# We're Not Afraid!



## shesulsa (Jul 14, 2005)

Londoners have begun a grass roots movement in a bold statement to the terrorists who attempted to wreak havoc in their lives.  Thousands of pictures are coming in from all over the country sending the message that the terrorists have failed at their game of intimidation.

 I think they've got more huevos than we do.  We scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties.  Brits are thumbing nose.

http://www.werenotafraid.com/


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

_:asian:_


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 14, 2005)

I'm not sure if they have more "huevos," but they have been dealing with terrorism a lot longer than the Americans.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2005)

Well, even more to the point, I think, they've been dealing with war being brought to their country for much longer than we have. They're reacting like it's the bombing of London in WWII.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think they've got more huevos than we do. We scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties. Brits are thumbing nose.


 I don't agree with the description of us or of them. They've got a stiff upper lip attitude and I respect that, but they've got considerably fewer freedoms already where civil liberties (and freedom of the press) are concerned. I wouldn't recommend paying $4.95 for it, but here's an article that nicely outlines the situation, from the 6 October 2004 Wall Street Journal:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/707891341.html?dids=707891341:707891341&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+6%2C+2004&author=Scot+J.+Paltrow&type=91_1996&desc=Secrets+and+Spies%3A+U.K.+Agency+Makes+Gains+in+Terror+War



> A close look at MI5 pieced together from court records, accounts of former MI5 operatives, security experts and press accounts shows how attractive the MI5 model can be. Since a 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy in London, no Islamic terrorist plot in the United Kingdom has been successful, and MI5 has detected and stopped several. But it also shows that MI5's reputation for effectiveness comes at a price -- a loss of civil liberties and surrender of authority to the government -- that may be steeper than Americans want to pay.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 14, 2005)

I don't know about civil liberties, but the British media is better than what we have in North America. Reporters actually grill leaders instead of asking them what their favorite color is and debates are actual debates rather than a competition to see who can yell the loudest.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 14, 2005)

LIstening/reading ANY speech to fellow English by Winston Churchhill, it gives a good idea of what "stiff-upper-lip" attitude means. Then take a look at their "punk" movement... The Brits are a resilient people and of the ones that I know personally I'm glad to call friends for their upbeat and can do attitudes and wonderful sense of humor. 
The article isn't surprising.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2005)

Hmmm..one of the reasons they found the bombers so fast is because almost ALL of London is covered by cameras being watched by everybody from security to the police. How would Americans respond to a federal surveillance system of all public space as an answer to terrorism?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I don't know about civil liberties, but the British media is better than what we have in North America.


 Oh yeah, BBC news is great. But, the U.K. can effect greater legal restrictions on the press than the U.S. can. Official Secrets Act and all that rot, for one example.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 14, 2005)

Oh, I didn't know that.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 14, 2005)

Sounds a little like..... "Bring it on."       

Good for them.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm..one of the reasons they found the bombers so fast is because almost ALL of London is covered by cameras being watched by everybody from security to the police. How would Americans respond to a federal surveillance system of all public space as an answer to terrorism?


You, of all people, should know what is posted at every stop light in the country (OK, a bit of an exageration). Hell, I turn on my TV at times just to watch traffic. Forget about the cameras behind every cash regsister, atm, and in the ceiling at every Wal-mart.

Are you certain we don't already have a federal surveillance system?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2005)

Many of the cameras at stop lights are for the timing of the lights and don't record photographs for later use. They're sensors more than cameras.

But yes, you are on camera many places in the U.S. But in the U.K. it's really something. They have police cameras _everywhere_.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jul 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Many of the cameras at stop lights are for the timing of the lights and don't record photographs for later use. They're sensors more than cameras.
> 
> But yes, you are on camera many places in the U.S. But in the U.K. it's really something. They have police cameras _everywhere_.


Where I used to live in the centre of London, I had a police camera right outside my bedroom window on a stalk (thankfully it couldn't turn all of the way around) and personally I was quite happy about it, since a pub named The Sussex was blown up by the IRA once, not 100 yards away from where I lived.
As regards the article, we have been dealing with terrorists for a long time, and these cowards are just another type.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You, of all people, should know what is posted at every stop light in the country (OK, a bit of an exageration). Hell, I turn on my TV at times just to watch traffic. Forget about the cameras behind every cash regsister, atm, and in the ceiling at every Wal-mart.
> 
> Are you certain we don't already have a federal surveillance system?


Believe me. Me of all people know that there is far from a "fed suv. system" out there. Every armed robbery I go to I search for a store camera somewhere that may hopefully have caught a getaway car leaving the lot....seldom happens. And many of the cameras we do have at the local "stop-n-robs" are crap. Traffic cameras, other than on the thruway up here, are rare.

We are far from the scale that much of Europe is at in terms of monitoring. Cameras that read and track license plates are even being used to monitor parking ramps, lots, roadways etc...


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 15, 2005)

Surveilance cameras here in the UK are on a level most people in the states could not comprehend or maybe THINK they can.
   Example....
  Oxford Street,london.
   Major shopping and business venue.
  Walk 1,ONE, block and your picture will be taken 311 times.
 EVERYBODY'S picture.Not just who they decide....everybody.
 If you own an establishment that sells alcohol of any type or provide entertainment of any type,it is mandatory that you have cameras.
  Now they are going to make cameras mandatory in ALL businesses.
  This IS a testing ground for Big Brother........

  just for kicks,go to

www.camvista.com

  I believe you need Java.
  But it shows you some camera locations here in the UK and other places around the world.


  But on the original note......
  Americans have no clue of the level of surveilance here......and how useless it is in most cases.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jul 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Londoners have begun a grass roots movement in a bold statement to the terrorists who attempted to wreak havoc in their lives. Thousands of pictures are coming in from all over the country sending the message that the terrorists have failed at their game of intimidation.
> 
> I think they've got more huevos than we do. We scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties. Brits are thumbing nose.
> 
> http://www.werenotafraid.com/


The British are not a people that wise individuals mess with. After the Hitler/Stalin pact and the defeat of France, they stood alone against the Nazi behemoth. My sympathies and prayers are with the people of London.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Londoners have begun a grass roots movement in a bold statement to the terrorists who attempted to wreak havoc in their lives. Thousands of pictures are coming in from all over the country sending the message that the terrorists have failed at their game of intimidation.
> 
> I think they've got more huevos than we do. We scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties. Brits are thumbing nose.
> 
> http://www.werenotafraid.com/


 Lets not make this about "Us or them". I actually find it offensive that you claim that the US "scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties." I think that's offensive to those who carried on in the direct aftermath of 9/11, which by the way cost the lives of over 3,000 people. I don't recall myself or anyone I know scattering like "frightened sheep".  Of course i'm sure that is not the way you meant that to sound.  It did, however, strike a bit of a nerve in the way that it was worded.  

As for the British people, they have nobly assisted us in the war on terror, and they continue to do so. Unfortunately, they had grown rather complacent in the idea that it was Islam versus the US and they really didn't have anything personally to fear. The irony of Britains bombings are similar intelligence failures as the US, lent mostly from their lack of responsiveness to real threats within their muslim community.

That having been said, we stand with the British people as they stood with us in the aftermath of 9/11 and for a long time before.

The myth that many American's have apparently taken as truth is that the Patriot Act in some way made us more repressive than European police agencies. In reality, the security agencies of many European nations have far broader powers than the US even under the Patriot Act. For example, many European Intelligence Agencies are allowed to operate within the country, a reality denied the CIA.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 15, 2005)

:mp5: No Fear! :whip: 

            :2xBird2:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The myth that many American's have apparently taken as truth is that the Patriot Act in some way made us more repressive than European police agencies. In reality, the security agencies of many European nations have far broader powers than the US even under the Patriot Act. For example, many European Intelligence Agencies are allowed to operate within the country, a reality denied the CIA.


Exactly. And while not to trivialize the bombings by any means, thousands dead on 9/11, compared to 30-40 in London is kind of disparate for comparison of national reaction dont you think?


----------



## BushidoUK (Jul 16, 2005)

how about if we add up all those killed by American funded IRA bombs as well then?


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 16, 2005)

BushidoUK said:
			
		

> how about if we add up all those killed by American funded IRA bombs as well then?


 whats your point there?
 Are you saying the americans were responsable for this attack?
 No?
 Then why bring this up?


----------



## BushidoUK (Jul 16, 2005)

I brought it up cos I was p*ssed off that Tgace had more or less said that "our attack was bigger than your attack so why all the fuss"

I just felt like reminding them that Americans didnt seem to mind funding terrorist groups themselves before they  themselves were attacked.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 16, 2005)

I got ya.
  The "americans" had nothing to do with that.
 The government,yes! More specifically,CIA...they have even less to do with the wishes of the american people than the actual government does.
 BUT......
  By saying the americans did it is like me sayin the brits asked for the IRA reaction by sticking your nose where it doesn't belong and leaving it there.
  But YOU didn't do that...your gov't did.
 The americans didn't do it,an off-shoot of the gov't did it.
 TWO completely different entities.
  So you will excuse me when I get a little bent when people generalise americans like that.


----------



## BushidoUK (Jul 16, 2005)

Bammx2,
I stand corrected
my apologies to you and all Americans for my slight.
However, i still feel agrieved at the previous post which almost trivialised the lower loss of life in London
1 life or 1000..... its still too many and both events in the USA and UK and Spain and Bali are all equally tragic.
One of the problems is that abroad the "Amercians" are seen to be insular and self centred on only matters that concern themselves. This is obviously a sweeping generalisation.
I meant no offence to the ordinary US citizen, only those in the examples you mentioned.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2005)

Well..If you actually read my post you see that I made the comparison in terms of "national reaction". Somebody criticized how the US reacted after 9/11 compared to the London bombings. 

Plane loads of people flying into buildings killing thousands at a stroke (and caught on film for all to see) is different from what happened in London and the countries reactions were bound to be different. As were the differences in our reactions between 9/11 and the Oklahoma city bombings.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2005)

And...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/feature...jul08,1,3797889.story?coll=bal-artslife-today



> "I am not one to criticize the competition, but one of the biggest problems yesterday was a lot of speculation about casualties and the number of people killed - with rather wild numbers flying around. We were very careful that we didn't put out any figures that weren't confirmed with an official source. Speculation in these circumstances, particularly about casualties, is really unhelpful and can make the situation worse. We went only with official information," Sambrook said.
> 
> Strict reliance on government information can result in the public's not getting the full story, or getting only a sweetened version of events. While polls show that American viewers say they want restraint from TV news in such moments, the same polls find a strong distaste for any form of self-censorship.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 16, 2005)

BushidoUK said:
			
		

> Bammx2,
> I stand corrected
> my apologies to you and all Americans for my slight.
> However, i still feel agrieved at the previous post which almost trivialised the lower loss of life in London
> ...


 ...and I apologise as well.
 My main problem is I am american and I live here in the UK and have done so for the last 5 years.
  But more so than that....I have recieved different types of persecutions JUST for that reason and I am getting tired of being judged for the action of some moronic twit like GW Bush and the rest of the US gov't.
 And the last event was just last weekend when someone just HEARD my voice,or accent, and started saying..and I quote:..."you are the worst warmongers and baby killers on the planet! those attacks would have never happen if YOU didn't stick your nose where it doesn't belong!"

 British,muslim,american......what do they have in common now?

 Persecution of the masses,by the masses,for the actions of a few.

 BusidoUK......:asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> I got ya.
> The "americans" had nothing to do with that.
> The government,yes! More specifically,CIA...they have even less to do with the wishes of the american people than the actual government does.
> BUT......
> ...


 The CIA had nothing to do with IRA bombings. That is the most asinine assertion I have seen in a long time of seeing asinine assertions. In fact, i've never heard that bizarre claim levelled by even the most ardent conspiracy fruit cakes. It was irish catholic organizations within the US that were sending money to the IRA, not the CIA (Unless you mean CIA as "Catholic Irish Americans".)



			
				BushidoUK said:
			
		

> Bammx2,
> I stand corrected
> my apologies to you and all Americans for my slight.
> However, i still feel agrieved at the previous post which almost trivialised the lower loss of life in London
> ...


 It's not just Americans, that tendency is human nature.



			
				Bammx2 said:
			
		

> ...and I apologise as well.
> My main problem is I am american and I live here in the UK and have done so for the last 5 years.
> But more so than that....I have recieved different types of persecutions JUST for that reason and I am getting tired of being judged for the action of some moronic twit like GW Bush and the rest of the US gov't.
> And the last event was just last weekend when someone just HEARD my voice,or accent, and started saying..and I quote:..."you are the worst warmongers and baby killers on the planet! those attacks would have never happen if YOU didn't stick your nose where it doesn't belong!"
> ...


 So your fellow Brits are blaming America for the enemy they have allowed in their own midst? I guess they're too politically correct to blame the REAL enemy. The Spanish were attacked, now the Brits were attacked, but have they really learned anything from this other than blame the US? Neville Chamberlain would be proud.



			
				BushidoUK said:
			
		

> I brought it up cos I was p*ssed off that Tgace had more or less said that "our attack was bigger than your attack so why all the fuss"
> 
> I just felt like reminding them that Americans didnt seem to mind funding terrorist groups themselves before they themselves were attacked.


 The world seems to like pointing the finger at the US on such issues as "funding terrorists", but many nations seem to forget their own history.  European colonialism has as much to do with what we face in the middle east today as anything the US does, and Britain has the lions share of that blame.  Further, we can take Iran for example.  The news organizations like the BBC like to point out CIA involvement in installing the Shah or Iran, what seems rarely mentioned is that we assisted doing so by request of the British government, who was already operating in the region.  The British have been playing their own games in the middle east for far longer than the US was even cognizant the middle east existed.  So don't blame us if a few Islamic extremists are mad at you as well.  Further, Islamic terrorist organizations trained and trained with many IRA terrorists for years.

We are your allies, do you really want to start attacking us in the moment you are attacked by our common enemy?


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 16, 2005)

Did we touch a nerve?!?!

   The brits did let the enemy in just as much as we let them in to the US.
  and for your further info...
 I have had a few brits give me grief.As well as people from ireland(they disagree about the CIA.) australia,SPAIN,and few others from countries I haven't even heard of.
   Most of them say it is in retaliation for BACKING the US..not getting involved on thier own,but for supporting us.
  You have to remember one thing....
 this island has a far more massive concentration of foreign nationals than the US,so I get more first hand conversation than most back home would.
 and just because you haven't heard of something doesn't neccessarly make it asnine.
 I catch myself doing the same thing on occasion...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Did we touch a nerve?!?!
> 
> The brits did let the enemy in just as much as we let them in to the US.
> and for your further info...
> ...


 If your friends from Ireland dislike the CIA, then it's probably evidence that the CIA did NOT help the IRA. There are actually two CIA's, the REAL CIA and the fantasy CIA of conspiracy theorists minds. The CIA has become a boogeyman myth across the world. If something goes wrong, blame the mythical CIA. 

As far as those who wish to distance themselves from the US, it's not surprise. It may be some that of that self-centeredness you referred. The desire to avoid any conflict not currently directly in their face. Appeasement is the rule of the western world, not the exception. They hide their heads in the sand and hope terrorists will just ignore them.  It's a basic weakness of western culture, the belief that everyone wants the same thing, and if you'll simply leave them alone, they will leave you alone.


----------



## Nergul (Jul 18, 2005)

I would also like to add that there is a world of difference between what happened there and here. The impact on the nation was drastically different. Not that what happened in London isnt bad, it is, but it is a far cry from the events surrounding our own attack. It is like comparing apples and oranges and then trying to cram it all together and say, "hey, look how much better they are dealing with it!" It is a poor comparison.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 19, 2005)

Okay, some fair points so far - 

 First of all, the U.K. has already forfeited many civil liberties that we are yet to (or are about to, depending upon your lean) so comparing this status to our jump to give up some liberties in the name of safety COULD be a moot one ... however ... my point in context was to be that we are just SO VERY READY TO DO THIS that it is rather disturbing and one wonders if this great experiment in democracy will last in this new age of world terrorism.

 Next, 


			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Lets not make this about "Us or them". I actually find it offensive that you claim that the US "scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties." I think that's offensive to those who carried on in the direct aftermath of 9/11, which by the way cost the lives of over 3,000 people. I don't recall myself or anyone I know scattering like "frightened sheep".


 Perhaps my context wasn't clear.  The feeling represented by our media was that of fear - colored warnings to predict your terrorism day.  As if our 9/11 wasn't bad enough, we were almost commanded to be afraid - how could we not be? Our nation will never be the same, etc. etc.  This is the face we showed the world - that and angry vengeance.  I just think it was quite distinguishable from the general appearances - I could be wrong, it happened once before.   My intent was not to begin an us v. them "thing" at all, merely a comparison of general face.

 Again, the intent was not to compare EVENTS, rather CHEEK.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 19, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Okay, some fair points so far -
> 
> First of all, the U.K. has already forfeited many civil liberties that we are yet to (or are about to, depending upon your lean) so comparing this status to our jump to give up some liberties in the name of safety COULD be a moot one ... however ... my point in context was to be that we are just SO VERY READY TO DO THIS that it is rather disturbing and one wonders if this great experiment in democracy will last in this new age of world terrorism.
> 
> ...


I understand your point, and respect it.  I do disagree on a couple of points.

Timid sheephood and angry vengence seem to be opposite sides of the spectrum. Which did we show the world again? It would seem to me that if it were simply timid sheephood, the world would be very much happier with us right now. Instead, we aggressively went after the terrorist organizations involved, and nations that backed them. 

A terrorist organization managed to coordinate simultaneous attacks in several different states, at the same time, resulting in the deaths of several thousands of people, the destruction of large buildings, and economic damage that resulted in the 100's of billions if not trillions of dollars ultimately. What would have been the appropriate level of paranoia after that? 

Further, our aggressive posture has prevented a large number of further terrorist attacks within the US. That's an impressive achievement given Al-Queda's desire to do so. And this wasn't for lack of trying. Numerous attempts by terrorist cells operating in and outside of the US have been thwarted. Aborted and prevented terrorist attacks don't make big news, so we don't spend a lot of time talking about them. Yet, we've gone from 9/11 to the present day without Al Queda being able to launch another attack on the United States. 

It is exactly Al-Queda's inability to attack the US directly that has led to stepped up operations within Europe, including Madrid and London. We have become less of a target of opportunity post-9/11. The intelligence and law-enforcement scene post-9/11 has been one success after another. Again, though, successful pro-active intelligence and law-enforcement activity does not make the news, only the failure therein, so it is no surprise we fail to realize the level of success we have had.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Timid sheephood and angry vengence seem to be opposite sides of the spectrum.


 Think so?  Fear and anger walk hand-in-hand.  I did not use the term "timid sheephood" I said: 





			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> We scattered like frightened sheep, screamed, panicked and forfeited civil liberties


 ... which many of us did. Some citizens reported resurrecting their old bomb shelters or constructing new ones.  Our government invoked the patriot act.  The collective "we" showed the face of fear and, pointing to it, was an enraged president swearing vengeance.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Which did we show the world again?


 Both, dear. Catch up.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It would seem to me that if it were simply timid sheephood, the world would be very much happier with us right now.


 See my comment above.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 19, 2005)

Heh - you edited while I was replying and I'm too tired to respond now. Goodnight.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 19, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Think so? Fear and anger walk hand-in-hand. I did not use the term "timid sheephood" I said: ...


 That's why I didn't put quotes around timid sheephood. Fear and anger do not always go hand in hand. Sometimes fear just runs screaming in to the night. Fear coupled with anger is far more useful than fear alone. Weak-willed people respond with fear. Stronger willed people respond with fear and anger. 




			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> which many of us did. Some citizens reported resurrecting their old bomb shelters or constructing new ones. Our government invoked the patriot act. The collective "we" showed the face of fear and, pointing to it, was an enraged president swearing vengeance.


 What's wrong with bringing justice to those that did those things? It's better than cowering down in pre-emptive surrender. Would you prefer we simply said "Oh well, I guess we had that one coming"? Just exactly how would you have preferred us to respond to the sight of a group of savages killing thousands of our fellow Americans? What would have been the appropriate response?



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Both, dear. Catch up.


 Timid people do not go after the perpetrators of their misfortune...instead, they sit around trying to figure out how they brought this on themselves like victims. 



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> See my comment above.


 Again, if it was merely fear, then the world would be much happier with us.  The victim gets sympathy, those who refuse to be victims, however, don't need sympathy.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 19, 2005)

I have to question a couple of points:



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Instead, we aggressively went after the terrorist organizations involved, and nations that backed them.


I thought the world was upset at us for aggressively invading a country and occupying it without the country having any proven ties to the "big" terrorist organizations?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, our aggressive posture has prevented a large number of further terrorist attacks within the US. That's an impressive achievement given Al-Queda's desire to do so. And this wasn't for lack of trying. Numerous attempts by terrorist cells operating in and outside of the US have been thwarted. Aborted and prevented terrorist attacks don't make big news, so we don't spend a lot of time talking about them. Yet, we've gone from 9/11 to the present day without Al Queda being able to launch another attack on the United States.


Could you link the report that states we've thwarted anything except a few civies from getting on planes, or at least point me in the direction?  I think an foiled attempt would be front page news, used by the media to fan the flames of our rampant nationalism.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It is exactly Al-Queda's inability to attack the US directly that has led to stepped up operations within Europe, including Madrid and London. We have become less of a target of opportunity post-9/11. The intelligence and law-enforcement scene post-9/11 has been one success after another. Again, though, successful pro-active intelligence and law-enforcement activity does not make the news, only the failure therein, so it is no surprise we fail to realize the level of success we have had.


I disagree.  Our intelligence may be more heavily scrutinized post-atrocity, which by all means is a good thing.  This does not make us any less of a target, though.  As you had said yourself, these fanatics killed thousands of people in one shot here.  They made their statement.  If they have to make another one, they will.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree that it is naive to assume we will not be attacked again within our borders.  IMO, we have squandered our resources (and our good will) in Iraq, when we could have pursued Bin Laden, and invested more heavily in port and border security, airport screening, and human intelligence.

By the way, did you forget about the bombing in front of the British Consulate in NYC on May 5, 2005 ?


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 19, 2005)

Now some of are missing what we HAVE achieved......
 Isolationism being one.
 Fear and suspision of those who are different from us.
 New and totally rediculous laws to RESTRAIN the innocent(NOT protect) like the governments like to spew on almost a daily basis.
  Ya know,now they are talking about making it criminal offence here(in the UK) if you leave ANYTHING unattended in public,even if it IS an actual accident.
  Innocent people have to basically be stripped search in public just to board a plane.
  Busses will be next.then cabs.....BICYCLES?
 We're might as well have a neked society to protect the innocent!
  I can see it now.......
 "Stop squinting at me lady"!
  This whole idea of "we're protecting the innocent" is turning out to be a crock.
  There have been far more "good guys" killed,imprisoned,detained or whatever,than the bad guys.Why?
  They are still being effective while we are losing grip.
 And for those who may think I am saying we should be sheep...YOU can get bent.
  This a war started by stupid people.Propagated by stupid people.
 And being maintained by stupid people.
  What would have happened if we didn't do anything but give the bad guys the finger and picked ourselves up and carried on with our lives?
 We'll never know at this point since some idiot decided it was his responsibility to police the world at every cost he can muster except his own.
  The US is not the world police.
 Everybody knows Bush is a liar and an idiot.He's got 3 years left and he's done. You REALY think all this will be over by then? Hell no.
  Bush and his cronies go home,fat dumb and happy......and innocent people will still be dying for what he has done.
  And with everyone knowing bush is a liar and an idiot.....how ar we supposed to take his messeges when he says:" we are doing this to protect the innocent"?
 and thier death toll far out numbers those who we are supposed to be going after.
  Ya know what the "bad people" HAVE achieved?!
 They got us fighting amongst ourselves.........
  THAT is the best "terrorist" trick anyone has ever come up with.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 19, 2005)

What are these "rights" we are so ready to give up? The Patriot Act? That has been gone over numerous times here. Behind all the hype, most of the fear around the PA is based on myth and misinformation.

See...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24813&page=2&pp=15&highlight=Patriot+Act

for a good discussion about that.

Other than the PA, what else are we discussing? As I remember it, I dont remember anybody running around like a chicken with their head cut off on 9/11. I do remember all the local police departments, fire companies and EMT's sending convoys to NYC to assist in the disaster.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I have to question a couple of points:
> 
> I thought the world was upset at us for aggressively invading a country and occupying it without the country having any proven ties to the "big" terrorist organizations?


 Are you referring to Afghanistan, which was harboring Al-Queda and allowed itself to be used as a base of operations by the terrorists. Because that's the country we invaded in response to 9/11.

You must, of course, be referring to Iraq. Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, and of course of all the reasons given by the administratino for invading Iraq, having to do with 9/11 wasn't one of them. 

Remember Desert Storm and Kuwait? Iraq was about 10 years of useless sanctions and about a violent dictator with a track record or attacking it's neighbors, AND support terrorist group (though that's secondary, but remember money for suicide bombers).  During Saddam's "on-leash" time, he continued to attack US soldiers, and continued to defy the conditions of the cease fire...that is what we had, a conditional cease fire.  Saddam needed to be dealt with before he could add enough members to the coalition of the bribed to get off of sanctions and back to business as usual. 



			
				OUMoose said:
			
		

> Could you link the report that states we've thwarted anything except a few civies from getting on planes, or at least point me in the direction? I think an foiled attempt would be front page news, used by the media to fan the flames of our rampant nationalism.


 Real successes aren't played out on the front page news. In fact, real successes usually involve long term intelligence operations that are played behind the scene. But i'll give you a list of a few high-ranking Al-Qaeda members captured or killed.  The terrorists who actually plan and carry out terrorist attacks are an integral part of terrorist attacks.

*Captured*

Abdi, Nuradin[3] 
Abu Ali, Ahmed Omar, suspect in plot to assassinate George W. Bush Akhtar, Qari Saifullah, suspect in attempted assassinations of Pakistani President Musharraf 
Al-Ahdal, Mohammed Hamdi 
Al-Badawi, Jamal USS Cole bombing suspect 
al Bahal, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman 
Al-Bakri, Mukhtar 
Al-Dosari, Juma 
Al-Faruq, Omar 
Al-Fawwaz, Khalid 
Al-Ghalyoun, Ghasoub al-Abrash 
Al-Haili, Abu Zubair 
al-Harbi, Khaled 
al-Kahtani, Mohamed 
Al-Liby, Abu Anas, Embassy bombings suspect 
Al-Libbi, Abu Faraj 
Al-Libi, Ibn Al-Shaykh 
al-Marabh, Nabil 
al-Marri, Ali Saleh Kahlah 
al-Nashiri, Abd al-Rahim Embassy and USS Cole bombing suspect 
Al-Omari, Othman 
Al-Owhali, Mohamed Rashed Daoud 
al Qosi, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud 
al-Qusa, Fahd (Fahid al-Qasa) USS Cole Boming suspect 
al-Saikhan, Rakan Mohsin Mohammed -sometimes reported killed 
Al Shihri, Shaban 
al-Sirouri, Mourad USS Cole bombing suspect 
al-Tbaiti, Zuher
al-Zahrani, Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel, Saudi cleric 
Ali-Haimoud, Farouk, "Detroit cell"[4] 
Alwan, Sahim 
Ameuroud, Abderrahmane, jailed for helping in the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood 
Arnaout, Enaam M. 
Arochi, Masrab 
Badat, Saajid Mohammed 
Babar, Mohammed Junaid
Ballaki, Samir Abdullah Mohammed 
Barakat, Imad 
Barot, Dhiren also called Abu Eisa al-Hindi or Abu Musa al-Hindi 
Bary, Adel Mohanned Abdul Almagid 
Battle, Jeffrey Leon 
Beghal, Djamel 
Benyaich, Abdelaziz 
Benayich, Salahadin 
Bhatti, Mohammed Naveed 
Bilal, Ahmed Ibrahim 
Binalshibh, Ramzi 
bin Attash, Tawfiq aka Khallad 
Brahim, Ahmed 
Charkaoui, Adil 
Chekkouri, Redouan 
Chekkouri, Younes 
Chekkouri, Yassine 
Dahoumane, Abdelmajid, imprisoned in Algeria 
Daoudi, Kamel 
Eidarous, Ibrahim Hussein Abdel Hadi 
Youssef el Aouni, jailed for helping in the assassination of Ahmad Shah
Masood 
El-Hage, Wadih
Ellattah, Ahmed 
Elmardoudi, Abdel-Ilah, "Detroit cell", convicted of terrorism and fraud[5] 
Elzahabi, Mohamad Kamal 
Faris, Iyman 
Feroze, Junade 
Ford, Patrice Lumbumba 
Galab, Faysal 
Ghailani, Ahmed Khalfan, Embassy bombings suspect 
Goba, Yahya 
Hannan, Ahmed, "Detroit cell"[6], terrorism charges dropped[7] 
Haq, Zia Ul 
Hijazi, Raed 
Isamuddin, Riduan aka "Hambali" 
Jalil, Abdul Aziz 
Khan, Muhammad Naeem Noor, Computer expert (may be pseudonym) 
Khemais, Essid Sami Ben 
Koubriti, Karim, "Detroit cell", convicted of terrorism and fraud[8] (or was he?[9]) 
Khadr, Omar 
Kurnaz, Murat 
Lewis, October Martinique 
Maaroufi, Tarek 
Mohamed, Khalfan Khamis, convicted Embassy bomber 
Mohammed, Khalid Sheik 
Mosed, Shafal 
Moussaoui, Zacarias 
Murad, Abdul Hakim 
Msouh, Maamoun, one of the USS Cole bombers 
Naseeb, Abdul Raouf 
Odeh, Mohammed Sadiq, convicted Embassy bomber 
Padilla, Jose (there is a lot of controversy over whether or not he really is an Al-Qaeda member) 
Reid, Richard ("the shoe bomber") 
Rehman, Omar Abdur 
Robert, Pierre Richard Robert 
Ressam, Ahmed 
Roche, Jack[10] 
Saleh, Ali Mohamed USS Cole bombing suspect 
Imam Samudra 
Satut, Bassan Dalati 
Shaffi, Quaisir 
Slahi, Mohamedou Ould 
Taher, Yaseinn 
Talha, Abu 
Tarmohamed, Nadeem 
Tebourski, Adel, jailed for helping in the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood 
Trabelsi, Nizar 
Ujaama, James 
Shah, Wali Khan Amin 
Yarkas, Imad , alleged Spanish cell leader 
Yousef, Ramzi 
Zammar, Mohammed Haydar 
Zemiri, Ahcene 
Zouaydi, Mohammed Galeb Kalaje 
Zougam, Jamal 
Zubaydah, Abu 
Ahmed, Rabei Osman (11 March 2004 Madrid attacks suspect) 
[edit]


*Dead*

Abdelmajid, Serhane Ben (11 March 2004 Madrid attacks suspect) 
Ahmidan, Jamal (Madrid attacks suspect) 
Akcha, Oulad (Madrid attacks suspect) 
Akcha, Rachid (Madrid attacks suspect) 
al-Mojati, Kareem Altohami 
Ahmad, Tariq Anwar Al-Sayyid 
al-Airi, Youssef 
al-Dakhil, Faisal 
al Durayhim, Ibrahim 
Al-Ghamdi, Ahmed 
Al-Ghamdi, Hamza 
Al-Ghamdi, Saeed 
Al-Harethi, Ali Qaed Sinan 
Al-Hazmi, Nawaf 
Al-Hazmi, Salem 
Al-Haznawi, Ahmed 
Al-Jaziri Abu Jafar 
Al-Kadr, Ahmad Said 
Al-Mezeini, Ibrahim bin Abdul-Aziz bin Mohammed 
Al-Midhar, Khalid 
al-Misawa, Abdullah USS Cole bomber 
al-Motairi, Nasser Ali Saad, Riyadh suicide bomber 
Al-Muqrin, Abdel Aziz 
al Muteiri, Turki 
Al-Nami, Ahmed 
al-Obeid, Dakheel Abdul Aziz Dakheel Mohammad, Riyadh suicide bomber 
Al-Omari, Abdulaziz 
al-Osaimi, Mohammad Mohsen, Riyadh suicide bomber 
al-Rashud, Abdullah Mohammed Rashid 
Al-Sha'ir, Abu Hazim also called Kahlid Ali Hajj 
Al-Shehhi, Marwan 
Al-Shehri, Mohald
Al-Shehri, Wail 
Al-Shehri, Waleed 
al-Subaiei, Abdullah Saud, Riyadh suicide bomber 
Al-Suqami, Satam 
al-Thawr, Ibrahim USS Cole bomber 
Al-Yemeni Abu Salah 
Atef, Mohammed 
Atta, Mohammed 
Banihammad, Fayez 
Benayich, Abdullah 
Derwish, Kamal 
Farooqi, Amjad Hussain 
Haj, Khaled Ali 
Hanjour, Hani 
Jarrah, Ziad 
Khadr, Ahmed Said 
Kounjaa, Abdennabi (Madrid attacks suspect) 
Lamari, Allekema (Madrid attacks suspect) 
Moqed, Majed 
Rifaat, Asri (Madrid attacks suspect) 
Said, Ahmed 
Salah, Mohammed 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_Al-Qaida_members Click on any of the above names for a complete file on each of them. 

This is just a small list, but all of these subjects were involved in ongoing operations against the US and it's allies, and many of them represent high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda. Some of them were arrested or killed trying to plan or carry out operations. It's a small list, and doesn't represent anything close to the total successes enjoyed by the US in the war on terror, but I hope it helps answer your questions about our successes post 9/11. 



			
				OUMoose said:
			
		

> disagree. Our intelligence may be more heavily scrutinized post-atrocity, which by all means is a good thing. This does not make us any less of a target, though. As you had said yourself, these fanatics killed thousands of people in one shot here. They made their statement. If they have to make another one, they will.


 Yes, and it has been harder for them to operate without key members. Our aggressive response protects us, it doesn't make us more of a target.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I agree that it is naive to assume we will not be attacked again within our borders. IMO, we have squandered our resources (and our good will) in Iraq, when we could have pursued Bin Laden, and invested more heavily in port and border security, airport screening, and human intelligence.
> 
> By the way, did you forget about the bombing in front of the British Consulate in NYC on May 5, 2005 ?


 So it is good will that keeps us from getting attacked? lol. The idea that we took resources away from pursuing Bin Laden is a myth. As for defensive measures, and improving them, they account for nothing taken by themselves. Only an offensive against the enemy will be successful, hiding in our shell is exactly what we SHOULDN'T do. 

For too long the US has cowered in the face of terrorism. Our dealings with Iran and it's state sponsored terrorism for 20 plus years emboldened the terrorists that we are a paper tiger. 

Machiavelli was right, it is better to be feared than loved. We made the mistake of not only not being feared, but being hated. Hate, without fear, is what has emboldened our attackers. They should fear our resolve....though, sometimes I have to wonder "What resolve?". Perhaps our attackers are right not fear our resolve...perhaps we really don't have any. 

It isn't the terrorists hate for us that we should worry about, it's their contempt for us that we should be concerned with. All this power, they must think, and we lack the will to even use it. Our enemies believe that raw power is nothing compared to the power of will. They may be right.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Now some of are missing what we HAVE achieved......
> Isolationism being one.
> Fear and suspision of those who are different from us.
> New and totally rediculous laws to RESTRAIN the innocent(NOT protect) like the governments like to spew on almost a daily basis.
> ...


Actually, many of us understand that the terrorists are the enemy. A few, though, seem to want to make this about their fellow citizens. Thank you for illustrating that point effectively. What would have happened if we had done nothing but thrown them the finger and moved on? Same thing that always happens when you don't fight back against criminals and terrorists...they break your finger off and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  You don't fight back, and they know victory is just a few bombs away.  I guess the spirit of Neville Chamberlain is alive and well in the western world.  Peace in our times?  At any cost?  lol.  Ask the spirit of Hitler what happens when you don't fight back.  

Do I honestly have fellow citizens who simply want to knuckle under and crawl in a hole? If this mindset is indicative of a large percentage of people, perhaps Al-Qaeda hasn't underestimated us afterall. Perhaps Al-Qaeda has a better feel for the pulse of our societies than I do. It's a brave new world out there, but it apparently doesn't belong to us anymore. 

As for rights i've lost, I keep asking the same question, and getting the same answer...silence. What rights? Name one right i've lost since 9/11. I'll be awaiting a reasoned reply.

A brave people doesn't have to worry about losing rights to fight the enemy. There's no need to lose rights here, if we decide to fight them there.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's why I didn't put quotes around timid sheephood. Fear and anger do not always go hand in hand. Sometimes fear just runs screaming in to the night. Fear coupled with anger is far more useful than fear alone. Weak-willed people respond with fear. Stronger willed people respond with fear and anger. [/b]


Useful people respond with rationality. 

Anger and fear nets you a song about sticking boots up people's nether regions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Useful people respond with rationality.
> 
> Anger and fear nets you a song about sticking boots up people's nether regions.


 Fear also gets you statements like "Lets not make these folks more angry than we already are" and "What have we done that could have made these people want to hurt us." 

There is nothing more rational in the words "All we are saying, is give peace a chance" than in the country song you are referring to. They are both emotionally charged songs based on an emotional point of view. 

But you are right...a cold, rational, surgical response is always called for in these situations, which is what I endorse. Responding to a violent threat should be done with cold deliberation. It is cold, rational, measured violence, coupled with steely resolve, that evokes fear in our present enemy. Now that's useful.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Fear also gets you statements like "Lets not make these folks more angry than we already are" and "What have we done that could have made these people want to hurt us."


IMO, the first quote's not possible if they're already suicide bombing various targets. Would seem to at least hint that the hornet's nest has already been kicked. The second question's not really a fearful response as I see it. You tick someone off there's going to be a consequence. Something to consider for the next time around. A stitch in in time will save nine and all that.   



> But you are right...a cold, rational, surgical response is always called for in these situations, which is what I endorse.  Responding to a violent threat should be done with cold deliberation.  It is cold, rational, measured violence that evokes fear in the enemy.  Now that's useful.



Yep. It's more a question of where to spray the Raid.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 22, 2005)

How about all you counter terrorism experts outline your action plan for how to deal with the terrorism issue?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> IMO, the first quote's not possible if they're already suicide bombing various targets. Would seem to at least hint that the hornet's nest has already been kicked. The second question's not really a fearful response as I see it. You tick someone off there's going to be a consequence. Something to consider for the next time around. A stitch in in time will save nine and all that.


 So your conclusion is that if someone is ticked off at you, you're wrong? It could be, such as with a mugger or a rapist, that they just want to take from you? Or it couldn't be that they just want to destroy you? It has to be something that you did to deserve being a victim? That whole line of thought seems to be built on the most irrational and most ineffectual brand of fear. It's the kind of fear that gets gazelles eaten on the savanah. 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. It's more a question of where to spray the Raid.


 The question isn't where, we already know the answer to that question. THe question is how much and do we have the courage and resolve to push the plunger enough times?



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> How about all you counter terrorism experts outline your action plan for how to deal with the terrorism issue?


My guess is an adaptation of the famous and successful "SniVeL" conflict resolution method endorsed domestically. http://www.coalitionforguncontrol.org/snivel.htm

or as Declain McCormack put it http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2004/mar/terroristhappy.html


----------

