PDA

View Full Version : I'm Scared


12-30-2001, 03:57 AM
Everywhere I look america is being brainwashed into thinking that the threat is over. The newspapers and tv. Are you all buying this mirage?


A ship approached mainland china recently.When hailed, the ship would not respond.The ship was blown out of the water. The sneaker bomber on the trans-atlantic flight. And there have been THREE other incidents where the possible assailants have been thwarted before they could hurt anybody in the last two months.

One of the reasons there hasn't been another terrorist attack is because they keep getting thwarted. We Can Never Let Down our Gaurd.IF we do,they will kill us all.

12-30-2001, 07:03 AM
I like M's idea of reviving the "dont tread on me" idea. I agree that we cannot let our guard down, and hopefully that is what President Bush was thinking when he decided to create the homeland security cabinet. Terrorists deserve only two things: torture and death. They are lucky that our society is no longer midieval, so they will be able to avoid torture- oh well death sucks too.


Kris

12-30-2001, 02:13 PM
I believe that it is literally amazing that there hasn't been another attack. Your advice is right on the money.

12-30-2001, 02:46 PM
I hope I'm wrong but my guess is taking down several passenger jets or so in one day using bombs in checked on luggage is feasible and perhaps the most likely next act of major terrorism. Besides the loss of innocent life, this "second punch "would virtually shut down air travel and consequently devastate the economy. If you feel safe because of the increased security regarding carry on bags and passenger access to the cockpit, note that there is still little or no screening of checked on luggage.


A primitive nuke (perhaps a sub-critical explosion of radioactive material) in a populated spot is also possible.


Happy New Year,


Rick

12-30-2001, 03:15 PM
I posted something below that had links to some pretty shocking articles. The most disturbing was the one that indicated the FBI was looking very hard for nuclear weapons already on our soil. This may seem paranoid, but there are two other facts people might want to consider. One came from an article I saw subsequent to my post below. New York officials have nuclear detectors they are going to use around Times Square on New Years. But the most disturbing is the article I posted below that said Israel captured a Palestinian trying to get to Jerusalem with a very small Soviet nuclear weapon. Not a cobbled-together radiological weapon or something, but a portable nuke. If the story is true the chances are good that the terrorists have others. The only thing I can't understand is if they have them, why have they not used them yet? I supppose time will tell.

12-30-2001, 04:07 PM
HDPM,


I couldn't find the post. Do you remember the title?


Regards,


Rick

12-30-2001, 05:09 PM
First let me say that a few of my recent posts were probably too emotionally influenced and emotionally charged and that I do not fully advocate everything I was suggesting as far as how terrorists should be treated. I was exploring ideas to some extent and not necessarily fully embracing some of my more reactionary suggestions. That is not to say that some of those ideas might not have their place, or come to have their place.


The magnitude of the potential threats facing us are staggering indeed, and we must never let down our guard.


There is a good article today on www.msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.com) about the interrogations of al Qaeda prisoners. There is no question in my mind that the sort of fanaticism we are facing is both incredibly dangerous and that the convictions these guys hold in their hearts and minds is on a par with the greatest fanatical beliefs in the world's history.


The main reason I don't think most terrorists should be tortured is because it will only increase hatred of the Western world. It might provide a deterrent to some prospective suicide bombers but as a whole it would encourage negative opinions of the Western world. However, since terrorists are withholding information that would probably avert more attacks I do think a select few of them should probably be secretly turned over to a government overseas which would then discreetly extract some information from them by any means necessary. Yes I do think a few of those who are in the know should be forced to give up some of that information through truth drugs and intermittent torture, even if it takes quite a while.


Right now al Qaeda prisoners are probably worth more alive than dead. If they are dead they can't launch another attack but they can't provide any information either. However at some point the spectre of hunt-and-kill operations against terrorist groups worldwide may become necessary.


Two Paths

Another immense problem is the fact that there just is no really common ground for fundamentalism and the modern world. So there are two approaches:


One is for the Western world to work with moderate Islamic forces to reduce terrorist organizations and try to reduce the emphasis on fundamentalism in schools. Failing that, the other choice is essentially for the Western world to take over much of the Middle East. If nuclear weapons did not exist the latter would be a more viable prospect than it currently is, because of the fact that we are actually quite vulnerable now to nuclear attack.


So there seem to be two choices, the cooperative way (combined with an emphasis on strong self-defense), and the "Roman" way (just using that for the historical flavor in a sense). I don't think the "Roman way" should be implemented just yet, and hopefully it will never need to be. I think we do need to gather as much information from terrorists as possible at the moment. In the future, however, if the terrorist threat persists and even worsens, we may find ourselves seemingly pushed towards the "Roman" way. If that happens anybody's guess may be as good as mine as to what the future might hold.

12-30-2001, 05:21 PM
Post was titled "Some Not Very Hilarious Stories." But I just re-checked it and I didn't put the links in the post. I couldn't get them to work that day. Both were UPI stories Drudge had links to. I don't think they are still up on Drudge. Sorry.

12-30-2001, 07:58 PM
well, alot of them may be the people that were rounded up after sept. 11. also this afgan group although financed well are a bunch of farmers living in caves with little technology. they didnt use anything sophisticated to do their deeds, just will power and perserverence. on thing they have shown is that they will wait it out. and then get even at the places they tried and failed. thats what happened at the trade towers. they failed and then got even. they also failed in l.a. a few years back. i bet thats their next target. the govt. would never say so as they always do whatever or say whatever will not create any panic. remember three mile island. with the radiation releases they kept saying " no danger to the public".

the bad part is now that we have been a target more will come as it becomes fashionable to get us. but a big hit, i dont think so, other than a big hit in one spot.

12-30-2001, 09:37 PM
M,


Another path we can take, although it may seem like a pie-in-the-sky approach to most, is to use diplomatic means to settle disputes. I believe this is one reason why we have a United Nations and a World Court, even though these organizations have limited power for a number of reasons. Fundamentalism isn't going anywhere--it's part and parcel of these societies. The more we try--through coercive means (of course, the means we choose don't seem coercive to us)--to change them, the more resistance we're likely to meet.


John

12-30-2001, 11:12 PM
I agree Ray.


The civilized world, including USA, GB, Israel, India, China, Russia, Europe have all been targets of the terrorists, and will continue to be. It surprised me that it took the terrorists so long to make a real statement here, and it is fortunate (yes fortunate) that they miscalaulated in so many ways.


The fight is over the Muslim middle classes: Fundamentalist crazies see their world getting smaller and smaller and will not go away silently. Muslim countries which persecute their own people -- like Saudia Arabia -- make the job of the civilized world harder. But the person in the street in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc, wants the same safe secure and prosperous life that most people in the USA, Europe, etc world enjoys. People have TVs, their kids watch MTV, they see how we live. Most of the Muslim world doesn't hate our way of life, they'd like to have it. (I say this with some knowledge of the middle east, I know many Iranian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans, and other middleeastern-Americans...but notice how the person in the street in Afganistan is acting now: The first thing online was the TV).


Mark

12-31-2001, 03:03 AM
We have courts, we have police and we have good citizens here in this country and they had little effect on the MAFIA. And the MAFIA at least had a motivation we could understand.


People whose raison d'etre is to see your destruction cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be cajoled, bribed or conned into giving up their quest. It's unfortunate but they have brought the fight to us and we must do our best to protect ourselves. If their destruction is the only way, then so be it.

12-31-2001, 03:22 AM
That is part of what I meant by a cooperative approach with moderate Islamic elements, although after the post I felt that perhaps I should have elaborated a bit.


Some fundamentalist elements may be somewhat reasonable. Among fundamentalists there are various groups and beliefs. I don't think most terrorists are likely to be reasonable, however, and for some terrorists, the issue goes much deeper than merely the Palestinian problem or objections to the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Some fundamentalist terrorists believe that our way of life, and the Western world, is basically evil and must be destroyed. They hear Western music, see scantily clad women, and feel the influence of our fairly free society and it conflicts with how they think things should be. Some see these influences as a threat to their religious beliefs, and it is--fundamentalism is running headlong into a collision course with science and progress and the rest of the world. So they have reason to feel that their way of life and beliefs are being threatened. But nothing is going to change this to their satisfaction. With fundamentalists who embrace terrorism as the answer to these dilemmas I'm afraid I see no hope for a cooperative and mutually satisfactory solution. With the Palestinian issue, however, there may be hope for a solution, although it will be very difficult.


So fundamentalism, ignorant though it is, will probably be here to stay for a long time. I'm all for working things out whenever possible. However the fundamentalist militants who do not have a specific grievance (which might possibly be resolved in the U.N. or World Court), and who simply want to destroy us, and are willing to act on it, are birds of a different feather.


I also think that the Western world needs to take a stand that terrorism is truly intolerable, and treat it as such, and make our stance on this very clear. Yes of course let's try to work things out with the help of negotiators, the U.N., etc. and hopefully some major problems like the Palestinian issue can be resolved.


It is true that we are likely to meet resistance the more we try to change them. I'm all for letting them live however they want to live, as long as that doesn't include terrorist attacks on us. And it would be a good thing if some of those in positions of government and power in the Middle East can see just how dangerous it is for them to put such great emphasis on teaching fundamentalism in the public schools. Fundamentalist Wahhabism, with a virulerntly anti-Western (especially anti-American) slant comprises 1/3 the curriculum in Saudi Arabia's schools, according to what I've seen and read recently. We are now seeing the fruits of teaching such stuff to the young and impressionable. Hopefully the governments will also realize, if for pragmatic reasons only, that they ought to tone down these teachings a bit.


Whether things eventually can be worked out on a larger scale, I do not have much of a guess. Too bad it isn't the 23rd century already because then we probably wouldn't have large portions of the world's population running around with ridiculous--yes, ridiculous--beliefs, and trying to blow everyone up. Sorry but I have a very low tolerance for stupidity, especially when it leads to unnecessary problems and violence, and when it results in deadly attacks on innocent, uninvolved parties. And while not everyone who believes in fundamentalism is inherently stupid, fundamentalism itself is a stupid and ignorant belief system. I don't think it will be very popular a couple hundred years from now because by then the scientific approach and education should be advanced enough, along perhaps with genetic tweaking, that practically no one will believe such things. That is, unless we all get blown up somehow first.

12-31-2001, 03:27 AM
I suspect the Roman Way would exhaust us and the rest of the Western World both economically and militarily. Perhaps not immediately, but that would be our inevitable end.


There is another approach. It could be called the Teddy Roosevelt way. That is talk softly and carry a big stick, and have the will to use that stick when necessary. This seems to be what we're doing. As to how successful it will be, time will tell.

12-31-2001, 03:29 AM

12-31-2001, 03:32 AM
So far it does seem to be what we're doing, and for the most part, it does seem to be best right now.

12-31-2001, 05:25 AM
"The only thing I can't understand is if they have them, why have they not used them yet? I supppose time will tell.?"


I'm probably wrong but if they have nukes and play their nuke card, we'll play our nuke card. Seriously once they start using nuclear weapons what other choice do we have in defending ourselves? They know it, we know it, the whole world knows it.

12-31-2001, 01:56 PM
we would only use nukes against a country that used them against us and we thought it was the best or only way to stop them from continuing the assault.

by now we have learned i hope, is that after a number of explosions life all over the earth may not be so good for a long time.

12-31-2001, 03:27 PM
Tom,


Who is "they"? During the Cold War (or even now for that matter), if our cities were subject to a Soviet missle attack, the Soviets knew our submarines and land based ICBMs would reduce them to rubble. That is one reason it never happened.


But let's say the US Capital building or downtown Manhatten are hit by a suitcase bomb (about 1 kiloton) or a "dirty nuke". Who do we shoot back at?


Regards,


Rick

12-31-2001, 11:30 PM
"they also failed in l.a. a few years back. i bet thats their next target"


right i agree, but where in LA? if they aim for downtown at the wrong time of day they will be foiled as, even when it's busy, it's a bunch of half empty buildings! ha!


i also heard they would be targeting the 20-40 at hollywood park. they will swarm down like locusts and cap every street planning to win enough to finance a new country. unfortunately no one will notice anything out of the usual and the press will pay no attention. eventually they will give up because the food service is so awful. not to mention the food itself.

12-31-2001, 11:48 PM
As long as there is internet poker, we should all be ok.