Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies&

naomiglover · February 8, 2010

Above all, these are reasonable people. We must give them their legitimate rights. </sarcasm> Why doesn't anyone realize we must profile, at least behaviorally. This is war. Some people are at war with us; most are not. We are not going to ensure safety by making travel unbearable for law-abiding people. We must drop the patina of political correctness, pull of the gloves, and do things that are effective, not just things that look good but do nothing.

Additionally, we must follow the money and retaliate - hard - against their paymasters.

Is this how Hitler rallied his people around him against the Jews?

DogOnPorch · February 8, 2010

Is this how Hitler rallied his people around him against the Jews?

Well...don't that make your Brown Shirt Blue.

Peter F · February 10, 2010

"Near and dear" are killed for a myriad of reasons ... You can't save all the "civilians".

Yes, I do admit to a limited supply of sympathy. and, yes, many dead I have never known or are even aware that they are dead; they are indeed 'abstract'. Just like everything beyond my personal experience is 'abstract'.

Are you suggesting that my emotional reactions are faked? Based on no reality? My wants and desires may be meaningless to you, certainly, no dispute there. But the idea that that meaninglessness makes it faked and/or without foundation and/or legitimacy is bullshit - particularly coming from the abstract concept of 'BC2004' who has shown some concern about personal wealth gained from abstract concepts. Does the abstraction make things less real? Much that is abstract and unknown has great effect. My Monitor for example. It is on my desk because of innumurable dead abstract people.

I will continue to be concerned about dead civilians. True, not that much, since the monitor still sits on my desk.

I was specifically referring to your fixation on the past 8 - 10 years, as if your narrow awareness defines the total terrorism domain.

Dream on. Hell, I'll accept any timeline you think appropriate.

Method B is not technically possible, if only because its effects that ultimately become Method A.

Really? How so?

That's OK.....because in the end there is no such thing as a "civilian".

oh yes, the terrorism justification. There are no civilians. All are at war. All killing is just.

There is logic to it too. But if thats true then there is no point to labels such as terrorist/civilian/soldier

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2010

Yes, I do admit to a limited supply of sympathy. and, yes, many dead I have never known or are even aware that they are dead; they are indeed 'abstract'. Just like everything beyond my personal experience is 'abstract'.

The abstractions and sympathy are for yourself, not them. Whatever floats your boat.

Are you suggesting that my emotional reactions are faked? Based on no reality? My wants and desires may be meaningless to you, certainly, no dispute there. But the idea that that meaninglessness makes it faked and/or without foundation and/or legitimacy is bullshit - particularly coming from the abstract concept of 'BC2004' who has shown some concern about personal wealth gained from abstract concepts.

Even at this level, I am taking actions to consolidate such gains. What are you doing beyond the meager offering of sympathy, all while living and thriving in the very killing system on which you heap disdain?

Does the abstraction make things less real? Much that is abstract and unknown has great effect. My Monitor for example. It is on my desk because of innumurable dead abstract people.

No, it is on your desk because of people who are very much alive, for the most part.

I will continue to be concerned about dead civilians. True, not that much, since the monitor still sits on my desk.

Of course you will...for yourself....not them.

Dream on. Hell, I'll accept any timeline you think appropriate.

The point being that there is no timeline. You will die never knowing how the story ends.

Really? How so?

Because Method B is a lesser included offense of Method A. See "Set Theory".

oh yes, the terrorism justification. There are no civilians. All are at war. All killing is just.

There is logic to it too. But if thats true then there is no point to labels such as terrorist/civilian/soldier

Even better, as such labels are clumsy and just get in the way.

Edited February 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Oleg Bach · February 10, 2010

Saying it again. If your average elete rich son of a bitch billionare American parasite can not take on a terrorist one on one in a fist fight then that little weasil should step down. Little fu*cks that are dependent on an aircraft carrier to do their bidding are losers.

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2010

Saying it again. If your average elete rich son of a bitch billionare American parasite can not take on a terrorist one on one in a fist fight then that little weasil should step down. Little fu*cks that are dependent on an aircraft carrier to do their bidding are losers.

You have it backwards....the "little fu*cks" build the aircraft carriers as union labor. You remember the union...right?

....and if the union don't mind....

jbg · February 10, 2010

Is this how Hitler rallied his people around him against the Jews?

Godwyn's law.

But seriously, there are huge differences. The Jews weren't killing Poles and Germans at random; in fact it was quite the other way around. The Jewish culture does not countenance religious violence. We have our bad apples but we prosecute them.

Get the drift?

naomiglover · February 10, 2010

Godwyn's law.

But seriously, there are huge differences. The Jews weren't killing Poles and Germans at random; in fact it was quite the other way around. The Jewish culture does not countenance religious violence. We have our bad apples but we prosecute them.

Get the drift?

Prosecute them and then they later become Prime Ministers?

Or prosecute them in the IDF kangaroo courts?

You reek of double standard. We are not any better than the rest of the world. We're not the Chosen People.

DogOnPorch · February 10, 2010

We're not the Chosen People.

Oh, the Jews are indeed the chosen people. But, chosen for what, exactly?

February 10, 2010

We are not any better than the rest of the world. We're not the Chosen People.

Being Jewish yourself, perhaps you should learn what being "the chosen people" refers to; or in this instance, what it doesn't refer to.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people.

I'm not even Jewish, or claim to be, and I know that much.

Edited February 10, 2010 by American Woman

DogOnPorch · February 10, 2010

Being Jewish yourself, perhaps you should learn what being "the chosen people" refers to; or in this instance, what it doesn't refer to.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people.

I'm not even Jewish, or claim to be, and I know that much.

Aye...if the Holocaust and centuries of pogroms tell us anything, the Jews were chosen for killin'.

jbg · February 10, 2010

Being Jewish yourself, perhaps you should learn what being "the chosen people" refers to; or in this instance, what it doesn't refer to.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people.

I'm not even Jewish, or claim to be, and I know that much.

You're quite right. Nowhere do the portions of the Bible designating us the "Chosen People" say what we're chosen for. May not be anything good.

M.Dancer · February 10, 2010

You're quite right. Nowhere do the portions of the Bible designating us the "Chosen People" say what we're chosen for. May not be anything good.

Gods and people never work out well. Ask Oedipus....Odysseus....Lot's wife

Moonlight Graham · February 11, 2010

I had a plate in my leg, the scanner picked it up, my Mother has an artificial knee... the scanner picks it up. No worries, stow the fear.

Because they are metal. What about explosives with no metal?

JB Globe · February 11, 2010

Maybe. Or maybe they were never that impressive to begin with.

Al Qaeda would have to bring down 2-3 planes a week in order to kill as many Americans as motor vehicle accidents do.

But no one's shitting their pants about driving to work, and there's no national campaign for road safety.

Anyone who's terrified of terrorism doesn't live in a rational world. Anyone who thinks 1 attack very 10 years is unacceptable believes in a fantasy world of perfect security.

Same thing with people who fear getting raped/murdered randomly walking home in the evening - the majority of the time the perp is known to the victim.

And of course, Canadians are 6 times as likely to commit suicide versus being murdered - but Harper isn't vowing to get "tough on suicide" because he knows how to play to the public's irrational fears.

DogOnPorch · February 12, 2010

Al Qaeda would have to bring down 2-3 planes a week in order to kill as many Americans as motor vehicle accidents do.

The difference being that random motorists aren't trying to kill you.

Anyone who's terrified of terrorism doesn't live in a rational world. Anyone who thinks 1 attack very 10 years is unacceptable believes in a fantasy world of perfect security.

How much terrorism is acceptable? Also 'terrified of terrorism' is a tad redundant. If you're being terrorized, you tend to be terrified. If terrorists actually had a bombing campaign going on in your neck of the woods, you might give-up that trip to Starbucks after they blew-up that other one across town.

Edited February 12, 2010 by DogOnPorch

February 12, 2010

Al Qaeda would have to bring down 2-3 planes a week in order to kill as many Americans as motor vehicle accidents do.

Well then, why waste money going after murderers, since a lot more Americans get killed in motor accidents than get murdered? As a side benefit, think of all the money we could save on police work and prisons.

But no one's shitting their pants about driving to work, and there's no national campaign for road safety.

There aren't any national campaigns for road safety? Then why does the law say we have to wear seat belts? And why does the law say infants/toddlers have to be in an approved car seat? And why is it illegal to drive drunk? And why are we urged to have designated drivers? And why do we have storm warnings, urging people not to drive unless they have to? And on and on it goes.

Anyone who's terrified of terrorism doesn't live in a rational world. Anyone who thinks 1 attack very 10 years is unacceptable believes in a fantasy world of perfect security.

There's only been one terrorist attack in ten years? That's news to me. But here's a thought. There likely would have been more if we weren't fighting it. You are aware of the attempts that have been thwarted, are you not?

Same thing with people who fear getting raped/murdered randomly walking home in the evening - the majority of the time the perp is known to the victim.

I'm sure that's a real comfort to the minority of people who have been raped/murdered randomly walking home in the evening.

And of course, Canadians are 6 times as likely to commit suicide versus being murdered - but Harper isn't vowing to get "tough on suicide" because he knows how to play to the public's irrational fears.

Perhaps wanting to die and making it happen vs. not wanting to die and having someone kill you anyway could have something to do with that.

Wilber · February 12, 2010

I'll agree with JR in one respect. If anyone expects 100% success against terrorist attacks they are living in La La Land. Ain't going to happen but keep smokin whatever it is that makes you happy. Other than that, I disagree with pretty much everything. If you aren't going to "get tough" and fight back against people who are trying to kill you, who do you "get tough" with?

DogOnPorch · February 12, 2010

I'll agree with JR in one respect. If anyone expects 100% success against terrorist attacks they are living in La La Land. Ain't going to happen but keep smokin whatever it is that makes you happy. Other than that, I disagree with pretty much everything. If you aren't going to "get tough" and fight back against people who are trying to kill you, who do you "get tough" with?

Sure. But there's the right way, the wrong way to fight wars. If we look back at Viet-Nam with 20/20 vision, we find that Nixon was pretty much right and the Trail needed 'invading'. Had they been able to stay rather than leaving due to public outrage back home, the Viet-Nam War would have ground to a halt for the Communists within a few months.

jbg · February 12, 2010

And of course, Canadians are 6 times as likely to commit suicide versus being murdered - but Harper isn't vowing to get "tough on suicide" because he knows how to play to the public's irrational fears.

People who commit or attempt suicide should be executed.

jbg · February 12, 2010

If you aren't going to "get tough" and fight back against people who are trying to kill you, who do you "get tough" with?

People who drive 102 km/hour on the 400.

Wilber · February 12, 2010

Sure. But there's the right way, the wrong way to fight wars. If we look back at Viet-Nam with 20/20 vision, we find that Nixon was pretty much right and the Trail needed 'invading'. Had they been able to stay rather than leaving due to public outrage back home, the Viet-Nam War would have ground to a halt for the Communists within a few months.

I'm far from sure it was possible to stop infiltration from the North without actually going north.

Wilber · February 12, 2010

People who drive 102 km/hour on the 400.

Wouldn't know, no one around here drives the limit on HWY 1. Most drive at least 10K over.

jbg · February 12, 2010

Wouldn't know, no one around here drives the limit on HWY 1. Most drive at least 10K over.

I've never been to BC. But I do know that everyone keeps to 110 in Alberta and 100 in Ontario.

jbg · February 12, 2010

I'm far from sure it was possible to stop infiltration from the North without actually going north.

I was "against the war". That being said I was against it because we were fighting with both hands tied between our backs. If anyone needs to die in a war it's the enemy, not our own troops.