al-Qaida Said Almost Ready to Attack U.S.

What does that MEAN, though?

That is what fuels them, the idea of destroy that which is out to destroy them.

If you are talking about trying to get terrorists in the US, yes, of course. Is anyone saying anything else?

If we're talking about going elsewhere to find them, and permutations thereof, nimh has a very good thread about how the world has been made less safe, more hospitable to terrorists, specifically by our actions in Iraq.

We will be much safter and stronger at home if we have more troops back here instead of spreading ourselves too thin and simultaneously stirring up even more hatred.

0 Replies

terrorists are not a color, as Terry Nichols and Tim MacVeigh have illustrated.

0 Replies

What does "we have lost" mean in this context?

It seems to me that if we live our lives in constant fear (call it vigilence if you will) of terrorists we have lost, especially if this means giving up rights or losing the values that make America great -- we have lost.

I plan to contine being American. I will continue voicing dissent. I will continue valuing and protecting our diversity and the rights of minorities. I plan to insist on my rights to privacy and expression.

No amount of fear or dire warnings from Ashcroft and Co. will stop me from doing that.

The moment those who are spreading fear can prevent me from living, and speaking as an American with all of the rights guarenteed by our society, we have lost.

0 Replies

soz- I think that you are right about concentrating in the US. I don't think that what has been done up until now is sufficient. I think that domestic security MUST be beefed up......................and that does not mean checking out 80 year old ladies who are boarding planes. Unfortunately, terrorists DO fit a profile, although it is changing somewhat, and that profile needs to be addressed.

After 9/11 my first thought was to send back home all persons, who are not citizens, who are from countries that espouse terrorism. That includes students. Inconvenience for them? Sure. But what comes first.............an alien's convenience, or our own security? I still think that it would be a prudent idea.

I would like to see the administration secure Iraq, get them back on their feet, and bring the soldiers home. We have to be careful though, not to do this prematurely.

0 Replies

I agree with almost all of that, except sending back the non-citizens. That's a pretty draconian measure. Already there are huge problems with scientists getting visas -- this is something I have seen first-hand, colleagues of my husband. My husband's department made a few hires that are stuck in Visa limbo, with no end in sight. There was an article on this in NYT recently, that the difficulties are already really hurting America's intellectual capital and status as a scientific leader, as excellent scientists who want to work here just can't get in. Or see their peers having so much trouble that they just decide to go elsewhere.

I understand the concept of, well, the inconvenience is sad and all but that's just what has to be done, but I don't think it's that practical, either, in terms of desired outcome. We cannot utterly close our borders, and a potential terrorist only has to get in once. That points much more towards beefing up border security and taking security measures that have been asked for but haven't yet happened, among other things.

Shipping everyone out would be an enormous project, requiring major resources, with dubious effects (what about sleeper cells, what about home-grown terrorists?), and with enormous fallout.

0 Replies

Quote:

That points much more towards beefing up border security

That is one issue that REALLY needs to be addressed. I think that our system now is an utter failure!

0 Replies

It seems to me we've been concentrating at a successful ratio on domestic safety.

Soz's comment pisses me off every time I hear it repeated. AQ is hellbent to destroy what is bent on destroying them...? Its as if there is an excuse for them. If it wasn't for Bush/ Ashcroft/<insert bad American here> AQ would go back to their loving, peaceful lives... If only we hadn't recklessly provoked them...?

I don't know if that is the intentional meaning behind that phrase, but I reject it utterly. 911 was inexcusable. If Bin Laden was so pissed at the US being on "his" soil, he should've taken the matter up with the Saud's.

They attacked us.
They killed innocent people.
They are getting what they deserve for that unprovoked attack.
I hope we don't stop until we wipe them, and their twisted ideology, off the face of the earth.
They were the aggressors.

0 Replies

Yes, yes, I know.

I was addressing specifically the idea that it will somehow help us if AQ knows that we'll go gettem by golly by gum.

Of course they know that, of course we will, and..?

0 Replies

I DON'T think that AQ will go back to being happy and peaceful if weleave 'em alone.

nimh had a very good post recently about the ++'s, the --'s, etc. -- I know the --'s will be angry and murderous whatever we do, but I do think it's worth it to do what we can not to turn the +'s, the +/-'s, and the -'s into --'s. That's all.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

soz- I think that you are right about concentrating in the US. I don't think that what has been done up until now is sufficient. I think that domestic security MUST be beefed up......................and that does not mean checking out 80 year old ladies who are boarding planes. Unfortunately, terrorists DO fit a profile, although it is changing somewhat, and that profile needs to be addressed.

We should learn from the "war on drugs" as it is another hysteria-driven effort with a noble cause at its core. Both of these efforts are using methods that are less than productive.

When drug smugglers heard that 80 year old ladies did not fit the profile, 80 year old ladies suddenly became drug smugglers. Don't think that terrorists are any stupider than drug smugglers.

Profiling may make Pheonix feel better, but it is quite dumb. Not do we open up a huge blind spot in our security, but we are telling the "terrorists" exactly what that is.

Quote:

After 9/11 my first thought was to send back home all persons, who are not citizens, who are from countries that espouse terrorism. That includes students. Inconvenience for them? Sure. But what comes first.............an alien's convenience, or our own security? I still think that it would be a prudent idea.

This hysterical response would kill the very core of America. This is one of the few ways that America can be defeated.

Quote:

I would like to see the administration secure Iraq, get them back on their feet, and bring the soldiers home. We have to be careful though, not to do this prematurely. [/color][/b]

This administration is not every going to secure Iraq, and the Iraqi's will get themselves back on their own feet. The soldiers should come home now.

0 Replies

I don't think it is dissuading AQ by knowing we will 'get them'.

I think it dissuades them when they die.

Meanwhile, democracy and self-determination will grow and prosper--and people are less likely to want to die for Bin Laden's sacred sand---when they have the sand, and a house on it, and a life.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

They attacked us.
They killed innocent people.
They are getting what they deserve for that unprovoked attack.
I hope we don't stop until we wipe them, and their twisted ideology, off the face of the earth.
They were the aggressors.

So what are we doing in Iraq?

0 Replies

Building hospitals, schools, replacing amputated arms, helping a democracy, allowing women to go to school, ... fighting people, who would stop all of the above.

0 Replies

Oh, you are right.

I feel much better now.

0 Replies

You think America is similar to AQ, ebrown?

0 Replies

No,

I just realized my last post could be taken in two ways. I was not comparing the US to Al Qaeda.

What I meant was -- "Why the heck are we in Iraq?"

I was pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The actions of Al Qaeda are murderous and evil.

The actions of the US as contra-productive and arrogant. They are not at all similar.

0 Replies

Sofia, to review:

Phoenix said, "The terrorists need to know that we are hell bent in rooting terrorism out, and destroying it."

In response to that, I said, "That is what fuels them, the idea of destroy that which is out to destroy them."

That has nothing to do with excuses. It has to do with, how will it help anything if the terrorists KNOW (again, Phoenix's phrasing) that we are hellbent on rooting out terrorism?

Your response was that it won't help if they know, it will help if we kill 'em. Well, fine. That agrees with I'm saying -- that making sure they "know" we're gonna get 'em doesn't do a heckuva a lot, itself.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Building hospitals, schools, replacing amputated arms, helping a democracy, allowing women to go to school, ... fighting people, who would stop all of the above.

A cartoon from today's Iraquian daily newspaper Al-Mutamar:

http://www.iwpr.net/archive/ipm/ipm_085.jpg

A Coalition soldier nervously waters a plant called "Occupation" which stands just in front of a grave marked "Sovereignty".

0 Replies

soz--

I'd heard the statement you made many times before. I attempted to word my response to show I didn't attribute *my meaning of it* to you. It's just what comes to mind every time I hear it.

ebrown--

Re your statement the actions of the US are contra-productive and arrogant... I can see why one would believe the actions are arrogant. That they are contra-productive, I think we will get an answer on that. I'm betting--and hoping--you are wrong.

0 Replies

I am hoping I am wrong too. I am just not betting on it.

0 Replies

al-Qaida Said Almost Ready to Attack U.S.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know