3 Years and 77,000 bodies later

Villain

Well I'm sure anyone that has risen today and looked at a calendar has thought of the Twin Towers being devastated this day 3 years ago.

3 years on and Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Queda terrorist group is still killing. I remember sitting in a bar watching Sky News as the events unfolded on that day and thinking how so many people had lost their lives. The official figures state that 2752 people died as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.

The US have since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and estimated figures put the current death toll for both areas at 75,000 collectively. Thats more than 27 times the number of people that died on 9/11. However of the the brave men that the US have sent to Iraq 1000 have died. The US refused to release official figures for the number of Soldiers killed in Afghanistan however is estimated that it also nears a 1000.

My question is with 75,000* Iraqi's and Afghanistan's dead along with nearly 2000* US Soldiers is the US a Safer place???
* estimated Figures only

BlitzKrieg

simple answer...no


I remember when i heard about the 2 towers it felt wierd because I was so cold about it. I didnt think about the lives of the people I just thought. *If Islamic terrorists did that we are in for a whole lot of war it'll be Navy Seals in reality.* I still feel wierd over that because I want to sympathise for the loss of life but when I think of Iraq and the build up to the war i cant help but feel that 9/11 has changed in its impact far too much over the space of 3 years...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Bullcrap.

US isn't anymore safe then it was then. So they can't get airplanes, which TBH isn't really true because it has been shown massive lapses in security. But terrorism is about changing peoples ways of lives. Which AQ (through the help of Bush) seem to be doing fine.

Currently the death toll is 5 non US people for every 1 US person killed in the name of 9/11 (this includes Iraq which Bush claimed had something to do with it). Not sure of the toll on wounded but it is much higher. At what point is it enough?

shiv

BlitzKrieg wrote:

simple answer...no


I remember when i heard about the 2 towers it felt wierd because I was so cold about it. I didnt think about the lives of the people I just thought. *If Islamic terrorists did that we are in for a whole lot of war it'll be Navy Seals in reality.* I still feel wierd over that because I want to sympathise for the loss of life but when I think of Iraq and the build up to the war i cant help but feel that 9/11 has changed in its impact far too much over the space of 3 years...

I think you have to remember the mass loss of life, if nothing else, and forget all the periphery of terrorism and the domino-effect of retribution that's taken place since. i was listening to my ani difranco cd today, and some of her lyrics in "Self-Evident" (inspired by the WTC disaster)still really strike me as hitting the nail on the head:


and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky

and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast
and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed
and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar
looked more like war than anything i've seen so far
so far
so far
so fierce and ingenious
a poetic specter so far gone
that every jackass newscaster was struck dumb and stumbling
over 'oh my god' and 'this is unbelievable' and on and on
and i'll tell you what, while we're at it
you can keep the pentagon
keep the propaganda
keep each and every tv
that's been trying to convince me
to participate
in some prep school punk's plan to perpetuate retribution
perpetuate retribution
even as the blue toxic smoke of our lesson in retribution
is still hanging in the air
and there's ash on our shoes
and there's ash in our hair
and there's a fine silt on every mantle
from hell's kitchen to brooklyn
and the streets are full of stories
sudden twists and near misses
and soon every open bar is crammed to the rafters
with tales of narrowly averted disasters
and the whiskey is flowin
like never before
as all over the country
folks just shake their heads
and pour

so here's a toast to all the folks who live in palestine
afghanistan
iraq

cuz take away our playstations
and we are a third world nation
under the thumb of some blue blood royal son
who stole the oval office and that phony election
i mean
it don't take a weatherman
to look around and see the weather
jeb said he'd deliver florida, folks
and boy did he ever

and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me

so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets
and clear the air
get our government to pull its big dick out of the sand
of someone else's desert
put it back in its pants
and quit the hypocritical chants of
freedom forever

cuz when one lone phone rang
in two thousand and one
at ten after nine
on nine one one
which is the number we all called
when that lone phone rang right off the wall
right off our desk and down the long hall
down the long stairs
in a building so tall
that the whole world turned
just to watch it fall

and while we're at it
remember the first time around?
the bomb?
the ryder truck?
the parking garage?
the princess that didn't even feel the pea?
remember joking around in our apartment on avenue D?

can you imagine how many paper coffee cups would have to change their design
following a fantastical reversal of the new york skyline?!

it was a joke, of course
it was a joke
at the time
and that was just a few years ago
so let the record show
that the FBI was all over that case
that the plot was obvious and in everybody's face
and scoping that scene
religiously
the CIA
or is it KGB?
committing countless crimes against humanity
with this kind of eventuality
as its excuse
for abuse after expensive abuse
and it didn't have a clue
look, another window to see through
way up here
on the 104th floor
look
another key
another door
10% literal
90% metaphor
3000 some poems disguised as people
on an almost too perfect day
should be more than pawns
in some asshole's passion play
so now it's your job
and it's my job
to make it that way
to make sure they didn't die in vain
sshhhhhh....
baby listen
hear the train?

shotamoose

irish1 wrote:

The US refused to release official figures for the number of Soldiers killed in Afghanistan however is estimated that it also nears a 1000.

Sorry, what? Whose estimate is that? Because it sounds kinda crazy.

As for the US being a safer place, maybe, but the world certainly isn't. In reality there is no War on Terror; a real war on terror would not have included a war against Iraq, since regardless of the merits of overthrowing Saddam it was clear that invading and occupying Iraq, with all the loss of innocent life that involved, would increase support for anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

shotamoose wrote:

Sorry, what? Whose estimate is that? Because it sounds kinda crazy.

As for the US being a safer place, maybe, but the world certainly isn't. In reality there is no War on Terror; a real war on terror would not have included a war against Iraq, since regardless of the merits of overthrowing Saddam it was clear that invading and occupying Iraq, with all the loss of innocent life that involved, would increase support for anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists.

Just a quick google, I agree it does sound a bit high but I did say it was only an estimate. The 1000 figure for Iraq is accpted by the US do.

ShortAmerican

heres the true answer. i live in the us, we are a safer place, we didnt go to war to defeat the terrorists or to find osama. we went to war to keep the war away from us. with all focus on terrorists cell overseas (for me) alqaeda is more worried about staying afloat. is this a valid reason for war. i thinks so, keep the damn guerillas away from us. the most thats ,made me feel safer in the us is the over policing and miltarization of police hear. its come to the point where the rnc had police with machine guns.. also keep in mind the president and his advisors know sooooooo much more than we do, you just have to assume this in our country, we must assume the real reasons he's fighting this war are confidential. who knows better about going to war, top military strategist with all the FBI,cia,and nsa information or a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

Villain

ShortAmerican wrote:

a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

LOL the only reference I made to Sky News was that I was watching it on 9/11, and I'd trust the internet before I'd trust Mr Bush. I offered the stats as estimates not facts, so you can climb back down off that high horse

pork99

I've posted this before but it's relevant

How to Lose the War on Terror

Basically this CIA officer says Bush did Osama a huge favour by invading Iraq

Memnoch

ShortAmerican wrote:

heres the true answer. i live in the us, we are a safer place, we didnt go to war to defeat the terrorists or to find osama. we went to war to keep the war away from us. with all focus on terrorists cell overseas (for me) alqaeda is more worried about staying afloat. is this a valid reason for war. i thinks so, keep the damn guerillas away from us. the most thats ,made me feel safer in the us is the over policing and miltarization of police hear. its come to the point where the rnc had police with machine guns.. also keep in mind the president and his advisors know sooooooo much more than we do, you just have to assume this in our country, we must assume the real reasons he's fighting this war are confidential. who knows better about going to war, top military strategist with all the FBI,cia,and nsa information or a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

While your arguement is a good one the problem with your arguement is that it is based on one simple assumption.

This assumption is that the "president and his advisors" and these "top military strategists", the "fbi" "cia" "nsa" and the men in charge of making the decisions at the end of the day have your/america's best intersts at heart.

This assumption is the falacy. The evidence seems to show that the only intersts they care about are their own, and their only motivation is their own greed for greater wealth and power.

The only indoctrination I'm affraid is the blindfolding and brainwashing of people such as yourself throughout the US. And in this their propaganda machine has been unquestionably successful.

adjodlo

Is America safer? No.

One very simple reason would be that the death toll in Iraq will do nothing to stop people from joining the fight against the US. I'll explain it simply for shortamerican's benefit.
Say over 10000 people have been killed in Iraq. Say you were an Iraqi. Say a member of your family, or a close friend was killed by an indescrimiate American bomb, would you think "oh it's necessary - the Americans are just freeing us". Or would you go to the local 'freedom fighters' and take up arms? While that may be an extreme example, you have to take the other sides perspective into account. You have to understand that a lot of these people don't have anything to look forward to in later life, hence see no reason NOT to fight. Unlike you who's able to stay at home while the soldiers die in iraq in order to "keep the war away" from you. :rolleyes:

Redleslie2

adjodlo wrote:

Unlike you who's able to stay at home while the soldiers die in iraq in order to "keep the war away" from you. :rolleyes:

In fairness, his profile says he's only 15 so he's got a couple of years to go before he can have the chance to get various bits blown off for the benefit of the richest 1% in the US.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Actually, the only way its not safer is if the increased security combined with the change in likelihood of backlash against the US for the actions it has taken yield a net decrease in security.

I'm not saying that the net result is more or less security....just that its not as simple as saying "they've spent more on security, ergo it is more secure".

jc

bonkey

ShortAmerican wrote:

we didnt go to war to defeat the terrorists or to find osama. we went to war to keep the war away from us. with all focus on terrorists cell overseas (for me) alqaeda is more worried about staying afloat. is this a valid reason for war. i thinks so, keep the damn guerillas away from us.

Yup...it lets someone else bear the "collateral damage" for the struggle instead.

Do you think this might have anything to do with why world opinion of the US has worsened? That they see that the US way of dealing with a problem is not to try and resolve it necessarily, but to ensure that someone else suffers intead of their own people?

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? Because when you say "keep it away from us", I hear "and put it on someone else" alongside it.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

ShortAmerican wrote:

heres the true answer. i live in the us, we are a safer place,

No your not. You know that to die in a terrorist attack vs other ways to die in the US it is tiny. A metor strike is more likely.

You are more likely to die from a car crash or being shot then a terrorist attack. Heck, you have more chance of getting cancer from smoking.

we went to war to keep the war away from us.

Who is us? The US? You do know that 1000 Americans have died "keeping the war away". That is almost half of who have died on that day. Do you think those people who are in the other countries are going to sit around and accept it? Do you think you can stop invading or will you have to keep US soliders there permantly to keep the war away?

alqaeda is more worried about staying afloat.

Hardly. If anything AQ has grown thanks to the actions of the US. Also you should understand that it only requires a handful of terrorists. November-17 group who have been known for years as a terrorist group was only a handful of people. They attacked US targets for years (due to the US supporting a Junta, which lead to a large number of students being gunned down).

All the war is doing is breeding more terrorists.

also keep in mind the president and his advisors know sooooooo much more than we do,

Indeed. Bush himself was handed a document which detailed the 9/11 attacks only a month before the attack took place. But he was too busy enjoying his holiday to read it. Ashcroft was taken off public aircrafts a few months before due to a similar report.

we must assume the real reasons he's fighting this war are confidential.

No, he is accountable. As would anyone else be. If you or your family were dragged from their beds and kept in a secret location without being charged or allowed contact a lawyer. Would you agree with it?

How about being put under investigation because you question your president? Or his actions? What is that President was a liberal? Would you agree to it then?

Fact is, Bush has seriously profitted from all this. As has his cronies and done massive injustices to US and people worldwide.

or a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

You think people only watch Sky News? TBH Sky news is just a watered down version of Fox News (which is far from Liberal). So if SkyNews is not to be trusted, then Fox news is not to be trusted? After all they are part of the same company.

Daveirl wrote:

Sorry that's not the way I meant it to come across. What I was more going for is that Homeland security is a far higher priority, there are more checks on the borders, more checks at immigration etc, so that's what I meant.

Only more checks if you look like arabic, or muslim, or have a terrorist sounding name. White christan wouldn't have a problem. But then we have never had terrorists in that demographic have we? :rolleyes:

ShortAmerican

Memnoch wrote:

While your arguement is a good one the problem with your arguement is that it is based on one simple assumption.

This assumption is that the "president and his advisors" and these "top military strategists", the "fbi" "cia" "nsa" and the men in charge of making the decisions at the end of the day have your/america's best intersts at heart.

This assumption is the falacy. The evidence seems to show that the only intersts they care about are their own, and their only motivation is their own greed for greater wealth and power.

If a country cant trust its own leaders to use their intelligence correctly than the entire democratic system is a fallacy. we have people voting for a leader we can trust to do our will yet when the day is over you cant trust them, i think your thoughts have little backbone becuz u i N I BOTH NEED to know one thing to really answer this question, what does the president know which we dont? can u prove that al qaeda isnt offering the worlds cure to aids if bush will tarnish the us' image, no u cant, we dont know wats going on behind closed doors, this is hard for an irish man to releizze becuz your government is so small and lacks a true miltary. with power comes knowledge, with knowledge comes power, if the us gives away these secrets we only empower our enemies to be stronger.

keu

can u prove that al qaeda isnt offering the worlds cure to aids if bush will tarnish the us' image, no u cant, we dont know wats going on behind closed doors, this is hard for an irish man to releizze becuz your government is so small and lacks a true miltary. with power comes knowledge, with knowledge comes power, if the us gives away these secrets we only empower our enemies to be stronger.

:rolleyes:
..it's in the breeding.
btw..knowledge is power and power corrupts (absolute power corrupts absolutely)
Our government couldn't be any smaller than any other small people (short americans), if your referring to the world stage, if you look a tad closer you might find they do actually have positions of authority within the EU (and former president was elected high commisoner for human rights for the UN 97-2002)

on topic, I wonder about the children of the 77,000 and the next generation who will have an even greater grudge (and possibly a more justified reason to turn) against the U.S.

will make germany 1945 look like disneyland.
..but I hardly care anymore.

Hobbes

ShortAmerican wrote:

If a country cant trust its own leaders to use their intelligence correctly than the entire democratic system is a fallacy.

How do you come to that conclusion? You do know by the way that the US is not a true democracy?

So explain to me Nixon then?

we have people voting for a leader we can trust to do our will

It is a representative democracy. It means you don't. But you also fail to mention the number of people who were not allowed vote when they could, dodgy voting machines and finally being voted in by people put into power by his daddy.

Following a leader blindly is extremly dangerous.

what does the president know which we dont? can u prove that al qaeda isnt offering the worlds cure to aids if bush will tarnish the us' image, no u cant,

What the heck are you talking about? There is numerous sources of information that can tell you about what has happened up to now.

Here is 25 things we know now about 9/11. (and check out the date of the document). Here is a more recent one.

this is hard for an irish man to releizze becuz your government is so small and lacks a true miltary.

Yea we brains small.. its unpossible to know unless everyone has a gun. :rolleyes:

We don't follow our government blindly. We question what they do. We don't assume because someone got the majority of the vote some how turns them into a saint.

You should study up on what goes on around you and don't just blindly follow like a sheep.

DadaKopf

irish1 wrote:

3 years on and Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Queda terrorist group is still killing.

I know these comments are both late in the thread and a little trite but it's worth repeating: Osama bin Laden has probably been dead for some time as he was seriously ill at the time of 9/11 (can you live without your liver in Bora Bora?) and there is no Al Q'aeda organization, there is no cohesive global terrorist network, there are dozens upon dozens of separate organizations and groups all over the place killing people for all kinds of reasons connected with Islam.

That actually makes things much scarier. It also means the methods employed by the US and its allies will do nothing to stop the cycle of violence. Staying home and promoting global development might, though.

Winters

9.11.01?

What the hell happened on the 9th of November?

gandalf

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

Actually, the only way its not safer is if the increased security I'm not saying that the net result is more or less security....just that its not as simple as saying "they've spent more on security, ergo it is more secure".
jc

Is their homeland not more secure,I mean 3 years now since the last incident?
Most posters here mightn't like Bush, but leaving that out and looking at the cold clinical statistical facts,there has been no incident in the last 3 years.
I doubt thats out of pure luck alone...

dahamsta

Most of the new security measures have been done for political reasons, for the look of the thing. They add little or no security, they simply create the /impression/ of better security. One could argue that giving the general public this false sense of security creates more issues that it cures.

The "we haven't been attacked since then" hypothesis is a logic-weak fallacy that's been put about by neo-cons and swallowed hook, line and sinker by people that should really know better. I haven't been hit by a lorry driven by a homicidal maniac in 32 years, it doesn't mean I won't be hit by one tomorrow.

adam

Rock Climber

dahamsta wrote:

I haven't been hit by a lorry driven by a homicidal maniac in 32 years, it doesn't mean I won't be hit by one tomorrow.

adam

Thats just plain silly logic.
Somebody somewhere has been hit by a homicidal maniac in a lorry probably in the U.S but theres been no terrorist incidents there in the last 3 years, thats a significant length of time given that theres lots of islamofacists threatening it more and more in the last 3 years.
Why have they not suceeded?
pure bad luck on their part? I doubt it.

pat kenny

Most posters here mightn't like Bush, but leaving that out and looking at the cold clinical statistical facts,there has been no incident in the last 3 years.

There were no mojor attacks on the US mainland in the 3 years prior to the trade center attacks either,and thats with the lesser security messures in place.

To be honest can anyone find an article detailing the last major terrorist attack on the US mainland before the trade center attacks.(Not counting homegrown terrorist ie.Timmothy McVeigy) I'd say you have to go back pretty far.

Most attacks on US targets are in foriegn countries.

DadaKopf

The WTC bombing in 1993.

pete

pat kenny wrote:

To be honest can anyone find an article detailing the last major terrorist attack on the US mainland before the trade center attacks.(Not counting homegrown terrorist ie.Timmothy McVeigy) I'd say you have to go back pretty far.

Most attacks on US targets are in foriegn countries.

Correct.

Recent terrorism attacks targeting the United States
The United States has been the target of several terrorist attacks in recent years.

October 12, 2000: A suicide bomber attack on the USS Cole in Yemen's Aden harbor kills 17 American sailors and wounds 39 others.

August 7, 1998: Twin bombings at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, kill 224 people and wound thousands of others.

June 1996: A bomb at U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, kills 19 Americans and injures 500 people.

November 13, 1995: A bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five U.S. service personnel.

April 19, 1995: A truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, kills 168 and wounds more than 500 others.

February 26, 1993: Terrorist bombers strike the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000 others.

December 21, 1988: The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, kills 270, mostly Americans.

September 5, 1986: Hijackers take over a Pan Am jet at Karachi Airport. Twenty people are killed when security forces storm the plane.

June 14, 1985: Shiite Muslim gunmen hijack a TWA jet carrying 153 passengers and crew, mostly Americans, shortly after takeoff from Athens, Greece. A U.S. serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, 23, was killed and his body was thrown on the tarmac at the airport in Beirut, Lebanon. Thirty nine others were held hostage for 17 days before being released.

September 20, 1984: A bombing at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 16 and injures the ambassador.

October 23, 1983: The bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 241.

April 18, 1983: A car bomb at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 17.

From: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/timeline.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Rock Climber

pat kenny wrote:

There were no mojor attacks on the US mainland in the 3 years prior to the trade center attacks either,and thats with the lesser security messures in place.

True but was there less reason or more reason than there is now?
Bush has píssed off a fair few fanatical groups, far more so than any of his predecessors.
Would the previous lighter security measures keep them from causing damage in the mainland U.S? I doubt it.
Aswell as the usual alarm and door lock
I could put shutters on all windows in my house if I thought there was going to be a sustained attempt to break in while I'm away.
Actually thats what most shops do, don't they to prevent a higher likelyhood of a break in because they know that a window can be smashed and the goods can be grabbed.
Once you get into the states as a tourist or as a citizen, things are as normal as they ever were really aren't they? and surely in the light of what Bush has been up to, that speaks for itself in terms of security and it's sucess.

Victor

Rock Climber wrote:

Is their homeland not more secure,I mean 3 years now since the last incident?

Anthrax? WMD in Texas? 1,150+ dead soldiers. Uncounted dead contractors, security personnel and CIA paramilitaries. Why bomb America when you can bomb Americans in Baghdad?

Hobbes

The Anthrax attacks were US based. Not AQ.

In fact you could account more US terrorist attacks to White Christans then Arab Muslims on US soil. Yet you don't see any serious changes made.

Rock Climber

Victor wrote:

Anthrax? WMD in Texas? 1,150+ dead soldiers. Uncounted dead contractors, security personnel and CIA paramilitaries. Why bomb America when you can bomb Americans in Baghdad?

The first two are minor incidents.
The rest are abroad.
I'm talking here about their homeland security and the strenght of that.
Given the increased threat after Bush Píssing off so many fanatical groups,I'd count no strike in the U.S homeland as a pretty good record for their homeland security?
It's not just luck is it?

dahamsta

Rock Climber wrote:

Thats just plain silly logic.

My point precisely. See how you can spot it when you really try?

Why have they not suceeded?

Where's your proof they've been trying please?

Can't you even see that I'm using your own logic against you? By your logic, I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

adam

sovtek

Alot of "new" security measures were instituted in Europe after the Lockerbie bombing.
The Lockerbie famillies funded a security study and took the recommendations to the relevant government and corporations in America and Europe.
Europe used them...America didn't.
The last I heard the airlines want to go back to private security employees, instead of government controlled security at airports.
This forgets that had the FBI and Immigration followed their own rules and their respective heads hadn't delayed requested warrants in Al Qaeda investigations...at least two of the hijackers wouldn't have been there and 9/11 might have been averted (that ignores what the White House knew before hand).
So all this leads me to the conclusion, that most of it is either window dressing or enables the present regime to root out political enemies.

Rock Climber

dahamsta wrote:

My point precisely. See how you can spot it when you really try?

Where's your proof they've been trying please?



adam

Oh Please Dahmasta,is that the best you can do here? you are trying to tell me here that AlQueda have not been trying to attack the mainland U.S and maintain by extention of your post that they haven't unless I can provide proof which of course short of me being involved with them you know is impossible.

But then to carry on with such an assumtion would be like prefering to watch the little house on the prairie as opposed to the texas chainsaw massacre...

The fact you can't see that I'm using your own logic against you. By your logic, I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

Oh please again... people are prepared and suceeded to fly airplanes into buildings in the U.S killing thousands...
Similar people plant bombs on spannish trains killing hundreds and you expect me to take your posts on this issue seriously when you talk about crusty under pants in the same breath as suggesting that these guys would neither have the know how or the inclination to be currently trying to attack their number one enemy.
You disappoint me.

sovtek

dahamsta wrote:

I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

adam

I want to buy your underpants!

Hobbes

Rock Climber wrote:

Given the increased threat after Bush Píssing off so many fanatical groups,I'd count no strike in the U.S homeland as a pretty good record for their homeland security?
It's not just luck is it?

Homeland security is a joke. A large number of the States have yet to recieve any funding towards homeland security. Those that have, the money has gone to something which won't help homeland security.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4975158.html (use bugmenot.com to read).
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9639790.htm?1c

Mr Moore also points this out in his movie where the two cops are given the job of protecting a whole stretch of Oregon coastline from evil terrorists, and have to close their offices at set times because they can't afford to keep it open.

Ironically, Bushes cabinet tried to outsource homeland security.

On another note, it is believed that OBL took over 4 years planning the 9/11 attacks and probably had sleepers in the US for most of that. These are people who appear to take thier time. But anyway Bush is fuking up the country so much the terrorists are probably laughing.

keu

The US have since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and estimated figures put the current death toll for both areas at 75,000 collectively.

any links for these est figures?

dahamsta

Bruce Schneier says that much/most of the security measures implemented in the U.S. since the 11th of September 2001 are "security theater" and "window dressing", "an enormous waste of money" that "wouldn't make [them] safer". Those quotes are taken slightly out of context, but Schneier has taken nearly every major measure that I'm aware of and dismantled and destroyed it in his newsletters, interviews and Op/Ed (Opinion/Editorial) pieces, which amounts to the same thing. Bruce is a well-known and well-respected security consultant. He's not a fanatic and if anyone can find a partisan line in his writings, I'd be very surprised.

So, there's one reason for my believing that these measures have been done for political reasons, for the look of the thing. Another reason is that for the most of these, you don't need someone like Schneier to tell you -- it's bloody obvious that no-one is going to take over an airplane with a small nail-clippers, for example, and highly unlikely they're going to do it with a nail file. Assumptions yes, but minor assumptions, backed up by a respected figure in security. So now it's your turn I'll ask again: Where's your proof they've been trying please?

Assumptions don't cut it around here as far as I can see. I could assume that I'm the most gorgeous man in Ireland, but unfortunately that may not be true. (It is btw.) Oh, and obviously I mean foreign fanatical groups now, not the domestic ones we can prove have been trying.

adam

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

it's bloody obvious that no-one is going to take over an airplane with a small nail-clippers, for example, and highly unlikely they're going to do it with a nail file.
adam

I see so you are allowed to say that something is obvious and rock climber isn't?
He's saying it's obvious that AlQueda want to attack on U.S soil for what I can see are reasonable reasons and you are saying it's obvious that these guys won't try it on a plane again for reasonable reasons.
So you are allowed to make a simple assumption based on whats going on out there and another poster isn't based on the same idea?
Marvelous.
Does it occur to you that hidden in what you have said there is that they would if they could.

As regards Schneier, whats his agenda only to highlight failings and that can only be a good thing, I'd rather he highlighted them than some Alqueda operative in a bloody way.

Incidently from the end of october as you know all entering the US( only those outside the visa waiver countries have had to do it up to now ) will be photographed and fingerprinted- a good idea in my view if you want to keep tabs on who exactly is coming and going.
I don't have an issue with it,I saw it being done and it's not intrusional and takes seconds.
As well as that I was in the states about 6 weeks ago and was frisked right left and centre, both flying internally and externally and I'm best described as a white anglo saxon type, not arabic looking in any way.
I also had to take my shoes off and put them through the luggage x-ray, everybody had to do that.
I'll be going back next month and feel totally safe doing so.
( mind you I've always believed if it's time to go , it's time to go but I don't expect that to happen )
I fully expect you to come back Dahmasta and state all is not well, but then if I recall correctly from previous conversations I had with you here on this forum, you have a principled position against all these security intrusions aswell don't you? eg the credit card details being given over etc.
I've no problem with any of the security measures, indeed if they could be tighter, I'd have no problems.
Theres only so tight they can go though, and theres only so much tollerance for them too, but that would be no justification for backtracking on those already in place.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

dahamsta

Earthman wrote:

I see so you are allowed to say that something is obvious and rock climber isn't?

Read the next sentence in my post. I'd say "again", but...

So you are allowed to make a simple assumption based on whats going on out there and another poster isn't based on the same idea?

Slight difference in the scale of those assumptions.

had to take my shoes off and put them through the luggage x-ray, everybody had to do that. I'll be going back next month and feel totally safe doing so.

Taking your shoes off makes you feel safe? Fair dues.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

I didn't say anything about Moore, that was Hobbes.

adam

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

Slight difference in the scale of those assumptions.
adam

Ah Dahmasta,thats not fair,if they could get on a plane or thought it was possible, they could do damage, theres not much less in that scale.

Taking your shoes off makes you feel safe? Fair dues.

Along with an air marshall or two and other security measures - relatively yes
I'm not paranoid or anything,I know someone could go wild up there,no need to be afraid.

I didn't say anything about Moore, that was Hobbes.

Oh I know, my apoligies.
Oh and Dahmasta, you're not the most Georgeous man in Ireland I am

therecklessone

ShortAmerican wrote:

who knows better about going to war, top military strategist with all the FBI,cia,and nsa information or a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

Would that be the same CIA slammed for its intelligence failings by the Senate Intelligence Committee in a report released in July of this year?

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked, probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade," Roberts said during the press conference. "Well, today we know these assessments were wrong."

"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war," Rockefeller said. "And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes — if we knew what we know now."

I take it you trust that bastion of patriotism Fox News, so you can read their report at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html

Memnoch

If a country cant trust its own leaders to use their intelligence correctly than the entire democratic system is a fallacy. we have people voting for a leader we can trust to do our will yet when the day is over you cant trust them, i think your thoughts have little backbone becuz u i N I BOTH NEED to know one thing to really answer this question, what does the president know which we dont? can u prove that al qaeda isnt offering the worlds cure to aids if bush will tarnish the us' image, no u cant, we dont know wats going on behind closed doors, this is hard for an irish man to releizze becuz your government is so small and lacks a true miltary. with power comes knowledge, with knowledge comes power, if the us gives away these secrets we only empower our enemies to be stronger.

ah but the US democratic system IS a fallacy, G. W. is a prime example of that. Take a look at the run up to the iraq war, so many times the american's talking about having "credible" evidence, that iraq still had masses of WMDs, but they never showed the world this credible evidence. Off course most were skeptical, and I personally was confident that they were lying, and now no WMDs have been found.

At the end of the day it still comes down to that assumption of your's that I talked about. And so far through his actions Bush and co have shown that they cannot be trusted. So i'm still waiting for you to provide a reason why you're assumption should be upheld? What has Bush done to make us trust him? The evidence shows that he has acted as I mentioned before out of personal greed for wealth and power, which the american tax payer has suffered for.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

Incidently from the end of october as you know all entering the US( only those outside the visa waiver countries have had to do it up to now ) will be photographed and fingerprinted- a good idea in my view if you want to keep tabs on who exactly is coming and going.
I don't have an issue with it,I saw it being done and it's not intrusional and takes seconds.

Except that you are kept on file for 25 years, along with any other data. For example, bank transactions in the US, Visa card, etc. You don't think that is a problem?

How about having a similar sounding name that suddenly gets you flagged in that database. For example the famous Senator Kennedy who was flagged, and took three weeks of personally phoning the head of homeland security to be allowed fly again.

Likewise with Senator John Lewis, who took months but couldn't get off the list. Want to know how he did? He added "Rep." to the front of his name when booking the ticket. Hey presto no harrassment by airport security.

Ok how about the news story of an arab who had a similar name of OBL (common name btw) and was refused to fly. Turned out an investigation that showed two others with the same last name were also boarding the flight which is why they removed him. What they failed to mention was that it was his wife and child.

But it isn't just them. It appears people with certain political beliefs are being stopped (due to being on the list). You can read a list here..

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16240&c=206

Lastly if you think it is ok for a government to obtain information on you without your knowledge or access to that information, then I suggest you go read up one J Edgar Hoover.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

And ignoring the spin, point out what is false in what he said in the movie (which is what poetic license is).

dahamsta

Earthman wrote:

Ah Dahmasta,thats not fair,if they could get on a plane or thought it was possible, they could do damage, theres not much less in that scale.

Getting on a plane is trivial, false ID can be picked up for next to nothing in the US. Getting weapons onto a plane has also proved pretty easy. If they wanted to, they could; which means that not only are you pulling an assumption out of thin air, it could easily be assumed that you're wrong...

Along with an air marshall or two and other security measures

These would be the instantly recognisable air marshals, who would be the first people you'd take out when you want to take over the plane?

As to other security measures, how about the reinforced cockpit doors? The ones that pilots need to open to go for a pee that is...

adam