[N0help4u]

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?

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[Dark_crow]

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?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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