[fluff]

Given that I hear and see news today that the US is on a high state of alert against possible terrorist attacks which will either 'rival or exceed' the 9/11 attack (quote from Mr Tom Ridge - Homeland Security Secretary), I am wondering how well the war on terrorism is going.

I have the following thoughts;

If the US in is danger of attacks (plural) that will rival or exceed 9/11 then that is not really a positive sign. It would indicate an escalation. I would therefore conclude that the war is far from won and might not be going terribly well.

If the war is going well then perhaps some scare tactics are being used to hype up support for something or other the administration wants to push through.

Just my usual cynicism, but how do others view it?

 

[gorgechris]

Please don't get me started. I could vent all day on this issue.

 

[MMike]

I suggest invading Australia....that'll fix 'em...

 

[narlus]

well fluff, i really hope that there isn't a huge attack(s), but i also see it hard to fault yr line of reasoning.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by narlus
well fluff, i really hope that there isn't a huge attack(s), but i also see it hard to fault yr line of reasoning.

I'm certainly with you on wishing that there are no attacks.

 

[JRogers]

Though, admittedly, I don't have the "information" sources that my buddies at the Homeland Security, CIA and NSA offices have, I'm going to have to say that I don't see some big attack coming. In fact, I think we are giving terrorists (at least the more specifically anti-US ones) a bit too much credit. For all the bogeyman talk and such I don't see much (almost any?) terrorist activity in the US since 9/11. Do you have any idea how easy it would be to do some nasty $hit to millions of Americans if you had some money and the ability to get someone into this country? Yet, we don't see it. I stopped worrying about terrorists when I heard about us dropping a 24,000 lb. bomb on a freaking cave.

 

[Silver]

The whole concept of a "war against terrorism" is flawed. Like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on whatever else, it will never be won, and it'll turn into a big ass money pit for a government agency.

 

[gorgechris]

Originally posted by Silver
The whole concept of a "war against terrorism" is flawed. Like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on whatever else, it will never be won, and it'll turn into a big ass money pit for a government agency.

OK, as a flaming liberal, I'm going to sound strange saying this: yes, we need to be vigilant against violent attacks against our, and all, citizens by people bent on creating terror.

That said, I completely agree with Silver. What are the causes of this anger and violence against our country? If you eliminate or ease those causes, then you ease the likelihood of violence.

I'm angered by the killing of innocent people, the stripping of our civil rights, and the bloating of our deficit in the name of anti-terrorism. It's just like the Cold War, when it was convenient and politically expedient to label opponents as "communists". Now, people who burn unoccupied logging equipment are lumped into the same category as those who willingly detonate explosives is crowed restaurants.

Dammit, I said I wasn't going to start my mouth yapping, and now look what's happened....

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by gorgechris
...... Now, people who burn unoccupied logging equipment are lumped into the same category as those who willingly detonate explosives is crowed restaurants.

Dammit, I said I wasn't going to start my mouth yapping, and now look what's happened....

What did you do?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
I have the following thoughts;

If the US in is danger of attacks (plural) that will rival or exceed 9/11 then that is not really a positive sign. It would indicate an escalation. I would therefore conclude that the war is far from won and might not be going terribly well.

If the war is going well then perhaps some scare tactics are being used to hype up support for something or other the administration wants to push through.

Just my usual cynicism, but how do others view it?

To be Devils advocate/concervative/me...

Escalation? Anything more than 1 incident after 9/11 will be an escalation. Statistically speaking. 1 more incident would be no reduction. And the lack of any attack can be either a calm before a storm or a reduction... Looking on the bright side, if the agencies that be, are now looking hard and networking to do something in preparation for an "increased possibility" of attack can lead us to believe...

1) We are more aware and better at decifering information
2) We are hypersensitive to all "chatter" discussing threats to the US
3) We know have the system in place everyone (both Conserv/Liberal) was screaming we should have in place before 9/11.

I fear that terroists can now intimidate by making missleading phone calls...laughing from affar. Throwing a wrench into traveling US citezen in a time they may feel most vulnerable (flying)

 

[gorgechris]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
What did you do?

I was baiting into this discussion!

I usually try and stay out of online political discussions. If I want to discuss something as intense as this issue, I prefer to do it face-to-face with someone. I am willing to listen to intelligent discourse and cede well-articulated points. This is often difficult to do in an online forum.

As you can guess, I refuse to listen to "talk radio".

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by gorgechris
I was baiting into this discussion!

I usually try and stay out of online political discussions. If I want to discuss something as intense as this issue, I prefer to do it face-to-face with someone. I am willing to listen to intelligent discourse and cede well-articulated points. This is often difficult to do in an online forum.

As you can guess, I refuse to listen to "talk radio".

I was more interested in if you burnt any unattended logging equipment lately?

 

[gorgechris]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Escalation? Anything more than 1 incident after 9/11 will be an escalation. Statistically speaking. 1 more incident would be no reduction.

I believe an escalation could also be quantified more than just numerically. For example, there could be one more attack, but it could be on a grander scale and therefore worse. I believe this would also qualify as an escalation. Just a technical point.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I fear that terroists can now intimidate by making missleading phone calls...laughing from affar. Throwing a wrench into traveling US citezen in a time they may feel most vulnerable (flying)

Exactly! Terrorists do not need to kill to cause terror. Look at what one single (albeit horrific and unprecedented) attack did to our economy: it's can be barely quantified, but suffice it to say the we've had to bail out the airline industy and fund several wars and the reconstruction of a couple of countries. Can you imagine what we could do domestically with the hundreds of billions of dollars we'll be spending abroad?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by gorgechris
I believe an escalation could also be quantified more than just numerically. For example, there could be one more attack, but it could be on a grander scale and therefore worse. I believe this would also qualify as an escalation. Just a technical point.

Very true. But Fluff's post mentioned "(plural)" so I was addressing his numeric comment. A larger scale attack killing more than the thousands that died during and later conected with 9/11 can definately be seen as an escalation. Good point.

Exactly! Terrorists do not need to kill to cause terror. Look at what one single (albeit horrific and unprecedented) attack did to our economy: it's can be barely quantified, but suffice it to say the we've had to bail out the airline industy and fund several wars and the reconstruction of a couple of countries. Can you imagine what we could do domestically with the hundreds of billions of dollars we'll be spending abroad?

Yes yes. Now did you light up some logging equipment? j/k

I figure we would miss-manage it like we do all the domestic money we currently have. LOL! I could direct you to Boeing and the heat the state is getting for the BIG incentives to keep Boeing in WA for the 7E7 Wows-ah! Some interesting views in the opinion sections of the local paper (seattletimes and such)

I am not debating with you just thought your burning logging equipment seemed, how do you say, a little close to your home.

 

[gorgechris]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I am not debating with you just thought your burning logging equipment seemed, how do you say, a little close to your home.

Yeah, it's a touchy issue (and not the subject of this thread). Make no mistake, I do not condone criminal activity such as burning logging equipment - it's dangerous and illegal. I believe the people responsible for such actions are criminals, subject to the same laws as if I lit my neighbor's car on fire. Such people are NOT terrorists, in my opinion, and I grow very angry at those who would, for political reasons, care to cast them as such.

Oh, and I stayed WAY far away from the Boeing thread. It looked like it was going red hot. Economic development is a very complicated issue, and doing the proper analysis to determine what is an incentive and what is "giving away the farm" cannot be done that easily.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by gorgechris
Yeah, it's a touchy issue (and not the subject of this thread). Make no mistake, I do not condone criminal activity such as burning logging equipment - it's dangerous and illegal. I believe the people responsible for such actions are criminals, subject to the same laws as if I lit my neighbor's car on fire. Such people are NOT terrorists, in my opinion, and I grow very angry at those who would, for political reasons, care to cast them as such.

Fair enough.

Oh, and I stayed WAY far away from the Boeing thread. It looked like it was going red hot. Economic development is a very complicated issue, and doing the proper analysis to determine what is an incentive and what is "giving away the farm" cannot be done that easily.

Agreed. It is interesting to watch the sides hash it out....

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I was more interested in if you burnt any unattended logging equipment lately?

My friend Ned set his skidder on fire a month or so ago. He dropped his cigar in some spilled diesel fuel and the whole thing went up. He said he managed to put it out before the fire ruined it. His only comment was, "This ain't as bad as the time I dropped that tree on my Pick Up. That truck was never the same after that."