Willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack?

bravo said:
Your wife and daughter or son are being threatened....their very lives are on the line.......

What would you do ?
How far do you go ?
Where do you draw the line ?
What is the proper "balance" for you, in this case ?
Click to expand...

That's a sort of typical appeal to emotionalism.

More lives are on the line, by a significantly exponential #, from drunk driving, but I don't see people living in fear & changing our principles for that.
 
Onceler said:
That's a sort of typical appeal to emotionalism.

More lives are on the line, by a significantly exponential #, from drunk driving, but I don't see people living in fear & changing our principles for that.
Click to expand...

But we have changed .... DUI is no longer treated as a joke and a boys will be boys sort of issue....the laws were none existant before and what laws their were, were ignored by cops and judges....
relative to 50 years ago, values have changed....and DUI is an emotional matter in the same vein as my question....

Is life valuable in general ?
Or is it only your life ? Or your families life ? Your countrymen...?
Of course its emotional......
 
Whats you answer /

A biological attack could wipe out millions, even 10s of millions of your countrymen,...how far is too far to stop such an attack ?
What are your values?

The fact is, if it was Obama, instead of Hannity, saying the same thing, Jarod would be on the opposite side...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
But we have changed .... DUI is no longer treated as a joke and a boys will be boys sort of issue....the laws were none existant before and what laws their were, were ignored by cops and judges....
relative to 50 years ago, values have changed....and DUI is an emotional matter in the same vein as my question....

Is life valuable in general ?
Or is it only your life ? Or your families life ? Your countrymen...?
Of course its emotional......
Click to expand...

Exactly. We take REASONABLE measures; we address the problem without distorting it. We don't change our way of life or principles in some sort of disproportionate response.

Terrorists don't have a lot in the quiver. OBL had nothing after 9/11. They don't have the resources to continually attack the U.S.

What they have to count on is a disproportionate, extreme response to whatever they are able to muster. They need us to live in irrational fear, so that we adjust everything according to that - we spend more than we need to, we allocate resources where we don't need to, and generally live in a state of responding to what they might or might not be able to do.
 
Jarod said:
When it keeps happening, I dont call it luck. There is a reason these terrorists cant get the tools they need to pull off a successfull attack. There is a reason they cant get a proper bomb on an airplane. There is a reason they have to keep the bomb small enough to hide in there underpants.

So, Id stop calling it pure luck.

We were not so lucky under Bush when 9-11 occured.

We have been thus far under Obama and were under Clinton when they tried the mennilunum bomb and when they tried to blow up the world trade center...
Click to expand...

1) 1993 WTC bombing killed six people and injured over 1000. It was without question an effective car bomb.

2) It IS pure luck that the underwear bomber wasn't successful. Had he blown that bomb in the bathroom, the plane would have had a very hard time staying in the air.

3) It IS pure luck the idiot in New York didn't know what he was doing (not to mention that he was intent on living through the ordeal). While I absolutely applaud the actions of the vendor and the quick response of the NYC bomb squad, had the guy been a suicide bomber with any competence in bomb making, then many people would have died in NYC.

4) The millennium bomber headed for LAX was good work by the customs agents in WA.
 
Onceler said:
Exactly. We take REASONABLE measures; we address the problem without distorting it. We don't change our way of life or principles in some sort of disproportionate response.

Terrorists don't have a lot in the quiver. OBL had nothing after 9/11. They don't have the resources to continually attack the U.S.

What they have to count on is a disproportionate, extreme response to whatever they are able to muster. They need us to live in irrational fear, so that we adjust everything according to that - we spend more than we need to, we allocate resources where we don't need to, and generally live in a state of responding to what they might or might not be able to do.
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly...we take a measured, appropriate response....understanding of course, that "REASONABLE measures" mean different things to different people.....
This dimwit bomber, and the Ft. Hood killer and even the nutjob McVeigh probably thought they were taking reasonable actions in their own twisted way too....

By the tone of Jarods partisan, biased post, you would imagine Hannity was advocating nuking the entire Middle East to prevent an attack....

I'm sure even you I have differing views on "reasonable" also....:clink:
 
Superfreak said:
1) 1993 WTC bombing killed six people and injured over 1000. It was without question an effective car bomb.

2) It IS pure luck that the underwear bomber wasn't successful. Had he blown that bomb in the bathroom, the plane would have had a very hard time staying in the air.

3) It IS pure luck the idiot in New York didn't know what he was doing (not to mention that he was intent on living through the ordeal). While I absolutely applaud the actions of the vendor and the quick response of the NYC bomb squad, had the guy been a suicide bomber with any competence in bomb making, then many people would have died in NYC.

4) The millennium bomber headed for LAX was good work by the customs agents in WA.
Click to expand...

Jarod is a partisan bonehead....if this dimwit bomber had the same know-how as McVeigh,......the outcome would have been quite different....yes....it IS PURE LUCK his was incompetent...
 
Onceler said:
Terrorists don't have a lot in the quiver. OBL had nothing after 9/11. They don't have the resources to continually attack the U.S.

What they have to count on is a disproportionate, extreme response to whatever they are able to muster. They need us to live in irrational fear, so that we adjust everything according to that - we spend more than we need to, we allocate resources where we don't need to, and generally live in a state of responding to what they might or might not be able to do.
Click to expand...


Lets get real here....what would it take to poison US water supplies in thousands of places ?
How hard is it going to be to wage bio war against any population, especially ours?
You seriously think a 9/11 event isn't possible in the future?
How close is Iran to having a nuke arsenal?
How about N. Korea ?
How about just terrorists just stealing a tactical nuke device somewhere?

We don't need to live in "irrational fear" right this second, but we don't want to get to complacent either....a healthy fear can and does save lives.....
 
bravo said:
Your wife and daughter or son are being threatened....their very lives are on the line.......

What would you do ?
How far do you go ?
Where do you draw the line ?
What is the proper "balance" for you, in this case ?
Click to expand...
I would rather watch them die then see the freedom they and I love stripped from the.
 
bravo said:
But we have changed .... DUI is no longer treated as a joke and a boys will be boys sort of issue....the laws were none existant before and what laws their were, were ignored by cops and judges....
relative to 50 years ago, values have changed....and DUI is an emotional matter in the same vein as my question....
Click to expand...
And yet DUI's are just as prevalent.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
why would you consider it constitutional to deny a fundamental right to someone placed on a government list for which NO standards are published and NO way to be removed from that list and NO judicial oversight?
Click to expand...

I agree, wait are we talking about warrantless wiretaping or gun ownership?
 
bravo said:
Your wife and daughter or son are being threatened....their very lives are on the line.......

What would you do ?
How far do you go ?
Where do you draw the line ?
What is the proper "balance" for you, in this case ?
Click to expand...

False argument based on an emotional appeal, dumb!
 
Superfreak said:
1) 1993 WTC bombing killed six people and injured over 1000. It was without question an effective car bomb.

2) It IS pure luck that the underwear bomber wasn't successful. Had he blown that bomb in the bathroom, the plane would have had a very hard time staying in the air.

3) It IS pure luck the idiot in New York didn't know what he was doing (not to mention that he was intent on living through the ordeal). While I absolutely applaud the actions of the vendor and the quick response of the NYC bomb squad, had the guy been a suicide bomber with any competence in bomb making, then many people would have died in NYC.

4) The millennium bomber headed for LAX was good work by the customs agents in WA.
Click to expand...

You can call it pure luck if you choose, and based on your political persuasion I understand where you are coming from.... Where were you on the issue when GWB and Cheney were talking about how there had not been a successfull attack since 9-11 and that was evidence of what a great job they were doing.

Sure some luck is involved, but its NOT pure luck. The rules and regulations and work we have done in National Security have made it such that LUCK is more likely to come our way.

They cant buy large quantities of the type of fertalizer that blows up without being decected.

They cant buy good detonators for bombs anymore without being detected.

They dont have the funding for good training anymore.

They cant use a better accellerant than gas anymore.

They cant get a smarter person to make an attempt....

All of these things lead to the LUCK you are so happy to attribute the last several attempts to!

I guess my seven different million dollar plus jury verdicts are all LUCK also....
 
Weighted Companion Cube said:
I would rather watch them die then see the freedom they and I love stripped from the.
Click to expand...

and I don't think you need to give up that much freedom in order to increase the chances of catching terrorists considerably.....look at how much fuss liberals raised just because the government wanted to be able to check who a suspected terrorist emailed from a free library computer...."omigorsh!...somebody might check to see if I've been reading Catcher in the Rye!"........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top