Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, August 12, 2006

Simons: Security measures necessary to the war on terrorism

August 12, 2006

Advertisement

What would the majority of Americans prefer: Allow wiretaps, the ability to trace financial transactions, intercept and study incoming and outgoing foreign phone calls, strict enforcement of the Patriot Act and other security measures designed to protect Americans from deadly terrorist actions, or severely weaken our country's security policies and consequently increase the possibilities of deadly initiatives against U.S. citizens?

If nine or 10 large airliners had been blown out of the air over the Atlantic Ocean, would those opposed to most all of the Bush administration's actions - actions designed to try to safeguard citizens of this country against terrorism - have said it was unfortunate but this is the price a country and its citizens must pay if we are to preserve the civil liberties guaranteed to those living in the United States?

What is more important to people thinking along these lines: Foiling a plan that could have resulted in the death of 1,500 to 2,000 airline passengers, or prohibiting tight, effective measures to secure the safety of Americans?

Some might say these are not fair questions, that these are not black-and-white situations. They might claim no one would favor allowing conditions that would make it easy to wage war to kill as many Americans as possible. But do such people accept the fact this country is indeed engaged in a true war with individuals intent on destroying the United States?

Unfortunately, in today's world it is foolish to believe we can live safely in an environment where well-trained security forces are not allowed to monitor the actions of possible terrorists.

As one political observer noted earlier this week, those who are calling for a severe cutback in security measures and who want a pullout in Iraq, the closure of Guantanamo, turning over our nation's foreign actions to United Nations approval and a belief that peaceful negotiations can be more effective than military actions against nations such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria are waving Uncle Sam's white flag of surrender to those fighting the United States.

It is difficult to understand why so many Americans refuse to acknowledge that our country and allies such as England are engaged in a deadly war - not a conventional war such as World War I, World War II or Korea, but a war where it is difficult to identify the enemy and a war where the enemy uses civilians as shields and a war in which killing innocent civilians and instilling fear in the population are primary tactics.

Some in the United States look for any reason to criticize President Bush. There is a hatred for the man and in their opinion he cannot do anything right. He is faulted for the losses sustained by New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina; he is responsible for current oil shortages and high fuel prices; and his actions against Iraq are responsible for terrorist actions.

Perhaps their deep dislike of Bush has colored their thinking to such a degree that those sharing the bitterness and passion against Bush cannot allow themselves to appreciate his view of the degree of danger posed by terrorists.

What will it take for the majority of Americans to accept and understand the seriousness of the situation?

How much more dangerous must it become, how many Americans have to be killed here within the country before the cynics realize and appreciate the danger?

What happens if the White House and congressional leadership should come under the "doves" within the Democratic Party who want to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and who are willing to trust America's safety to the whims of U.N. members and to negotiations with our own enemies?

Force is the only thing that terrorists respect!

This is a worldwide war and unfortunately it won't be over for years and will be won only if the United States and Great Britain remain strong in their resolve to fight terrorism.

Negotiation, appeasement and weakness in dealing with the North Koreans, Syrians and Iranians is not a path toward lasting peace and stability.

This is not to suggest Bush has compiled a superior record and that all his decisions and actions should be accepted without question or disapproval. Hindsight is great and there are numerous actions Bush probably wishes he could change or deter.

However, this country needs a leader who is firm and committed to using force to defeat terrorists, whether abroad or within the United States.

This week's excellent security work by British officials should be applauded by all Americans and should serve as a model for what is needed in the United States for our officials to use in fighting terrorism.

Comments

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

These folks appeared to be Pakistani and the 9/11 critters were primarily from Saudi Arabia yet GW is bogged in Iraq??? Seems like GW Bush made a dumb decision and the terrorist cells are alive and well.

I would say that British Intelligence have well proved that an all out war killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing little to make the war on terror viable. Covert intelligence operations concentrated in the right places is the most effective although not as sensational and accompanied with wanton destruction of property and families.

Blair is going bye bye sooner than he had planned due to his blundering part in the Iraq slaughter. And Bush has more planned slaughter on his table in other countries. When the Bush admin speaks of regime change in Iran or Syria WE KNOW what that means. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of regime change failures yet loaded with death, destruction and trillions of tax dollars spent.

Those trillions of tax dollars could have been better spent on alternative energy, healthcare for all,bribing the USA auto industry to manufacture more hybrids as well as public and higher education. Think of the payback in terms of jobs for americans.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

Al Qaeda loves the Republicans and so do USA war profiteers. Bush spends tons on no bid contracts yet it's the Scotland Yard that foils a plan. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan appears to have had little to do with thwarting terrorism but a lot to do with shoring up USA corporate bank accounts. We're being ripped off by USA tax dollar terrorists.

Intelligence in Iraq: L-3 Supplies Spy Support

by Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch August 9th, 2006

cartoon by Khalil Bendib The official headquarters for a 300-person intelligence support operation in Iraq is discreetly located in a two-story red building in a business park in Chantilly, Virginia, just outside the border fence of Washington, DC's Dulles airport. From its nondescript corporate offices, Government Services Incorporated (GSI) supplies staff for an operation that spreads over 22 military bases in the Middle East.

Walk through the entrance and to the left of the reception desk, next to a glass case showcasing electronic surveillance gear, is an announcement congratulating employees on winning a $426.5 million intelligence contract from the Pentagon last year.

GSI is a major subsidiary of L-3 Communications, a Fortune 500 company. Retired Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan took GSI's helm in May, after spending a year running Halliburton 's multi-billion dollar military logistics contract in Iraq and around the world.

GSI is only one of several L-3 subsidiaries enjoying the Bush administration's largesse. On March 10, Titan won a no-bid contract worth $840 million over 12 months to supply translators for intelligence and regular military operations in the "global war on terror." Yet another L-3 subsidiary, MPRI, manages the recruitment of U.S. military advisors to key Iraqi ministries such as defense and interior.

The real details: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13993

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 4 months ago

And it doesn't get any less stupid or irrelevant no matter how many times you or Dolph repeats it.

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 4 months ago

merrill you been putting the same post on here for three days add something new to jazz it up.

Jamesaust 8 years, 4 months ago

"What would the majority of Americans prefer: Allow wiretaps...."

Okay. I don't need to read any more.

What Americans prefer is that the executive work within the law, rather than as an outlaw, in carrying out his duties.

The "choice" is not 'doing job/not doing job' but rather 'legality/illegality'.

This is one of those times when a parliamentary system would demostrate its value. Given the choice of losing the confidence of the Parliament, the majority party would jettison its tired, failed leadership and replace them with new faces with new policies.

Instead, we now suffer the drawbacks of our fixed-term system -- a one-term President dead-in-the-water in his second term, with a bipartisanly gerrymandered, acquiescent Congress unwilling to demand accountability rather than run one more victory lap of 99% re-election.

I'm not sure who our fair editor believes is fooled by this strawman argument but the space would be of a better use selling pornographic advertising.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

The Bush haters I worry about are millions of Muslims, who used to be moderates but who have now turned radical thanks to Bush's misguided foreign policy.

Each time America or Israel kills a family of innocent Muslims (or even Christians, as in Lebanon) more people are radicalized against us. Thanks to Bush, the threat of terrorism has not diminished. It has grown exponentially.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

Basic Demorat national security policy: Play defense. Let the fight come to you on your turf.

Basic Republican national security policy: Go on offense. Take the fight to the enemy.

"The best defense is a good offense."

When our actions cause 100 innocent Muslims to be killed for each person killed on 9-11, we are only creating more "terrorists."

Your mistaken belief that causing death and destruction "over there" will keep them from coming "over here" is an illusion.

The Canadian border is wide open. The Mexican border is not much better. The ports are wide open.

How in the name of reason could you believe that we are better off with a million potential terrorists roaming the planet as a result of Bush's failed foreign policy than we were when the number of pissed-off fanatics was in the thousands?

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

--Albert Enstein

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

"Thanks to Bush, the threat of terrorism has not diminished. It has grown exponentially."

I guess that explains all those terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 and why there were none between 1993 and 9/11.

It was not intended to explain anything. It was a statement of fact.

The fact is that the number of people who have joined the jihad has grown exponentially as a result of Bush's Iraq War and Bush's one-sided policies with respect to Israel. There is no question about it.

Regarding an explanation for why terrorist have not attacked lately, it is both a matter of competence and luck.

We have been fighting terrorism thoughout American history, and have foiled many plots during the last 230 years. The tragedy of 9-11 should never have occurred and would not have occurred if the Neocons had really wanted to prevent it.

Now, they are doing a better job. They now have no choice but to effectively connect the dots and prevent another attack to save what little remains of their faces.

The point is that their job would be a whole lot easier if the number of potential terrorists had remained small rather than mushrooming due to Bush's failed foreign policy.

Those working to protect America from terrorism will tell that it is only a matter of time before the next attack.

They will also tell you that they are playing a percentage game. They are probably able to stop 99.9% of potential terrorist attacks.

However, that 0.1% represents a much larger number now than before Bush went along with the idea of trying to make everyone in the Middle East (except Israel) hate us.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

Arminius,

It is well documented that between 40,000 and 50,000 innocent Muslims have already been killed as a direct result of Bush's War. If you watch the news lately, about 100 are being killed each day, and the number is growing as the civil war takes hold. Even at the current rate, that's 35,000 deaths per years, and Bush is talking about the War going on for many more years.

Add to that all those who have died because of lack of clean water and sanitation and all those who have died directly or indirectly in Palestine at the hands of Israel, and the numbers are already approaching 300,000.

The death toll will reach well into the millions before you totalitarians finish your "Islamo-Fascist Holy War."

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

Try to dispute this Pilgrim...now you know why a lot of muslims do not have a favorable view of America. (it's a video)

http://mediax.muchosucko.com/movies/iraqi_girl-17-06-06.mp4

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

"If you watch the news lately, about 100 are being killed each day, and the number is growing as the civil war takes hold. "

How many of those 100 are killed by our troops? Of those killed by our troops, how many were "innocent"?

You are putting words in my mouth. That is not very ethical.

Again I said:

"When our actions cause 100 innocent Muslims to be killed for each person killed on 9-11, we are only creating more 'terrorists.'"

There is nothing in the above statement about "our troops." The words, "our actions" in that post and the preceding post clearly refer to the foolish decision to invade Iraq in the first place. Experts in the Pentagon and throughout the world tried to tell Bush that an insurgency would occur, but since none of the Neocons have ever been in a war, they did not understand.

Saddam killed people when they spoke against him, but it was nothing like the carnage we are now seeing.

Under Saddam, everyone knew where he stood. If you didn't cause trouble, you didn't have anything to worry about. Now, the people of Iraq can't leave their homes without the fear of being killed by insurgents or misdirected US bombs.

Palestine? Where's this "Palestine"?

Palestine is a nation that existed on the land now occupied by Israel. The people whose homes were confiscated by the Israelis have been living in detainment camps since they were displaced.

Recently, there was a glimmer of hope that Palestine could return and have the Gaza Strip and portions of the West Bank for their nation, but an Israeli soldier was kidnapped by extremists and since then hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been killed as well as a handful of Israeli soldiers.

Congratulations! Now you are firmly in tinfoil-hat territory.

That is a very inappropriate response given that the current death rate is 35,000 per year. It stands to reason that as the civil war mounts in Iraq, the death toll will continue to increase dramatically. It stands to reason that if you extremists get your way and broaden this insanity into an "Islamo-Fascist Holy War," the death toll will continue to rise.

Read your history. It is very common for civil wars and holy wars to cause the deaths of millions. You are the one wearing a "tin-foil hat" in your denial of the consequences of continuing this "crusade" against the Muslim people.

I know numbers of dead Muslims such as 40,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 means nothing to you, but most of those dead could care less about your extremist views or the extremist views of fanatical Muslims in their own country. All that most of them wanted was a safe place to raise their families.

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

Here's something to dispute your misconceptions on who you think carried out the horrific 9/11 attacks:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

So, we have the Islamic Fascists versus the Christian Fascists.

Fact: One side blows innocent people up to make a point whereas the other side blows people up to make a point. One side uses force, threat of force and explosives, the other side uses force, threat of force and explosives.

The primary difference between the two? One side gets its outfits paid for by taxpayers and..... hmmm I guess the other side gets its outfits paid for by taxpayers; oh, the other side gets private donations too.

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

Still wondering why a lot of people don't like America? Here's another point of view that you don't see on Fox or CNN. Thousands of injured and killed children. It's somewhat graphic, so view at your own risk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx8sXRRjM78

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

b- perhaps there is some confusion between American government policies and the American people. Even the American people seem to propagate this idea that we somehow control government. Sure, we elect the people, but face it, we live in a police state. The government is in control of us; the government no longer governs "by consent of the governed"; the governed are too timid to stand up and say no.

I see this dichotomy as analogous to being against this war, yet still supporting the troops. I support the individuals who signed up to protect this country; I believe that they need to be a cohesive unit in order to defend and expect them (except in the most egregious instances) to follow their orders from Commander in chief on down to their immediate superior. I believe I can look at a soldier and say "Thank you" for signing up to protect the country, while simultaneously telling our elected officials that they are wrong and not authorized by me to have entered into this war; of course none of us makes the ultimate decision, but if we don't speak up and say that we do NOT approve of what the soldiers are being TOLD (not asked) to do, then those in government see what they do as acceptable.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Force is not respect. The child who is spanked does not learn respect, he learns fear. Those who would blow themselves up in a plane do not fear force; they are using it on themselves as well as those who are harmed/killed by their explosions.

This is yet again American seeing the world through American eyes and refusing to understand that while YOU value life here on this planet, those who would die for a "god" value the afterlife. All you do by killing them first is make them martyrs for their cause. It amazes me that they value a perceived afterlife so much that they are ready to speed the process of getting there, yet Christians who claim an afterlife are so fearful of death; why is that? Why are Christians so reticent to move on to the afterlife? Perhaps doubt of an afterlife is the leading cause. I am not saying Christians should go out and blow people (and themselves) up, not at all. However, when death nears for a loved one, why the extreme measures and force (through the use of government) to keep people alive or to ensure birth of life that has nothing to do with them?

Charles L Bloss Jr 8 years, 4 months ago

I support the Patriot Act, and I support the President. There is much more to W than what you read in the liberal media, and it is not bad. He is a good man, and he is a Texan! Thank you, Lynn

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Our President who art in Washington King George be they name thy kingdom come, they will be done by ymen not old enough to drink

Give them this day their daily lead and forgive us for criticizing you as we forgive those who have criticized you

Lead us not into another war but deliver us from the axis of evil.

seig heil!

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

"As one political observer noted earlier this week..."

Weeeell, a political observer... everyone gather round.... a political observer is about to speak....

I guess the 10s of thousands of "political observers" around the nation that see things quite differently from Mr. Simons should be disregarded.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Isn't the effect of labels so powerful? I guess if you criticize (exercising your 1st amendment protected right to free speech) the people RUNNING the country you are "far left" if the administration is "far right" and "far right" if the administration is "far left."

It is almost laughable. Good to know that "we the people" really have no say in the direction of this country anymore or I would be worried by the ignorance and subservience to labels.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Rightthinker, you are dreaming if you think your vote matters in anything higher than a city council election.

Democrats, Republicans, if you think there is a difference, we really need to wake you from dreamland. The Ds and the Rs are holding hands on the "big government", "socialist" end of the spectrum.

The days of Ds being the party of "big government" and Rs being the party of "small government" are O V E R.

The Dems tax you to pay for their big plans. The Reps mortgage the future. The Dems spend your money on social plans that don't work and the Reps spend your money on unwinnable wars that drag on.

If you are a Democrat crying for a Democrat, more fool you. If you are a Republican fearing a Democratic administration, you too are a fool.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

Published on Saturday, August 12, 2006 by John Tirman.com Six Lessons from the London Airline Bombing Plot by John Tirman

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions. First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

Second, the conspiracy-if it resembles the London bombings of last summer-will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based "cells," according the FBI Director Robert Mueller. As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them. Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it. DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error "appalling" and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made. What are the tens of billions being spent on? This is Katrina II.

Complete story:

http://www.johntirman.com/

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

rightthinker, in response to your question, I would feel NO LESS safe than I do now. However, if Democrats were going to repeal the Patriot Act and stop advancing the police state (which they won't) I would once again enjoy being an American.

Arminius, being a native of northern Illinois, people in Kansas think they have "no accent". Only the educated ones seem to pass muster.

strateup 8 years, 4 months ago

Liberty, you speak for us, the silent majority. All you left wingers can't be heard because you all yell at the same time.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

"'Saddam killed people when they spoke against him, but it was nothing like the carnage we are now seeing.'"

"I guess you missed the hundreds of thousands buried in mass graves. That's far more that your estimate of 40,000-50,000 killed since the invasion."

As long as you want to treat human lives as numbers, I'll play along.

So far, about 20,000 Iraqis have been found in mass graves, but you are correct that it is alleged that as many as 200,000 will eventually be found.

Those killings took place over ten years. That's an average of 20,000 per year versus the current rate of 35,000 per year. Worse, the current rate is increasing by the day.

.

"And shall we talk about the number of Iraqis killed as a result of sanctions during the 1990s? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084"

We've all seen those figures. One could use similar methods to calculate the current death rate due to effects of the insurrection that Bush created in Iraq.

Actually, by bringing up deaths caused by suffering, you are reinforcing my statement. If you add the deaths from disease and malnutrition caused by the turmoil to the 40,000 already killed and the 35,000 per year that are currently being killed, the figure of 300,000 deaths will soon be achieved.

Of course, if you really think that the current situation is less deadly than the situation under sanctions, I've got a bridge to sell you in New York.

.

"There was never a nation called Palestine. Arafat was born prior to Israel becoming a state. Are you saying Arafat was a Palestinian citizen born in the state of Palestine?"

Palestine is shown on about 10,000 maps that you can easily access through Google.

I recognize that "technically" Palestine was considered by the British to be a geographic area within a larger geographic area that they designated as Trans-Jordan.

However, prior to its being called Israel, the area of Palestine was spoken of by everyone as the proposed homeland for the Jews escaping Europe. The term, "Palestine," was often used by the Jewish settlers themselves in their songs and literature.

Further, for the people who had lived in Palestine for generations, it was their country. It was their homes and their businesses that were confiscated when the British declared Palestine to be the Jewish homeland.

The British were the ones who wouldn't let the Palestinians be a separate nation even though King Abdullah favored it. Instead, they wanted to push them into a much smaller geographic area.

Curiously, just about every whacko extremist site makes your silly and twisted spin about Palestine never being a "nation."

Making that point without further explanation seems is an important part of a justification for the genocide of the Palestinian people.

The sad truth is that the Palestinian people were forced to leave Palestine and have been refugees ever since.

oldgranny 8 years, 4 months ago

Arminius I think you found Never Never land a long time ago.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

Since 2001 no one person has killed more people than GW Bush...the bottom line.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Why is it OK for our troops to kill and justify it by saying 'well saddam killed way more' ... duh... he was a bad guy.... what proportion of his mass killing do we have to reach before you finally call us "bad guys?"

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

Maps of Palestine:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

Muslim haters like Arminius deny the existence of Palestine like Jew haters deny the holocaust.

Extremists always depend on the denial of the obvious and a revisionist history based on lies and half truths.

scott3460 8 years, 4 months ago

"I guess that explains all those terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 and why there were none between 1993 and 9/11."

a. What it explains is that the terrorists trying to kill us have maintained a very robust capability and, if we are to believe this pre-election development, came very close to executing yet another attack on us. The supposed brilliant offense of Bush and Co. has, in fact, done very little to protect us. The absence of attack does not prove the validity of the approach. The sun will rise tomorrow morning. It arises every morning after I have slept. My going to sleep does not cause the sun to rise.

b. mark my words, the latest little shenanigans of allowing Isreal to slaughter innocent civilians for weeks before exerting US influence has already significantly poisoned the opinion of millions of middle-easterners. From their midst will emerge a violent fury.

c. Our country reaps what it sows. In some small way we are each to blame for allowing Bush to commit and enable such atrocities in our name. A country that would put up with such an unworthy person in a position of power has no claim to righteousness. It is a sad fact that there will be so many innocent US victims in the inevitable Arab reaction to our policies. The ones who should pay the price for their misdeeds, however, rarely do. In this world, anyway.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Some people are more than ready to give up their freedoms for a little security. I am not. Who says you can deny my liberty? Where in the US Constitution does it identify your 'right to security' until you get to the amendments, and that mention of security is meant to protect liberty (i.e., "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....") against government infringement. In contrast, the Constitution does protect my rights to life, liberty, and property.

Rights trump wants any way you cut it.

As to "point c." above (in some small way we are each to blame for allowing Bush...). Explain how, if I did not vote for Bush (voted against Bush) and speak out on the atrocities, I am in ANY way to blame for what he does?

Anyone doing, or claiming to do anything more will get a visit from men in black suits. I prefer not to have visitors.

Godot 8 years, 4 months ago

"Some people are more than ready to give up their freedoms for a little security. I am not. Who says you can deny my liberty?"

Granted, you do have the unmitigated right to choose to die on an airplane that has been boarded by Islamic fascists with explosives hidden in the hair gel in their knapsacks.

Your fellow passengers, however, have the right to expect to not be blown up by said religious zealots.

Think of it as a ban on smoking on airplanes - the difference is that the smoke we are trying to ban is the smoke from burning bodies, not from tobacco leaves.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

And a little video relevant to the topic from the far right-wing, staunch conservative camp....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWBM5_3c5c

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Dear government, oh please save us, please deliver us from evil... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYcTbJ2oyyU

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Godot, then they should avoid riding airplanes; as that is the only way that they can be certain that they will not be blown up while on a plane by religious zealots.

See my previous post and watch the video. The government is again doing "feel good" maneuvers void of any increase in security. I couldn't help but laugh when the guy being interviewed mentions the National Guardsmen with EMPTY guns patrolling the airports following 9-11.

March on police state, march on.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

See, the government is so concerned with protecting people flying on planes, even the far-right mouthpiece (see link below), reported TWO AND A HALF years ago, that terrorists were planning to do almost exactly what they were accused of planning on Friday. Why are liquids and gels only being banned now? Because it wasn't such a big deal then... and why is it now? Because it makes people feel like something is being done.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104821,00.html

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

Not a porn link pilgrim...that's why it hasn't been removed. May want to add a rebuttal on your next argument...good luck.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

Pilgrim:

"The Palestinians have no homeland because of their brother Arabs."

Not true:

"On 29 November 1947 the United Nations General Assembly approved a plan...to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab...Although both Jews and Arabs criticized aspects of the plan, the resolution was welcomed by most of the Jewish population, including the Jewish Agency, but was considered unacceptable by the Arab population in Palestine and by the surrounding Arab states."

The proposed UN partition of Palestine in 1947 was rejected not only by the entire Arab world but also by the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians did not like the partition because they were to receive only 45% of Palestine's land but were 67% of the population. Also, the 55% of land that Israel was to receive was Palestine's most fertile region.

Further, the large majority of 67% Palestinian was after massive immigration to Palestine by Jews escaping Europe in the years preceding the proposed partition.

The British Palestine Mandate of 1922, without any input from the Palestinian people, allowed Jews to immigrate to Palestine.

At that time, the Palestinian people represented nearly all the population of Palestine with the Jews making up only 10%. Like most territories carved up by the British, majority rule did not exist and still does not in most cases. The British Colonial Empire called all the shots, and the Palestinians had no voice regarding the invasion of their land by the Jewish immigrants.

Call me names or whatever, but I can certainly understand why the Palestinians thought they were getting a raw deal. Of course, you absurdly believe that their "Arab brothers" took the land away from the Palestinians against their will, so you probably think they should be blaming their "Arab bothers," not the UN, Israel of the United States. LOL

The fact that the West Bank ended up in Jordan's hands and Gaza in Egypt's was a result of the 1948 War between the Arab League and Israel. The reason the Arab League was formed was to fight on behalf of the Palestinians, not against them!

Although the Gaza Strip and West Bank ended up in the hands of Jordan and Egypt after the cease-fire, these Nations wanted the Palestinians to live on that land and welcomed them.

Contrary to the impression you were trying to create, Egypt and Jordan not only allowed the Palestinians to live on these lands, they have actively supported the Palestinian struggle to establish a new Palestinian Nation, an idea that the Israelis have used American tax dollars to fight for nearly 60 years.

scott3460 8 years, 4 months ago

"See my previous post and watch the video. The government is again doing "feel good" maneuvers void of any increase in security. I couldn't help but laugh when the guy being interviewed mentions the National Guardsmen with EMPTY guns patrolling the airports following 9-11.

March on police state, march on."

Pilgrim, you are so right....I mean correct. I flew yesterday & was not at all surprised to see all the new signage and overhead announcements from the fine TSA folks had already been adapted to the new restrictions. This was on the day following the news of the alleged plot in the UK. Amazing efficiency for an organization whose public face is a gaggle of 12-30 overweight morons who never seem able to work and move a line of passengers through a security check without turning it in to a clustermuck. Perhaps the smart ones work behind the scenes executing such changes within 24 hours and they just put the Barney Fife types out front to keep us guessing. Or maybe we just need to be scared (say till November) so that we'll vote the right way.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

swbsow,

If seeking the truth makes me a "liberal," I must be guilty; however, being a "liberal" also represents some political ideas that I intensely disagree with.

Once upon a time, being a conservative meant seeking the truth and telling the truth. I'll continue to consider myself a conservative even though those who hijacked my Party use obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies to support their weird agenda.

The twisted facts that Pilgrim tried to foist on us are similar to Arminius' half-truth that Palestine never existed.

The reason extremists promote such misinformation is because they believe that Israel must return to the borders as described in the Bible. They believe that telling lies is the only way to achieve that goal.

Although there are a several end-of-time versions within their looney circles, in general, most right-wing "Christian" extremists believe that when Israel can eliminate the Palestinians and return to its Biblical borders, Jesus will return and will exterminate the Jews (who fail to accept him) as well as the rest of us who don't believe in the crackpot theories of Pat Robertson and other nutcase televangelists and looney book promoters.

GOPConservative 8 years, 4 months ago

swbsow-

I realized you were being "tongue-in-cheek." I thought your joke was that I must be a "liberal" because I was presenting facts rather than distorting them as so many who claim to be conservatives do.

Your post offered an opportunity to point out that it is extremists, not true Republicans, who use lies, distortions, half-truths and obfuscations in an effort to push the world over the cliff.

Most Republicans in Kansas don't support these losers and would just as soon they would all leave and join Fred Phelps as Democrats.

I find it frustrating that words like "conservative" and "Republican" have been perverted by extremists like Jim Ryun, Phill Kline, etc. When you strip off their veneer, what they support is neither Republican nor conservative.

All we ever hear from them are plans to expand government and find more ways to intrude into our private lives. They win their elections with tainted money from special interests that do not represent the people of Kansas.

Those in Washington like Jim Ryun support extreme fiscal liberalism for policies that are completely controlled by the tax-sucking monopolies of the military-industrial-energy-pharmaceutical complex, instead of free enterprise capitalism that used to be the cornerstone of the American way of life.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

So, now that the government has come up with a "security policy" that lands hundreds if not thousands of people standing in lines for hours at airports......

Security policies create problems.

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

After 9-11, National Guardsmen were patrolling the nations airports with guns, empty ones; does that make you feel safe?

Two and a half years ago, the FBI knew that terrorists were planning to use "shampoo" and other liquids to carry out their plans to destroy airliners and the lives within. Just this week, these substances were banned from airlines; does that make you feel safe?

Nearly five years ago, the President told the world that they would fight terrorist, in part, by tracking and freezing the flow of money through terrorist organizations. This year, the White House chastised the news media for telling the world the same thing; the White House doesn't believe in the 1st amendment; does that make you feel safe?

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Our government cares about safety and security, which is why it has yet to sign on to the Ottawa Treaty. 152 countries have signed on, but we can't because we don't like the idea of ridding the world of land mines. They are too valuable in Korea!

Safety... we're dead last because our officials care more about "protecting our interests globally" than the preservation of life, although the mixed message sent by Christian Conservatives in government is undeniable.

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

pilgrim...i clicked the link, no porn. YOU may want to clear your cache and cookies. ;o)

Try the same video on youtube.com. Waiting for your rebuttal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTySN2cHyM

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

oh sw, the government has already figured that one out, they are going to create "Faraday cages" in which you will carry your passport. Just trust them to do the right thing. With every "fix" comes another hole in the pipes.

Of course, there will be some fatal glitch in that system (and RFIDs have been hacked and can be cloned), as there are in all government fixes. We will be getting an ID number implanted (through use of force) pretty soon.

Hear hear Alaska legislature for voting NO to Real ID.

b_asinbeer 8 years, 4 months ago

"No rebuttal."

Good, glad I got my point across and you agree.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.