An attack that could rival or exceed 9/11

[Zenister 0]

your sticking your head in the sand if you dont think the US presence here IS having a significant deterrent effect on Terrorism in the US.

As opposed to having to find funding, visas etc to travel half way around the world they can travel cross-country to attack the US, and they are not engaging Cops and Firemen defending supermarkets, they are attacking the best trained best prepared segment of American society

and we hit back significantly harder than they do..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,098]

>What would you suggest we do?

Continue living. The threat of terrorism was always there. It was there before 9/11. It is here now. It will be in the future no matter what we do - if it's not a radical islamic terrorist blowing up buildings, it will be white middle-class former US military nuts blowing up buildings.

The answer? We learn to deal with it like the rest of the world has - keep our guard up and just keep doing what we've always done. Most of the time we will stop them. Sometimes we won't, and a lot of people will die. It's horrible emotionally, but in terms of deaths, car crashes kill a lot more people than that every year, and somehow we go on. Storms cause a lot more damage than that every year, and somehow we go on.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Continue living. The threat of terrorism was always there.

I was thinking of a similar time. The cold war. It is tragic to have that fear in the back of your mind all the time, but the only answer is to continue living. The time between "nuclear doom" and "terrorist threat" was a too-short, pleasant time.

[billvon 3,098]

>I doubt this will ever be a country free from paranoia again.

Like a lot of things, it goes in cycles. During the 50's it was the fear of communism, and a fear of (literally) the world coming to an end. Then there were a few decades of optimism as people started realizing McCarthyism for what it was. There was still communism, we just feared it less. Heck, a solidly communist nation is now one of our trading partners, and we try to curry favor with them rather than support a struggling democracy. Fifty years ago we would have had a carrier group sitting right off Taiwan, so that the commies wouldn't win another battle in their drive for world domination and annhiliation of the US. Our fear of communism was that strong.

Now we are live in fear of terrorists. Fear is useful for a few reasons. One, it keeps us vigilant. Two, it is one of the politican's strongest tools - "vote for me and I will protect you!" But history has shown that we grow weary of the fear after a while. Hopefully the lessons we learned from 9/11 will remain even after the fear fades.

[lawrocket 3]

Lessons learned from 9-11 will fade. They are already fading.

What lessons are these? Increased security at airports? Increased security with identification, driver's licenses, visas, social security numbers?

I'm trying to think of what lessons we learned from it that don't include abrogation of personal freedoms in favor of "homeland security."

Isn't that a shame?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

But...but...I thought that all of the money and manpower that we sent to Iraq was supposed to stop terrorism. What gives?

You've been listening to too many liberals.

Oh, so the conservative stance on the war in Iraq is that it was not about terrorism? Then why did Dubya refer to it as the main front on the war on terrorism?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>What would you suggest we do?

Continue living. The threat of terrorism was always

Quote

there. It was there before 9/11. It is here now. It will be in the future no matter what we do - if it's not a radical islamic terrorist blowing up buildings, it will be white middle-class former US military nuts blowing up buildings.

The answer? We learn to deal with it like the rest of the world has - keep our guard up and just keep doing what we've always done. Most of the time we will stop them. Sometimes we won't, and a lot of people will die. It's horrible emotionally, but in terms of deaths, car crashes kill a lot more people than that every year, and somehow we go on. Storms cause a lot more damage than that every year, and somehow we go on.

I couldn't agree with you more, Bill.

My question was in response to the statement "we can't continue to do this indefinitely".

[billvon 3,098]

>Lessons learned from 9-11 will fade. They are already fading.
>What lessons are these?

If you are a passenger on a plane, and a terrorist tries something - take him down. Not even a smuggled gun can stop 80 passengers if they are determined to stop you. Also note that the only aircraft stopped on 9/11 was stopped by the passengers.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

But...but...I thought that all of the money and manpower that we sent to Iraq was supposed to stop terrorism. What gives?

You've been listening to too many liberals.

Oh, so the conservative stance on the war in Iraq is that it was not about terrorism? Then why did Dubya refer to it as the main front on the war on terrorism?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But...but...I thought that all of the money and manpower that we sent to Iraq was supposed to stop terrorism. What gives?

Quote

You've been listening to too many liberals.

Oh, so the conservative stance on the war in Iraq is that it was not about terrorism? Then why did Dubya refer to it as the main front on the war on terrorism?

It is the main front and here's why:

The administration knew that to occupy Iraq would create a "raghead magnet" that would draw all the RIFWs (Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Whackos) from all over the Middle East and Europe.

And it's happening. Reports keep coming in about known ragheads disappearing from cities in Europe as they answer the call to Jihad in Iraq.

Last week in Italy, a raghead recuriting ring was busted.

By providing an attractive target in Iraq for the ragheads to go to, it's making things quieter just about everywhere else.

I imagine the members of cells that have been ordered to stay behind are chewing their toenails in frustration at not being allowed to go to Bagdad and fight the "Great Satan".

mh

[billvon 3,098]

>I never heard Bush or anyone else claim that our actions in Iraq
>would end terrorism.

Bush quote: "And we fought the war on terror in Iraq." (10/16/03 speech in San Bernadino.)

>It's just another distortion from the left.

Bush, that darn left-wing distorter!

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

>I never heard Bush or anyone else claim that our actions in Iraq
>would end terrorism.

Bush quote: "And we fought the war on terror in Iraq." (10/16/03 speech in San Bernadino.)

>It's just another distortion from the left.

Bush, that darn left-wing distorter!

It may be a major front in the war on terror, but nobody said that terrorism would end. But you knew that didn't you?

never pull low......unless you are

[Paige 0]

If everyone is on alert and vigilant about security, things should go without a hitch through the holidays and into the new year. Remember, we play the percentages skydiving and chances are things will be just fine for family and friends (also playing the percentages by flying).

I can't imagine the hastle of traveling with a rig, I am also glad I am making my voyage by car.

Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate
www.TunnelPinkMafia.com

[quade 4]

Quote

Nation's Threat Level Raised to Orange

This would have much more of an effect on me if it didn't seem like so much "Boy Who Cried Wolf".

I'm almost certain that in the past when the threat level has been raised to "Orange" we've been in some sort of danger, but that danger has never been explained or shown to us. The threat level goes up and then a little while later it goes down. Meanwhile, it appears as if no additional terrorist threats or terrorist themselves are actually stopped.

I'd really like to see the dead wolf after this threat level gets lowered again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jfields 0]

Quade,

I half-seriously think that Rumsfeld, Ridge & Ashcroft were really just sitting in an office together playing with a Magic 8-Ball. Or maybe they just went out for Chinese food and got some whacky fortunes.

[billvon 3,098]

>I'd really like to see the dead wolf after this threat level gets lowered again.

Not sure you can get that. It's like going to a serious car accident where everyone survived, and claiming that airbags aren't needed because everyone survived. If the "threat levels" and all that work to help stop terrorist attacks, you'll see little evidence of their working. I suppose one way to test the system would be to stop the alerts for a while and see if any terrorist attacks happen, but that would be politically unwise.

[jfields 0]

Bill,

You have a point. It is like the Y2K scare. Many people said it was overblown hoopla, because lots of programmers spent insane hours remediating most of the problems. As far as PR, it is a no-win situation. If you fix the problem, you get accused of exaggerating it. If you don't, you get accused of recklessly ignoring it.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quade,

I half-seriously think that Rumsfeld, Ridge & Ashcroft were really just sitting in an office together playing with a Magic 8-Ball. Or maybe they just went out for Chinese food and got some whacky fortunes.

They got that one that says "That wasn't chicken" and took it as a bio-threat. Cat isn't a bio-threat, just a little stringy.

[quade 4]

Hopefully not.

Hopefully these people are not simply screwing with millions of people's lives over "guesses" about "chatter".

On the other hand, if they continue to have this yo-yo alert system without anything to actually show for it -- it's worthless. Actually, it's more than worthless -- it's harmful because nobody will take it seriously and only have resentment towards the entire effort because -- well -- it's a hassle and there is nothing to show for the effort.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

It's like going to a serious car accident where everyone survived, and claiming that airbags aren't needed because everyone survived.

No, because obviously the impact of the crash had enough force to trigger the airbags.

No. I see this as more like the "Service Engine Soon" light that occasionally flashes on my car -- yet, the car still runs fine. I want to take the car to the dealer and have him plug the car into the computer to find out why the stupid light keeps coming on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,098]

>if they continue to have this yo-yo alert system without anything to
> actually show for it -- it's worthless. Actually, it's more than
> worthless -- it's harmful because nobody will take it seriously and
> only have resentment towards the entire effort because -- well -- it's
> a hassle and there is nothing to show for the effort.

Interesting. I've seen the same thing in skydiving. People complain that something like mandatory pull altitudes are worthless, and pulling just a little low is no big deal. Then someone has a cypres firing, and breaks his back trying to land a downplaned reserve, and suddenly people take pull altitudes a little more seriously.

So maybe you have to shut the system down every once in a while until a terrorist attack occurs, then restart it. It would be too bad if you had to, but perhaps that's just human nature.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Quote

>I never heard Bush or anyone else claim that our actions in Iraq
>would end terrorism.

Bush quote: "And we fought the war on terror in Iraq." (10/16/03 speech in San Bernadino.)

>It's just another distortion from the left.

Bush, that darn left-wing distorter!

It may be a major front in the war on terror, but nobody said that terrorism would end. But you knew that didn't you?

Of course. But do you not agree that it would have been wiser to direct our resources toward stopping the most significant and present threat? Bin Laden was successful once, and if this security directive is accurate, it seems to me that he is America's biggest threat. Why, then, did we spend so many resources toward capturing Hussein when they could have been spent hunting down bin Laden?

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why, then, did we spend so many resources toward capturing Hussein when they could have been spent hunting down bin Laden?

I haven't heard anywhere that we stopped hunting Bin Laden just because of the Iraq conflict. And just throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily make a quicker or more successful resolution. (Big government types might disagree with that last sentence).

Short response = we can do both. But if you feel that this government should only work on one item at a time (series management).......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

But if you feel that this government should only work on one item at a time (series management).......

That was the primary theory in the Clinton administration.

[Gravitymaster 0]

***Of course. But do you not agree that it would have been wiser to direct our resources toward stopping the most significant and present threat? Bin Laden was successful once, and if this security directive is accurate, it seems to me that he is America's biggest threat. Why, then, did we spend so many resources toward capturing Hussein when they could have been spent hunting down bin Laden?