BF2S Forums terror in Jersy.alllllllllllllllllllmost!!!

lowing wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

This whole argument is absurd.  Saying that the Patriot Act alone is deferring terrorist plots/actions is like saying that the shoes I wear repel tigers.  I don't see any tigers around here, so it must be true.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) no one will ever know what would've happened had these terrorists succeeded in their plot to do whatever it was they wanted to do.  We also don't know if they would or would not have been caught if the Patriot Act had not been put in place.

If you want to be technical about it, it's never the president's fault if the US gets attacked on its home soil.  Do you really think the president has any information about potential terrorists in the US?  The Department of Defense and Homeland Security deal with those issues directly, not the president.  Blaming Bush or Clinton or whomever you shift the blame to is not only incorrect, but it's ignorant.  If you're looking for someone at whom to point a finger, look no further than the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh, and before anyone points it out, I'm well aware that Homeland Security was created in response to 9-11 and that those attacks cannot be attributed to them.

Sorry, this whole post makes no sense to me.

You can't say that there were no "tigers around here" because, there were, we caught them ( hence this thread). So to say you can't tell if our president's actions has any effect is saying, the only way to tell if his actions are effective is to have something blown up, then of course, we can sit back and call him a failure. the fact that these plots and other like them have been foiled IS the proof that something good and positive has come from Bush's actions. It is like saying, you can't tell if the paint sealer on your car is working because the paint isn't fading.

There is a Department of Homeland Security to deal with these issues since it was created  after 911, (Bush created it). So yet another positive example, that you just really acknowledged, of another thing that has come about due to the actions of this administration.

Um, you just proved my point.  Although I wasn't talking about tigers in a metaphorical sense, I meant actual four-legged, striped, orange and black tigers.  Just because I say my shoes repel tigers doesn't mean they actually do that, despite there being no tigers around me.  The same goes for the Patriot Act.  We say it deters (and catches/stops terrorists), but you cannot be 100% sure if it's actually the Patriot Act that is doing the deterring.  It's not like you can ask the people who were caught "So, was it the Patriot Act that allowed us to catch you?"

As for the other parts that you said didn't make sense to you, I really don't feel like wording them any differently.  It seems as though every other post in this thread is meant to be offensive toward a person and his beliefs.  I see where you're coming from...and I see where everyone else is coming from.  All I'm saying is that you'll never know if those people would've been caught had the Patriot Act not been imposed.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

I always say this because it is always true. You read my post, you know exactly the point I was making. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge or respond to anyone's posts based on the context of it, and what the writer was saying. You will dissect it and piece it out to draw a counter argument that is completely out of line with what was written and spend the next 15 post trying to maneuver that person into saying something YOU want them to say.

You know my post had merit along with all the other people's post you do this shit to. You can not stand toe to toe with someone's argument, you must mold it into something you can work with. I am pretty much sick of it. You respond to my posts directly and take them for face value and stop trying to manipulate them or I will simply give you the same response as above. If you wanna think that it because you have won the debate, so be it.

It is impossible for me to take it out of context, as it was directly after yours.  I didn't quote you, and therefore couldn't have melded your argument.  My point was that they typically do much worse than sit in on congregations.  Given that you're response is this, however, I've re-read it.  Was the point you were trying to make that you should question white males if they were Klan costumes and sit in on black congregations?

Now, ya get it bubbalo.......Yes, they did much worse than that, but to do worse you gotta have a plan and to make a plan you gotta build intelligence to build intelligence you gotta do some surveillance of your target. To question people that fit a suspicious mold is prudent given the times we live in now. It was an analogy started by one of you that I responded to.

ThomasMorgan wrote:

lowing wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

This whole argument is absurd.  Saying that the Patriot Act alone is deferring terrorist plots/actions is like saying that the shoes I wear repel tigers.  I don't see any tigers around here, so it must be true.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) no one will ever know what would've happened had these terrorists succeeded in their plot to do whatever it was they wanted to do.  We also don't know if they would or would not have been caught if the Patriot Act had not been put in place.

If you want to be technical about it, it's never the president's fault if the US gets attacked on its home soil.  Do you really think the president has any information about potential terrorists in the US?  The Department of Defense and Homeland Security deal with those issues directly, not the president.  Blaming Bush or Clinton or whomever you shift the blame to is not only incorrect, but it's ignorant.  If you're looking for someone at whom to point a finger, look no further than the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh, and before anyone points it out, I'm well aware that Homeland Security was created in response to 9-11 and that those attacks cannot be attributed to them.

Sorry, this whole post makes no sense to me.

You can't say that there were no "tigers around here" because, there were, we caught them ( hence this thread). So to say you can't tell if our president's actions has any effect is saying, the only way to tell if his actions are effective is to have something blown up, then of course, we can sit back and call him a failure. the fact that these plots and other like them have been foiled IS the proof that something good and positive has come from Bush's actions. It is like saying, you can't tell if the paint sealer on your car is working because the paint isn't fading.

There is a Department of Homeland Security to deal with these issues since it was created  after 911, (Bush created it). So yet another positive example, that you just really acknowledged, of another thing that has come about due to the actions of this administration.

Um, you just proved my point.  Although I wasn't talking about tigers in a metaphorical sense, I meant actual four-legged, striped, orange and black tigers.  Just because I say my shoes repel tigers doesn't mean they actually do that, despite there being no tigers around me.  The same goes for the Patriot Act.  We say it deters (and catches/stops terrorists), but you cannot be 100% sure if it's actually the Patriot Act that is doing the deterring.  It's not like you can ask the people who were caught "So, was it the Patriot Act that allowed us to catch you?"

As for the other parts that you said didn't make sense to you, I really don't feel like wording them any differently.  It seems as though every other post in this thread is meant to be offensive toward a person and his beliefs.  I see where you're coming from...and I see where everyone else is coming from.  All I'm saying is that you'll never know if those people would've been caught had the Patriot Act not been imposed.

I know what you meant by the"tigers".


Did you read the link that started this thread??.......WE DID CATCH terrorists 3 of them and ID'ed the other 5, and this ain't the first time a plot was foiled. Why is it so hard to admit that something positive has come from Bush's actions??

Bubbalo wrote:

OK, sure.  But investigating someone for wearing KKK clothes in a relevant context (black church) is different to treating all Arabs with suspicion.

Also, sorry for the mistake.

I see no problem with patting down EVERY single Arab that boards a US flight while letting the 80 year old grandmother pass through the security screening gate. Like I said, it is the times of which we live. I don't really care about offending anyone at this point. I care about the safety of our country.

I will concede your inevitable point that some of these Arabs are also US citizens as well, and to treat these folks differently goes against the grain. I have no solutions to offer that point. All I can say is security and safety first. We can worry about everyone's hurt feelings later.

Last edited by lowing (2006-07-08 05:26:42)

lowing:  Why not pat everyone down?

kr@cker: Sure, but having said that, you wouldn't treat whites with extra suspicion.  You'd investigate normally, and raise an eyebrow if it looked like a black

Also, whilst KKK is anti-white, many international terrorist organisations characterise themselves as pro-Muslim, meaning that there can be white members (indeed, they tend to grab them wherever they can, because they tend to look less suspicious).

What about white people not dressed in Arab garb?

If you think RACIAL PROFILING will keep us safe, take this test. (LOWING especially)

     In 1986, who attempted to smuggle three pounds of explosives onto an El Al jetliner bound from London to Tel Aviv?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michael Smerconish
    c. Bob Mould
    d. A pregnant Irishwoman named Anne Murphy

    In 1962, in the first-ever successful sabotage of a commercial jet, a Continental Airlines 707 was blown up with dynamite over Missouri by:
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Ann Coulter
    c. Henry Rollins
    d. Thomas Doty, a 34-year-old American passenger, as part of an insurance scam

    In 1994, who nearly succeeding in skyjacking a DC-10 and crashing it into the Federal Express Corp. headquarters?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michelle Malkin
    c. Charlie Rose
    d. Auburn Calloway, an off-duty FedEx employee and resident of Memphis, Tenn.

    In 1974, who stormed a Delta Air Lines DC-9 at Baltimore-Washington Airport, intending to crash it into the White House, and shot both pilots?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Joe Scarborough
    c. Spalding Gray
    d. Samuel Byck, an unemployed tire salesman from Philadelphia







(The answers are all D)

Here's a link for you. http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/200 … index.html

Last edited by Anfidurl (2006-07-08 06:10:55)

Anfidurl wrote:

If you think RACIAL PROFILING will keep us safe, take this test. (LOWING especially)

     In 1986, who attempted to smuggle three pounds of explosives onto an El Al jetliner bound from London to Tel Aviv?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michael Smerconish
    c. Bob Mould
    d. A pregnant Irishwoman named Anne Murphy

    In 1962, in the first-ever successful sabotage of a commercial jet, a Continental Airlines 707 was blown up with dynamite over Missouri by:
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Ann Coulter
    c. Henry Rollins
    d. Thomas Doty, a 34-year-old American passenger, as part of an insurance scam

    In 1994, who nearly succeeding in skyjacking a DC-10 and crashing it into the Federal Express Corp. headquarters?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michelle Malkin
    c. Charlie Rose
    d. Auburn Calloway, an off-duty FedEx employee and resident of Memphis, Tenn.

    In 1974, who stormed a Delta Air Lines DC-9 at Baltimore-Washington Airport, intending to crash it into the White House, and shot both pilots?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Joe Scarborough
    c. Spalding Gray
    d. Samuel Byck, an unemployed tire salesman from Philadelphia







(The answers are all D)

Here's a link for you. http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/200 … index.html

you make a valid point, however, these incidences are isolated accounts, we were not at war with these people, these folks are singular extremists. On the other hand we are in a world war with an enemy that is actively trying to destroy us at every turn. Can we prevent ALL harm from coming to our people? I doubt it.  Can we prevent all sucker punches like the ones in your example? Not really, no we can't.

  I, however,  must applaud and support the effort to do so.

+ 1 for a great argument.

Last edited by lowing (2006-07-08 06:19:46)

I will one day do both Ann Coulter and Michell Malkin, at the same time, sideways, with marmite.


Oh, 2 things bubbalo, I'll get you some pics when I go through hartsfield in a few weeks, so you can see how ridiculous it would be to pat search everyone, and the Klan was originally started as a "state's rights" activist group after the civil war, but was since perverted into a white supremacist's group, sorry if I confused you, I was drunk.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-08 06:45:07)

But it wouldn't take that long to do a pat search, particularly if you hired more people.

kr@cker wrote:

their rights were violated by being spy no teh interwebs.


R U $4 seckses butt?

$4 dollar buttsekz r us

I just wanted to point out that countless terrorist attacks were prevented prior to the PATRIOT act. Really the only difference between now and then is that 9/11 got our attention whereas a few embassy bombings in other countries and a semi-failed attempt at blowing up the WTC didn't.

And militant Islamicism didn't start in the '90s. The Middle East has been hot for quite some time (and I do place a large part of the blame on Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and later the US).

Environment is the largest influence on someone's behavior. Not 100%, it's true, but it's a huge factor. Undeniably so.