[diamondgeezer]

So Booth and Oswald weren't anything like todays terrorists then, Lib?

__________________
Diamond Geezer has no body piercings

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So Booth and Oswald weren't anything like todays terrorists then, Lib?

__________________
Diamond Geezer has no body piercings

They were good 'ole american terrorists, red of blood, blue of eyes and white of skin!

[Corsair]

And that kind is okay!

[Unknown Target]

It must hurt to be ignorant, Lib....

[Flipside]

Thunderbirds are go.....

[Liberator]

I was talking about foreign agressors and you know it...

[aldo_14]

Foreign?

Oh well, then you have Kennedy versus the Commies, Reagan versus the Iranians (wait, didn't he negotiate to sell them arms in exchange for hostages?) & Lybians & probably the good old Commies....  in fact, the threat of Al-Queda pales in comparison to what the USSR could have done had they wanted to.....

In particular
[q]When intelligence reports surfaced that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, President Reagan expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. (May 6, 1981) and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Three months later, Reagan ordered U.S. Navy jets to shoot down Libyan fighters if they ventured inside what was known as the "line of death." (This was the line created by Qaddafi to demarcate Libya's territorial waters, which he said extended more than 100 miles off the country's shoreline; the U.S. and other maritime nations recognized Libyan territorial waters as extending only 12 miles from shore.) As expected, the Libyan Air Force counter-attacked and Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast.[/q]

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by redmenace

Don't forget Johnson, wow, boy was he hated.

Not of that magnitude though.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

How many more of the Bash Bush threads do we need?  It gets really old.  find something new to ***** about.

[Flipside]

Well, I sort of agree that 'Bush can do no right' anymore, however, you must admit, Bush operates on a similar mental level to Kim Jong II. 'We have the most wonderful, free country in the world and everyone loves me... more bodyguards! more bodyguards!'

[Bobboau]

wait what was it that I posted?
I don't even remember, I think it was a reference to the 0-curse.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
It must hurt to be ignorant, Lib....

Seeing as how he's the only one who's made an intelligent statement so far, I ccan't see how this applies to him.

I mean, really.  Comparing Bush to Small-Dong?  You people have become so obsessed with your hatred of Bush that you're getting more and more absurd by the day.  I'm hoping that there are some other people out there that get as much of a laugh as I do at the **** some of you spew day after day.

[Flipside]

Wheras you are so obsessed with your adoration of him that you cannot even take criticism? Let alone a joke?

Hmmmm.....

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Rictor
There have been 42 American presidents before Dubya. Not one has had a need for this level of security, even in times that were far more dangerous. What does that tell you about Bush and his presidency?

edit: my bad ShadowWolf. It was early in the morning when I posted this, and I guess my brain wasn't quite awake.

I think that's a bit unfair of a comparison. In 1786, when the Constitution was formed and George Washington took oath, 'Right to bear arms' meant a rifle, which would take 15-30 seconds between shots. TNT was the Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Now, we have machine guns that are accurate from 2 kilometers away, and nuclear bombs that fit in suitcases. Security concerns have changed, and not just because of 'terrorists', or because everybody hates Dubya.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by aldo_14
...in fact, the threat of Al-Queda pales in comparison to what the USSR could have done had they wanted to.....

That's a granted.  But the possibility of having a lone assassin or a group of assassins more than willing to die to acheive their objective is far higher now, thus the high-end security.  

All the security in the world wouldn't have protected them(Johnson and  Reagan, from your example) from a 10 megaton nuke falling on their heads, which was by far the larger danger in those times.

The difference is that, while dark and corrupt, the USSR was a Nation that could be dealt with on those terms.  You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the Terrorists are multi-national(though mostly Saudi and Iranian) organization whose stated goal is the destruction of The West, which is you, me, your families, your pets, everything.  They can't be negotiated with because they don't want anything but the destruction of The West, and when you and your like talk, I hear people who would just as soon help them....

[Flipside]

Well, I will admit that I've never heard one of the 'terms' (for want of a better word) offered by Bin-Laden to be the mass suicide of everyone west of Egypt. And such a want in these people would be the ultimate pipe dream.

Yes, there are Easterners who would love to see the West destroyed, just as there are some Westerners who would feel more comfortable in the opposite situation. But if theres one thing that's been stressed it's that Terrorists aren't stupid, so if they aren't stupid, why would they want something as stupid and self-destructive as that?

They don't want to destroy the West, they want the same luxuries and privileges as the West, this hasn't come about partly through self interests in the UK, US and other countries and partly because of the unwillingness of many Eastern leaders to invest the required money in their infrastructure.

So, no, it's not solely Americas fault, and yes, some of the complaints aimed at the West by leaders in certain areas of the East are purely to distract attention away from their own faillings, but with all due respect, that is no different to other governments using Terrorism as an excuse to distract people from theirs.

We're all being mislead to believe minorities are majorities, be it bloodsucking businessmen to radical suicidal Muslim terrorists. And the wave of generated hatred, misinformation and prejudice that has been created threatens to make the Tsunami look like a slightly high tide.

To be honest, Vietnam was the 'War to End all Wars' of this sort, since it proved that traps, terrorism and 'insurgency' could wear away an army which is designed for head-head combat.

Edit : In fact, I seem to recall Saddam saying that America would face 'another Vietnam' if they went into Iraq, and, for the main part, he wasn't wrong.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


That's a granted.  But the possibility of having a lone assassin or a group of assassins more than willing to die to acheive their objective is far higher now, thus the high-end security.  

Is it really, though?  AFAIK there hasn't been a single conviction of a terrorist for planning an attack in the UK or US; I believe the closest was arrensting and charging a bunch of Arabs for playing paintball ("preparing to attack the homeland").

Originally posted by Liberator
All the security in the world wouldn't have protected them(Johnson and  Reagan, from your example) from a 10 megaton nuke falling on their heads, which was by far the larger danger in those times.

Actually, I was thinking of using KGB agents for assassination purposes; far less risky than a nuclear exchange (which MAD made only a remote possibility anyways; arguably nuclear was was as likely to occur due to human error as intentional warfare).

Originally posted by Liberator
The difference is that, while dark and corrupt, the USSR was a Nation that could be dealt with on those terms.  You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the Terrorists are multi-national(though mostly Saudi and Iranian) organization whose stated goal is the destruction of The West, which is you, me, your families, your pets, everything.  They can't be negotiated with because they don't want anything but the destruction of The West, and when you and your like talk, I hear people who would just as soon help them....

When you talk like that, i hear people who are willing to manipulate a threat to make it seem worse than it is, for personal and political gain.  

EDIT2; actually, reading it again, I feel pretty damn insulted.  you assume that, because I think the US' tactics are not only innefectual but also dangerous, that I somehow support terrorism?  That if I question the honesty and public interest of these leaders, that I am somehow giving implicit support to mass murderers?  

There's a reason why the muslim world and indeed many places beyond hates the US - it's that sort of insulting 'with or against us' always right attitude that pervades your countries foreign policy.  Surely recent history has shown beyond all doubt that you can't launch a military attack on terrorism without reinforcing the prejudices, bias and reasons that people become or support terrorists?  Or if not beyond all doubt, enough that you can actually question how effective this foreign policy is?

I'm well aware of the multi-nationality of terrorism, but if you stack up the numbers of convictions and actual acts (against the west), it's far from the massive SMERSH-type organisation we have been told it is.

Of course, the Pentagon itself admit that Al-Queda and the like don't hate the US for it's freedom, they hate it for it's policies.  I'll try and edit in the link for that in a jiffy.
EDIT;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4040543.stm

NB: Flip, (you probably know this anyways, but it's an intereting editorial statement) Bush Senior also said he was against pushing into Iraq during the 91 Gulf War; namely because they'd be stuck in a quagmire which they'd still be stuck in justnow (maybe his exact words).  So even if Junior was getting revenge for his dad, he sure as hell wasn't listening to him....

[Bobboau]

though, you know liveing in a nation that is half populated by religous nuts maybe I have a better understanding of the mindset. and lets also take into consiteration the general atitudes as well as nutty **** that are hallmarks of 'the left' such as thinking anything humans do is evil, especaly the more modern ones, you know 'destroying the planet'. so the thought that there are a bunch of nuts somewere in the world on a mission from God to kill us all, who are able to take advantage of a bit of a inate self hatred in there enemy in order to keep them fighting themselves, maybe even get them to fight each other right out. isn't beond the relm of posability either. at least in my humble oppinion.

[aldo_14]

I think if there were that many terrorists out there, we'd see a lot more people dead... it's not particularly hard to blow up a truck-bomb, or a knapsack bomb on a train, for example; there's no shortage of soft targets.   I think the highest estimate of terrorists was something like 100,000? (based on al-Queda training camps...of course, these people were also training to fight Islamic revolutions in their own countries ala for the Taliban, and many of those people probably died in Afghanistan).  In global terms, that's not really enough people to take down a country, let alone the western world.

[Bobboau]

realy well, lets think about it, 19 terrorists killed 3,000 people, if there was 100,000 of them well lets see here.. that means they can kill about 16 million people, granted that still leaves about 900 million of us left, but I think you get my point