Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

[Guthrie]

They knew about Pearl Harbour in advance

Well, sure, the Japanese knew in advance ...

[PolyNewbie]

Well, sure, the Japanese knew in advance ...

As a matter of fact so did Rosevelt.

[GostHacked]

I wonder what ever happened to the most awesome piece of fearmongering. The TERROR ALERT SYSTEM!?? You know the colour coded one? Black talks about that one. I have not heard it being raised or lowered in I would say over a year now, maybe two. Wonder why that is?

Sgtnasty.

I can only speak for myself, and I wasn't commenting on the original article. As far as that goes, I agree that the Bush administration used the attacks of September 11 to create a climate of fear in their desire to invade Iraq.

Regardless of anyones position on the validity of 9/11 happenings, we can all agree on that the current US Administration is using it to the full advantage. I would even say abusing it to their full advantage. The 2003 Presidential address regarding terrorism and Iraq was crafted and worded so well that most people did not realize what he had done in that speach untill it was too late. Be scared, people want to hurt us. Kill you, destroy your freedom. I have yet to see a terrorist destroy my freedom. It is the politician who tells me I am going to loose my freedoms, and it is the politicians who will eventually take them away. If terrorists can hijack a country as easily as a passenger airliner then you should be scared of the terrorist for he can that way steal and destroy your freedoms. Only those in government/power positions can infringe on our rights and freedoms. It is the politician I fear more than the terrorist.

ScottSA

Quite right. Which is why people don't walk in front of cars or curl up for naps while they drive. Because they have a healthy fear of the consequences of doing so.

So why is the government telling us we should fear terrorists more than car accidents? Considering there are many more fatal car accidents than terror attacks.... or could that be just it. Car accidents are just that, accidents, where terrorism is deliberate and premeditated. Also it is just common sense that when flesh and bones go up against a couple tonnes of metal/plastic/fabric, the flesh and bones tends to loose.

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

Well telling us about the next terror attack will not stop it nor prevent people from asking 'why were we not protected?' It is about how the danger is portrayed in the media. Car accidents not so much, a little blurb on a fatal car crash pile up on an interstate killing 15 people, or let's say the Anthrax mail scare. How many people were actually exposed to Anthrax? Any deaths? The media is in bed with the government to instill fear in all of us. We must fear, we must not forget 9/11....... must not forget ...

Kuzaad

Like, you can perceive, "someone' is going to harm you , have fear, and no one ever does.

I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

This is it really. How tangible is that threat to your daily life? Are you going to live in fear because you actually fear something? Or are you just reacting to the media when they tell you you SHOULD be scared and fear. Remember, terrorism is the THREAT of an attack, not the attack itself. Terrorism is the FEAR of being attacked, and not the attack itself. Those in power know how to use this against us. We are always in a constant state of 'OMG we are going to be attacked at any moment', and the governments assists with the fear mongering by telling us we can be attacked at any moment. It can happen at any time, reports from some 'government-official-that-cannot-be-named-for-whatever-reason-they-give-you' tells us there is an imminent attack/threat. And it has taken over 5 years for that next imminent attack to happen. But we should be scared of this threat. It could be chemical, biological, nuclear. It could be anything, and it could happen at any time. If you choose to live in fear, then you are giving in to what the government and media tells you. Why do you choose to live in fear? Why would anyone choose to live in fear? How tangible is that fear??

How many of you are living life right now?

and

How many of you are living in fear right now?

[stignasty]

The terror attacks are inside jobs.

The attacks on 10 airliners last year turned out to be ridiculous. you can't make those bombs in a bathroom - its silly to even think so - chem process to unstable and requires special labs, acid washed glass and absolutely no vibration.

The London 7/7 bombings were being rehearsed at the same time. The bus that blew up was taken off route and parked somewhere else by the police orders.

911 was an inside job - scientific fact

Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy

They knew about Pearl Harbour in advance

They set up the Lusitania in ww1.

You can get the gigantic roll of aluminum foil at Costco for the same price as a regular roll at the grocery store.

[PolyNewbie]

You can get the gigantic roll of aluminum foil at Costco for the same price as a regular roll at the grocery store.

You can get a big screen TV to watch Bill O'Reilly on for cheaper at Costco too.

[ScottSA]

Well, sure, the Japanese knew in advance ...

As a matter of fact so did Rosevelt.

Oh dear, another great big plot that only you know about? Maybe we should stick with one at a time.

[Guthrie]

Well, sure, the Japanese knew in advance ...

As a matter of fact so did Rosevelt.

As a matter of, 'fact,'- no, he didn't

[DogOnPorch]

OH and Stay out of fear DOP!!!!

I know I do!

My point re: blood pressure is that you always seem on the verge of blowing a head-gasket. Lots of !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and BIG LETTERS. But I do love your little off-colour rants against the establishment.

YOU GO KUZADD!!!!!!!!! I bet you wanted to be at Woodstock but were just too young...

Yes I read your wee Zbigniew Brzezinski article and I agree for the most part. I always used to like ol' Zbiggy as a kid. Maybe it was just the cool name. Dunno. My main point is that we have folks often refering to the masses as being this or being that...'afraid' from the constant "WAR ON TERROR" we're hit with daily in this case. My response is the same. It is contained in the Lewis Black comedy skit re: Homeland Security which is very very funny and also is 100% the way I feel about the whole affair. My point being that most of us are either immune or fed up. You'll see I don't really "disagree" at all...at least on this.

If you haven't watched it yet...grab a coffee sit down and have a laugh and go: "Oh...that's what DOP meant." Stop being so obtuse...we're chums, remember?

Lewis Black on Homeland Security: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWJDCHHgE

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bipartisanship helps to avoid extremes and imbalances. It causes compromises and accommodations. So let's cooperate.

---Zbigniew Brzezinski

[kuzadd]

I wonder what ever happened to the most awesome piece of fearmongering. The TERROR ALERT SYSTEM!?? You know the colour coded one? Black talks about that one. I have not heard it being raised or lowered in I would say over a year now, maybe two. Wonder why that is?

Sgtnasty.

I can only speak for myself, and I wasn't commenting on the original article. As far as that goes, I agree that the Bush administration used the attacks of September 11 to create a climate of fear in their desire to invade Iraq.

Regardless of anyones position on the validity of 9/11 happenings, we can all agree on that the current US Administration is using it to the full advantage. I would even say abusing it to their full advantage. The 2003 Presidential address regarding terrorism and Iraq was crafted and worded so well that most people did not realize what he had done in that speach untill it was too late. Be scared, people want to hurt us. Kill you, destroy your freedom. I have yet to see a terrorist destroy my freedom. It is the politician who tells me I am going to loose my freedoms, and it is the politicians who will eventually take them away. If terrorists can hijack a country as easily as a passenger airliner then you should be scared of the terrorist for he can that way steal and destroy your freedoms. Only those in government/power positions can infringe on our rights and freedoms. It is the politician I fear more than the terrorist.

ScottSA

Quite right. Which is why people don't walk in front of cars or curl up for naps while they drive. Because they have a healthy fear of the consequences of doing so.

So why is the government telling us we should fear terrorists more than car accidents? Considering there are many more fatal car accidents than terror attacks.... or could that be just it. Car accidents are just that, accidents, where terrorism is deliberate and premeditated. Also it is just common sense that when flesh and bones go up against a couple tonnes of metal/plastic/fabric, the flesh and bones tends to loose.

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

Well telling us about the next terror attack will not stop it nor prevent people from asking 'why were we not protected?' It is about how the danger is portrayed in the media. Car accidents not so much, a little blurb on a fatal car crash pile up on an interstate killing 15 people, or let's say the Anthrax mail scare. How many people were actually exposed to Anthrax? Any deaths? The media is in bed with the government to instill fear in all of us. We must fear, we must not forget 9/11....... must not forget ...

Kuzaad

Like, you can perceive, "someone' is going to harm you , have fear, and no one ever does.

I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

This is it really. How tangible is that threat to your daily life? Are you going to live in fear because you actually fear something? Or are you just reacting to the media when they tell you you SHOULD be scared and fear. Remember, terrorism is the THREAT of an attack, not the attack itself. Terrorism is the FEAR of being attacked, and not the attack itself. Those in power know how to use this against us. We are always in a constant state of 'OMG we are going to be attacked at any moment', and the governments assists with the fear mongering by telling us we can be attacked at any moment. It can happen at any time, reports from some 'government-official-that-cannot-be-named-for-whatever-reason-they-give-you' tells us there is an imminent attack/threat. And it has taken over 5 years for that next imminent attack to happen. But we should be scared of this threat. It could be chemical, biological, nuclear. It could be anything, and it could happen at any time. If you choose to live in fear, then you are giving in to what the government and media tells you. Why do you choose to live in fear? Why would anyone choose to live in fear? How tangible is that fear??

How many of you are living life right now?

and

How many of you are living in fear right now?

Personally, I am living life, NOT fear.

I fully realize that the odds, of me getting hit by a car, are far , far greater then, being "terrorized" by whatever.

Being fully aware, of the FACT, it's more likely I could get hit by a car, I still go out everyday, anyway!!!

[kuzadd]

I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

Is there a demonstrated danger??

What is a "demonstrated danger"?

Some one has mentioned you have far greater odds of being struck by a car, and you do, far greater.

You stay in the house?

A car could come up on the sidewalk ya know?

Do you cross the road?

That is walking in front of cars?

What if someone runs a light?

Do you drive yourself? In traffic?

What if the driver beside you is drunk? has a heart attack, is tired, is on the phone , is arguing with his kids, an animal runs across the road, what if, what if????????

You could get caught up in an accident, not of your own making, and what with all the potential pitfalls....

Are you locking yourself indoors?

Do you know what demonstrated dangers await you in your own home??

" but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits."

and this is where you are wrong, and making a huge assumption. I realistically realize that no one, can protect us from everything. It is unrealistic and highly irrational to expect our /a government to protect us from everything , in fact it is downright dangerous for one's own personal liberty to even want that!!!

[Wilber]

We accept certain risks as a part of life. People deliberately trying to kill us is not one our society considers acceptable.

[ScottSA]

I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

Is there a demonstrated danger??

What is a "demonstrated danger"?

I'll allow you the time to cogitate and perhaps rethink that question. Use the time well...asking questions and then realizing they are unintended rhetorical questions is embarrassing at the best of times.

[kuzadd]

We accept certain risks as a part of life. People deliberately trying to kill us is not one our society considers acceptable.

We accept a great deal of risks everyday, and people DELIBERATELY trying to kill us is one of them, it goes on everyday, in every city, town and country. We have accepted laws to deal with criminals who attempt to kill people.

[kuzadd]

I guess that is why fear can be irrational, as you can have fear, with no real threat aimed your way?!

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

Is there a demonstrated danger??

What is a "demonstrated danger"?

I'll allow you the time to cogitate and perhaps rethink that question. Use the time well...asking questions and then realizing they are unintended rhetorical questions is embarrassing at the best of times.

No need to allow me time.

Those are your words, I have no idea what exactly YOU mean by those words.

Therefore I asked YOU to clarify that. Note the question marks?????

By demonstrated danger, did you mean, the possibility you could get hit by a car?

You had better clarify what you meant by that?

Thanks!

[Wilber]

We accept certain risks as a part of life. People deliberately trying to kill us is not one our society considers acceptable.

We accept a great deal of risks everyday, and people DELIBERATELY trying to kill us is one of them, it goes on everyday, in every city, town and country. We have accepted laws to deal with criminals who attempt to kill people.

Yes we have and we have also accepted the possiblilty that going to war might be neccessary in order to deal with the ones ours laws cannot.

[kuzadd]

We accept certain risks as a part of life. People deliberately trying to kill us is not one our society considers acceptable.

We accept a great deal of risks everyday, and people DELIBERATELY trying to kill us is one of them, it goes on everyday, in every city, town and country. We have accepted laws to deal with criminals who attempt to kill people.

Yes we have and we have also accepted the possiblilty that going to war might be neccessary in order to deal with the ones ours laws cannot.

clarify?

If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals.

I am unsure where you are going.

[Wilber]

If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.

[Remiel]

Even though I shudder to think I may be doing anything that could be construed as supporting a statement made by PolyNewbie... I remember seeing a program years ago, on the general/commander/brass who was in charge of the defense of Hawaii. Supposedely, he begged the administration of his day to send him the necessary equipment to defend against an attack exactly such as the one the Japanese launched, and he was refused every time. The way they told the story, it left the impression that the U.S. administration had a pretty good idea that an attack *could* happen, even if they didn't know it absolutely *would*, and that they may have deliberately withheld the equipment in so that Americans would mobilize in anger in order to fight World War II. I haven't seen any proof on the matter either way, but from what I know, the possibility existed...

[PolyNewbie]

Even though I shudder to think I may be doing anything that could be construed as supporting a statement made by PolyNewbie

I don't need your support. I have evidence to support what I say - particularly with state sponsored terrorism. I've neatly flayed anyone that has come to challenge me on 911 using evidence.

[Wilber]

Even though I shudder to think I may be doing anything that could be construed as supporting a statement made by PolyNewbie... I remember seeing a program years ago, on the general/commander/brass who was in charge of the defense of Hawaii. Supposedely, he begged the administration of his day to send him the necessary equipment to defend against an attack exactly such as the one the Japanese launched, and he was refused every time. The way they told the story, it left the impression that the U.S. administration had a pretty good idea that an attack *could* happen, even if they didn't know it absolutely *would*, and that they may have deliberately withheld the equipment in so that Americans would mobilize in anger in order to fight World War II. I haven't seen any proof on the matter either way, but from what I know, the possibility existed...

The US Pacific fleet lost almost all of its battleships in the Pearl Harbour attack. The Army Air Force lost most of its ground based air power. If the fleet had lost its carriers it would have been screwed. Their fleet survived a near run thing at the Coral Sea and while they new that Midway was an objective, they were outnumbered and their decisive victory was due as much to luck and a poor decision by the Japanese as anything else. A loss in either of these battles would have left Hawaii open to invasion and the West Coast open to attack. There may have been mistakes made but knowingly letting the attack happen without warning is ridiculous.

When it comes to historical accuracy Tora Tora Tora is probably one of the best war movies ever made.

Hindsight is easy because it doesn't have to deal with the fragmented chaos of the time.

[newbie]

Well, sure, the Japanese knew in advance ...

As a matter of fact so did Rosevelt.

As a matter of, 'fact,'- no, he didn't

Don't know about that.

link

link 2

link 3

link 4

[stignasty]

IT WAS JMAC!

IT HAS TO BE.... WE ALL KNOW JMAC IS SIMON

JMAC = 1, SIMON = 1

1+1=2

I EAT 12 RAW EGGS EVERYDAY

12 + 2 = 14

JMAC HAS 5 MAIN S/N'S

RIDEAU_CRUSHER, BIGBURLY, JMAC, RANGLER, HINES

SUBRACT THOSE FIVE FROM THE 14 EGGS AND FAKE PERSONS....

YOU GET 9!

(14-5=9)

9

600 LBS, THE EXACT AMOUNT OF WEIGHT I CAN LIFT WITH MY TEETH DIVIDED BY 100 EQUALS 6!

6 PLUS 5, FIVE BEING THE NUMBER OF TIMES IVE HAD A BOARD RELATED NERVOUS BREAKDOWN EQUALS... 11!

THE 9 EGGS AND FAKE PERSONALITIES MATCHED WITH THE 11 GIVES YOU....911!!!!

IT IS JMAC I TELL YOU, I GOT IT, I GOT IT!!!! SIMON + JMAC x Saddam - Osama / Bush + Cheney = JMAC!

<gulps down 2 litre juice pitcher of raw eggs and continues playing the xbox my mom bought me as an early easter gift (I <3 mom aaf)>

[kuzadd]

If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.

International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to?

what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to?

I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to.

[Wilber]

If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.

International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to?

what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to?

I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to.

State sponsored or state supported terrorism. Only if those countries have signed extradition treaties that they are willing to honour. Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

[kuzadd]

If our laws cannot deal with criminals, there are all manner of international laws to deal with criminals.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.

International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to?

what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to?

I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to.

State sponsored or state supported terrorism. Only if those countries have signed extradition treaties that they are willing to honour. Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

Yes, I do.

In fact it was offered.

IMO: Afghanistan would have given up Binladen , to avoid invasion and occupation (very unpopular with the poulace) It only makes sense.

Why do you think it would not have been possible?

BUT THEN : why Afghanistan? BinLaden is a Saudi, how do we know , he hadn't fled Afghanistan , for his home country?

Then to follow, your line of thinking ( or how I am interpreting your line) Why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked?

????