Hello Dreamers:

I'm constantly struck by the fantasy's that engulf most Americans lives. Among them are: if we only cracked down, we could win the war on drugs, if we built a fence, we could keep illegal's out, and the subject of my post, we're SAFE because the terrorists do NOT yet possess nuclear weapons.

In my view, our very expensive, inept and rights destroying attempt to close the BARN DOOR, is just that. It's too much, it's way too late, and it's aimed in the wrong direction.

Now, I don't know if the terrorists HAVE nukes, or not. But, rather than base my preparations on the assumption that they DON'T, I'd base 'em on the assumption that they DO.

My assumptions are based on a couple things; 1) in spite of the BEST security the government has to offer, including walls, barbed wire fences, guns and lots of cops, there are tons of drugs in prison; and 2) I highly doubt the integrity of the world's stockpile of nuclear material. If Saddam had 'em, where are they now? Plus, I don't trust the likes of Mushariff, Putin, the N. Koreans, or any number of yokels who HAVE nukes. You do?

What would you do differently, if you KNEW that Al Qaeda had nukes?

excon

I'd like you answer your question with another:

You BELIEVE Saddam had nukes?

In many ways all they need to do is use some rocket lauchers on some of our own storage areas, until about 5 years ago, there was enough weapons grade material sitting in the middle of atlanta ( with almost no security) that a cub scout troop with some rocket lauchers could have taken out 1/2 of Atlanta. ( now they would have all died also but many of them don't care)

There are places that store all sorts of chemcials and the such, dams that can be blown up and the such.

But I see things in the US going the way of what Ireland and Parts of Europe were some years ago. Small groups attacking schools and mall s would be the easiest attacks on America,

You BELIEVE Saddam had nukes?Hello Reacher:

Real live nukes?? No. But, he might have, and they're gone.

excon

What do you think the Israelis leveled in Syria?


Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam’s enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam’s WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic “dirty bombs” that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province.. FrontPage Magazine (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364)

LOFTUS'S REPORT is consistent with a report published on the Web site of Kuwait's Al Seyassah's newspaper on September 25, 2006. That report cited European intelligence sources and claimed that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. Syria's program, which was run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards brigade, had by mid-2006 "reached the stage of medium activity." The Kuwaiti report stated that the Syrian nuclear program was based "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai transferred to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003." Counterterrorism Blog: Syrian nuclear program quite advanced (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/12/syrian_nuclear_program_quite_a.php)

Do I think terrorists have nukes ;or rather dirty bombs ? No not yet ;but it could be in their hands at the pleasure of their terror masters. I think we need to strengthen our defenses not to attempt to create an impenetrable Maginot line but with the realization that it is but a part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation .

Tell me ;how does having cargo screened or inspected before entering the port become rights destroying
? Seems like a prudent step to me. Is it fool proof ? No ;but we are a lot safer still with the step taken.
The problem with your argument is that you make the assertion that if it is not 100 percent effective it should not be tried. Perhaps a border fence could only keep out 80% of the illegals and smugglers . That in itself makes domestic enforcement more manageable in my view. Also perhaps that border fence could keep that mule with a dirty bomb out of the country .

Believe it or not, I'm largely with you on this one. Let me just ramble for a bit, and hopefully some of it will make sense. My brain isn't working too well this morning in the ol' organization department.

Yes, it's foolish to think we can "win" the war on drugs. Mainly because no one has ever come up with a reasonable definition of "win." Reality altering substances have existed in nature from the very inception of time. The Indians (ahem... I mean Native Americans) have been ingesting peyote forever. The Asians have been growing opium forever. Marijuana grows wild in much of the worlds. Shall we risk offending the mighty warriors of Greenpeace by eradicating these plants and thus altering the earth's delicate and fragile balance?

Since the downfall of the USSR (and possibly before), so many little hillbilly nations have gained possession of nuclear weapons. If not the completed product, then at least all the necessary components. As wealthy as AQ is (was?), it does not take a major stretch of the imagination to consider the likelihood of them possessing one.

Yes, some of these things are "closing the barn door" issues. However, if my horse got out and ran away, I'm going to buy a new horse and do things differently this time. However, learning from mistakes seems to be a deficiency in people worldwide.

Just because we're not "winning" the war on drugs, just because there's a high probability that the terrorists have WMD's despite our desires otherwise, does that mean we should just throw up our hands and quit fighting? Absolutely not! The fear and dis-ease we feel now would be multiplied a thousand times over if we were to give up and let these murderous bastards have their way. We MUST fight, for our own sake, for the sake of the innocent worldwide who only want to leave in health and peace, and definitely for the sake of our children.

So the question is not "Do we fight?" The question has become "HOW do we fight?" No one can argue that there has not been colossal failures and screwups along the way. On the flip side however, no one can argue that there has not been major successes along the way, either. It is always wise to constantly evaluate your strategy, keep using what works, scrap what doesn't, and always adjust, adapt, and overcome.

If I knew for a fact that AQ had a nuke, my feelings wouldn't change. Why do I care if they kill 10 people or 10 million? Either way, it's too many. Either way, innocent people who only want to live happy lives have been murdered. And murderers deserve no quarter, for they shall certainly give none. My line is the same as it's always been: hunt them down like the cowardly animals they are and exterminate them.

Or we could pull back and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

DK

Or we could pull back and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.Hello again, Dennis:

I'll answer both you and tom.

Half measures DON'T work. You both think that keeping on doing what you already acknowledge DOESN'T work, is really OK even if it's only 80% successful.

The 20% that GET'S through the borders, is as bad as ALL of it getting in. The 20% represents lots of illegal drugs on the streets at reasonable prices. The 20% represents 15 million or so illegal's. And, I'm sure the 20% represents WMD's that are floating around in your neighborhood.

I don't think an 80% success rate makes us ANY safer at all.

Do I think we'd be better off if we recognized the futility of our effort and tried something else? Duh!

The something else might be destroying them over there, and leaving us really FREE over here. Just like you said, Dennis. It's the only way to be sure. And, I LIKE sure.

excon

Your argument is only true if that was the ONLY measure taken . Clearly I wrote : we need to strengthen our defenses not to attempt to create an impenetrable Maginot line but with the realization that it is but a part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation .


And yes ;hitting them over there is a plan . That's why I included the stuff about the Israelis.

I agree with you. Most of the security is eye candy.
Why are the 'Mexican' border guards in jail for doing their job?
Why are the airlines covering up so many dry runs?
Why are they able to ban certain drugs like iawathia(sp?), obigaine(sp?) and absinthe that the majority of America never even heard of and not able to stop the drugs that do come through
The government isn't trying to fix the problems!

They have turned the war into a political thing that has dragged it out way past what it could have been if they let the military just go in and do their job.

The government isn't trying to fix the problems!Hello again, N0:

Rightareeny. They're trying to LOOK like they're fixing the problems. I don't know. Maybe they do it so they can get elected?? To me, that makes us LESS safe.

When I was in the slam, and somebody misbehaved in the visiting room (they are convicts after all), instead of punishing THAT guy, they took the visiting room away from everybody. Huh?

That same mentality is running the country.

excon

Rightareeny. They're trying to LOOK like they're fixing the problems. =eye candy so they can hide their true agenda.

instead of punishing THAT guy, they took the visiting room away from everybody else. = double jeopardy to the victim-victimizing them TWICE. Schools do that and I complained to them about it for years but to N0 avail

That same mentality is running the country.--Precisely

Hello Dreamers:

I’m constantly struck by the fantasy’s that engulf most Americans lives. Among them are: if we only cracked down, we could win the war on drugs, if we built a fence, we could keep illegal’s out, and the subject of my post, we’re SAFE because the terrorists do NOT yet possess nuclear weapons.

In my view, our very expensive, inept and rights destroying attempt to close the BARN DOOR, is just that. It’s too much, it’s way too late, and it’s aimed in the wrong direction.

Now, I dunno if the terrorists HAVE nukes, or not. But, rather than base my preparations on the assumption that they DON’T, I’d base ‘em on the assumption that they DO.

My assumptions are based on a couple things; 1) in spite of the BEST security the government has to offer, including walls, barbed wire fences, guns and lots of cops, there are tons of drugs in prison; and 2) I highly doubt the integrity of the world’s stockpile of nuclear material. If Saddam had ‘em, where are they now? Plus, I don’t trust the likes of Mushariff, Putin, the N. Koreans, or any number of yokels who HAVE nukes. You do??

What would you do differently, if you KNEW that Al Qaeda had nukes?

excon
If you want certainty you can only achieve it the way in which people want religious certainty…by faith.


Speculating can be fun if you don’t begin to believe it is more than entertainment. I don’t believe terrorist that want to use ‘Nukes” have nukes. If they did why have they not used one, especially on Israel? On that basis the probability of them having nukes just isn’t there.

In all that you say you are going from a small particular to a great generalization that I just don’t buy.

If they did why have they not used one, especially on Israel? On that basis the probability of them having nukes just isn't there. Hello DC:

Loyal Bushies love to count chickens. I shall, however, await the hatch.

Plus, Israel understands their vulnerability. We don't. Indeed, they're security is designed to STOP stuff. Ours isn't. See above post. You see, a 20% failure rate in Israel, would mean the END of Israel.

excon

Hello DC:

Loyal Bushies love to count chickens. I shall, however, await the hatch.

Plus, Israel understands their vulnerability. We don't. Indeed, they're security is designed to STOP stuff. Ours isn't. See above post. You see, a 20% failure rate in Israel, would mean the END of Israel.

excon
Excon, you're 'barking up the wrong tree'; the most serious danger for America comes from with-in, not from with-out.

There are some Muslims on our side here…the Islamic Supreme Council of America, the American Islamic Congress and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. However, there are several organizations here who intend to infiltrate our society and use our freedoms that are guaranteed under our Constitution to eventually Islamize our country. There is where our attention should be focused, not nukes; they want to eliminate our Constitution and enact Shariah law. Nukes are simply a smoke screen.

Our government hasn't even issued a wanted poster of Osama bin Laden; there has not been a concentrated effort of propaganda to inform the American people of this danger.

No, what we hear is that Islam is a "religion of peace" and "tolerance," and that jihadists have "hijacked" or "perverted" a "great religion." Is this accurate, that nothing in Islam promotes or condones violent jihad against infidels? Or does such rhetoric simply play into the Islamists' hands in their attempts to sugarcoat the threat, and confuse Americans?

Fortunately the deputy Republican whip, Myrick, has seen clear to make this happen, she founded the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans about militant Islam's long-term threat.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Congressional Paul Revere Warns Nation About Islamofascist Threat (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280364244485437)

As far as I have seen excon, and as far as I have read, we ARE taking precautions based on the assumption that AQ or some other terrorist group has nukes. We have nuclear sensors planted in various places in major cities... and bio and chem material detectors as well. We know where most of the raw nuclear material in the world is... there are people who's job it is to track that stuff, whether it is medical and science grade material or weapons grade material. We have a very effective electronic intelligence system in place to track this stuff. So the precautions to prevent that stuff from getting into the USA if AQ does have it are in place.

But, rather than simply let AQ get nukes... or Iran... and then trying to prevent them from being able to get them into the USA, don't you think that it makes sense to cut them off from getting any nukes BEFORE it happens? Don't you believe that that has to be part of an overall plan to keep the USA from being attacked with nukes?

You mentioned Israel. But one of the things that Israel is CONSTANTLY doing is stopping Hammas and Hizbollah from getting nukes and nuclear technology, and bio and chem weapons. They are contantly stopping ships, interrupting shipments of materials, monitoring transfers of cash and materials, etc. for the specific purpose of making sure that the terrorists never get the stuff in the first place. Yes, they have measures in place to stop nukes in case the bad guys do get them. But the first, best defense is to make sure that they never do.

Going after nukes before the bad guys get them puts the tactical advantage in our hands... we are attaking the enemy's resources at a place and time of our choosing. But taking a purely defensive position of trying to stop nukes after the enemy has them takes that advantage away from us. We will be in a position of waiting to be attacked at a place and time of the enemy's choosing, and we will be stuck trying to defend the entire country because we won't know where the attack will take place. The first plan offers better tactical flexibility in that we are on the offensive and only need the resources to attack one location at a time. We can concentrate our strength to achieve our goal of stopping the nukes before they are deployed. In the second plan, we are forced to defend EVERYWHERE at once with limited resources.

So from a tactical perspective we HAVE to go after the enemy to stop them from getting nukes... or if they have them or are about to get them, we need to destroy them before deployment. Anything else puts us at a tactical disadvantage, wherein we lose flexibility and tactical initiative.

Oh, and by the way, Bush's record since 9/11 has been 100% effective in stopping terrorist attacks. That's a lot better than any other President's record in the last 40-50 years. Maybe he understands your concerns and has somehow managed to respond to them without your knowing about it.

Elliot

there are several organizations here who intend to infiltrate our society and use our freedoms that are guaranteed under our Constitution to eventually Islamize our country.Hello again, DC:

Huh? Dude! Do you hear yourself?

The CHRISTIANS can't even Christianize this country. And NOT because they haven't tried, either. How the hell are the Muslims going to do it?

Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy.

excon

Oh, and by the way, Bush's record since 9/11 has been 100% effective in stopping terrorist attacks. Hello again, El:

Boy, I'm glad you came along to calm me down. I'm glad Bush is on the job.

But... If that's how you measure his success, if we're attacked, that means he absolutely 100% failed, right? Uhhh, the verdict is still out on that one. Me? I'm voting the dufus is a failure.

excon

excon, it is apparent that you did not even bother to read the link I provided; which shows you are not open to debate. I'll post some quotes although you likely won't consider them.

“Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of radical Islamists to infiltrate our major institutions in America. They have done that by funding professors' projects in our colleges and universities. Then, they influence what is taught by making the program dependent on their yearly donations. Several classes have graduated and are now in the media, the judicial system, teaching in our schools and colleges, various branches of our government, even in our military. They are masterful at manipulating minds to fit their purposes.

“I believe Shariah could easily be practiced here. If a local community becomes infiltrated by extremists who run the town or village operations, then it could easily be implemented in this country. Unchallenged, it will happen.

Excon, it is apparent that you did not even bother to read the link I provided; which shows you are not open to debate. I'll post some quotes although you likely won't consider them.

“Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of radical Islamists to infiltrate our major institutions in America. They have done that by funding professors' projects in our colleges and universities. Then, they influence what is taught by making the program dependent on their yearly donations. Several classes have graduated and are now in the media, the judicial system, teaching in our schools and colleges, various branches of our government, even in our military. They are masterful at manipulating minds to fit their purposes.Hello again, DC:

Oh, I considered them. Then I threw 'em in the trash where they belong. What you see as a conspiracy, I see as, our freedoms at work.

What, in your diatribe above, are the Muslims doing differently than say the Fundamentalist Christians, or the Mormons, or the Catholics?

The answer is, NOTHING.

If they're more masterful at manipulating my mind than the Jehovah's Witness at my door, then I deserve to be converted.

excon

Hello again, DC:

Oh, I considered them. Then I threw 'em in the trash where they belong. What you see as a conspiracy, I see as, our freedoms at work.

What, in your diatribe above, are the Muslims doing differently than say the Fundamentalist Christians, or the Mormons, or the Catholics?

The answer is, NOTHING.

If they’re more masterful at manipulating my mind than the Jehovah’s Witness at my door, then I deserve to be converted.

excon
To equate “Fundamentalist Christians, or the Mormons, or the Catholics?” with terrorist Muslims is naïve in view of 9/11.

Yeah the liberals say now that we have to give the terrorists rights, respect etc...
BUT when it comes down to the terrorists trying to take over America
Do you think the gays are going to sit back and let them kill all the gays?
Do you think the women libs are going to take being told American women HAVE to wear Burka's?
Do you think the couch potato will let Hollywood be turned into a G rated? (a probably on that one)
Do you think the average American is going to settle with their freedoms being Totally lost?

Hello again, El:

Boy, I'm glad you came along to calm me down. I'm glad Bush is on the job.

But..... If that's how you measure his success, if we're attacked, that means he absolutely 100% failed, right? Uhhh, the verdict is still out on that one. Me?? I'm voting the dufus is a failure.

excon

Excon,

You intimated that the US government has only been 80% effective in its efforts to stop a terrorist attack. Your exact words were: "Plus, Israel understands their vulnerability. We don't. Indeed, they're security is designed to STOP stuff. Ours isn't. See above post. You see, a 20% failure rate in Israel, would mean the END of Israel." This statement indicates that you believe that the USA is only 80% covered, whereas Israel is 100% covered because a 20% failure rate would destroy Israel.

I countered that point by saying that the USA has actually been 100% effective until now... just like Israel. Better than Israel in fact. And the failure to stop a single attack is not a 100% failure. Given the number of ATTEMPTS made against the USA, only some of which have made the papers, I would argue that a 90% success rate is better than anything we had in the prior 40 years. Even if we got hit today, Bush's record at stopping terrorist attacks is STILL better than any other President in 4 decades. That is a success, not a failure.

One more point:

You said to DC, "The CHRISTIANS can't even Christianize it. And NOT because they haven’t tried, either. How the hell are the Muslims gonna do it?"

As far as I have been able to tell, the Christians in the USA aren't using guns and bombs and violence to change the political climate. The Muslims are, and violence is often an effective means to foment political change. There's the difference. There is every reason to believe that fundamentalist Muslims will try to take over the entire world, the USA included, through violent means. Given enough power to do so, they will succeed. And in doing so, they will Islamicize the entire world as they have done in many countries. Contemporary Christianity has no such intention. Any changes they try to make will be though political means, not military.

But if you wish to use Christianity as an example, take a look at Europe through most of modern history (since roughly 200 CE). Christianity used vioplent means to become the sole religion of Europe, methods that are mirrored today by contemporary Islamic fundamentalism. There is no question that if we had existed in the Middle Ages, the USA would indeed have been a Christianized country owing fealty to the Pope first and the USA second. And that would have been accomplished through violence.

The point is that modern Christianity does not use those tactics, but modern Islamic fundamentalism does. That means that there is a very good chance of success by the Islamic fundamentalists, if not in the USA, then in other parts of the world. That is what makes the war so important.

Now that I have answered these points, would you care to comment on what I wrote about the tactics used to stop the terrorists from getting nukes vs. the tactics of defending against nukes ones they have them? That was the main point of my last post, but you seem to have completely ignored it. The stuff about Bush was very much a secondary point. Do you agree that it is important to use offensive tactics to stop the terrorists from getting nukes in the first place, rather than only using a defensive strategy to try to stop a nuke once the enemy already has it?

Elliot

To equate “Fundamentalist Christians, or the Mormons, or the Catholics?” with terrorist Muslims is naive in view of 9/11.Hello again, DC:

It's YOU who has a distorted view of the Constitution.

I think you need some clarification in your thinking. If a terrorist Muslim wants to use our freedoms to change this country to HIS liking, then more power to him. If he did so, then calling him a terrorist wouldn't be correct now, would it?

However, if a terrorist Muslim wants to use terrorism to change this country, then shame on him, and saying he's using our freedoms to change us wouldn't be correct either.

Would you have us arrest Muslims who are using our FREEDOMS against us?? I think you might.

excon

Arrest them for what? Certainly if they commit a crime arrest would be called for. We need to shed the veil of political correctness that shields government officials from speaking out against them; I'm for open debate, groups like CAIR attempt to silence the debate by labeling opponents as Islamophobes and racists.

In 2002 the FBI concluded in an internal review that somewhere between 50 and 100 Hamas and Hezbollah operatives had infiltrated into America; in 2004 the FBI suggested that al-Qaida sleeper cells were believed to be operating in 40 states.

Scott Wheeler, an investigative reporter writing on the Internet, demonstrated the problems inherent in uncovering terrorist sleeper cells. Wheeler became interested in the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a group identified as a Muslim think tank based in Springfield, Va. He quoted a George Mason University professor who claimed that the UASR was a "front organization for a terrorist group," a "phony organization" that was part of a "shell game of international terrorism."

Wheeler was also suspicious that the UASR's current head, Ahmed Yousef, had ties to Hamas. Yousef gave an interview to a Middle Eastern magazine in which he claimed that 9-11 was a Jewish plot: "No one could have captured the pictures [of the 9-11 attacks] so perfectly except for the cameras in the hands of several Mossad agents, who were near the scene of events and succeeded in filming the scene so that it will always serve Zionism to remind the world of the Arabs' and Muslims' crimes against America."

Consider the case of Dhiren Barot, a suspected al-Qaida operative who spent time in New Jersey in 2000 and 2001. The FBI was trying to track whether any of Barot's associates remained in the area when a federal court ruled that a key investigative tool of the FBI was no longer available. Specifically, the court decided that the use of a special subpoena known as a national security letter was unconstitutional. When the FBI tracked companies that Barot had been involved with through e-mails, the court ruling prohibited the agents from getting key customer information without judicial review.

Nor do the Patriot Act powers solve the problem. Federal terrorist investigators still must play by rules, and the rules as interpreted by the courts still typically specify that the suspect's rights are paramount. Our system of criminal laws is designed to err on the side of presumed innocence.


Who among us doubts that if the 9-11 terrorists had possessed a nuclear weapon, they would have used it?

You said to DC, "The CHRISTIANS can't even Christianize it. And NOT because they haven’t tried, either. How the hell are the Muslims gonna do it?"

As far as I have been able to tell, the Christians in the USA aren't using guns and bombs and violence to change the political climate.Hello again, El:

My response to DC was based upon his assertion that terrorist Muslims were going to use our FREEDOMS in order to Islamasize the US. Of course, using guns and bombs WOULDN'T be using our freedoms now, would it?

You got caught in the MIDDLE of a conversation. You certainly think it's OK to use our FREEDOM to change things, don't you?

Have a good turkey day.

excon

Hello again, El:

My response to DC was based upon his assertion that terrorist Muslims were going to use our FREEDOMS in order to Islamasize the US. Of course, using guns and bombs WOULDN'T be using our freedoms now, would it?

You got caught in the MIDDLE of a conversation. You certainly think it's OK to use our FREEDOM to change things, don't you?

Yes I do. However, I do not believe that it is okay to use our freedoms against us to eliminate our freedoms. For instance, I do not believe that our freedom of speech should be used by organizations like CAIR to try to force those who speak out against Islamofascism to shut up... as is standard practice with CAIR.




Have a good turkey day.

Excon

Same to you , brother.

Elliot