Our lives are being compromised by those who keep insisting that there's no terror threat, that we have to treat terror suspects and fire-breathing Muslim leaders with kid gloves, and that the media is failing us by "hyping" the terror threat. It is not hype - it is calling a spade a spade.
Which of course you can't do anymore thanks to political correctness - itself so dogmatic and fascist that it would make any mullah proud - but I'd rather live than be politically corrrect.
I just wish I knew what it would take before folks like Natalie admitted that there is a real threat that we must proactively and punitively act against. Maybe we should detain and deport human-rights Lefties as well to ensure our safety.
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Chris Evans
Tsk, tsk. Repubs.
2 - gonzo marx
Ben Franlin sez...
*those that would sacrifice Liberty for Security, deserve neither...*
Mark, in Natalie's thread sez..
*shoot-to-kill policies and not arraigning police when they get it wrong,*
i'll go with Franklin over the implied, unaccountable police state desired by Mark
do NOT misunderstand me..i want the terrorists destroyed, jailed, removed from any possibility of causing more harm...i just refuse to endorse an authoritarian police state to do so
as i have stated time and again, many of the problems currently faced in the removal of the terroist threat stem from poor policy and military strategy decisions
1) not keeping all Resources in Afghanistan until the Task was completed(still isn't ..Taliban, poppies and bin Laden)
2) when the aribtrary timeframe for Iraq was chose, insufficient Resources allocated to accomplish the Task properly(see Powell doctrine, or just Rumsfeld after Saddam's fall, during all the looting stating "freedom is messy", rather than maintaining civil order, much less securing the border against the ver same foreign insurgents that are causing so much fo the problem now)
i could point out more, but i think the point is made...just because someone does nto agree with the policies used, or strategies engaged, does NOT mean they are "for" the terrorists
i'll stick with the Frankling Quote...to do any less is to hand bin Laden and his ilk a Victory over the US in the form of curtailing our Liberty...and i refuse to accept such a loss
Excelsior!
3 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, those Repubs, so tediously sensible and realistic. Why can't they just drink the koolaid and shut up like everyone else?
Dave
4 - gonzo marx
again, Mr Nalle suffers from a schizoid break...to be expected, since he has eschewed his Libertarian roots in favor of drinking the neocon kool-aid
Excelsior!
5 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I'm opposed to virtually every Neocon initiative, so how exactly have I been drinking their kool-aid? If I have I must not have liked the taste. In fact, the only places where I agree with them are where they happen to agree with sensible, long standing Republican/Libertarian policies.
That's a one of my favorite Franklin quotes. You should perhaps think of those who would appease terrorists in the context of that quote.
Dave
6 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle, i know you keep stating your opposition to the neocons..and i readily admit on a few issues you actually do...
but reading your thoughts around here, i find more often than not, you fall into their camp of Policies...fellow travellers in many ways..so my previous comment should be taken as most of my mad ramblings, half hyperbole in the name of Jest...and half to make the gentle Reader think...
i will let the Franklin Quote stand on it's own, and encourage all to think about it in their own way..i have NO desire to act authoritarian and tell people what to think...it seems quite clear and self evident to me
it remains my primary Argument against many of the provisions of the Patriot Act...the basis for my desire to see the Geneva Conventions followed for ALL prisoners who are not Citizens of the US...my desire to see our Rule of Law applied to ALL Citizens in these matters(how many are being held outside of said Law, under provisions of the Patriot Act, or just plain fiat of the Fed?
you enjoy tossing out the word "appeasement"...and i fail to see any examples of it...but it is a nice, Machiavellian propaganda tool to denigrate the opposition...even if blatantly untrue
on and on
how do you feel about the Quote from Mark i cited above? are you for or against holding police accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to the use of deadly Force?
now remember..i understand the Rules of Engagement here, and have no difficulty with them doing what needs to be done..i just firmly believe they NEED to be hald accoutnable at all times...
otherwise you get a new KGB...and i don't think the US is about that kind of totalitarian police state
once again, see the Franklin Quote
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
7 - Chris Evans
Sensible and realistic? LMAO!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No really, you need to go to open mic night at the improv.
8 - Dave Nalle
>>but reading your thoughts around here, i find more often than not, you fall into their camp of Policies...fellow travellers in many ways..so my previous comment should be taken as most of my mad ramblings, half hyperbole in the name of Jest...and half to make the gentle Reader think...<<
Supporting the Iraq War doesn't automatically mean you agree with the Neocons. Their reasons for the war and mine are not the same. That makes a huge difference.
>>it remains my primary Argument against many of the provisions of the Patriot Act...the basis for my desire to see the Geneva Conventions followed for ALL prisoners who are not Citizens of the US...my desire to see our Rule of Law applied to ALL Citizens in these matters(how many are being held outside of said Law, under provisions of the Patriot Act, or just plain fiat of the Fed?<<
On these two issues we fully agree, of course. Areas where I differ from the Neocons.
>>how do you feel about the Quote from Mark i cited above?<<
The quote is short, incomplete and out of context.
>> are you for or against holding police accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to the use of deadly Force?<<
Of course. You think I'm a big fan of police excesses? Where would you get that idea? Police need to be held strictly accountable for their actions, but we also need to make sure that they aren't unduly persecuted just because they ARE police. We also need to hold accountable - far more than the police on the street - the politicians who set the questionable policies which the police reluctantly enforce.
Dave
9 - gonzo marx
fair enuff, Mr Nalle...
my appreciation for you stating that much so clearly, especially the last paragraph
Excelsior!
10 - Dave Nalle
I have to feel for the policeman on the street. The abuse they face from citizens day to day because of the restrictions and policies they have to follow has to wear them down. Then we have numerous examples of police who are just doing their jobs being accused of 'racial profiling' and singling out people for harsh treatment because of their race. We even had the local NAACP go after a local black officer here recently as a racist because he allegedly was rough with a black suspect. Not an easy job at all. So they don't need politically motivated duties added onto their already full slate of responsibilities.
Dave
11 - Chris Evans
::Rolls Eyes::
12 - Mark Edward Manning
Um, Gonzo, I am not in favor of a strict police state. I have read Dave's last comment here, and I agree too.
Wanting reasonably tight security, defending shoot-to-kill procedure, and generally just taking this threat seriously does not automatically equal an advocation of a police state. I simply want police to do the job their sworn to do.
They painted the Patriot Act as autocratic too. I didn't believe it, still don't.
13 - Steve Brungard
Are people saying that no threat exists or poing out that no armies are arrayed en mass against us? It is grand folly to send an army to do police work. Have not the Brits given a resounding example?
14 - Natalie Bennett
There is a terrorist threat.
Is it a large one in historic terms? No. The risk that existed for decades of the world being obliterated by a nuclear war was greater.
Is it a large one in today's terms? The risk of massive destructive change in the western world over the next half-century from climate change is far greater.
Is it a risk to you or me, personally, today, tomorrow or next Wednesday? Your risk of being killed in a transport accident is massively higher.
That's why I keep asking for a sense of proportion: that we don't wreck the reasonably decent, civilised, rule of law we have with ill-thought-out, authoritarian "anti-terrorist" measures.
15 - adam
The question is not, "Is there a terrorist threat?" The question is: Should we all react like total assholes to the terrorist threat -- the way Bush & Co. have, and the way this writer does?
16 - RJ
"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." - Michael Moore, Kerry voter and Academy Award winner.
17 - a.styias
After a quick but thorough reading of the article in question and a similar analysis and review of the commentart..... I can only conclude that a lot of people have their head in the sand and their ass exposed.
18 - JELIEL
I know there's a threat, problem is it's been there for decades. Took 2 planes diving into the WTC for people to wake up to the issue, because until then it wasnt the US problem, it was their problem.
What I don't believe though is the BS the admin has been spewing to collar citizens into submission with fear tactics and the burning of the constitution.
What I don't believe is that there is no GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK with huge Bond-movie like undeground bunkers inhabiting entire mountains, like, I believe it was Rumsfeld, displayed on the news about 2 or 3 years ago.
I don't believe in being goated into joining the "coallition of the willing" (If there is such a thing) with black and White bullshit tactics like "If you are not with us, you are with the terorrists" (The only time I ever had respect for the federal liberals, is when then PM Chr�tien gave the finger to Junior on joining this coallition)
I believe that changing the term from "War on Terror" to Global SAVE, is exactly the same publicity stunt as when Kentucky Fried Chicken changed to KFC and then reshapped it into Kitchen Fresh Chicken. All the wanted was to take the key word FRIED away so that no one would associate KFC with fatty fried unhealthy food. Now Junior and his merry band of oil-men want to remove the words WAR and TERROR, so that it don't sound so bad, so that his poll ratings stop sinking like the Titanic.
I know there is a threat, there's always a threat. But I won't swallow the bullshit either.
19 - Dave Nalle
I'm not clear on what the 'bullshit' is here. None of us want more measures like the Patriot Act - except maybe MEM up there.
But contrary to what some are suggesting, the threat of terrorism is real, there really is an international terrorist conspiracy, and it's something we ought to be concerned about.
The comparison to the nuclear threat is not a valid one. The nuclear threat of the Cold War could only be addressed diplomatically and it had only two likely outcomes - no deaths and everyone dying. Today's terrorist threat is entirely different, because it can result in ongoing, incremental casualties until the whole world becomes a giant Israel with constant terrorism, reprisals, repression and chaos. This is worse than the cold war because it's not just a threat of cataclysm, it's an ongoing reality of lost lives and loss of freedom.
In the cold war all we faced was a threat. With terrorism we face a daily reality, which may be smaller for each individual, but will add up to a lot of death and mayhem pretty quickly if we do nothing and just accept it as acceptable because it's fewer deaths than we have on our highways every year.
Dave
20 - RKC
There appears to be no end in sight to problems emanating from the Middle East.
As Dave Nalle said, "Today's terrorist threat is entirely different, because it can result in ongoing, incremental casualties until the whole world becomes a giant Israel with constant terrorism, reprisals, repression and chaos. This is worse than the cold war because it's not just a threat of cataclysm, it's an ongoing reality of lost lives and loss of freedom."
How much have we spent since 9/11 to guard against another airplane being turned into a guided missile?
To counterract other "possible" attacks we have devised numerous other measures which may or not be needed, or may or not work work when they are needed.
Each day a new "threat", such as what happened in London, is identified that requires more effort and more money.
As each new "threat" is reported, we will have to pay for another countermeasure. There is no end in sight and no idea of what the total cost will be.
We cannot be defeated militarily, but we can be brought to our knees economically by having to expend larger and larger amounts guarding against every possible "threat" that can be imagined.
In addition to the monetary expense, an increase in police power has taken away basic freedoms that existed for over two centuries.
The prime targets of the "terrorists" are the British and the US.
Why?
Considering the expense of this venture, isn't that a question that should be asked and answered?
Exactly what is the international terrorist conspiracy?
What caused it to form? Why does it exist? What -- short of perpetual war -- is the solution?
Why have these questions not been addressed by our government instead of taking away basic freedoms and saddling American taxpayers with untold debt?