The First Red Alert of the Season
The Bush administration's skills at manipulating the public are unsurpassed. Their virtuosity outstrips anything that has ever been seen, ever. I suppose it comes from Karl Rove -- they know how to turn public opinion off and on like throwing a light switch.
The ultimate example, in my mind, is the "terror alert." This color-coded scheme serves no function but to control the level of public anxiety. When the public is anxious, of course, they are more likely to cling to authority, to follow directions and keep their mouths shut, they will be hesitant to make changes -- all things that make life easier for the administration. But you can't keep them on pins and needles forever; sometimes you have to let them catch their breath, if only to make the next panic attack more effective. There needed to be a method for turning the emotional temperature down as well as up.
Really, you don't think there is any other reason to announce the "terror threat level," do you? What are people supposed to do -- pay more attention? Yeah, sure, to what? It is cognitively impossible to pay more attention, the concept is meaningless.
Never mind that the chances that Joe Blow is going to catch a terrorist, that the one correct suspicion is going to stand out from a gazillion false alarms, is ... zip.
The real message, if anyone was paying attention, is that the many agencies responsible for protecting our security are incompetent; they know there are bad guys but don't have any more idea than the average citizen as to where the bad guys are. Or who they are. The reaction is that the citizen walks around in a cloud of mistrust, eyeing his neighbors, people on the street, strangers across the aisle on a train, as dangerous threats. The result is anxiety only, with no increase in security.
And it works. You could almost hear the diabolical laughter coming from the White House before the 2004 elections, when public opinion went up and down as the administration wished, simply at the announcement of a new "threat level." The terror alert raised propaganda to a new level.
You might not have noticed that the terror alerts stopped abruptly after the last elections. Just stopped cold. You didn't see them on TV, hear about them on the radio, read about them in the newspaper. Nobody talked about them, we just lived without them.
Until now.
Well, there is another election coming.
And you saw what happened in Connecticut. It appears that the American voter may be getting a little hard to control. This week they insisted on electing the wrong guy as the Democratic nominee. (HERE is the NYT reporting that Dick Cheney said Lieberman's loss "might encourage 'al Qaeda types.'")
Something had to be done.
OK, America, here's the question: just how gullible are you?
The ultimate example, in my mind, is the "terror alert." This color-coded scheme serves no function but to control the level of public anxiety. When the public is anxious, of course, they are more likely to cling to authority, to follow directions and keep their mouths shut, they will be hesitant to make changes -- all things that make life easier for the administration. But you can't keep them on pins and needles forever; sometimes you have to let them catch their breath, if only to make the next panic attack more effective. There needed to be a method for turning the emotional temperature down as well as up.
Really, you don't think there is any other reason to announce the "terror threat level," do you? What are people supposed to do -- pay more attention? Yeah, sure, to what? It is cognitively impossible to pay more attention, the concept is meaningless.
Never mind that the chances that Joe Blow is going to catch a terrorist, that the one correct suspicion is going to stand out from a gazillion false alarms, is ... zip.
The real message, if anyone was paying attention, is that the many agencies responsible for protecting our security are incompetent; they know there are bad guys but don't have any more idea than the average citizen as to where the bad guys are. Or who they are. The reaction is that the citizen walks around in a cloud of mistrust, eyeing his neighbors, people on the street, strangers across the aisle on a train, as dangerous threats. The result is anxiety only, with no increase in security.
And it works. You could almost hear the diabolical laughter coming from the White House before the 2004 elections, when public opinion went up and down as the administration wished, simply at the announcement of a new "threat level." The terror alert raised propaganda to a new level.
You might not have noticed that the terror alerts stopped abruptly after the last elections. Just stopped cold. You didn't see them on TV, hear about them on the radio, read about them in the newspaper. Nobody talked about them, we just lived without them.
Until now.
Well, there is another election coming.
And you saw what happened in Connecticut. It appears that the American voter may be getting a little hard to control. This week they insisted on electing the wrong guy as the Democratic nominee. (HERE is the NYT reporting that Dick Cheney said Lieberman's loss "might encourage 'al Qaeda types.'")
Something had to be done.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government raised its threat warning to the highest level for commercial flights from Britain to the United States early Thursday in response to a terror plot disrupted in London. Terrorists had targeted United, American and Continental airlines, two U.S. counterterrorism officials said.
In addition to the highest alert for flights from Britain, the alert for all flights coming or going from the United States was also raised slightly. The government banned beverages, hair gels and lotions from flights, explaining only that liquids emerged as a risk from the investigation in Britain.
...
It is the first time the red alert level in the Homeland Security warning system has been invoked, although there have been brief periods in the past when the orange level was applied. Homeland Security defines the red alert as designating a "severe risk of terrorist attacks."
OK, America, here's the question: just how gullible are you?
29 Comments:
"The Bush administration's skills at manipulating the public are unsurpassed."
Well, don't feel bad, Jim. We all know you try hard.
"Their virtuosity outstrips anything that has ever been seen, ever. I suppose it comes from Karl Rove -- they know how to turn public opinion off and on like throwing a light switch."
Really? I thought you said Republicans are down in the polls. Could you get your screwed-up story straight? Truth is that Karl Rove's only genius is in capturing the pulse of the nation and backing the right horse. He's not manipulating anybody.
"OK, America, here's the question: just how gullible are you?"
Not gullible enough to believe that fictional scenario you just rattled off. You see, we all live here and know that your fantasy is not true.
Jim what do you want me to tell you you are the one telling us how smart you are. and how dum the Republicans are. If we are as gullible as you think why don't we buy the crap you spew.
Wow, I read an entry like this and then I read Jim incessantly it would seem claiming that he is not the poltical sort...does not (or at least in the past has not thought about politics - at least until us crazy NeoCon-TheoCons took over this country) give it much thought.
So, Jim, would you have preferred that public officials NOT do anything? From your entry it would appear to a reasonable person that that is the upshot.
It appears that for those drinking from the bitter well of the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party it will take more than a foiled plot to awaken them. And that is a pity really...
Orin
First ... political? Where's that? Show me where I endorse a party or candidate. I would find it very interesting if you were saying that to oppose lies and machiavellian manipulation of the public was a political act. Like, which party is it that believes in telling the truth? Do you see what you've said? It's political, in this day and age, to have morals. It makes you a Democrat, if I'm understanding your comment correctly. And that is sad.
As for the idea that this is better than nothing. That's absurd. A government should protect the people,, not try to stir them up into a frenzy.
For comparison, look at the way the Oklahoma City bombings were handled, compared to 9/11, or even compared to this, where suddenly you can't bring shampoo on an aiprlane and the security lines wrap around the airport. When OK City was bombed, our government could have totally panicked and made the population live in fear of rightwing militias, which are in fact a greater threat to us here in the US than Islamic terrorists. But guess what -- they didn't. Instead, the government quietly conducted an investigation,, found the guy that did it, and executed him.
Looking at what you said again, it is unbelievable that you think it's better to run around with your head cut off than to take care of business professionally and calmly.
Finally ... what does McGovern have to do with it?
JimK
jimK Said...
political? Where's that? Show me where I endorse a party or candidate. I would find it very interesting if you were saying that to oppose lies and machiavellian manipulation of the public was a political act. Like, which party is it that believes in telling the truth? Do you see what you've said? It's political, in this day and age, to have morals. It makes you a Democrat,
Jim can you make it through a paragraph with out contradicting yourself?
now deal with this
Lieberman concedes primary, still running
By UPI Staff
United Press International
August 9, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman conceded the Democratic nomination in Connecticut Tuesday to Ned Lamont, a cable entrepreneur who was an unknown a few months ago.
With most of the votes in, Lieberman continued to run about 4 points behind Lamont, The New York Times reported.
But Lieberman told a cheering crowd that he plans to remain in the Senate. He has filed to run as an independent in November.
The primary had turned into a referendum on the war in Iraq, with Lamont portraying Lieberman as a staunch supporter of President Bush. But polls showed the race tightening as the primary approached.
Lieberman appears to have a good shot at winning the second round. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed him winning a three-way race with just over half the vote.
Lamont, 52, a cable television entrepreneur descended from Morgan partner and philanthropist Thomas Lamont, shrugged off poll numbers in his challenge of the three-term, 64-year-old Lieberman, predicting his own victory, the Times reported.
"On Aug. 9 we're going to have a lot of new best friends," Lamont said.
The contest turned nasty in its final hours. When Lieberman's Web site went down, his staff accused Lamont's supporters of sabotage while Lamont's staffers suggested Lieberman had forgotten to pay the bill, the Times said.
Sounds like a pretty elaborate fabrication by Karl Rove today. Man, did he go to a lot of trouble! 24 people arrested for attempting to blow up nine planes. I wonder how Karl will make them confess. I wonder he how got the British government to go along with his secret nefarious plot to re-elect Republicans.
I wonder if anyone actually takes TTF seriously.
anon said, I wonder if anyone actually takes TTF seriously
Well you do apparently to spend so much time on this blog.
Gracie
"Well you do apparently to spend so much time on this blog.
Gracie"
Yes, Kay. Even entertainment can be overdone.
Jim writes,
First ... political? Where's that? Show me where I endorse a party or candidate.
Jim...don't be coy..."a party or a candidate"? First off, I did not say that...what I did say is that for someone that likes to come across as a reluctant partisan in the "culture wars" as regards sexuality health curriculum, you have a good many interests (expressed in the entries of this blog).
Others that read this might be interested to know that for July 2006 you made41 blog entries. On 13 days you made two blog entries for a single day, and on one day, 7/31, you made three entries. I wondered how all these entries would sort themselves out, so I decided to sort them into three basic categories. The three categories are SEX ED, POLITICS and MISC. An entry like "Good People II" I assigned to MISC. The entry "School Board Candidates are Posted" was assigned to SEX ED. And entries like "GAO Rips the War" was assigned to POLITICS. Now, I will admit that this is a subjective designation, but wherever possible the benefit of the doubt was given and the entry was designated to either SEX ED or MISC, and not to POLITICS since we all know that Jim is not into partisan politics...corect?
The results? (Drum roll, please...)...
The First category, SEX ED, represented approx. 15 entries. The Third category, MISC., represented approx. 9 entries. And finally, the Second category, POLITICS represented 17 entries - the most over all. Now I know there will be a hue and cry from the cheese and wine (or is that whine? - oh, heck, I like beer better...beer, chips and salsa), but be assured that I tried at every opportunity to sort the entries into either SEX ED or MISC. because I want to take Teach the Facts at its word, i.e. that they are only about the "facts".
Iwould find it very interesting if you were saying that to oppose lies and machiavellian manipulation of the public was a political act. Like, which party is it that believes in telling the truth?
To be perfectly honest, I am not sure that either major political party is into telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (Bush, unlike Clinton, is not a convicted perjurer...keeping in mind that perjury is not simply telling a lie about sex...no, no, no, it is about much more...perjury is about telling a lie while under oath to tell the truth in a judicial proceeding, in a very real sense it is an attempt at obstruction of justice), though neither party is under any kind of oath...I guess you might call it caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Do you see what you've said? It's political, in this day and age, to have morals. It makes you a Democrat, if I'm understanding your comment correctly. And that is sad.
You and Carter then are not all that much different...
Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.
"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'
"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "
(Hat tip: http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A57592)
Now there are many words that come to mind to describe former Pres. Carter's words...smug, arrogant, preening, etc., but I guess the word I would use first would be presumptuous.
As for the idea that this is better than nothing. That's absurd. A government should protect the people,, not try to stir them up into a frenzy.
Ok, it is absurd...I'll keep that in mind the next time you argue that democratic governments ought to operate in a way that is transparent to their citizens. Thanks.
For comparison, look at the way the Oklahoma City bombings were handled, compared to 9/11, or even compared to this, where suddenly you can't bring shampoo on an aiprlane and the security lines wrap around the airport.
Comparing Oklahoma City with 9/11??? Talk about a classic case of apples and oranges...goodness. First off, what McVeigh and Nichols did was a criminal act; what happened on 9/11 was an Act of War done by foreign nationals. Then there are all those other "minor details" that clearly differentiate Oklahoma City from 9/11...
When OK City was bombed, our government could have totally panicked and made the population live in fear of rightwing militias, which are in fact a greater threat to us here in the US than Islamic terrorists.
It was within 24 to 48 hours that McVeigh was apprehended and the extent of the conspiracy was pretty much disclosed. There was no need to panic...as to the relative threats of right wing militias versus islamists? Stunning...talk about being disconnected from reality. Time to read something other then The Nation, Mother Jones and In These Times...
But guess what -- they didn't. Instead, the government quietly conducted an investigation,, found the guy that did it, and executed him.
Again...9/11 = act of war...Oklahoma City = criminal act. Notice any difference? (No, never mind...I suspect I will not get an answer to that question.)
Looking at what you said again, it is unbelievable that you think it's better to run around with your head cut off than to take care of business professionally and calmly.
Ever heard of erring on the side of caution? Isn't that what condoms are all about afterall?
I agree...initially there is an over reaction to the perception of threat. Goodness, I use to be able to carry my Micra Leatherman tool on my key chain; now it stays ay home whenever I travel. I resent those that have made such security measures common place now...so, what you are telling me is that if we all vote for a "regime" change and vote for whoever is the Democratic candidate two years hence, I will get to carry my small utility tool again?
Finally ... what does McGovern have to do with it?
This is from the entry in Wikipedia on George McGovern:
McGovern's importance in U.S. politics diminished over time, but his legacy endures as a symbol of the political left during the turbulent 1960s.
And here is the entry for SDS, yes, the New Left group called the Students for a Democratic Society,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society
Jim, you are a intelligent fellow...McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party, the SDS, and its contemporary mutation, the "Angry Left" best represented by MoveOn.org...connect the "dots".
Orin
How flattering that you would count and categorize my blog posts. Your categorization of some as "political" though is entirely subjective on your part. Just because it mentions a politician? No, those are our nation's leaders, they represent the thinking of the people, they express philosophies themselves. I don't express opinions about anybody running for office, I don't support a party. The fact that I care that people behave responsibly, and that I criticize our leaders when they don't, does not make me "political."
The fact that the current crop of criminals in charge are Republicans doesn't affect whether I criticize them or not. It is not as if I am here to campaign for the other party -- if they were in power and they acted like this I'd be criticizing them instead.
The same interesting criticism holds for your separation of some terrorist acts into criminal behavior and some into acts of war. The distinction is purely artificial. For instance, I haven't looked at the news this morning yet, but yesterday the story was that a bunch of airplanes were going to be hijacked and blown up by a group of Islamic terrorists, and the implication was that al Qaeda was behind it. The police -- Scotland Yard -- caught them and arrested them, as they would any criminal. But I suppose you're going to classify this, too, as an act of war. You can call it that, but it's your own subjective classification.
At any rate, whipping the public into a frenzy of fear is a transparently self-serving tactic by the administration, completely opposite of what a responsible government would do.
JimK
One other little thing, Orin. Now that I've picked up the paper out of the front yard, I see here on the front page of The Post that Scotland Yard has known about this terrorist plot for a year, since shortly after the tube bombings. Tell me how it makes us safer to wait until the guys are arrested (yes, arrested by the police as criminals, not taken as POWs) and then issue the Red Alert and tell everybody they can't carry on any luggage.
JimK
Oh yeah Orin. Tim McVeigh just wanted to take down any old building and kill some people like a common everyday criminal. He wasn't attacking the US government because he hated it or mistrusted it or wanted revenge against it or anything....
Jim writes,
How flattering that you would count and categorize my blog posts. Your categorization of some as "political" though is entirely subjective on your part.
Question: do you even read what I write?
I wrote, and I quote,
Now, I will admit that this is a subjective designation.
What part of that sentence do you not understand? No...nevermind, don't try answering that question.
Just because it mentions a politician? No, those are our nation's leaders, they represent the thinking of the people, they express philosophies themselves.
And that must bother you that such an inept, bungling, incompetant and corrupt pol like Bush could defeat someone as virtuous as Gore and Kerry...
I don't express opinions about anybody running for office, I don't support a party.
So, you supported the Impeachment of Clinton when it was determined that he had in fact perjured himself? If perjury is not a sign of corruption then what is?
On second thought...don't bother answering that question either.
The fact that I care that people behave responsibly, and that I criticize our leaders when they don't, does not make me "political".
Wow...the above comment brought vivid images of that woman Ms. Lewinskyand Pres. Clinton...1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole, attacks on two American embassies in Africa, and abject incompetence at detecting and foiling 9/11...wow, such responsible behavior.
The fact that the current crop of criminals in charge are Republicans doesn't affect whether I criticize them or not.
And they have been convicted of exactly what, might I dare to ask? Oh, please, do tell...
Now, there are players that do appear to be guilty...DeLay, Abramoff, Ney, and others, but this influence peddling is as much an indictment against the size and reach of government power as it is of that ages old problem of human corruptability.
It is not as if I am here to campaign for the other party -- if they were in power and they acted like this I'd be criticizing them instead.
Now that I look forward to reading...though I suspect that all of this whining, crying, moaning and complaining has more to do with who's "ox is getting gored" than with any lilly white, pure as the driven snow sense of justice, or consideration of good government.
The same interesting criticism holds for your separation of some terrorist acts into criminal behavior and some into acts of war. The distinction is purely artificial.
And you can substantiate that last sentence exactly how? Phew...here, I will try again to explain...
McVeigh was an American citizen...the 9/11 terrorists were not. That is as objective a differentiation between the two as is humanly possible. Next, the purpose of McVeigh's act was as an act of revenge for BATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound; the purpose of 9/11 was to further the political aims of a foreign national (bin Laden) and the supra-national group he represents (al Qaeda). That is a second OBJECTIVE difference between the two acts...not that you will set aside your anger for a moment and acknowledge that that is the case. Keep in mind that war is politics by another means...
For instance, I haven't looked at the news this morning yet, but yesterday the story was that a bunch of airplanes were going to be hijacked and blown up by a group of Islamic terrorists, and the implication was that al Qaeda was behind it.
Have you been watching the news carefully? If you had, you would know that Scotland Yard has been very careful about assigning blame.
The police -- Scotland Yard -- caught them and arrested them, as they would any criminal. But I suppose you're going to classify this, too, as an act of war. You can call it that, but it's your own subjective classification.
Now that is cynical...here it is, simple enough...if the suspects happen to turn out to be foreign nationals, doing the bidding of a foreign State, a group or an individual, then they are terrorists and are attempting to commit an act of war. If they are of the "home grown" variety, then the attempted acts are of a criminal nature.
At any rate, whipping the public into a frenzy of fear is a transparently self-serving tactic by the administration, completely opposite of what a responsible government would do.
LOL!!!! So now Karl Rove and "Dark Lord" Cheney (you know, the Sith) have Tony Blair, British intelligence, Scotland Yard and Pakistani intelligence all under their control? Wow, that is amazing...esp. for an Administration that I will even admit has exceeded its bungling quota.
Jim, remember, it is up to the political opposition in this country to field a candidate in '08 that will be able to beat any Republican. If the Democrats can field a candidate that is not a sex addict (like Clinton was, and likely still is) or has problems coming clean with his military record (as Kerry still...still does), and can convince the American people that they will put the security of this country FIRST (and not appeasing the Secretary General of the UN), then the Democrats have a good chance at recapturing the White House and the Congress. Give me a Democrat like Scoop Jackson...and you might just get my vote (certainly you will pick up the votes of many others in this country). Offer a candidate that only has a program of demonizing those like myself with a campaign of anger and hatred, and all that will happen on Election Day is your guy (or gal) will lose.
And yes, elections are about who wins...and who loses. And in the American political regime the winner gets to govern. The Democrats would do good to rememeber and take to heart such an understanding. Or, they can give themselves over to their anger...and turn to the Dark side (maybe Vice Pres. Cheney is the Sith Lord, seeing as he is able to bring out so much hostility at the mere mention of his name).
"Now that is cynical...here it is, simple enough...if the suspects happen to turn out to be foreign nationals, doing the bidding of a foreign State, a group or an individual, then they are terrorists and are attempting to commit an act of war. If they are of the "home grown" variety, then the attempted acts are of a criminal nature."
Lord have mercy Orin. Do you think you could spin yourself into a tighter little knot?
Here's what USA Today calls it:
"Domestic terrorism: New trouble at home
By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
ATLANTA — Since Sept. 11, the nation's attention has been focused on possible threats from Islamic terrorists. But home-grown terrorists have been steadily plotting and carrying out attacks in unrelated incidents across the nation, according to federal authorities and two organizations that monitor hate groups.
None of the incidents over the past few years matched the devastation of 9/11 or even the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168 and remains the deadliest act of terrorism against the nation by a U.S. citizen..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-domestic-terrorism_x.htm
Orin, I don't get the daily talking points memos, but I do see them on the Internet. The terrorism-is-war-not-crime meme is like, so 2004. The "angry left" point was dropped shortly after Howard Dean's scream. The McGovern thing, yes, at least that's a recent one. Ned Lamont is exactly like George McGovern. Oh, and al Qaeda is encouraged by Lieberman's loss. You haven't used that one yet ... have you?
Your distinction between McVeigh's and bin Laden's objectives is pure post hoc rationalization. Bin Laden was getting revenge, McVeigh was getting revenge ... yeah, so? So McVeigh was a citizen -- what difference does that make? You're saying that when a foreigner robs a bank, it's not a crime? C'mon, Orin, go back and read the daily memo again. It doesn't say to say that.
As for "watching the news" -- no, sorry, you're right, I don't do that. At night I put on CNN and MSNBC, but there's never any news on. I'm just worried about that cute blonde girl in Aruba. Oh, and I am so relieved that the war in Iraq is over, but I am concerned about Hezbollah staging those video scenes (oh, and Reuters photoshopping the smoke in Beruit, that just proves once and for all that the mainstream media are all liberals and terrorists). Nah, I don't watch the news; I can't find any.
The terrorism frame is a beautiful piece of work, and I can't tell if you actually buy it or if you're just repeating it because it's so effective, or if there's any difference between those two things. You can talk all day about the reasons why 9/11 was different from OKC, but the fact is, OKC was handled professionally and 9/11 was exploited as a propaganda tool. I'm sure you have a talking point to refute that -- ah, yes, the Lamont-is-McGovern cliche might work nicely here, with a little "white flag" sprinkled on top. The truth is, the Red Alert comes after the arrests, the inconvenience at the airports makes no one safer, fear favors the Bush administration; they have already said that terrorism is going to be their campaign platform, and now you're seeing it.
Conflating the arrests themselves with the Red Alerts is not so clever, Orin -- even Illiterate Anon tried to do that. No one has said that Karl Rove manufactured the plot, I sure didn't say that; it's the reaction, in particular the Red Alert, that I am writing about. The elicitation and maintenance of fear in the population is a cynical political move.
Whatever the Democrats do, I don't know, I'm not part of that. I'll vote, and I'll blog, and I hope that somebody runs a competent candidate to pull us out of this mess. But mostly I pray that Americans open their eyes and learn to think for themselves. You can call that political, I don't.
JimK
This whole discussion comparing McVeigh to Al Qaeda is really ridiculous. Al Qaeda is an active network that has carried out numerous acts against civilized nations, has vowed to continue them until an Islamic fascist empire stretches from Spain to Afghanistan. They are a continuing threat, they operate from territory we don't control, they have numerous supporters. The world has not, even now, grasped the severity of the threat to the civilized world. Acting as the Democrats and the looney liberal leftists (epitomized by TTF) advocate will likely bring on a horrific world war just like it did when the evolutionist fascists were appeased by the pacifists and isolationists and others in the 1930s.
Truth is the red alert was issued because of the likelihood that all members of the conspiracy weren't apprehended and their method of terror has not yet been countered with sufficient security measures. No one's making it up for political purposes. TTF insinuations to the contrary are reprehensible and, in character.
Thanks, Anon, for repeating the talking points in case anybody didn't get them the first time. Domestic terrorists aren't terrorists, mmm hmm, yes. They just blow stuff up and kill people at random, and hoard weapons of mass destruction, but they're not terrorists.
As for the Red Alert, I'll tell you what, Anon. Why don't you finish your breakfast and go outside and watch for terrorists, ok? Maybe you'll catch some, and save the world from evolutionist fascists and stuff.
JimK
"Thanks, Anon, for repeating the talking points in case anybody didn't get them the first time. Domestic terrorists aren't terrorists, mmm hmm, yes. They just blow stuff up and kill people at random, and hoard weapons of mass destruction, but they're not terrorists."
You didn't address the several areas of contrast so I guess I'll just ignore this. I doubt any rational reader agrees with you.
"As for the Red Alert, I'll tell you what, Anon. Why don't you finish your breakfast and go outside and watch for terrorists, ok?"
Why don't take a plane trip today?
"Maybe you'll catch some, and save the world from evolutionist fascists and stuff."
The evolutionists weren't taken care of long ago. The stuff is on-going.
"At any rate, whipping the public into a frenzy of fear is a transparently self-serving tactic by the administration, completely opposite of what a responsible government would do."
You are right Jim.
We should just refer to it as a tragedy and not even mention that it was a group of Islamic terrorist that were responsible.
Wait a minute, haven't we tried that before ?
Hmmmmm, yes we have !
Clinton did this on the first WTC bombing, in 1993. Brushed the whole thing under the carpet, as he did the next 7 attacks on American interests overseas for remainder of his administration.
He didn't want to upset the American people, so he didn't take appropriate action.
The result - 9/11.
Are you now going to take the position that 9/11 was also no big deal ?
Theresa, I love the way you put together two questionable statements and then accuse me, or TTF in general, of agreeing with some "obvious" conclusion that you say follows from the premises. What was the one last week? Weren't we suppposed to automatically conclude that some class of people should all be executed? I forget now.
I expect the government to keep track of these things and to deal with them. They should use wiretaps, fake mustaches, people who speak Arabic, satellite images, informants ... everything ... to keep the country safe.
This plot has been under surveillance for a year. The good guys know who the bad guys are, and have caught and locked up most of them. Scotland Yard was all over it, and it appears they did a good job. What is gained by instilling panic? Tell me, how much safer are we when people can't carry on any luggage on the plane, now that the bad guys have been caught.
The government certainly should release the information, the citizens should be informed. Do you think a "red alert" -- after the fact -- is informative?
JimK
JimK we know who we have caught we don’t know who we have not caught. We understand their MO. But that can change and adjust do what is It that you are unable to comprehend?
You drone on insistently about global warming despite legitimate scientific skepticism and yet you think 9/11 never happened. You are all nuts.
JimK is right 9/11 never happened and there is no such thing a terrorism Karl Rove just made it up. To get the republicans in power. You CRC types don’t understand this because you don’t have E.S.P. like us TTFs do. So just take are word for it.
Mmmm yeah, Jim said that, yeah. He a dufus, ghghghrhrhr.
Theresa writes,
Wait a minute, haven't we tried that before ?
Hmmmmm, yes we have !
Clinton did this on the first WTC bombing, in 1993. Brushed the whole thing under the carpet, as he did the next 7 attacks on American interests overseas for remainder of his administration.
Yes, the former President/convicted perjurer treated the storm brewing on the horizon as criminal acts for the most part worthy of prosecution, not war. In fact, in the immediate days there were some that thought that Bush should really have laid the blame at the feet of the do nothing Administration that came before him (no, strike that...they did do something; they did not give the US military the means to even protect themselves in Somalia, and then when American military personnel were lost, they cut and ran, thus inspiring bin Laden); Bush, ever the magnanimous sort, decided to simply move forward without looking back.
Bottomline: had the Clinton Admin been doing their job they would have had a better chance of stopping 9/11.
He didn't want to upset the American people, so he didn't take appropriate action.
The result - 9/11.
Well, it was that, and more...much more.
Are you now going to take the position that 9/11 was also no big deal?
Well, I would not hold your breath waiting for Jim, or any other member of the AL to answer you directly. Though from comments he has made with regards to the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11, it would appear that he seems to think along those lines. I mean, I clearly differentiated the two events, terming one a criminal act (the Oklahoma City bombing), and the second a terrorist act (9/11). I even explained how they are different: the former was committed by a US citizen, while the later was committed by foreign nationals (lest we forget, 15 of the 19 were Saudi nationals) with the the express knowledge and consent of a supra national organization, al Qaeda with the protection of the Taliban controlled govt of Afghanistan.
Jim called it "The distinction is purely artificial."
Still, I agree with Jim on this point...the alert status is not helpful, can only work to instill a sense of panic in the traveling public, and the reaction is excessive (media pictures of the American public being made to throw away harmless items so that the gods of Political Correctness can be pleased...honest now why don't they do what the customs has done for a long time...profile?...no, no, can't do that...that would be discrimination...just watch, when the pictures of this folied plot are finally released, they will all be male, ages 18 to 35, of arabic/middle eastern ethnic background, and will have passports from the usual countries...Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan (oh, that's right...some are alreay confirmed to be Pakistani...surprise, surprise)).
And Jim writes,
Whatever the Democrats do, I don't know, I'm not part of that. I'll vote, and I'll blog, and I hope that somebody runs a competent candidate to pull us out of this mess. But mostly I pray that Americans open their eyes and learn to think for themselves. You can call that political, I don't.
Yes, that is right Jim...you have no stake whatsoever in any of this going on...I will have to hand it to you - you can be funny (I told a friend about my distinction between criminal act and terrorist act, and how you scoffed at it...e said you were silly, which I guess is a "nice" word for someone who is not serious...guess what Jim, when it comes to national security issues voters tend to like candidates that are serious, not silly).
Anonymous writes,
This whole discussion comparing McVeigh to Al Qaeda is really ridiculous.
Thank you Anonymous...though your words will fall on deaf ears because Jim, and TTF only deal in facts...never ideology (only us nasty NeoCons and TheoCons do that).
Al Qaeda is an active network that has carried out numerous acts against civilized nations, has vowed to continue them until an Islamic fascist empire stretches from Spain to Afghanistan. They are a continuing threat, they operate from territory we don't control, they have numerous supporters. The world has not, even now, grasped the severity of the threat to the civilized world. Acting as the Democrats and the looney liberal leftists (epitomized by TTF) advocate will likely bring on a horrific world war just like it did when the evolutionist fascists were appeased by the pacifists and isolationists and others in the 1930s.
Very good analysis...and where is the right-wing militia movement in the US that poses any threat even remotely approaching al Qaeda??? Come now Jim...you do have an answer for that, don't you? No, that's right...you ONLY deal in FACTS. Silly, silly, silly...
Truth is the red alert was issued because of the likelihood that all members of the conspiracy weren't apprehended and their method of terror has not yet been countered with sufficient security measures. No one's making it up for political purposes. TTF insinuations to the contrary are reprehensible and, in character.
Well, I would not go that far...Jim, TTF, the Angry Left, and all of their fellow travelers are blinded by irrational political prejudice.
Here, here...I'll dare to make a prediction: Republicans will take a beating at the polls in the mid-term elections this Fall, and they will learn a few lessons from the defeat. First, voter do not like corruption...ok? We just don't like it. Second, Iraq, however well intended was a mistake however well intended our efforts might have been. Give the Iraqi govt a timetable after which they are on their own. If they can't get their shit together within a modest timeline then they don't deserve self-government, and ought to be allowed to revert to whatever sort of despotic regime fills the vacuum created by a US withdrawl. Oh, and never ever again act on a perceived threat...sit and wait until they hit us, then strike back.
the make belive right wing terrests
And this from Sunday's Washington Post, August 13,
Meanwhile, a group of leading British Muslim politicians and 38 Muslim groups sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in which they said the country's policies concerning the Middle East had contributed to a lack of security in Britain and abroad.
"To combat terror, the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy," the letter said. "The debacle of Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all."
Now for Jim and for the TTF'ers permit me to draw a parallel: when a woman is attacked and sexually assaulted (that is, raped), if the attacker is caught and tried, US courts do not make an allowance that because the gal was scantily clad, she should have known better...she was asking for IT. This is called blaming the victim.
Now, here and there I have seen calls for Muslims to denounce violence and so on. Honestly, this must be a tough position to be for most Muslims to be in because they simply want to get on with their lives and follow their faith. But when their leaders join in on a letter such as the one they sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair, then they ought not be surprised when their fellow non-Muslim fellow citizens view them with guarded suspicion.
"the make belive right wing terrests"
They may be make believe in your mind, but those of us who live in the real world know better.
"Terror From the Right
Almost 60 terrorist plots uncovered in the U.S.
By Andrew Blejwas, Anthony Griggs and Mark Potok
Ten years after the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 people dead, the guardians of American national security seem to have decided that the domestic radical right does not pose a substantial threat to U.S. citizens.
A draft internal document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was obtained this spring by The Congressional Quarterly lists the only serious domestic terrorist threats as radical animal rights and environmental groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that most definitely cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.
In the 10 years since the April 19, 1995, bombing in Oklahoma City, in fact, the radical right has produced some 60 terrorist plots. These have included plans to bomb or burn government buildings, banks, refineries, utilities, clinics, synagogues, mosques, memorials and bridges; to assassinate police officers, judges, politicians, civil rights figures and others; to rob banks, armored cars and other criminals; and to amass illegal machine guns, missiles, explosives, and biological and chemical weapons. What follows is a list of key right-wing plots of the last 10 years. Click on years for a list of plots."
Readers will find the list of plots here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=628
Dixie
Dixi you are the only one who thinks you are living in the real world.
Post a Comment
<< Home