Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on May 08, 2007, 03:13:38 PM
-
Had this come to pass, it might have been a reminder that the United States is actually involved in a world-wide war against an ideology that knows no borders and will be satisfied with nothing short of absolute hegemony.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070508-1109-fortdixplot.html
As it is, the fact that it was detected means that it will be forgotten in one or two news cycles and we'll go back to believing that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan we'll all live happily ever after.
Interestingly, had it not been detected and prevented in time, that would have been the government's fault. Talk about a lose/lose scenario.
- SEAGOON
-
Yup. and just to note that 3 of them are illegal ailiens.
Probably "just here for a better life"
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yup. and just to note that 3 of them are illegal ailiens.
Probably "just here for a better life"
well I'm pretty sure they arent here for the beer....
Seagoon, "its damned if you do and damned if you dont"....
-
It doesn't matter what happens, the government is GOING to take a hit regardless in the media over this.
HOW did those 3 illegals get into the country and why didn't the government stop them?
How long did the government know about the plot and why wasn't something done sooner?
Who in the government authorized the phone taps and did they have enough evidence to legally do it?
Where their rights abused by the government during the course of the investigation?
Those are just a few excamples of how the media can and probably will twist the story to make the government look bad. Just wait for the congressional investigation that will probably happen after the ACLU gets involved on behalf of the terrorists.
Believe me, we haven't heard the end of this story just yet if there is any way for the government to come out looking bad.
-
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
Yup and as a partial result of that our soldiers are being attackeed alot more often over there then our civilians are being attacked here.
Probably has something to do with less distance to travel and all that to attack America
-
Remember MT! There is no global war on terror! :)
anyway, it sounds like - with the evidence collected after a year of infiltration - these vermin are screwed, blued and tattooed.
i will be interested in learning how they found one another....
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i will be interested in learning how they found one another.... [/B]
I heard they were lurkers from the O'club... :noid :noid :noid :noid :O
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i will be interested in learning how they found one another....
My Space (http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/FunnyFace6.gif)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Had this come to pass, it might have been a reminder that the United States is actually involved in a world-wide war against an ideology that knows no borders and will be satisfied with nothing short of absolute hegemony.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070508-1109-fortdixplot.html
As it is, the fact that it was detected means that it will be forgotten in one or two news cycles and we'll go back to believing that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan we'll all live happily ever after.
Interestingly, had it not been detected and prevented in time, that would have been the government's fault. Talk about a lose/lose scenario.
- SEAGOON
I thought it was common knowledge we can't leave Iraq or Afghanistan, because if we do the terrorists will just follow us here. So we need to stay there, to keep them from coming here. Or in other words, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
...i will be interested in learning how they found one another....
Mosques, most likely.
Acquaintances, Internet, and cell phone intercepts are what helped nab them. Nothing like a proper Neighborhood Watch to stifle the Ethnic cleansing hordes of Islam.
*If you're Islamic and take offense at my words, then too bad as they are aimed at the radical Islamists... if you bothered to interpret the comment right in the first place*
-
Originally posted by oboe
I thought it was common knowledge we can't leave Iraq or Afghanistan, because if we do the terrorists will just follow us here. So we need to stay there, to keep them from coming here. Or in other words, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
some people can't say anything except "bash bush"
-
Originally posted by john9001
some people can't say anything except "bash bush"
Wrong.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Wrong.
well, maybe you were being just a little too clever in your insinuation, "in other words", why don't you just say what you mean.
-
John9001,
What don't you understand about what I mean? The phrase "common knowledge" implies a knowledge that is shared by many people, not just one. I believe it is false knowledge, though -- hence the quote from the Wizard of Oz, which asks people to disregard what they see and continue to believe a fantasy.
In the words of former White House counterterrorism director Richard Clark, Of course, nothing about our being “over there” in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.
I would think the soundness of his logic has been adequately pointed out today.
-
Give me your terrorists, your racially profiled ,
Your C4 hurling masses yearning to kill free,
The wretched refuse of your terrorists shore.
Send these, the islamists, terror-tossing, to me:
I can't do crap except to open the golden door
-
Originally posted by oboe
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Whats Baroda have to do with this?
He's communist. Not Islamic:p
-
Originally posted by oboe
John9001,
What don't you understand about what I mean? The phrase "common knowledge" implies a knowledge that is shared by many people, not just one. I believe it is false knowledge, though -- hence the quote from the Wizard of Oz, which asks people to disregard what they see and continue to believe a fantasy.
In the words of former White House counterterrorism director Richard Clark,
I would think the soundness of his logic has been adequately pointed out today.
"Of course, nothing about our being “over there” in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists."
Unfortunately these seem to be of the home grown variety
So far they are saying they found no evidence linking them to any terrorist group
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Unfortunately these seem to be of the home grown variety
So far they are saying they found no evidence linking them to any terrorist group
Whats home grown about them? 2 on work visas, 1 naturalized citizen, and 3 illegals. Sure sounds "home grown" to me.
Now, if you mean that 6 (at least) muslims who came into this cuontry from another suddenly decided to get together to kill "infidels" without a direct outside network, then I guess you could call that "home grown" ie: the plot originated amongst foriegn nationals in the US.
All this means to me is that you can't trust a muslim. Any of the could develop "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at any time. There are no "moderates", no peaceful muslims. All practicing muslims should be considered an armed bomb that could detonate without warning at any time.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
Whats home grown about them? 2 on work visas, 1 naturalized citizen, and 3 illegals. Sure sounds "home grown" to me.
Now, if you mean that 6 (at least) muslims who came into this cuontry from another suddenly decided to get together to kill "infidels" without a direct outside network, then I guess you could call that "home grown" ie: the plot originated amongst foriegn nationals in the US.
All this means to me is that you can't trust a muslim. Any of the could develop "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at any time. There are no "moderates", no peaceful muslims. All practicing muslims should be considered an armed bomb that could detonate without warning at any time.
thats what I was getting at yes
-
Its the era of political correctness.
If we eject illegal immigrants, that's perceived as "mean".
And its this sort of nanny-ish attitude that's going to stir more attacks on our own soil.
We need to enforce the laws of the land.
I know this is unheard of these days...but illegal acts should have consequences!
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
Actually given that they were "ethnic Albanian Muslims" it's more of a case of "Yeah boy howdy! Good thing we intervened in Kosovo and sided with the KLA, otherwise we'd have...ahhhhh... Serbs planning attacks on Ft. Dix. Probly."
Our lack of strategic vision in responding to Jihad extends to well before 2003, MT.
-
Hello Oboe
Originally posted by oboe
the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.
Quite so, it was because they were angry that we were going to invade Iraq in 2003 that Muslim Jihadis amongst other things:
* bombed the WTC in 1993
* bombed the Khobar towers in 1996
* bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998
* bombed the US Cole 2000
* attacked Washington D.C. and NYC in 2001
* bombed the US embassy in Karachi in 2002
* bombed Nightclubs in Bali in 2002
Additionally knowing we would invade Iraq made them so angry that they overthrew the Byzantine empire, conquered most of Northern Africa, Spain and the Balkans, and almost captured Western Europe. If we withdraw now, then they might eventually give us some sort of discount on our taxes when we become dhimmis.
I sometimes think the entire Western world needs to collectively reenact the scene in "Good Will Hunting" regarding Jihad -
Reality: Hey, Western World, It's not your fault.
Western World: [Softly, still staring off] I know...
Reality: No you don't. It's not your fault.
Western World: [Serious] I know.
Reality: No. Listen to me son. It's not your fault.
Western Worldl: I know that.
Reality: It's not your fault.
[Western World is silent, eyes closed]
Reality: It's not your fault.
Western World: [eyes open, misty already] Don't mess with me reality. Not you.
Reality: It's not your fault.
[Western World shoves Reality back, and then, hands trembling, buries his face in his hands. Western World begins sobbing.] etc., etc., etc.
America, the Jihad is not your fault. It's what they do, it's what they've been doing since the 7th century. Whatever you do or don't do will not change that. Deal with it.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Actually given that they were "ethnic Albanian Muslims" it's more of a case of "Yeah boy howdy! Good thing we intervened in Kosovo and sided with the KLA, otherwise we'd have...ahhhhh... Serbs planning attacks on Ft. Dix. Probly."
Our lack of strategic vision in responding to Jihad extends to well before 2003, MT.
If you were President during that time how would you have handled Kosovo?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Its the era of political correctness.
If we eject illegal immigrants, that's perceived as "mean".
And its this sort of nanny-ish attitude that's going to stir more attacks on our own soil.
We need to enforce the laws of the land.
I know this is unheard of these days...but illegal acts should have consequences!
I can't help wondering what might happen if they just alerted the
Army that the attack was coming..and let them "handle" the situation.
-
I also can't help but wonder just how terrible a foe has to be before
our liberal pals don't hate the US more than people trying to kill their
neighbors?
Of course it's pretty easy to be distant living on the West Coast...not
like you had planes hitting skyscrapers or have a gap in a skyline to
remind you that these folks don't play nice.
-
Anyone here have an idea where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" came from?
It's been a REALLY long war.
-
Hmmm... Barbary War... IIRC, Bainbridge got his bellybutton handed to him.
-
Hi Soda,
Originally posted by soda72
If you were President during that time how would you have handled Kosovo?
I'll be honest with you, there are many reasons I'm glad I'm not and never will be president, dealing with questions like this is one of them.
First off, I believe that the power of wielding the sword is an awesome responsibility, and that it is only given into the hands of civil magistrates in order that they might fulfill their primary duty in protecting their own citizens from evildoers within the state, and those who are an imminent threat to them without it. In other words, I believe that the magistrate has the power to legitimately use the power of the sword in suppressing crime and in defensive wars.
There are any number of conflicts worldwide currently raging that the United States could intervene in for humanitarian reasons. For instance, for decades now the Arab Muslim government in Khartoum has been waging a genocidal war against the Black Christian and Animist peoples of Southern Sudan and Darfur, literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans have died or been enslaved as a result. Even as we speak the Janjaweed militias and Sudanese military are continuing their genocidal campaign. To date, the USA has not expressed any interest in intervening to stop this war.
For 400 years since the forced Islamicization of large portions of the Balkans by the Turks, the Serbian orthodox and the Albanian Muslims have been in a state of fairly constant conflict. The memory of battles and attrocities in that region is still fresh and sadly the rule of revenge continues. However, in 1999 after 4 years of guerilla attacks by the KLA a Serbian reprisal in which 45 ethnic Albanians were massacred triggered an American response involving a huge NATO air campaign which gutted the Serbian military and destroyed substantial portions of the transportation network and infrastructure of Belgrade. The American media placed the black hats squarely on the Serbs and the White hats on the Kosovars and America made a decision to intervene although there was no plausible argument that Serbs constitued an imminent threat to America or that American interests were at stake. Since the Serbian defeat, Kosovo has become a haven for Jihadis and organized crime and it has been the ethnic Serbs who have seen their houses and churches burned, and who have become the refugees. But the world no longer cares, "they are getting their come-uppance" and any revision of the previous script might be too disquieting. That is why, for instance, we don't hear much about the foreign Jihadis who fought/are fighting in Kosovo, the Al-Qaeda/Muslim brotherhood links and so on. In this fight, the simple truth is that the fight isn't between good and evil, its between bad and worse and a lot of poor civilians are dying as a result.
Was Milosovec a murderer of women and children? Undoubtedly. Is it wrong to massacre civilians in reprisals? Absolutely. But what made Kosovo a situation we had to intervene in and not one of the countless other abominable conflicts like Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan, or if we feel compelled to support Islamic insurgents in Europe why not Chechnya where the death tolls make Kosovo seem mild by comparison? I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. Why Kosovo and not a hundred other far more horrific conflicts?
In any event, my conscience is captive to the Word, and as awful as this may sound, had I been president I doubt I would have thought a coherent application of Just War theory involved bombing Belgrade. If somehow my estimation is wrong, and we had to intervene there then we must intervene in Sudan and scores of other places ASAP.
- SEAGOON
-
And I'm sure Hillery will claim privey to this as part of Bill's old "Attack on Terrorism" Policy.
Al Sharpton will have people mass in the streets and protest Racial and Ethnic Profiling *as long as these Albanian Fools didn't hurt Soldiers of Color or use the "N, B or H" word.
Nancy Pelosi will travel to Albania, consult in Negotiations and then return to Syria.
John Kerry will vote for and against all of this.
John Edwards will get another $400.00 haircut and pledge to be the one supporting the poor Albanians.
Ted Kennady will rant and rave... then fall asleep... *please place him in a car and send him to the Bridge*
Geraldo will report "live" with a Albanian child in his arms and a tear in his eye...
Go Figure America. Why does crap happen?
America has their collective heads up their asses.
Mac
Free America....
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yup and as a partial result of that our soldiers are being attackeed alot more often over there then our civilians are being attacked here.
Probably has something to do with less distance to travel and all that to attack America
Do the Iraqis leave the other countries troops alone?
-
No the insurgents do not but.
They go by the rule that if you are standing with us, you are us.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No the insurgents do not but.
They go by the rule that if you are standing with us, you are us.
Or could it be that they're against occupation in general?
-
I'm just glad the plot got foiled.
There is only one thing that causes me concern at Brooke Army Medical Center is the security. My wife and I were some what astonished when we first arrived to see our son how easy it was to get in the gate for access to the hospital.
Having gone through security at Ft Hood several times getting through the gate at BAMC was just a matter of stopping showing your ID to the civilian gate guard, and saying you were visiting somebody in the hospital. Woosh you drive right up to the front of the building in less than 1/4 of a mile. I thought many times while there how easy it would be for a terrorist to blast through the gate and drive a truck or car bomb right into the front of the hospital to finish off the wounded Soldiers and Marines being treated there.
Access to the hospital has to be easy because the trauma section there treats civilians from the San Antonio area. So their families need easy access to the facility. Still I wish they tighten it up a bit. I'm so thankful this bunch was caught before they could hit Ft Dix.
MT, Oboe, I guess it's more fun to make a political back hand at the administration and the war, instead of just being happy the plot was foiled without a loss of life?
-
Rumor has it the Sunni's are behind the majority of the strikes against the Coalition forces.
Do you think once all the troops leave the Shia will join hands with the Sunnis and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing"?
Or is there the possibility that once the Sunni's run the Coalition out, the Shia will decide it's time for major payback for the Saddam years?
-
My opinion? we haven't had any successful attacks here in ages.
I don't think it is because of "homeland security" I don't think it is because we have made our airports into the most unpleasant experiance free people can have...
It is because we are keeping the real hard core die hard terrorists and islamofacists strained to the max in one little country a long ways from here.
No huge alphabet soup government agency caught these guys... A clerk at a DVD copy place caught em. If we disbanded all the homeland security BS these guys would have still been caught.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Or could it be that they're against occupation in general?
No.
If you consider on average they kill off more Iraquies then military occupiers
I wouldnt say that was the primary reason.
The ones that attack us tend to more often then not.
Not even be Iraqi
Or so I've been hearing
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
Since none were from iraq, perhaps you can explain how that ties in.
Quote "Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen. "
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
[B
i will be interested in learning how they found one another.... [/B]
I understand they are all volunteers for the hillary campagn.......
:p
-
I'm with Shifty on this, the important thing is that the attack was foiled. The clerk that asked a question about something unusual, the law enforcement that investigated, it sounds like, at this stage, an example of things coming together the way they should.
It's an extra plus that it was foiled without the use of any of the weird Patriot Act based attacks on personal liberty, evidence that we can effectively protect ourselves without chucking the constitution out the window.
-
Hi Shifty,
I am just trying to refute the notion that we must fight them in Iraq or they will follow us here, per Richard Clark's comment. It is beyond me why you would suggest that I or anybody else is not happy this plot was foiled. That is contemptible.
I don't consider my remark as 'making fun' of the administration or the war.
IMO this whole situation: the war, Jihadism, terrorism, 9/11 - there is nothing to be made fun of about it. I don't find one damn thing funny about any of it.
There are points of view which can be agreed or disagreed with, or proven wrong, as in this case.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Since none were from iraq, perhaps you can explain how that ties in.
Quote "Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen. "
You would have to read the original post in the thread, then you would have to understand that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were cited, then you would have to realize that attacking Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with thwarting this attack, then you would need to see the irony of the original cite, then maybe you as a former police officer would need to see that police work and not armed invasions have done more to thwart attacks on our soil, then and only then would I be able to explain....
Now aren't you amazed that I covered all of that in one line?
boy howdy.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I thought it was common knowledge we can't leave Iraq or Afghanistan, because if we do the terrorists will just follow us here. So we need to stay there, to keep them from coming here. Or in other words, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Forgive me Oboe. My bad for not seeing your relief and appreciation that nobody was killed, and the plot was foiled by the above statement. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You would have to read the original post in the thread, then you would have to understand that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were cited, then you would have to realize that attacking Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with thwarting this attack, then you would need to see the irony of the original cite, then maybe you as a former police officer would need to see that police work and not armed invasions have done more to thwart attacks on our soil, then and only then would I be able to explain....
Now aren't you amazed that I covered all of that in one line?
boy howdy.
Not at all. I pretty much expected something like it. It's drivel but it's your right to spout it. You read very very much between lines that do not seem to yet exist to determine the reason these folks were going to try this attack.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Not at all. I pretty much expected something like it. It's drivel but it's your right to spout it. You read very very much between lines that do not seem to yet exist to determine the reason these folks were going to try this attack.
Really?
So you are suggesting that they wanted to attack 'because' of the Iraq war? Or maybe 'in spite' of the Iraq war? I mean which is it? And does it really matter which it is, because either way the Iraq war didn't help.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Really?
So you are suggesting that they wanted to attack 'because' of the Iraq war? Or maybe 'in spite' of the Iraq war? I mean which is it? And does it really matter which it is, because either way the Iraq war didn't help.
I am not suggesting anything. I asked a question about a post you made. Here let me quote my own post again.
"Since none were from Iraq, perhaps you can explain how that ties in.
Quote "Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen. "
Please note that in the interrogatory there is no suggestion stated nor implied, just a question regarding a statement made by you.
Please also note that neither Iraq or Afghanistan were cited as a place where they came from. My quote is specifically from the article cited in the beginning of the thread. That does imply I had read it otherwise I would not have had the quote to begin with.
Also note that no where in my posts have I implied that my Police experience had a factor in either the original situation or the question I asked which you still have not answered.
-
Holy Crap!
It was SARCASM!!!
sheesh.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You would have to read the original post in the thread, then you would have to understand that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were cited, then you would have to realize that attacking Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with thwarting this attack, then you would need to see the irony of the original cite, then maybe you as a former police officer would need to see that police work and not armed invasions have done more to thwart attacks on our soil, then and only then would I be able to explain....
Now aren't you amazed that I covered all of that in one line?
boy howdy.
Actually I think the clerk in the video store deserves the vast bulk of the credit
If not for him we may very well have been discussing this at a future date afterand about a tragedy had already happened and the Dept of homeland security and the rest of Law enforcement would still be scratching their collective arses wonding how it could have happend.
And again I would be ranting on how if even without the Patriot act if laws already in place were simply enforced to begin with there would have been 3 less of them (illegal aliens)
-
Which was sarcasm, the first post I asked the question about or the ones you posted in response afterwards?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I think the clerk in the video store deserves the vast bulk of the credit
I agree.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I think the clerk in the video store deserves the vast bulk of the credit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you guys wonder, if what the clerk had on his mind when he turned this in, was the more recent VT shootings, rather than 9/11?
This whole thing seems too weird. Previous Terrorist actions( Such as 9/11) were carried out by individuals that seemed more "serious" about what they were doing. Why make a tape of yourself at some place during target practice anyway? I heard that with some sects' of islam, a form of will is usually kept, but this was more like the tape those two kids made before the Columbine shooting. At very best, these clowns, while still posing some threat, were rank amateurs. They took ridiculous risks and exposed themselves to capture. This one's sorta like a "what not to do" for the Islamic Fanatic.
-
The good thing here is that they planned to attack a military target, not a civilian target. Of course attacks are never good, but they showed some attitude by not attacking unarmed civilians who have no involvement in their war. They could have planned to go on a gun rampage in a shopping mall, school, or in other heavily populated area... or simply blow up bombs.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Which was sarcasm, the first post I asked the question about or the ones you posted in response afterwards?
Yes.
-
I agree with chair that it was even better that no patriot act bs stopped this attack.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My opinion? we haven't had any successful attacks here in ages.
...No huge alphabet soup government agency caught these guys... A clerk at a DVD copy place caught em. If we disbanded all the homeland security BS these guys would have still been caught.
lazs
True, true.
Seen this article that paints the 6 as "Boys Gone Astray" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/nyregion/09suspects.html) ?
Lazs hit the nail on the head, with his "Only reason the USA doesn't see more attacks on her shores." assessment. If we pull out, or otherwise signal defeat to the Islamofascists, then you'll begin seeing a marked increase in thses plots, and attacks on the home shores. It's no longer a matter of "If", but "When".
Hell, the USA hasn't really had a blackeye in decades... nothing that really got American's together since Pearl Harbor, and for sure, nothing that has gotten the majority of citizens united against a common foe. 9/11 was a tap to the back of the head compared to what we have coming in the near future.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The good thing here is that they planned to attack a military target, not a civilian target. Of course attacks are never good, but they showed some attitude by not attacking unarmed civilians...
On an American military base, there are just as many civilians as there are military personnel... perhaps more.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I think the clerk in the video store deserves the vast bulk of the credit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you guys wonder, if what the clerk had on his mind when he turned this in, was the more recent VT shootings, rather than 9/11?
This whole thing seems too weird. Previous Terrorist actions( Such as 9/11) were carried out by individuals that seemed more "serious" about what they were doing. Why make a tape of yourself at some place during target practice anyway? I heard that with some sects' of islam, a form of will is usually kept, but this was more like the tape those two kids made before the Columbine shooting. At very best, these clowns, while still posing some threat, were rank amateurs. They took ridiculous risks and exposed themselves to capture. This one's sorta like a "what not to do" for the Islamic Fanatic.
I think you will find that this investigation was underway long before the shootings at VA Tech took place.
-
Originally posted by Dux
On an American military base, there are just as many civilians as there are military personnel... perhaps more.
Right spot on Dux. From his comment, I do not think Fishu has ever been on a military base/reservation, or he'd not only know about the civvies, but that the majority of military on US bases bases are unarmed as they go about their daily duties.
These ...{insert derogatory word(s)} nimrods could just as easily have hit a Malls of America during Holiday shopping. In fact, that would be far easier than hitting a controlled access target such as a military base. Case in point the recent spate of mall shootings.
-
Ty, Flit-I completely overlooked that.
The clerk turned the video over in January of 2006. That's about a year and a half ago. Over a year before VT.
Why do you guys think they waited so long?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Ty, Flit-I completely overlooked that.
The clerk turned the video over in January of 2006. That's about a year and a half ago. Over a year before VT.
Why do you guys think they waited so long?
It's called "an investigation", not a "panicky detainment and gitmoization zomg AAAAARRGHHH!". It's amazing what happens when you deal with professional LEOs instead of the new breed of "If it's not an american flag, it's probably a bomb" types that flip out prematurely.
If they had been part of a cell organization, they'd never have known if they had just picked 'em up right away anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Which was sarcasm, the first post I asked the question about or the ones you posted in response afterwards?
Seagoon wrote As it is, the fact that it was detected means that it will be forgotten in one or two news cycles and we'll go back to believing that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan we'll all live happily ever after.
I wrote - "Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!"
THAT is sarcasm.. and I might add, pretty non-subtle sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by Odee
Right spot on Dux. From his comment, I do not think Fishu has ever been on a military base/reservation, or he'd not only know about the civvies, but that the majority of military on US bases bases are unarmed as they go about their daily duties.
The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead. A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.
I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.
-
MT
You took the time to post in a thread about terrorism and really have nothing to add or detract from the real subject. Ok, so in other words. pretty much anyone should figure you don't have anything of substance to discuss in a thread of this nature and whatever you post should most likely be ignored as being of null content and thought. Check. I kinda figured that was the case.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead. A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.
I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.
Here speaks fishu, military genius with extensive hands on experience with the military. Just ask him or not, he'll tell you anyhow.
Hey genius, did you ever think that perhaps that "gun locker" (real term is ARMORY btw) would be locked and just might take a while to open. Did it ever occur to you that the ammo storage facility (otherwise commonly know as an ammo dump) might also be locked and not co located with the arms room? Quite often it is located some distance away from the main post facilities, something about safety considerations with explosives and other things that make loud noises when ignited you know. That is of course if it is a permanent part of the post where they keep a stock of things that go bang which few Guard bases do. It's ordered on an as needed basis.
That means the only ones with loaded weapons would be the guards at the gate (likely to be civilian security guards) and any on duty MP's.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon wrote
I wrote - "Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!"
THAT is sarcasm.. and I might add, pretty non-subtle sarcasm.
and you are implying that if the US had not attacked Iraq they would not have tryed to attack the base?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
... A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.
I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.
Allow me to edumacate you on a couple of aspects about Military Bases in America.
For the most part, the majority of bases in the USA are constantly training our troops in one fashion or another. Save those training sessions requiring fire arms and live ammo, only a minority of our troops are actually armed at any given time.
First line of armed defense are Contract Guards/Police, with some Department of Defense Police.
Second line is Military Police.
Yes every base I ever was on, has an armory... Under tight lock and key. And on the opposite side of the base we have the Bunkers for ammunition.
Now you may ask, "WTF? Why is the USA using contractors for protection?" and I will simply answer "Political expediency, and budget cuts, plus a general malais in the American publics attitude towards funding of those that keep us safe, and allow us the freedoms we enjoy.
It costs far more to higher a contractor to cut the grass, paint the buildings, and maintain the plumbing than it ever did when you could detail troops to do the cutting and painting, and had a company of plumbers on hand that were at least as compitent as the over paid plumbers for hire. (pardon my typos)
{edit} Mav! Just saw your post aafter I had typo'd the above {/edit}
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Here speaks fishu, military genius with extensive hands on experience with the military. Just ask him or not, he'll tell you anyhow.
Hey genius, did you ever think that perhaps that "gun locker" (real term is ARMORY btw) would be locked and just might take a while to open. Did it ever occur to you that the ammo storage facility (otherwise commonly know as an ammo dump) might also be locked and not co located with the arms room? Quite often it is located some distance away from the main post facilities, something about safety considerations with explosives and other things that make loud noises when ignited you know. That is of course if it is a permanent part of the post where they keep a stock of things that go bang which few Guard bases do. It's ordered on an as needed basis.
That means the only ones with loaded weapons would be the guards at the gate (likely to be civilian security guards) and any on duty MP's.
i don't know how the army does it, but when i was in the Marines we kept our rifles in our barracks, unlocked, we also had ammo locked in the barracks and the person who had barracks duty had the key.
there was also one marine rifle company on 15 min alert, armed and ready to go with transportation waiting.
-
Gotta check with my Corp buddies to see if they still do that. How long ago since you got out John?
-
United States is actually involved in a world-wide war for an ideology that knows no borders and will be satisfied with nothing short of absolute hegemony.
;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
MT
You took the time to post in a thread about terrorism and really have nothing to add or detract from the real subject. Ok, so in other words. pretty much anyone should figure you don't have anything of substance to discuss in a thread of this nature and whatever you post should most likely be ignored as being of null content and thought. Check. I kinda figured that was the case.
Wrong again. I left a very succinct and well thought out message in this thread. The fact that you didn't understand it does not equate to it's absence. But I'm not surprised by this lack of understanding, and I will gladly accept your apology.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Ty, Flit-I completely overlooked that.
The clerk turned the video over in January of 2006. That's about a year and a half ago. Over a year before VT.
Why do you guys think they waited so long?
They waited as long as they possibly could without letting the attack actually HAPPEN-- else the press (and just watch, this is gonna happen ANYway) would have poo-poohed the whole thing "they were incompetent, wouldnt have hamred anyone ANYway.... the gang that couldnt shoot straight...") Remember the Miami thing? there was another..cant remember much of it... Reporting that people in the U.S. need to be worried about an actual attack does not suit the leftist-media mindset that the WOT is utter Bush BS designed to scare people into voting GOP
-
mt.. I am a little confused by your latest debate tactic of losing and then to cover... offering to accept the winners apology.. I have noticed you using this tactic several times lately.. what is the point of it? Is it something you learned from being a democrat?
lazs
-
Lose?
OK. I'll be even clearer for the challenged:
A comment was made in the 1st post that basically said people would forget the significance of the war in Iraq because this terrorist event was thwarted.
My sarcastic remark was basically saying that the war in Iraq has never had ANYTHING to do with the war on terror. Has never had ANYTHING to do with our security and has never achieved ANYTHING in terms of a more secure America or World for that matter.
Terrorist attacks are WAY up in 2006 in Iraq as compared to 2005. Terror cells are still active in the USA and we are expending resources in Iraq instead of here where they may do some good.
Osama bin Laden is still at large and we choose to send 10 times as many troops into a Country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 than into a place that actually makes sense in the war on terror.. Afghanistan.
So I repeat my succict and well thought out remark....
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
and I accept your apology.
-
MT, could you please clarify your position?.
I don't understand why attacking Iraq has helped here.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
MT, could you please clarify your position?.
I don't understand why attacking Iraq has helped here.
shamus
Ahem... that was one of his points. Attacking Iraq has had zero effect on the security of the United States.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
MT, could you please clarify your position?.
I don't understand why attacking Iraq has helped here.
shamus
LOL...
Sandman's sarcasm module is on the fritz.
-
Gurlz, puleeze let us have a little respect.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lose?
OK. I'll be even clearer for the challenged...
So I repeat my succict and well thought out remark....
Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!
and I accept your apology.
Pictrues are worth a bajiliion woids.
This is Mav on the war.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Maj_Spotter/tellusJon.jpg)
Here is MT's camp.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Maj_Spotter/ACLUjitcrunch.jpg)
This how I see the war
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Maj_Spotter/AmericaisNotatWar02-24-07.jpg)
*mostly joking... mostly*
-
Hehe... apparently so.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That means the only ones with loaded weapons would be the guards at the gate (likely to be civilian security guards) and any on duty MP's.
Someone crossing his fingers and hoping that nothing will happen doesn't make them any less soldiers though. They're far more legit targets than plain civilians.
-
Hello MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lose?
OK. I'll be even clearer for the challenged:
A comment was made in the 1st post that basically said people would forget the significance of the war in Iraq because this terrorist event was thwarted.
If I quibble with your interpretation here, I hope you'll forgive me as I was the author. I think you missed my original point. What I wrote was:
Had this come to pass, it might have been a reminder that the United States is actually involved in a world-wide war against an ideology that knows no borders and will be satisfied with nothing short of absolute hegemony.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...ortdixplot.html
As it is, the fact that it was detected means that it will be forgotten in one or two news cycles and we'll go back to believing that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan we'll all live happily ever after
The point was this; the success of law enforcement in thwarting attacks at home and the willingness of the media to submerge or ignore Jihadi attacks abroad outside of Iraq (Thailand, the Phillipines, Turkey, Idonesia, Sudan, etc.) means that many if not most Americans do not realize that they have an implacably opposed enemy who is at war with them and will not stop fighting them till they have surrendered, been killed, or have converted.
Because of this we can construct a scenario that says when we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be at peace with the Jihadists. If we accept defeat in those nations, the war will come to a close. This fails to grapple with the main point that, as you yourself put it, the War was never over Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter. If we just accept the Islamist disinformation, it is because there is an infidel presence in the Middle East (and they mean everywhere in the Dar-El-Islam, not just Iraq and Afghanistan), but as the Spaniards learned, meeting their demands and withdrawing from Iraq did not end the attacks, they actually accelerated after that. The problem was not Spain was in the Dar-El-Islam, the problem is that Spain is not yet part of the Dar-El-Islam (or actually part of it again, and this time for good.)
That's what I meant.
MT, you can feel free to interpret the attack on Iraq as good or bad, stupid or brilliant. Either way, leaving Iraq or staying in Iraq won't end the war.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Someone crossing his fingers and hoping that nothing will happen doesn't make them any less soldiers though. They're far more legit targets than plain civilians.
*doesn't know whether to laugh, or feel sorry for Fishu's ignorance*
Fishu, if this were a conventional war with an "honorable" army as the enemy, I might agree. It is an unconventional war, with radical Islamist insurgents that we are fighting. They know they can never hope to beat a disciplined army, so they attack targets of opportunity to maximize headlines, and their agenda... They prefer to hit the unarmed, *and in your case, unaware* civilian population for the terror aspect.
Tell me, is a country more likely to want to end a war if only its army is being killed, or are the citizens more likely to demand an end when they see their protectors cannot keep them safe?
What will get attention faster: A single attack on a military target? Or several simultaneous attacks on large concentrations of civilians at malls, schools, church?
These idiots won't quit until you are converted to Islam, or are dead. Period. And if you do convert, it will be so as a third class subject in their skewed world. No privileges, perks, or special interest group will save you other than yourself, and our military.
The minority groups are trying to do this through lawsuits and special interest lobbyists. Islamist radicals are doing it with guns and bombs.
-
Seagoon
MT, you can feel free to interpret the attack on Iraq as good or bad, stupid or brilliant. Either way, leaving Iraq or staying in Iraq won't end the war.
Never said it would. What I said was, we are squandering lives and resources in Iraq, and getting ZERO benefit towards our goal... which is what? To end terrorism?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon
Never said it would. What I said was, we are squandering lives and resources in Iraq, and getting ZERO benefit towards our goal... which is what? To end terrorism?
You are really a "Glass half empty" type... aren't you?
What would you tell the parents, and relatives of all those 'squandered' in Iraq?
-
perspective;, after the american civil war federal troops occupied the south for ten years, 1865 to 1875, it was called "Reconstruction".
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Someone crossing his fingers and hoping that nothing will happen doesn't make them any less soldiers though. They're far more legit targets than plain civilians.
So terrorism on American soil is legitimate to you. Thanks, that clarifies a few things.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So terrorism on American soil is legitimate to you. Thanks, that clarifies a few things.:rolleyes:
Well.. let's see... you're at war with the terrorist/freedom fighters in the middle east, at least they're making daily attacks against the US military on foreign soil. Why shouldn't they attack their enemy on a foreign soil if given the opportunity? Should they do it with an aircraft carrier before it'd be legit to any degree?
However, nowhere did I say I think it's completely legit what you're saying. I don't think it's legit to make terror attacks on the civilian population. My opinion is that if the terrorist, freedom fighters, resistance fighters.. whatever.. want to fight, then they should do it against the military and the leaders of the military, not the civilians. Otherwise they'd only hypocrits. I don't care where the military is located, because they've all signed up for the same job - to support their country militarily.
Is the USA at war? Yes. Are the military bases in the USA supporting the war? Yes. Are military targets legit in a war? Yes. There you go.
Otherwise, don't attack the terr... resist... free.. ah.. whatever training camps on a foreign soil. Remember that in the US - Iran war too - Don't attack the insufficiently defended iranian military bases! Oh, and be careful before blowing things up because there might be a civilian contractor working among the iranian soldiers (did I hear you say "collateral damage"?).
-
Originally posted by Odee
You are really a "Glass half empty" type... aren't you?
What would you tell the parents, and relatives of all those 'squandered' in Iraq?
:aok
Was the kool-aide good?
I'd tell them thank you for serving your Country..
-
I get two things out of the plot..
One, that world wide muslim islamofacists have all they can do just to kill a few civilians in one little country far away.. and that is a good thing. it was gonna have to happen soon enough in any case.
The second thing I see is that most of the homeland security crap is just that.. we have plenty of federal and local police already to follow up on a lead by a store clerk...
Or.. maybe we should pay store clerks $100k a year and fire some government cops?
I think that homeland security is a bad thing.. both the democrats and the republicans like it tho... they can use it to grow the government and to harrass their enemies.
lazs