that was responsible for 911. I think the terrorist are afraid to face us on anything but a secret hit and run tactic. You can say what you want but the truth is that the American People are still very pissed about it. So they should be the ones who are afraid ... be very afraid ... because our government is the only thing between them and the American Public. Where I come from has only had one murder since it was founded. The authorities had to take the killer out of our county for trial because there were people there that wanted to hang him in the park where all could watch. Personally I thought we should just tie him to a tree out in the sticks and leave him for the animals.

Safer from old grannies...
ANd their brick-loaded purses! :D

Our fighter jets are more frequently flying in the skies, not for training excercizes, but for patrols just in case a commercial airliner gets off the track, I'm sure the FAA is montoring the routes by the second now,too.
I'm sure these guys aren't that dumb. Not the expendable kamikaze, but the planners. It would be very uncreative to hijack and crash planes again. Weak shadow of 9/11.

Also, I highly believe (although, I can't offer any concrete evidence) that our government has a lot of secrets that no body knows about, that inevitably makes us more safer.
Security through obscurity?


It is possible, and has been said by some, that someone in FBI/CIA knew about the attack beforehand, but because of all the secrecy and work on uncovering details to catch the network, the information didn't reach people who could prevent that, until it was too late.
I don't mean it was so; I don't know and so don't build or accept theories. But it was possible, and is possible again, someday, somewhere.

So, why wasn't security beefed up then?

cuz people were smarter then.

I just saw a political ad from the group Progress for America that tried to tell us that the War on Terror was the greatest thing ever...it's full of appeal to emotion and so many flawed arguments, it's ridiculous. We all know what happened on 9/11. I also know that we're not really stopping terrorism. Some of the arguments it made were insane.

"Islamic extremists will kill just because we don't submit to their rule." Well, why they hell don't they? Why the hell don't they just borrow some n00ks from Pakistan and go bombs away on the U.S.? If they want to kill us, they can. They want to scare us into destroying ourselves. Then they can try to rule the remains. If they wanted us dead, we would be dead.

To a Muslim extremist, "women have no rights and civilians are political pawns." All right, I will grant them that. Women in Saudi Arabia have no rights, but frankly, neither do men without government connections. But they have oil, so the U.S. isn't touching them.

"We're eliminating terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq." For the thousandth time, Iraq had precisely squat to do with 9/11. Also, the Taliban's back in Afghanistan rather than being eliminated like they should have been. And let's see...how many religious nuts have come out of Iraq prior to the invasion? Hmmm...not too many. Saddam was an asshole. He killed people for opposing him. Give it 20 years, though, and Iraqis will look fondly on Saddam's rule at this rate (the way many in Iran would trade the Ayatollah for the Shah any day.) Both the Shah and Saddam were wasteful, let people be poor, and killed those who opposed them. The Ayatollah does all of this, and whoever takes Iraq will do all of this - but they will fund terrorist groups and spread Islamic extremism.

Also, it tried to take credit for stopping "another 9/11." Hey, brain-for-brains - the British did that one. The Canadians and even the Belgians have stopped major attacks. What the hell did the Bush administration ever do? Besides, at this rate, considering all the lackadaisical security job done to keep the 9/11 hijackers out of America and the shitty job done by airport security on that day, the U.S. (Bush or no Bush) needs to stop about two 9/11s before they can even begin to atone for the one that got away from them.

The war on terror. It's a load of horse-hockey designed to take away our rights and inspire fear in people. If we were dedicated to stopping terrorism, we would do it, and we would do it right.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years.

Heh! Okay, well, I haven't died from lung cancer yet, therefore my cigarette smoking is health-friendly.

I for one highly believe that we are much safer today than before 9/11.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.

your joking right?

I for one highly believe that we are much safer today than before 9/11.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.
According to Homeland Security (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0844.xml), the US is no safer now then when their advisory was first posted. As a matter of fact, if anything it has gone up to orange and back to yellow several times. Heck, this august it actually went to red for the first time. Safer......I doubt it very much.

March 12, 2002 – Introduction of Homeland Security Advisory System At Yellow

White House Press Release

September 10, 2002 – Raised from Yellow to Orange

White House Press Release: The U.S. intelligence community has received information, based on debriefings of a senior al Qaeda operative, of possible terrorists attacks timed to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the United States. Information indicates that al Qaeda cells have been established in several South Asian countries in order to conduct car-bomb and other attacks on U.S. facilities. These cells have been accumulating explosives since approximately January of 2002, this year, in preparation for these attacks.

September 24, 2002 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow

White House Press Release: Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level.

February 7, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to Orange

Press Release
Press Conference: Recent Intelligence reports suggest that Al Qaida leaders have emphasized planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States.

February 27, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow

Press Release: Today's decision to lower the threat level was based on a careful review of how this specific intelligence has evolved and progressed over the past three weeks, as well as counter-terrorism actions we have taken to address specific aspects of the threat situation. Among the factors we considered was the passing of the time period in or around the end of the Hajj, a Muslim religious period ending mid-February 2003.

March 17, 2003 – Raised from Orange to Yellow

White House Press Release: The Intelligence Community believes that terrorists will attempt multiple attacks against U.S. and Coalition targets worldwide in the event of a U.S led military campaign against Saddam Hussein. A large volume of reporting across a range of sources, some of which are highly reliable, indicates that Al-Qaida probably would attempt to launch terrorist attacks against U.S. interests claiming they were defending Muslims or the Iraqi people rather than Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Fact Sheet

April 16, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow

Homeland Security Advisory: Following a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council, has made the decision to lower the threat advisory level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or ‘yellow’ level.

May 20, 2003 – Raised from Orange to Yellow

Alert 03-025
Press Release: In the wake of terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, intelligence reports indicate that terrorist may attempt attacks against targets in the United States.

May 30, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow

Alert 03-026
Press Release: This decision is based upon a number of factors including a review of the intelligence and an assessment of the threats by the intelligence community. The U.S. intelligence community has also concluded that the number of indications and warnings that led to raising the level have decreased along with the heightened vulnerability associated with the Memorial Day Holiday.

December 21, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to Orange

Press Conference: The U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports. These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond.
White House Press Briefing

January 9, 2004 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow

Press Conference - Today, based on a careful review of the available intelligence, we have lowered the threat level to Yellow. We are still concerned about the continued threats, but the threat conditions that we’ve been following have diminished. With the passing of the holidays and many large gatherings that occurred during this time, we have made the decision to come down to Yellow.

August 1, 2004 – Raised from Yellow to Orange, specifically for the financial services sectors in New York City, Northern New Jersey, and Washington, DC

Press Conference - This afternoon, we do have new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack. As a result, today, the United States Government is raising the threat level to Code Orange for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, DC.
Accompanying Graphic
Background Briefing by Senior Intelligence Officials

November 10, 2004 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow, for the financial services sectors in New York City, Northern New Jersey, and Washington, DC

Press Release - Since the threat level was raised on August 1, 2004 state and local leaders as well as the private sector have worked hard to strengthen security in and around specific buildings and locations as well as throughout the financial services sector. Today there are permanent protective measures in place that did not exist before August 1.

July 7, 2005 – Raised from Yellow to Orange for mass transit

Statement
Press Conference - In light of today's attacks in London, the United States government is raising the threat level from Code Yellow, or Elevated, to Code Orange, High; targeted only to the mass transit portion of the transportation sector -- and I want to emphasize that -- targeted only to the mass transit portion of the transportation sector. This includes regional and inner city passenger rail, subways, and metropolitan bus systems. We are also asking for increased vigilance throughout the transportation sector….Currently, the United States has no specific, credible information suggesting an imminent attack here in the United States.

August 12, 2005 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow for mass transit

Press Release - Since raising the threat level for mass transit systems on July 7, the Department of Homeland Security has been working closely with our federal, state and local partners to develop and implement sustainable mass transit security measures tailored to the unique design of each region’s transit system. In light of these increased long-term measures, DHS is lowering the national threat level for the mass transit portion of the transportation sector from Code Orange, or "high," to Code Yellow, or "elevated."

August 10, 2006 – Raised from Yellow to Red for flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States; raised to Orange for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States.

Press Conference - The United States government has raised the nation's threat level to our highest level of alert -- Severe, or Red -- for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom and bound for the United States. We've made this adjustment to coordinate our alert level with that currently enforced in Britain. Second, as a precaution against any remaining threats out there, and we also want to take steps to prevent any would-be copycats who may be inspired to similar conduct. Accordingly we are raising the threat level, or we have raised the threat level, with respect to aviation in general, to High, or Orange. That will cover all in-bound international flights, other than flights from Great Britain, and it will cover all flights within the United States itself.
Statement

August 13, 2006 – Lowered from Red to Orange for flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States; remains at Orange for all domestic and international flights.

As for the NY Times, it is a treachorous paper that I find very useful. They need to be tried for Treason.

(I allow my dog to crap on it) That's the best use I am able to find for it.

Ah... I see where you have gone wrong.

No, no, try reading it. You might actually learn something. Such as, possibly, what treason actually means.

But not because you're not allowed to carry toothpaste or mouth freshner or a cigarette lighter in your handluggage (but knitting needles and corkscrews are still OK!).. :headbang:

America is safer because it's taking the fight to the Jihadis and everyone is more viligant.. You only got hit, because no one bothered to think that it was strange that someone might want to learn to fly a 727 into a building.. And those that did, didn't speak up or weren't heard. Like it or not, you have a war culture now - and a little bit of viligance and awareness never hurt anyone..

Stopping me from taking mouthwash onto an aeroplane, however, could cause not only physical but mental damage to large numbers of people. Fucking idiots. :upyours:

and as you can see not too many and none particularly major

And what laws have made America safer exactly?

Oklahoma city not "particularly major." Just what is a major terrorist attack in your opinion. Oh, and there were several others such as embasy bombings, Marines in Lebanon, the USS Cole, Cobar towers.

Stopping me from taking mouthwash onto an aeroplane, however, could cause not only physical but mental damage to large numbers of people.

Would you care to explain just how being prevented from taking mouthwash, or toothpaste, etc. on to an airplane can cause physical or mental damage? Could you give us some expaples of how this could happen?

Being killed by a Christian survivalist is better than being killed by an Islamic terrorist? How so?

Because the Christian survivalist will go to hell, but the Islamic terrorists will get 72 virgins. :D

I do believe that the Sears Tower in Chicago was a target but the plan did indeed got foiled, and as for the commercial airliner incident in the UK it was foiled, hence America is safer.


It wasn't a "target." A target is something people shoot at. Those people were effectively arrested for thought crimes.

Ah... I see where you have gone wrong.

No, no, try reading it. You might actually learn something. Such as, possibly, what treason actually means.
Or this little bit on how the War on Terror has not made the U.S. safer...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/washington/25terrorcnd.html

Especially the last paragraph gave me a good chuckle...

You only got hit, because no one bothered to think that it was strange that someone might want to learn to fly a 727 into a building..

I can actually tell for sure that if a plane hijack attempt was to happen today, even without all these security measures, people would tear the hijackers with bare hands. These measures don't change anything - only attitude does.

Lot of fuzzy thinking washing around.
It is quite clear that "War on Terror" is entirely the wrong approach. Terrorists thrive on being 'warriors'. They are criminals, and a job for the police and intelligence agencies. It remains a disappointment to me that the British government, so clear-sighted in consistently treating the IRA as criminals, gave Islamic reactionaries the recognition they wanted as opponents in a war.
Involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan has done nothing for our health or safety in the West. While I don't accept the nonsense that terrorism will just stop if we withdraw from those countries, neither was any threat to our security, and some who would have been peacable have been encouraged by our invasions to oppose the West.

No. We are not safer. The entire reason all these homegrown terrorists keep springing up in the first place is because we went to war in Iraq and Afganastan, so because we took all these measures to try to prevent terrorism, but we only ended up making it worse. So no we have done nothing to stop terrorism.

Fact: There have been more terrorist attacks over the last five years than there have been throughout the course of the last two centuries. While prior to September 11th, we had only angered the right people, now we have angered all of the people. We have simply angered them and have still not yet fought at the root causes. If we continue in this way, we will be Rome. They will be our "barbarians," and funny thing is: we don't protect our water supply either...

Because the Christian survivalist will go to hell, but the Islamic terrorists will get 72 virgins. :D

...And all of them will be from IDF.

I do believe that the Sears Tower in Chicago was a target but the plan did indeed got foiled, and as for the commercial airliner incident in the UK it was foiled, hence America is safer.

The question was is the USA safer today, it wasn't is the USA safer because of the USA? Pay attention and think before you answer. Thank you.

Yes there has been several attempts to strike America after 9/11 and all of them were foiled.

Name three. (and use sources, or it doesnt count)

I dare you.

No America, is most certainly NOT safer.
We still dont have a clue where Osama is.

Al-Qeada is still at large.

More and more terrorist supporters enter Iraq every day.

Al-Qeada is on the rise in Afghanistan.

The same organization was able to attack another country, with terror, after 9/11, and other places as well.

We havent been hit by another attack, becuase the attacks were taking place elsewhere.

Bush has done everything wrong, in regards to "making the US safer".

RE attacks before 9/11: People keep forgetting the old guard, too -- the gangs that planted bombs in major US cities, similar to the IEDs and package bombs that kill so many in Iraq every day. Two groups I remember were the Weather Underground in the 60s and 70s and Omega 17 in the 80s and 90s. Both targeted New York City, among other places. Their attacks were small but still deadly, very much like the bombs in bus stations and mailboxes of the IRA and European terrorists. Many individuals were killed or wounded by them. The Weathermen eventually blew themselves up in their Greenwich Village apartment, and Omega 17 was broken up by the FBI but only after nearly 20 years of activity.

Re the main topic: No, I don't feel safer. Not with only 20% of cargo containers being inspected and only 5% of airline cargo/checked baggage. Not with over 11 million illegal aliens running around with no oversight and millions more traipsing in and out over our wide open borders every single day. Not with a southern border that was recently said to be nearly as dangerous as Baghdad for violence and murders by Mexican gangs. There are even reports of Mexican military threatening US border patrols -- on US territory. What the hell is the Mexican army doing in Texas and how did they get there without the governor knowing about it, pray tell? Not with the lack of serious effort to protect water and food supplies as well as nuclear plants, the infrastructure and the power grid. Hell, they haven't even been able to figure out how all that spinach got contaminated yet. Not good. No, I do not feel safer with the same government in charge of my safety that was in charge of NOLA after Katrina.

Oklahoma city not "particularly major." Just what is a major terrorist attack in your opinion. Oh, and there were several others such as embasy bombings, Marines in Lebanon, the USS Cole, Cobar towers.None of the three you list occurred in the mainland US...

None of the three you list occurred in the mainland US...

Since when is Oklahoma City NOT in the mainland US? Unless they moved it, OKC is still about 125 miles west of Tulsa, Oklahoma and about in the center of the State. :confused:

Since when is Oklahoma City NOT in the mainland US? Unless they moved it, OKC is still about 125 miles west of Tulsa, Oklahoma and about in the center of the State. :confused:

Oklahoma city wasn't the one he was talking about.

I for one highly believe that we are much safer today than before 9/11.

Fact, we have not been struck on our home soil for 5 years. Although, there were several attempts to do so, all were prevented. Go America.

More people making more attempts to hit the US at home makes you feel safer? Why?

And there have been at least 3 successful attacks since 9/11: The 2001 Anthrax attacks, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's attack at LAX (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/12/airport.shooting/), and Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar's "one man Jihad" at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/417984.html).

Absolutely not. I have never before felt as threatened by my government.

Exactly so.


Also, I highly believe (although, I can't offer any concrete evidence) that our government has a lot of secrets that no body knows about, that inevitably makes us more safer.

And I "highly" believe that GW and Rummy play naked games of Johnny rides a pony without any concrete evid4ence. I'll believe in your fanttasy if you believe in mine... Will you?

God Bless America

Well at least somebody is doing so. GWB sure ain't.

As for the NY Times, it is a treachorous paper that I find very useful. They need to be tried for Treason.

(I allow my dog to crap on it) That's the best use I am able to find for it. :D

They'll have to wait in line for trial behind the Armitage's espionage trial and GW, Cheney, and Rummy's war crimes trials.

RE attacks before 9/11: People keep forgetting the old guard, too -- the gangs that planted bombs in major US cities, similar to the IEDs and package bombs that kill so many in Iraq every day. Two groups I remember were the Weather Underground in the 60s and 70s and Omega 17 in the 80s and 90s. Both targeted New York City, among other places. Their attacks were small but still deadly, very much like the bombs in bus stations and mailboxes of the IRA and European terrorists. Many individuals were killed or wounded by them. The Weathermen eventually blew themselves up in their Greenwich Village apartment, and Omega 17 was broken up by the FBI but only after nearly 20 years of activity.

And heaps of others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_U.S.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]Re the main topic: No, I don't feel safer. Not with only 20% of cargo containers being inspected and only 5% of airline cargo/checked baggage. Not with over 11 million illegal aliens running around with no oversight and millions more traipsing in and out over our wide open borders every single day. Not with a southern border that was recently said to be nearly as dangerous as Baghdad for violence and murders by Mexican gangs. There are even reports of Mexican military threatening US border patrols -- on US territory. What the hell is the Mexican army doing in Texas and how did they get there without the governor knowing about it, pray tell? Not with the lack of serious effort to protect water and food supplies as well as nuclear plants, the infrastructure and the power grid. Hell, they haven't even been able to figure out how all that spinach got contaminated yet. Not good. No, I do not feel safer with the same government in charge of my safety that was in charge of NOLA after Katrina.

Exactly so.

I said yes, but only because military action will disrupt networks. I do not think we are permanently safer, in the long run we may very well be less safe with the fervor that we've kicked up.

It wasn't a "target." A target is something people shoot at. Those people were effectively arrested for thought crimes.

It was a potential "target" but was foiled.

Also, as a free nation we will always have our vulnerabilities. However, overall we are safer now. We are also much more alert to the tactics of cowards.

Since when is Oklahoma City NOT in the mainland US? Unless they moved it, OKC is still about 125 miles west of Tulsa, Oklahoma and about in the center of the State. :confused:It wasn't exactly included in the "three you listed". Since this is a discussion about mainland America being safe, they are irrelevent.

I find it kind of humorous how some of you bicker about "losing your rights" and at the same time bicker about how the security isn't nearly as good as it should be.

A perfect world does NOT exist.

Until the day I day, I will always love and support my country. I love America. May God continue to Bless America!!!

I find it kind of humorous how some of you bicker about "losing your rights" and at the same time bicker about how the security isn't nearly as good as it should be.

A perfect world does NOT exist.

Ironically, that doesn't mean that by getting rid of essential liberties that we make our own security any better. If anything, the major violations of our liberties have harmed our security by wasting NSA resources, producing innacurate information, and slowing down the American economy.

The way some Conservatives act, you'd think they wanted to lose the war on terror. I mean, that shouldn't suprise anyone, seeing as how they want the same tyrannies to be placed on America that terrorists do, but I always thought they wanted to win this war as well.

Until the day I day, I will always love and support my country. I love America. May God continue to Bless America!!!

Oh don't play the "I'm the only patriot because I felate the President even when he's being a moron" card. It just makes you look stupid.

My patriotism has absolutely nothing to do with the president. Stop assuming and making yourself look like an idiot.

When Clinton was in office for the 2 terms I was still very loving of my country and I didn't like Clinton to much. Same goes for Bush, I'm not to fond of him right now either. Basicly, regardless of who is in the White House, I will always love my country, period.

Do I feel safer post 9/11?

No. Definately not. The government is making inroads into moderating moral behavior and sees my religion as "bad" or "evil". If the neocons get their way and are able to merge the US government with their Christian beliefs, then I am in danger of having my first amendment rights taken away.

Do I feel safer that Bush has created prisons in the United States that already have guards and are just waiting to have people put into them (for whatever reason Bush decides)? No, definately not. They sure look like concentration or work camps to me.

Do I feel safer that Bush has decided to limit privacy by executive order for wiretapping without requiring a warrant? No.

Does the Department of Homeland Security make me feel safer? No.

The government is constantly trying to take away our freedoms and our liberties and trying to convince us its necessary in order to combat this terrible evil that *THEY* provoked. They are using fear to control us and will continue to do so as long as we let them.

Now that Bush and his cronies have decided it's okay to torture people, do I feel safer? No.

You know what? Apparently, we aren't safer afterall. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html)

Without a doubt yes .

It was a potential "target" but was foiled.

Also, as a free nation we will always have our vulnerabilities. However, overall we are safer now. We are also much more alert to the tactics of cowards.

Yes, we can see them in action every day on CSPAN and CSPAN-2.

I find it kind of humorous how some of you bicker about "losing your rights" and at the same time bicker about how the security isn't nearly as good as it should be.

A perfect world does NOT exist.

Until the day I day, I will always love and support my country. I love America. May God continue to Bless America!!!

Perfect security is impossible. Not unless you want this country to basically shut down so that every person, package, shipping crate can be examined if there is a box cutter hidden somwhere. People really need to look at reality and think of that wonderful statistic that says you have a higher chance of dying in your bathtub then in a terrorist attack. I suppose we should be more terrified every time we want to bathe...

I find it kind of humorous how some of you bicker about "losing your rights" and at the same time bicker about how the security isn't nearly as good as it should be.
That's because it is not an either-or proposition. Despite what you, or Bush or Cheney, may think, we DO NOT have to choose between rights and security. We can have both, and quite easily, too. Yet, the current neocon administration is trying to force us to make that self-defeating choice. Why would any American president try to set up a system that would take away the rights of the people he swore to represent, and why would he try to scare us into letting him do it with threats of what might happen if we don't?

A perfect world does NOT exist.

Until the day I day, I will always love and support my country. I love America. May God continue to Bless America!!!

Calm down, Captain America. There are no ratzis here. :rolleyes:

Perfect security is impossible. Not unless you want this country to basically shut down so that every person, package, shipping crate can be examined if there is a box cutter hidden somwhere. People really need to look at reality and think of that wonderful statistic that says you have a higher chance of dying in your bathtub then in a terrorist attack. I suppose we should be more terrified every time we want to bathe...

That's why I take showers. Death by traumatic head injury from slipping and falling is quicker (and more exciting on the short trip down) than death by drowning. :)