Americans need constant reminders that we are in a war on terror...
I have not had a chance to read all these stories yet, not sure if it is known how they found out about the plot...but for those of you crying when the govt listens to terrorists on the phone or wants to track terrorist bank records so they don't have the money to blow up 10 planes at a time, just shut your mouths and worry about the things that matter to you most like global warming, welfare and gay marriage. Let the adults worry about keeping us alive.
Related links:
Plan to blow up 6-10 planes in mid-flight over ocean...
'Mass murder' bomb plot...
May have been 'the Big One'...
'Suggestive' of al-Qaida...
UK police hold 21...
REPORT: Citizens of Pakistani Descent...
Britain on highest alert...
USA raises air security alert to red for first time...
Statement by Homeland Security...
Text: Chertoff's Statement...
FLASHBACK MONDAY: London-to-Boston flight returns to Heathrow because of security issue
Britain facing 'most sustained threat since WWII'...
Prime Minister Tony Blair, vacationing in Caribbean...
Thursday, August 10, 2006
'Airlines terror plot' disrupted
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Democrats are not capable of fighting in the war on terror...period. They come on here and say that Bush makes everyone hate us...and that is why they can not be allowed into places of power...they don't understand the world or the people trying to kill us...
The Right can't say they "understand" terrorist, and they don't claim to, they just want them stopped and either jailed or killed...
I'm sure GB did something that the ACLU or other PC pukes would not like...well, I would rather be alive then let the PC liberals win and allow 10 planes to be blown up.
Jason, you must be on drugs.
Game, you must be on drugs.
You can bet that this plot WAS NOT stopped by our military being in Iraq. In fact, can you imagine how much stronger our investigative and security effort could be if we weren't spending a quarter of a trillion dollars securing Bagdhad.
If a dem like Clinton was in office we would be cutting our intel agencies, so no, the war in Iraq is not hurting anything besides the terrorists
Jim shows how weak he is on this issue again
This has nothing to do with Clinton, game. Bush is hurting the war on terror by tying up resources in Iraq. Again, it has nothing to do with Clinton.
Jason wrote, parodying liberal thought:
If only we could get rid of Lieberman, Bush, and Blair-- then they would leave us alone!
This is just not at all what we think. I suppose it's presumptuous of me to speak for all of us on the left, but your statement here, I think, is telling and indicates how you consistently either deliberately misrepresent liberal ideals or inadvertantly reveal your own ignorance.
Jim starts to get at the problem in his comment, but I'll lay it out for you as clearly as I can. I wanted Liberman to lose--and I want Bush out of office--not because I want the terrorists to win, but because I want us to win.
Prosecuting the war in Iraq has not made us safer. Abandoning the search for Osama bin Laden has not made us safer. Firing military intelligence personnel who speak fluent Arabic for being gay has not made us safer. Extraordinary rendtition has not made us safer. A new policy of torture has not made us safer. Making the Homeland Security budget into a pork barrel (no landmark targets in NYC?!?) has not made us safer. Ignoring human intelligence in favor of (legally questionable and dubiously valuable) signals intelligence has not made us safer. Ignoring port security has not made us safer.
Shall I go on? This is how Republicans have treated our national security in the September 12th world. They puff up real big and talk a big talk about fighting 'em over there, but every terror attack--executed or foiled--in the West belies the notion that we don't need to fight them over here, that, in fact, 150,000 troops would be better deployed in our nation's ports and airports than in the deserts of a country that never attacked us or our allies.
Democrats (and Republicans who haven't drunk the Kool Aid) have offered alternative plan after alternative plan for fighting actual terrorists. This includes Clinton's National Security team, who told Condi Rice during the transition that her biggest challenge would be OBL, advice she didn't believe. This includes Gary Hart and Warren Rudman who handed over a report in February 2001 that said Islamic terrorists would be the major threat--a report ignored for seven months by Dick Cheney, who had to have his own commission to study terror, which had not even had a single meeting by the morning of 9/11. This includes the 9/11 Commission, who has seen its report unacted on by a Republican Congress and Bush.
It pisses me off to no end when your side equates my opposition to failed Republican policies as support for terrorism.
Jay, EXACTLY. Word!
failed policies?
How many terror attacks have happened in the US since 9-11?
How many have been foiled...
all because conservatives are trying to take down all the red tape and crap that liberals put up between intel agencies for 8 years.
You don't have to like the truth, but the facts are the facts...no terror here...the only battle has been fighting off liberals who try and help terrorists by stopping the very programs that we use to stop what was going to happen August 16th
Game, there were eight years betwen the al-Qaida terror attacks on the WTCs, in 1993 and 2001. To say that a five year drought on US soil is proof something is working is a bit specious--like Lisa Simpson's anti-tiger rock (scroll down to "Ah, not a bear in sight").
Besides, the UK plot was foiled by good old-fashioned police work, a tip from Britain's Muslim community, and cooperation with overseas agencies--things which Democrats support wholeheartedly. The administration's absurd data-gathering project--in effect, creating the world's most expensive haystack--is an example of abuse of power, not smart terror fighting.
In fact, not a single (announced) foiled plot has been foiled by unwarranted wiretaps or that kind of data collection. And, I feel (as usual) that I need to remind you that Democrats and liberals are not opposed to legal eavesdropping! (You may have to view an ad first to read that link.)
Barbara O'Brien is less polite than I am, but makes better points. Read it, please.
Jay--
There has been a global, grassroots movement over the last 25 years for Islamic-inspired fascism. They aren't rabid -- they're inspired by intellectuals like Sayyid Qutb and know *exactly* what they're doing.
This is not a matter of arresting a tiny number of ignorant, impovershed malcontents.
One, we need to support liberal democracies abroad where we can and friendly dictators where we cannot.
Secondly, when the Islamofascist movement does take over a government, like Iran in 1979, they must not be permitted to go nuclear under any circumstances. Iran's leader openly says he is preparing for the Apocalypse and has repeatedly promised to wipe at least one U.N. member off the map.
Third, retreat comes with a cost. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat problem, but an American problem. Reagan cut'and'ran in Lebanon after the Hezb'Allah killed 241 American peacekeepers sleeping in their barracks. Clinton withdrew form Somalia after Mohammed Farrah Aidid killed a few American soldiers. The islamofascist movement will be delirous with victory if they can get the Great Satan to withdraw from Iraq, and will move their operations to Europe and North America knowing the infidel is weak and has no stomach for battle.
I agree we can do more to secure this country domestically. Those who want to exclusively focus on domestic issues do so because looking at this globally will mean reexamining thoughts about Iraq, multiculturalism, Bush, Blair, Lieberman, Israel, and other political commitments. A Democrat until recently, I've gone through the same painful process myself.
I'm sure you're a good guy and I mean nothing personal by this. However, you guys may be running the country in the near future and it is critical that the root causes of our situation be understood for the sake of the Republic.
Jason said:
The islamofascist movement will be delirous with victory if they can get the Great Satan to withdraw from Iraq.
Are you kidding? The so-called "islamofascist movement" is delerious with joy over the US occupation of Iraq. We are recruiting more killers than Bin Laden could have hoped for in his wildest wet dream. He's LOVING this stuff. Why do you think he helped Bush win in 2004 by releasing a video days before the election? If the US leaves Iraq, the Iraqis will have no one to kill but themselves. Why would the "islamofascist movement" want that?
Are you kidding? Or just on drugs?
Jim, I've never taken illegal drugs in my entire life.
If you think Islamofascists want a democracy in Iraq, you're mistaken. If they defeat the Great Satan in Iraq, we'd not only be giving Iran a free hand, we'd be giving terror groups a base of operations for violence directed at Europe and North America. Plus the extremists will kill everyone in Iraq Rhmer Rouge style.
But according to the left, we're the problem, and once we leave, everything will get better, not worse. This is wishful thinking of the worst kind.
You guys still don't get it.
jim doesn't have a clue as usual. He doesn't understand human nature as most liberals do not, and he is showing how he is all emotional by using the drug comment because I used it once on him
game, you used that I don't know how many times on everyone who doesn't think as you do, or agree with you.
I don't think that anyone is claiming that everything will be better once we leave; I think they are claiming that once we leave someone else's country, that at least that country will appreciate the U.S. not butting in on their business any more. None of those countries are ours; let them settle their own b.s. pls. There's more than enough to deal with on american soil itself -- plenty to do right here in the U.S.
I don't care if those people over there think that blowing each other up is great and good and wonderful or not. I care only what they do to the U.S. itself. Just stop them & keep them from coming in the U.S., and I'm happy. That's all. No more is necessary. Secure the U.S. borders. To hell with everyone else's.
Yeah, the drugs comment is pretty annoying isn't it. Which is the point. I guess it make you "mad" and emotional", huh Game?
Jason said:
If you think Islamofascists want a democracy in Iraq, you're mistaken.
Who the HELL ever said that? Why do you "debate" by attempting to put rediculous words in my mouth?
If they defeat the Great Satan in Iraq, we'd not only be giving Iran a free hand, we'd be giving terror groups a base of operations for violence [emphasis added] directed at Europe and North America.
What makes Iraq a potential "base of operations" that Iran and Syria isn't? This is a non-sensical idea.
Plus the extremists will kill everyone in Iraq Rhmer Rouge style.
You may not be aware of this, but the conflict in Iraq is primarily between Shiites and Sunnis and not extremists intent on killing everyone. Kind of like, you know, civil war.
But according to the left, we're the problem, and once we leave, everything will get better, not worse. This is wishful thinking of the worst kind.
Nobody on the left suggests that Iraq will get better once we leave. This is another false assertion. What will happen when we leave is that no more US soldiers will be killed and maimed and no more US billions will be wasted there. The Iraq civil war, the feared chaos and killing is already happening now. Have you seen the numbers of Iraqis killed in the last 3 months?
You can say, "You guys still don't get it." all you want, but the fact is that we do get it and we think there is a much smarter and more effective way of fighting those who use terror tactics.
Here is a typical Right from the Right post:
Game: The media is liberal and hates Bush because, uh, because NewsMax says so.
Jim: The facts show otherwise.
Game: Jim's on drugs.
Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.
Jason said:
If you think Islamofascists want a democracy in Iraq, you're mistaken.
I could give a crap if Iraq has a democracy or not. It's not up to the U.S. to force that on Iraq or anyone else. It's their business what kind of government they have, and how they treat their people, whether we like it or not.
If they defeat the Great Satan in Iraq, we'd not only be giving Iran a free hand, we'd be giving terror groups a base of operations for violence [emphasis added] directed at Europe and North America.
And you base the Europe and North America statement on ... ???
And I should care if Europe gets blown away, why? That's Europe's continent, and they have leaders who can defend themselves if need be. I should care if over there, they have a base of operations to "get the U.S. with", why, when the U.S. right now can't even nail a murder or rapist, much less defend its own borders right here???
My point again, is that the U.S. needs to take care of itself, it's own borders, before it goes anywhere else.
Is this not what Homeland Security is for??? Or am I dumping in $$$ upon $$$ of taxes for it to sit on its ass and do everything but what it should???
Jason, satire and sacasm are all that's left. You and Game refuse to look at any other idea or opinion on how things should or could be done. Then you make up your cartoon liberal investing them with qualities that exist only in your mind.
Game, that red tape you are talking about is known by many as the U.S. Constitution. If you want to destroy it be man enough to say so otherwise it is worth another look my friend.
Jason said...
Plus the extremists will kill everyone in Iraq Rhmer Rouge style.
Yeah, like the U.S. isn't killing everyone over there. lol.
Post a Comment