The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
Posted By: MT2 on 2006-06-27
In Reply to: So you don't believe we have national security concerns? - an opinion
That sums it up.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Who honestly cares, as long as the terrorist threat was stopped. sm
Until all of you stop your Bush rabid hatred, the terrorist threat is not only lost on you, you look for something more sinister and it all has to point to Bush. This is really disturbing.
Threat?
GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored. She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post. Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge. 
So much for the threat. SM
This is what *I* consider a serious threat...sm
Not discounting whatever went on this weekend, but I thought this was of interest.
By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.
In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:
OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.
The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy. This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom. OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East. Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan. This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come. Bush and his administration dont have to worry. If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends. It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks. Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez. That most certainly is a crime. You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has.
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Was there a threat made?
I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere. Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI. We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate.
Obama threat already.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/?iref=mpstoryview
Well you can *know* what ever about terrorist, but you can't
preach about and demand change in the corruption in other countries and then not even be interested in the corruption in your own country.
no, not a lie. He is not a terrorist
but he certainly has ties to, and support from, some very very questionable people, and yes from terrorists. That makes him lacking in judgment at best, and certainly of questionable motives and character.
Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm
the end of life as we know it and we don't even want to imagine what the "new" life would be like. Be careful what you wish for.
Sounds like a threat to me. And hey, I am being nice here. SM
How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:
Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat. Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney. It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war |
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm
threat to national security
and YOU have undisputed proof of this?
No threat to national security?
We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!
They don't care how terrorist's think...
They'd have to read what Middle Eastern experts - you know, people who have lived in or are from the Middle East would have to say. That would involve critical THINKING. Bush flaunted repeatedly the fact that he never consulted anyone about the situation in the Middle East before going to war. The only folks he consulted were...you guessed it - Rummy, Wolfy and the gang.
Terrorist Bush
Bush Told Blair of 'Going beyond Iraq'
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK
Saturday 15 October 2005
George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Bush said he wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.
The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.
It is not surprising that Mr Bush referred to Iran and North Korea, or even Pakistan - at the time suspected of spreading nuclear know-how, but now one of America's closest allies in the war on terror. What is significant is the mention of Saudi Arabia.
In Washington, the neo-cons in particular were hostile to the Saudi royal family and did not think they were doing enough to quell Islamist extremists - 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudis. But the Bush administration did not in public express concern about any Saudi nuclear ambitions.
In September 2003, the Guardian reported that Saudi Arabia had embarked on a strategic review that included acquiring nuclear weapons. Until then, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella despite the worsening relationship between Riyadh and Washington.
It is not clear how Mr Blair responded to Mr Bush's remarks during the telephone conversation, which took place on the eve of a trip to Washington for talks with the US president.
In his book, Blair's Wars, John Kampfner says that at the meeting the two leaders agreed to concentrate not just on Iraq ... but also the Middle East. But that was taken to be a reference to Palestine. Mr Blair wanted Mr Bush to express concern about the plight of the Palestinians to appease the Labour party.
Mr Blair at the time was careful to avoid any suggestion that the Bush administration intended to target other countries after the invasion of Iraq. However, for the first time he suggested there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
After the invasion, Washington adopted a calmer approach towards Iran, leaving it to Britain, France, and Germany to pursue a diplomatic course.
Despite hard evidence that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting nuclear technology, the Bush administration embraced President Pervez Musharraf as an ally against al-Qaida. Washington's relations with Saudi Arabia remain cool. Mr Sands does not shed further light on the issue.
Bush the terrorist
I see the world and the majority of America realizing, finally, that Bush is incompetent, a fool, not to be trusted and as much a terrorist as Osama..OMG, even conservative republicans are speaking out against Bush..Time to stop defending a fool, if you ask me..these next months/years will show the reasons for war were all lies, this whole administration is corrupt..These are great times for honest law abiding hard working Americans who did not drink the Kool-Aid..
They obviously believe there's only one terrorist in the world
I just don't understand why they think Bin Laden is the only terrorists. There are several major terror cells in the world all bent on destroying Western culture and Israel. I personally think Bin Laden is dead anyway.
Terrorist links
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of DOUBT that this is TRUE?? sheesh!!
How exactly is it that a terrorist dresses? n/m
x
Don't forget a son of a terrorist.
x
You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
The terrorist's best friend.
Is the Taliban on your Christmas card list as well?
You seem to have swallowed the leftist lies hook, line, and sinker.
Let's not forget to honor those hard-working, industrious Nazis while we're at it.
And the Sudanese guerrilas.
And the lonely, struggling serial killers and child molesters and suicide bombers.
We have had plenty of terrorist
AND after 9/11.
- USS Cole.
- 2000 New Year attack attempt at Los Angeles Airport, but stopped at Port Angeles, WA ferry terminal during Clinton.
- New York Bomb Subway in 1997 with Clinton in office.
My gosh, there is a whole list of terrorist attack attempts.
Now I am known as a terrorist and an extremist?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/
The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.
That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.
Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.
The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize," saying that according to the report, pro-lifers, anyone who lost their jobs or are one of the thousands of military veterans who have fought to prevent another 9/11 could be suspect.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.
"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."
The report follows a similar report released in January by DHS that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights," said Smith. "That's like saying if you love puppies you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.
"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."
Veterans' groups are also taking issue with the report, which says disgruntled vets are considered coveted recruits for groups looking for "combat skills and experience."
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," the report reads. "[DHS] is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."
Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members.
"It's amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country," said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq. "It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."
The report prompted a harsh and swift reaction for the American Legion on Tuesday. In a letter to Napolitano, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein blasted the report as incomplete and politically-biased.
"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."
Napolitano said in her statement on Wednesday that she was aware of the letter, and plans to meet with Rehbein sometime next week.
"I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary."
"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not nor will we ever monitor ideology or political beliefs," read Napolitano's statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."
Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.
"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."
London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.
"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."
What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the
remote to that.
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war. I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense. This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East. The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored. Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war: He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.). That's how it appears anyway. I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
dorky song threat realized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBxmrWqI-g&feature=related
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Or one might think you are an Islamofascist terrorist sympathizer. nm
Occupation is the ultimate terrorist act.
Let's get something straight here. Israel is the occupier and Palestine is the occupied. Steal their land, blockade their supplies, invade them, kill and maim them, impose a police state, sabotage their economy and THEN call them the terrorists...self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. You have not one leg to stand on here. Terrorism breeds terrorism. Israel has not only cornered the marked on chaos in Palestine, but throughout the region as well. Bloodshed is their middle name. They wrote the book on savagery.
No dear. Perhaps massacres turn you on, but they certainly do not make me giddy. Nobody twisted my arm when I formulated my opinions on this issue, since it is based on my own life experiences, just like yours are. Wanna talk monsters? From where I sit, those would be the Israeli population who sits idly by in their complicity and turn a blind eye to the moral outrage on which they base their nationalism. That's the only thing that burns me.
Israel kicks the holy heck out of itself every time it goes on another one of its bloody rampages. The whole rest of the world, with the exception of the US (whose motives are none too clean either) abhors this behavior and no amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that fact. My other post already addressed the sheer folly of your suicide bomber reference.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the objective of Hamas missile fire is to bring attention of the world back to Palestine, the long forgotten and ignored, but as long as they are occupied, it is not that difficult to understand why they would like to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Since you are not in charge of Hamas militia, you hardly can pretend to be able to predict their future operations, except to parrot the endless propaganda you hear on US mainstream media.
As far as the Stone Age is concerned, Israel would like to think of itself as being all modern and civilized, but they can never join those ranks as long as they remain the occupying war criminals they have been since day one.
HAMAS is a terrorist group
nm
Yeah, there was no threat made. It was a sick thing
nm
Santa protecting children from a terrorist
what's wrong with that?
and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager?
I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...
You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year. This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative
Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon. There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq. As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
In my opinion, McCain is just as bad as the terrorist people because he obviously just wants to get
x
Towel-headed terrorist? Is that how you see ALL Moslems
a young man visiting his Kenyan relatives in search of his roots who is paying respect to his family and his host nation by donning traditional Dashiki and head gear. I also see a sense of pride in his expression...something that he is entitled to have. When in Rome...
McCain? A soldier who served his country with honor, came home and dumped his crippled wife and mother of his children, traded her in for a younger model, then turned around years later and exploited his POW status for political gain.
Where do you see this domestic terrorist stuff? I'd be interested in sm
viewing your list of what "they" (and who are "they"?) are classifying as dom terrorists?
As for Reagan, there was a good-sized depression in the early 1980s (which you proby don't remember, being of the Iraqi war vet age) - his policies were good for the rich but nobody else.
Careful! Some neocon troll might twist your post into a threat!!!
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide very good cover and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
The longer this goes on, the bigger terrorist breading ground sm
Iraq becomes. This is getting past ridiculous. Now, I don't think we should just pull out, but I think we need to let them have it, and there will be more US casualties, and get out ASAP.
|
