I Don't Believe This!

[sf3boy]

If we are going to blame Bush and his administation for the new laws and policies at the airports today and not the terrorists that actually made the changes necessary, I would like to toss Mr. Clinton's name in the ring to share some of this blame. Why did we not get rid of Bin Laden after the 93 attack? Anyone? I think Clinton failed, just as some of us on here have said Bush and Ashcroft failed.

 

[Timebuilder]

As a result, Hitler announced that certain civil liberties would have to be curtailed to meet the emergency.

I'm not convinced that my inability to watch airplanes from the end of the concourse or carry a nail file onto an aircraft are civil liberties that even begin to approach the steps taken by the third reich for their "security". In fact the liberties that we did give up here in America for the purpose of defeating Hitler during WWII went far beyond what we have given up in our fight against terror today.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I'm not convinced that my inability to watch airplanes from the end of the concourse or carry a nail file onto an aircraft are civil liberties that even begin to approach the steps taken by the third reich for their "security."

I assumed that everyone would take my Third Reich post for what it was, a joke. I guess the "" didn't give it away.

I just liked the SA/TSA bit...

 

[Typhoon1244]

If we are going to blame Bush and his administation for the new laws and policies at the airports today and not the terrorists that actually made the changes necessary, I would like to toss Mr. Clinton's name in the ring to share some of this blame.

Why stop there? It was our military response to the 1990-91 Gulf War that put the burr up bin Laden's tailpipe in the first place. And it was the Middle East poilcies of Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., that precipitated the Gulf War. Distantly, I grant you...but if we'd gotten out of there in the first place, September 11th would be just another day on the calendar.

I don't blame George II for the 9/11 attacks. That'd be a pretty silly thing to do. But do I think the President and his administration have made American security a laughingstock? Yes, I do. They had a tough job, one I wouldn't wish on anyone. They just blew it, that's all. Maybe the next White House will do better, even if it's still George II with a new cabinet. Maybe this country will stop whining about "profiling" so that the TSA can actually get some work done.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ah.

I didn't realize the "" applied to the entire concept, rather than the part about having Mein Kampf under the arm.

My bad!!

 

[Timebuilder]

Maybe this country will stop whining about "profiling" so that the TSA can actually get some work done.

Remember the line from the Star Trek movie about the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China"? It's a reference to the fact that only a political figure who had been so anti-communist could make a gesture of diplomacy such as a visit to China without being labled as a communist sympathizer.

Similarly, a shift to profiling the dangerous terrorist element in our security plans would have to be led by those who are usually the most anti-profiling in American politics.

And sadly, that isn't about to happen.

 

[JediNein]

If we're going back in time to find blame, let's just start with George Washington and that whole bunch.

How dare anyone want freedom from prosecution, no taxes, and awesome business opportunities?

How dare we want to live FREE?

True FREEDOM is a concept most of the world does not understand, and to a point, may not be able to understand.

At Iraq right now, these people, who were grusomely murdered for dissenting, overnight have to choose a government.

How in the h*** do you handle freedom of choice when for the last 400+ years you were killed for having an opinion?

And your religion still says that you may not possess an opinion?

So, us Americans (and Canadians and Brits and Aussies) have been living in freedom for centuries, and that is really pissing a lot of these terrorists types off. With freedom and NO FEAR, the terrorists have no power.

How do you make a 2 year old have a temper trantrum? You tell them they can't have their way?

How do you make a terrorist have a temper tantrum? You tell them they can't have their way?

So what have we (USA/CAN/AUS/UK) been telling these Middle Eastern power mongers for the last 300 or so years?

And we are *really* pissing 'em by getting rid of our dependence on their oil, their last power they have over us.

The blame is theirs.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[TXCAP4228]

Remember the line from the Star Trek movie about the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China"? It's a reference to the fact that only a political figure who had been so anti-communist could make a gesture of diplomacy such as a visit to China without being labled as a communist sympathizer.

Similarly, a shift to profiling the dangerous terrorist element in our security plans would have to be led by those who are usually the most anti-profiling in American politics.

And sadly, that isn't about to happen.

Great point Timebuilder. I hope your phone is ringing off the hook, by the way.


from Typhoon1244:

Why stop there? It was our military response to the 1990-91 Gulf War that put the burr up bin Laden's tailpipe in the first place. And it was the Middle East poilcies of Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., that precipitated the Gulf War. Distantly, I grant you...but if we'd gotten out of there in the first place, September 11th would be just another day on the calendar.

Typhoon, the truth about the Middle East is that this part of the world (and its culture and its religion) has a history of supporting violence and terrorism. To argue that by the United States withdrawing from the region would protect us is like saying that if my home is on fire maybe I will be safe if I just close my eyes and do nothing.

As early as Thomas Jefferson's presidency the United States encountered the theocracies of North Africa and their support of the barbary pirates.

The middle east, and the nation states we find there, have been in the terror business for longer than the United States has existed. We only put ourselves at greater risk by pretending not to watch.

 

[Typhoon1244]

To argue that by the United States withdrawing from the region would protect us is like saying that if my home is on fire maybe I will be safe if I just close my eyes and do nothing.

Really bad analogy. Here's a better one:

Suppose you had a neighbor whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours. (Say he's a gay athiest who voted for Al Gore. ) Furthermore, this neighbor is much bigger and stronger than you are, and he regularly comes into your home to tell you how to run your household.

How long would you put up with that before you finally decided to crash a 767 into his house?

If we left the place alone, they'd spend all their time killing each other instead of us. That means no more buying Saudi oil, no more support for Israel, and very little military presence in the region.

These things'll probably never happen, and I'm sorry I don't have any more constructive ideas about how to deal with the Middle East. As long as we have ties to that region, we're going to be attacked by terrorists. We're just going to have to come to grips with that and prevent what attacks we can.

 

[Timebuilder]

ALL good people can expect to be continually attacked by evil. This is only one aspect of evil: those who are clearly in the wrong, but blinded by it, attacking those who are in the right, us, for our freedom and lifestyle.

Withdrawing from the mideast would not only fail to change that, but we would be removing the only moderating force against evil in that region, allowing the evil to grow ever stronger.

We are better off if we stand and fight, rather than turn tail and run.

 

[Typhoon1244]

We are better off if we stand and fight, rather than turn tail and run.

Stand and fight who? How do you "stand and fight" with a terrorist who fights from the shadows? A terrorist's weapons are the ideas in his head. As long as those exist, stopping terrorism is nearly impossible. (Maybe we should just cauterize the entire region.)

Besides, I'm not talking about "turning tail." I'm talking about, among other things, positioning our nation so that we can tell the Saudi's what to do with their oil. Like it or not, they need us! And I'll bet they'd put a stop to M.E. terrorism really quick if they thought we weren't going to buy their oil anymore.

Withdrawing from the mideast...we would be removing the only moderating force against evil in that region, allowing the evil to grow ever stronger.

Nobody was saying that when we were selling arms to Saddam.

There's evil all over the world. How come all I ever hear about is Iraq and North Korea? What about Nicaragua? Ethiopia? The Congo? Or how about Las Vegas, Miami, and Los Angelas?

 

[Timebuilder]

Stand and fight who? How do you "stand and fight" with a terrorist who fights from the shadows? A terrorist's weapons are the ideas in his head. As long as those exist, stopping terrorism is nearly impossible.

I never said that we could stop terrorism. We can however, resist it.

Telling the Saudis what they can do with their oil is a great idea. Now, we have to convince several thousand Sierra Club types that it's a good idea to pump our own oil, and be willing to do so where we find it.

Nobody was saying that when we were selling arms to Saddam.

Not really. We were choosing the least of two evils at that time. Sometimes, that's the only choice you have. In the alternative, someone else was standing in line ready to sell what we would not. The evidence after the recent war suggests that several others did just that.

There's evil all over the world.

Absolutely. The places you hear about are the ones with the most potential to hurt us at this time. We can't be everywhere, so we must make reasoned decisions about where we can be most effective. While this isn't easy, it is wise.

 

[JediNein]

Or how about Las Vegas, Miami, and Los Angelas?

We just had a bunch of morticians hold a protest against violence in LA.

Their reward? Three shootings of teenagers that night instead of the usual two.

The only way the evil of LA will go away is for the next big one to knock us all into the ocean.

Ahhh, it is fun while it lasts...


Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[Typhoon1244]

We just had a bunch of morticians hold a protest against violence in LA. Their reward? Three shootings of teenagers that night instead of the usual two. The only way the evil of LA will go away is for the next big one to knock us all into the ocean.

This is actually a big part of my argument. Our nation is willing to go halfway around the world to step on a tyrant...well, certain tyrants, anyway. Meanwhile, we can't stop our own priests from molesting children.

Don't we need to get our own house in order before (or at least while) we try to fix everybody elses?

Automobile accidents in the U.S. kill more people each week than Saddam did in a typical month. I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Road Safety."

Twenty months after 9-11-02, our borders are as porus as ever. I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Border Security." Well, not counting Pat Buchanan. (That's the one thing I agree with ol' Pat about!) Priorities: lets make sure terrorists can't get into our country, then let's hit them where they live.

 

[Timebuilder]

Don't we need to get our own house in order before (or at least while) we try to fix everybody elses?

Sadly, many of the problems we have are a result of freedom. In a free society, people often make what we consider to be "bad" choices. Others will defend the fact that those choices are "bad" as being irrelevant. Second, how would we determine when we had done enough within the constructs of our nation to allow us to reach out and circumvent the actions against us, such as Al-queda?

We have been forced, in a very real sense, to reach out from our own confines to capture and neutralize those who are plotting to come here and hurt us.

I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Road Safety."

I've been hearning those messages my whole life, starting with "buckle up for safety", Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, and "mothers against drunk driving".

I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Border Security."

I'm with you there. I'll go to Arizona and help build the wall when we decide to have the guts to do it. Maybe the better idea is to annex Mexico and clean house...

 

[TXCAP4228]

Really bad analogy.

No its not. See below.

Here's a better one:

Suppose you had a neighbor whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours. (Say he's a gay athiest who voted for Al Gore. ) Furthermore, this neighbor is much bigger and stronger than you are, and he regularly comes into your home to tell you how to run your household.

To really be my opposite he'd couldn't be an atheist... but that's another thread.

Aside from that your analogy falls from the beginning. The United States does not regulalry go into people's homes. On 9-11-01 WE WERE NOT ANYWHERE THAT WE WERE NOT INVITED.

How long would you put up with that before you finally decided to crash a 767 into his house?

If we left the place alone, they'd spend all their time killing each other instead of us. That means no more buying Saudi oil, no more support for Israel, and very little military presence in the region.

1) I would not fly an airplane into anyone's house, regardless of disagreements I have with them. I contend that while there may be the occasional Tim McVeigh in America, we as a nation and as a people will absolutely not be inclined to perpetrate acts of violence and terror on innocent people. Religious fanatics in the Middle East ARE inclined to do so.
2) No one in the world Trade Center Towers was in the Middle East uninvited - AND HAD NEVER BEEN TO THE MIDDLE EAST UNINVITED - they were in the United States. Your analogy is proven wrong on a second point.
3) The terrorists did not attack people who were harming them, they attacked symbols that to the terrorists represented everything that they hate about America - wealth, freedom, openess, oportunity. Listen to the tape of Bin Laden talking about it. Your analogy is proven wrong on a third point.
4) In 1800 we were definitely not engaged in that part of the world, and the barbary pirates attacked us. Typhoon, history proves you wrong.

These things'll probably never happen, and I'm sorry I don't have any more constructive ideas about how to deal with the Middle East. As long as we have ties to that region, we're going to be attacked by terrorists. We're just going to have to come to grips with that and prevent what attacks we can.

We will be attacked by terrorists because they despise the freedom and tollerance that they see in the western world. We will be attacked by terrorists even if we are not involved in the Middle East. If we disengage in our foreign policy, we will only expose ourselves to great risk.


You can't burry your head in the sand and pretend the world will love you because you aren't hurting anyone. History shows time and time again that you are wrong on this one.

 

[cessna_driver2]

Re: Re: No poopin'?

Didn't I hear something once about "the buck stops here?" Are you suggesting that the President has no influence over his Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security?

Osama and his lackeys may have perpetrated the 9/11 disaster, but our ineffective leaders didn't have to respond to it the way they did. George, John, and Tom gave the terrorists exactly what the wanted.

I agree. I wish I knew who said this quote (I hope a I quote it correctly as well.) "The first thing a scared people will give up is their freedoms"

I honestly believe there is a better way to be secure. Give me time. I thinking on it

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Re: Re: Re: No poopin'?

I agree. I wish I knew who said this quote (I hope a I quote it correctly as well.) "The first thing a scared people will give up is their freedoms"

I honestly believe there is a better way to be secure. Give me time. I thinking on it

Yes, we seem to be allowing GWB, John, and Tom an unchecked run with our rights and constitution. For example, recently the guberment has blessed themselves to have full access to your medical records. Personally, I cannot think of a more strategic move in the name of security than having access to innocent Americans medical records. The guberment also annointed themselves to have full access to your IP provider to see what you've been up to on your computer. Granted some of this makes sense but what ever happened to probable cause? If this were slick Willie, King Hillary, and Janet all the alleged conservatives would be hollering.
Instead of the guberment serving the people we are now servants of the guberment.

 

[Typhoon1244]

You can't burry your head in the sand and pretend the world will love you because you aren't hurting anyone. History shows time and time again that you are wrong on this one.

Good lord. It's like you're not really reading anything I'm posting.

Nobody's talking about burying our heads in the sand. I'm talking about ending our dependence on the Middle East! (Obliquely, I'm also talking about ending Israel's dependence on us.)

So I'm wrong, huh? Okay. Your way (continued U.S. intervention in M.E. affairs) hasn't been working for the last fifty years. All it's done is fueled the hatred of the bin Ladens of the world.

So what do we do?

 

[Long Time Gone]

And to think that this thread started because someone wanted to take his Dad into the airport...

While trying to jumpseat out of MCO today, I actually had a dumb*ss from TSA jump in my face because I didn't have a boarding pass. I explained to him that I am jumpseating and don't require one (I was not in uniform and of course had my ID). He told me to back to the ticket counter and get a boarding pass. I told him that it wasn't required and walked past him to the detector. I then talked to the GSC about the incident, and was told that I was right and the TSA was wrong. These idiots have no idea what they are doing.