Hello:

When the maker of a product I used to use came out with a "new and improved" version, I stopped using it... After all, I believed them when they told me it was the best... But, now they're telling me noooo, there IS something better, we have it, and it's the best. Well, I don't know know about you, but I ain't buying it.

I was told by my government that I was safe. But now, after the new and improved security procedures were put in place, I find out that I'm BETTER than safe. But, isn't "safe" kind of like pregnant? You either are or you aren't... Well, it turns out, we weren't. So, all those times you took off your shoes and let some stranger put his hands on your body, it was just for show. As it turns out, you weren't safe at all. And, if you think you're safe NOW, just wait until they find a new and improved security measure..

But, this stuff is our own fault... We believe, like children, that the government CAN keep us safe, that they CAN rid the country of drugs, that they CAN keep illegals out of the country, that they CAN protect children from predators... if only we cracked down..

Those are allusive goals. They can't be obtained no matter how much we crack down. That has to be painfully obvious even to the most ardent drug warriors, or airplane passengers amongst you.

But, the joke's on us. It turns out, the ONLY victims of the crack down, are ourselves. We're the ones who're losing our freedoms, in the name of "cracking down". The most physical manifestation of those losses are the airports... But, of course, we've lost a great deal MORE freedoms than the ones you can SEE.

Do I think we should do NOTHING in the face of our threats?? I think we should do the RIGHT thing in response to our threats... Locking us down further isn't it.

As a matter of fact, the term "locking down" is an old prison term. The only people who would be aware of it, are those who've been "locked down", and you have, haven't you?? Yes, you have - in your schools, in your neighborhoods, in your airports, and in your country...

I first became aware of this backwards phenomenon the first time I was in the slam... A couple convicts had a fight, which isn't a strange occurrence in the joint... What was strange, is that they "locked down" the whole prison for two days... I don't know why they thought punishing ALL of us was a good response to what happened... I guess they thought if they "cracked down", it would stop something or other...

THAT thinking has invaded our country from top to bottom. It's pervasive, it's dangerous, and it MUST be stamped out.

excon

I like when you wax poetic, Exie.

Pretty soon we're going to be asked just WHY are we wanting to travel and if we don't have a good enough answer to suit "them", then we won't be going anywhere.

As for the locked down stuff. It makes perfect sense to lock down everyone in the prison so others don't get the wrong idea and want to try some funny business like the other fighting prisoners. Also, it's for the guard's safety and not the inmate's safety that they do this. But to be locked down 2 days is really stupid. And why does it seem that prisoners always fight at mealtimes making everyone else grab their food and run back to their cells?

Well if you saw tom's last thread you you should feel even less safe. Now we'll have Interpol running loose in our country with no accountability.

Does all this "lockdown, crack down" stuff mean Al-Quaida is winning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Does all this "lockdown, crack down" stuff mean Al-Quaida is winning?

---

Hello Cats:

I don't know. Doesn't look like WE'RE winning, does it?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Cats:

I dunno. Doesn't look like WE'RE winning, does it?

excon

---

Not really. (put up yer dukes)

I really think the only way out of this mess is to pick a spot, say Tehran or Mecca, and "make a desert and call it peace." It worked pretty well for the Mongols.

Yes each new measure is an incovenience that becomes necessary because real steps to keep the enemy off the flights are not taken for the sake of PC.

Would profiling had worked ? Yes.

A young Nigerian male travelling to the United States with no luggage and a one way ticket purchased with cash... who also happens to be on a watch list because his father ratted him out... and the Brits ,previously suspicious;denyed him entry into the country.. would stick out like a sore thumb in a world where we don't fear to offend.

In a way you are right. Defenses often look like the Maginot line. As they say ,the best defense is a good offense and a recognition that there are enemies who want to kill you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes each new measure is an incovenience that becomes necessary because real steps to keep the enemy off the flights are not taken for the sake of pc.

Would profiling had worked ? Yes.

A young Nigerian male travelling to the United States with no luggage and a one way ticket purchased with cash...who also happens to be on a watch list because his father ratted him out...and the Brits ,previously suspicious;denyed him entry into the country ..would stick out like a sore thumb in a world where we don't fear to offend.

In a way you are right. Defenses often look like the Maginot line. As they say ,the best defense is a good offense and a recognition that there are enemies who want to kill you.

---

Ronnie Ray-gun(my man) could have declared Pax Americana and made it stick.

As it is, I'll fly El-Al if I go international.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Would profiling had worked ? Yes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Does all this "lockdown, crack down" stuff mean Al-Quaida is winning?

---

Hello again, tom and Cats:

He WAS profiled. He was ON a list. SEE? The government did it's job, ceptin nobody checked the list... This isn't a matter of cracking down. It's a matter of paying attention to business.

In the beginning, Cats, Al Quaida was just a bunch of rag tag Arabs in the mountains. So, 8 years ago, we invaded Afghanistan. 7 years ago we invaded Iraq. Now we're fighting Al Quaida in Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia, and we've probably got troops in SW Asia doing some fighting.

Yup, I'd say we're losing - BIG TIME.

But, uhhhh, you don't think we should change up anything, like maybe Gitmo or something... Nahhh. Gitmo ain't the problem. The problem is we haven't cracked down yet.

excon

Yesterday the court appointed attorney for this son of a millionaire was looking for grounds to oppose the prosecutors of this case from going to court to obtain a dna sample of the "alleged " homicide bomber.

The ironic thing is the AQ thugs who sent him were released from GITMO because evidently they weren't dangerous enough .They then went through art training in Saudia Arabia to help their rehabilitation.

Upon release from their therapy they immediately rejoined the jihadists in Yemen to resume war on us.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northw...ory?id=9434065

So yes Gitmo and PC figure prominently in this farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

In the beginning, Cats, Al Quaida was just a bunch of rag tag Arabs in the mountains. So, 8 years ago, we invaded Afghanistan. 7 years ago we invaded Iraq. Now we're fighting Al Quaida in Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia, and we've probably got troops in SW Asia doing some fighting.

---

In the beginning, Ex, Al Quaida were called Mujahideen and we were helping them fight the Soviets. Then the Soviets left and so did our money, so they got mad at us instead of trying to make something of their own country. They had recruited wack jobs from all over the Dar-al-Islam to fight the USSR so Osama kept on.

Hello again, Cats:

Let me ask you this. Independent of justification, what do you think is going to happen if we continuously invade, occupy and bomb Muslim countries? Isn't it obvious that our five-front war is going to cause at least some Muslims, who're subjected to constant images of American troops in their world and dead Muslim civilians at our hands, even if unintended, to want to return the violence?

Can you imagine how YOU'D feel if it was the other way around? Probably not, because that would require empathy, and that's something you guys disdain.

But, I can. If they were doing to us, what we are doing to them, I'd want to bomb the sh!t out of you too.

But, you'd just say that I'm evil and you're good, and that would end it.

excon

It takes 2 sides to end a war. You can declare the war over all you wish . But if the other side still aggresses then you are engaged.

Do you propose to ignore the fact that AQ has again shifted it's base of operations and it is they that have created the multiple front ? Either they have occupied Yemen without permission ,or they are there at the approval of the government . Either way it doesn't matter . As long as they attack us from Yemen ,it is a battlefield just as NY and Washington and now Detroit are battlefields .

The decapitation attacks we made are perhaps the most humane way of waging that war. Civilians get killed in war ;that is an unfortunate reality. They target our civilians and we target their leadership. Who is waging the more moral war ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Who is waging the more moral war ?

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm not talking about the rightness of our cause. I'm talking about the methods we use and the results we get.

You guys, on the other hand, only look to the justification, and the results don't matter much. It AIN'T very smart even if it is right.

excon

What methods should we use, hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What methods should we use, hmm?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Let's start with the ones we SHOULDN'T use; torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and Gitmo. We SHOULDN'T have invaded Afghanistan and we SHOULDN'T have invaded Iraq. We SHOULDN'T bomb innocent people in the hopes of killing a terrorist. We SHOULDN'T have embraced dictatorial Arab Kings and leaders, and kissed them on the cheek. We SHOULDN'T have left ourselves NO choices in who we buy our energy from.

We SHOULD have, like we're doing now, sent in small teams of special ops guys, and been quiet about it. We SHOULD try, like we always have, any war criminal we find.

That's it. Ain't no magic to it. Would Bin Laden be dead? Yup. Would Al Quaida be finished? Yup. Would Afghanistan still be a backwards country? Yup. Would Saddam still be alive? Sure, along with a lot of other bad guys. Would Wahhabism, the womb of Islamic Terrorism, be destroyed? Yup. Would 6,000 of our soldiers still be alive? Yup. Would the world live happily ever after? Yup.

excon

Prisoners in war traditionally stay captive until either the hostilities end or they are parolled or exchanged. The parole in civilized war meant that the soldier would not return to the conflict.

Two of the leaders behind the attempted bombing of Flight 253 were released from GITMO two years ago.Prisoner No. 333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner No. 372, Said Ali Shari (now called Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi)were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007.
They were released because they were entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" . They successfully completed the course ;no doubt majoring in crayon diagrams of future attacks,and were repatriated . They immediately rejoined AQ in Yemen and are leaders there .There are apx 90 Yemenis in GITMO today (imagine that ! I didn't know Yemeni's were jihadists until a week ago ;and isn't the story that they became jihadists because we invaded Yemen ? )

Quote:

---

We SHOULD try, like we always have, any war criminal we find.

---

As you know ;the tribunal system has been delayed by civil libertarians ;and the new administration has nixed them after all the legal wrinkles were ironed out.

In WWII there was a bunch of Germans here on sabotage missions . Oh they were tried all right by tribunal ;not in civilian court... after Roosevelt selected the tribunal and told them what verdict he wanted .6 of the 8 were executed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There are apx 90 Yemenis in GITMO today (imagine that ! I didn't know Yemeni's were jihadists until a week ago ;and isn't the story that they became jihadists because we invaded Yemen ? )

---

That's the Ron Paul line, “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers!” The crotch bomber was already mobilized and had his plane ticket before we struck in Yemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

We SHOULD try, like we always have, any war criminal we find.

---

Hello again, tom:

Psssst. I was talking about vice and Yoo. I'm not into prosecuting the guys on the ground - just the ones who ordered the crimes..

excon

So you are in favor of black ops, death squads, targeted assassinations, rambo stuff.

While I'm am not opposed to killing every last jihadists with bad intentions
- that would not be possible with the PC, ACLU crowd
- there will always be more
- who ultimately controls these hit squads? Could that ability be used against us? Where is the balance, the checks against this kind of power?


G&P