PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Large bomb detonated in Oslo, political buildings attacked


Pages : 1 [2]

Cito Pelon
07-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Nobody is cheering anything. Nobody is supporting this clown for what he did. We all agree it's terrible and tragic.

Now GTFO and leave us to our discussion. The world didn't stop when three thousand of ours died and won't because less than 100 of yours did either.

What is wrong with you? You make me ashamed, show some class.

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 12:58 PM
What is wrong with you? You make me ashamed, show some class.

What exactly are we doing that should have him coming in criticizing what people are talking about? Discussing politics?

alkemical
07-25-2011, 01:03 PM
What exactly are we doing that should have him coming in criticizing what people are talking about? Discussing politics?

Pretty much:

A bunch of people want to use this incident to validate and condemn "the other side" of the political spectrum for their own ideology.

It's low class, and dishonest.

(not targeting YOU specifically - just a general observation of what's on the thread)

Cito Pelon
07-25-2011, 01:03 PM
What exactly are we doing that should have him coming in criticizing what people are talking about? Discussing politics?

That's no reason to respond as you did. That was way out of line and no-class.

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 01:35 PM
That's no reason to respond as you did. That was way out of line and no-class.

His post, to me, came across as a cry for pity and sympathy when, sorry to say it Norway, what you just went through is pretty much not insanely unusual in the world anymore. We lost 168 in OKC, 3-4000 in 9/11, over 5000 in the 'War on Terror' and he wants us to stop our conversation and just mourn because they lost 90?

Haroldthebarrel
07-25-2011, 01:39 PM
Pretty much:

A bunch of people want to use this incident to validate and condemn "the other side" of the political spectrum for their own ideology.

It's low class, and dishonest.

(not targeting YOU specifically - just a general observation of what's on the thread)
exactly

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 01:44 PM
Pretty much:

A bunch of people want to use this incident to validate and condemn "the other side" of the political spectrum for their own ideology.

It's low class, and dishonest.

(not targeting YOU specifically - just a general observation of what's on the thread)

You think a scenario like this shouldn't be a reason to question radicalism? That's crazy. The guy found an online community (I believe it was online then they became a real life, might've gone the other way) that held the same general philosophy that he did and allowed those radical thoughts to foster as something reasonable enough to eventually take action upon. How often do people do things like this where we find they acted absolutely alone? They almost always have a support network where like-minded individuals help those radical thoughts foster and grow. THIS is a perfect example of where simple freedom of speech issues can allow radicalism to feel to a person like it's not only not radical but reasonable and correct. Those on the radical spectrum can be very dangerous. That's a very valid discussion to have.

And, most of this thread then became socialism vs communism and he griped about people arguing semantics. That tells me he didn't like THAT aspect and it's another very valid discussion as we see the world continuing to take on increasingly socialistic endeavors.

alkemical
07-25-2011, 01:53 PM
exactly

Condolences to you and yours. I wish you the best out of a terrible situation.

alkemical
07-25-2011, 01:55 PM
You think a scenario like this shouldn't be a reason to question radicalism? That's crazy. The guy found an online community (I believe it was online then they became a real life, might've gone the other way) that held the same general philosophy that he did and allowed those radical thoughts to foster as something reasonable enough to eventually take action upon. How often do people do things like this where we find they acted absolutely alone? They almost always have a support network where like-minded individuals help those radical thoughts foster and grow. THIS is a perfect example of where simple freedom of speech issues can allow radicalism to feel to a person like it's not only not radical but reasonable and correct. Those on the radical spectrum can be very dangerous. That's a very valid discussion to have.

And, most of this thread then became socialism vs communism and he griped about people arguing semantics. That tells me he didn't like THAT aspect and it's another very valid discussion as we see the world continuing to take on increasingly socialistic endeavors.


Socialism BAD.

Happy?

:shakeshead:

Cito Pelon
07-25-2011, 01:58 PM
His post, to me, came across as a cry for pity and sympathy when, sorry to say it Norway, what you just went through is pretty much not insanely unusual in the world anymore. We lost 168 in OKC, 3-4000 in 9/11, over 5000 in the 'War on Terror' and he wants us to stop our conversation and just mourn because they lost 90?

So what's the problem with pity and sympathy? The man and his country got hit hard, show some class.

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 01:59 PM
So what's the problem with pity and sympathy? The man and his country got hit hard, show some class.

Because he did it in a way that tried to tell us what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 02:33 PM
You think a scenario like this shouldn't be a reason to question radicalism? That's crazy. The guy found an online community (I believe it was online then they became a real life, might've gone the other way) that held the same general philosophy that he did and allowed those radical thoughts to foster as something reasonable enough to eventually take action upon. How often do people do things like this where we find they acted absolutely alone? They almost always have a support network where like-minded individuals help those radical thoughts foster and grow. THIS is a perfect example of where simple freedom of speech issues can allow radicalism to feel to a person like it's not only not radical but reasonable and correct. Those on the radical spectrum can be very dangerous. That's a very valid discussion to have.

Its never a valid discussion to question the bounds of free speech.

There are plenty of examples of lone terrorist attacks or attempts. Supposedly, its the most common type of attack. This goes back to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth, the Fort Hood shooter, Ted Kaczynski, and on and on. It doesn't get any more distanced from reality than Ted Kaczynski. The guy was literally removed from his community.

Terrorist groups like Weather Underground, the KKK, or Al Qaeda certianly exist, but they seem to be the exception to the rule.

I don't think that you're raising a point of any merit, but you are raising one that will be repeated by people who would like to use a tragedy like this to limit free speech.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 02:53 PM
The French fleet was crippled by the RN and mostly useless before the US entered the war.' You're also forgetting the Russians who were destroying German armies en-masse. Both Britain and the US would have continued to supply the Russians. There are many scenarios and no certainty that the Nazis would have prevailed. More likely a stalemate until technology tipped the balance.


The scenario discussed was the defeat of the Uk and the USSR and total US neutrality. The US in this scenario would not have supplied anything to anyone. I didnt forget about how the war unfolded, but stuck to the parameters of the proposed scenario.

:Broncos:

TonyR
07-25-2011, 03:01 PM
...this was about as far from an act of meaningless violence as you can get. It is an explicitly articulated, carefully argued conclusion from a mishmash of every current far right platitude out there. Breivik does not merely claim influence by someone like Robert Spencer, he quotes him and so many others at great length as part of his manifesto! It's a pastiche of vast tracts of the far right blogosphere. None of this delegitimizes sane, vital critiques of Islamist intolerance, violence and ideology; none of it makes these cited ideologues and fanatics guilty of murder or in any way being accomplices to murder, or in any way connected to his crime. But it does seem to me to prove beyond any doubt that Christianism is indeed a phenomenon in its own right, and that its evolution into neo-fascist violence, like Islamism's embrace of neo-fascist violence, is now something that cannot be denied.

The whole thing is worth a read. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/revisiting-christianism.html

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 03:02 PM
Its never a valid discussion to question the bounds of free speech.

There are plenty of examples of lone terrorist attacks or attempts. Supposedly, its the most common type of attack. This goes back to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth, the Fort Hood shooter, Ted Kaczynski, and on and on. It doesn't get any more distanced from reality than Ted Kaczynski. The guy was literally removed from his community.

Terrorist groups like Weather Underground, the KKK, or Al Qaeda certianly exist, but they seem to be the exception to the rule.

I don't think that you're raising a point of any merit, but you are raising one that will be repeated by people who would like to use a tragedy like this to limit free speech.

I'm not trying to limit anyone's free speech. I am trying to point out that the internet provides a haven for radicals that in previous times would have been rejected by general society.

And the Fort Hood shooter got consoled by a radical imam priest associated with Al Qaeda. He was hardly lone.

DenverBrit
07-25-2011, 03:04 PM
The scenario discussed was the defeat of the Uk and the USSR and total US neutrality. The US in this scenario would not have supplied anything to anyone. I didnt forget about how the war unfolded, but stuck to the parameters of the proposed scenario.

:Broncos:

I didn't see that mentioned.

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 03:05 PM
...this was about as far from an act of meaningless violence as you can get. It is an explicitly articulated, carefully argued conclusion from a mishmash of every current far right platitude out there. Breivik does not merely claim influence by someone like Robert Spencer, he quotes him and so many others at great length as part of his manifesto! It's a pastiche of vast tracts of the far right blogosphere. None of this delegitimizes sane, vital critiques of Islamist intolerance, violence and ideology; none of it makes these cited ideologues and fanatics guilty of murder or in any way being accomplices to murder, or in any way connected to his crime. But it does seem to me to prove beyond any doubt that Christianism is indeed a phenomenon in its own right, and that its evolution into neo-fascist violence, like Islamism's embrace of neo-fascist violence, is now something that cannot be denied.

The whole thing is worth a read. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/revisiting-christianism.html

What a load of garbage.

Because some nutzo guy goes crazy in Norway, "Christianism" is now undeniably characterized by its neo-fascist violence?

Goodness. Could Sullivan possibly have come up with a less-relevant, less-nonsensical collection of brain farts?

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 03:06 PM
I'm not trying to limit anyone's free speech. I am trying to point out that the internet provides a haven for radicals that in previous times would have been rejected by general society.

And the Fort Hood shooter got consoled by a radical imam priest associated with Al Qaeda. He was hardly lone.

No person is an island.

He plotted the attack on his own.

TonyR
07-25-2011, 03:09 PM
What a load of garbage.

LOL I knew you'd love it! I also knew you wouldn't understand it...

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 03:11 PM
No person is an island.

He plotted the attack on his own.

But he had the moral support that all of these modern attacks seem to have. They feel like they're taking action for many. Radicals of any sense can congregate now and forget that they're a vast minority. They can feel like knights going to come in and save the day because nobody is there to tell them how stupid their idea is.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 03:14 PM
...this was about as far from an act of meaningless violence as you can get. It is an explicitly articulated, carefully argued conclusion from a mishmash of every current far right platitude out there. Breivik does not merely claim influence by someone like Robert Spencer, he quotes him and so many others at great length as part of his manifesto! It's a pastiche of vast tracts of the far right blogosphere. None of this delegitimizes sane, vital critiques of Islamist intolerance, violence and ideology; none of it makes these cited ideologues and fanatics guilty of murder or in any way being accomplices to murder, or in any way connected to his crime. But it does seem to me to prove beyond any doubt that Christianism is indeed a phenomenon in its own right, and that its evolution into neo-fascist violence, like Islamism's embrace of neo-fascist violence, is now something that cannot be denied.

The whole thing is worth a read. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/revisiting-christianism.html


Round about way to condemn right wing thought, IMO.

:Broncos:

Archer81
07-25-2011, 03:16 PM
I didn't see that mentioned.


I need to stop writing things at 3 in the morning. anyhoo, that was the scenario. US is out, remains out. The UK and the USSR loses, would Hitler have attempted war with America.

:Broncos:

TonyR
07-25-2011, 03:19 PM
Round about way to condemn right wing thought, IMO.


A condemnation of "right wing thought"? No, not really. A condemnation of what he calls "Christianism"? Yes.

He did what he did, knowing it was evil, because of a passionate commitment to a political cause, which has become fused with a politicized parody of one religion, and with a passionate paranoid hatred of another one.

Houshyamama
07-25-2011, 03:23 PM
The attacker was a right-wing nutjob. That much seems apparent.

But this isn't a political issue. Nutjobs are nutjobs regardless of their motivations. They can take ANY political/cultural agenda and use it as motivation to perform acts unimaginable to a "sane" person. As much as you might disagree with the policies and agenda of the right side of the political spectrum, this attack can in no way logically be construed as a condemnation of that line of thought. Using it as such is both misguided and a bit ****ed up.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 03:24 PM
A condemnation of "right wing thought"? No, not really. A condemnation of what he calls "Christianism"? Yes.

He did what he did, knowing it was evil, because of a passionate commitment to a political cause, which has become fused with a politicized parody of one religion, and with a passionate paranoid hatred of another one.


Another ism....


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 03:25 PM
I knew you'd love it! I also knew you wouldn't understand it...

You realize that a good portion of the people who visit this forum are Christians, right? They may not be as up-front about it as others, but there are many here.

Do you realy think it is a good idea to start calling them, even tangentially, neo-fascist terrorists?

Its pretty sad that people like you use things like this to try to promote your leftist agenda, especially in such a petty manner.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 03:27 PM
You realize that a good portion of the people who visit this forum are Christians, right? They may not be as up-front about it as others, but there are many here.

Do you realy think it is a good idea to start calling them, even tangentially, neo-fascist terrorists?

Its pretty sad that people like you use things like this to try to promote your leftist agenda, especially in such a petty manner.


ChristianISM...Not ChristianitY...


:Broncos:

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 03:29 PM
You realize that a good portion of the people who visit this forum are Christians, right? They may not be as up-front about it as others, but there are many here.

Do you realy think it is a good idea to start calling them, even tangentially, neo-fascist terrorists?

Its pretty sad that people like you use things like this to try to promote your leftist agenda, especially in such a petty manner.

If you're defined by your religion, you're short sighted and ignorant. If you're not defined by your religion, you can't be labeled by that quality, right? If you know someone said something ignorant, isn't it easy to overlook it?

Haroldthebarrel
07-25-2011, 03:29 PM
Because he did it in a way that tried to tell us what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

read the original post and thn ask yourself why i quoted alkemikal. you are not autistic are you?. and if you are i shall lay it out.

why turn any thread involving these kind of terrors into for example debates of definitions of socialism.

Neither i, and dare i say all norwegians do not and never will ask for your sympathy. but ido ask for the respect for the 60 plus kids that were killed by a mad man.
i am not attempting to take your right to voice but i demand mine.

you, just like everbody in our kind of democracies share that right.

btw the more precise description of this incident for your personal benefit would be the bombing of the white house and the killings og 60 plus young democrats

i have voiced my opinion and that is it for me here.

TonyR
07-25-2011, 03:30 PM
ChristianISM...Not ChristianitY...


Yup, exactly. If he'd click on the link I provided and read the first paragraph he'd understand this.

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 03:35 PM
read the original post and thn ask yourself why i quoted alkemikal. you are not autistic are you?. and if you are i shall lay it out.

why turn any thread involving these kind of terrors into for example debates of definitions of socialism.

Neither i, and dare i say all norwegians do not and never will ask for your sympathy. but ido ask for the respect for the 60 plus kids that were killed by a mad man.
i am not attempting to take your right to voice but i demand mine.

you, just like everbody in our kind of democracies share that right.

btw the more precise description of this incident for your personal benefit would be the bombing of the white house and the killings og 60 plus young democrats

i have voiced my opinion and that is it for me here.

Nobody did anything to disrespect those killed.

I still don't know what you want then if you claim it wasn't a cry for pity.

If you're not commenting on the thread anymore, all the better.

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 03:37 PM
Yup, exactly. If he'd click on the link I provided and read the first paragraph he'd understand this.

It is a tangential relationship that your object of worship is trying to subtly relate.

Its cute that he's trying to create an entire philosophical umbrella based on the ramblings of a madman.

And its no surprise that you were first in line to nod your head.

alkemical
07-25-2011, 03:56 PM
any ism is a belief system (B.S.) which is bound by dogma & bias.

I find it absolutely insane, and silly how people put their own projections into their bias. (myself included).

Looking at what passes for dialouge in the USA is more like two tv's pointed @ each other.

I do find irony, and riduculous attempts to justify ideology 'for the cause', to be short-sighted, self serving, and shows the ignorance of "my peers". This country is FUBAR, and i'm stuck between cannibals and zombies pointing fingers at each other, just waiting for the dinner bell. Those who blame, do not accept responsabilities for themselves, as well as being powerless to make any real change, look to identify 'the enemy' anywhere they* can find 'em.

"it's the liberals/conservatives' fault"

"we need to get rid of socialism, but not mine"

This act that took place in Oslo is as great as any tragedy. Doesn't matter to me about anything more than the loss of life, towards people who had no cause to be collateral.

Anything used to justify any-POV/"ism" out of this event, shows YOUR fundamentalism and further illustrates humans will rationalize anything.

epicSocialism4tw
07-25-2011, 04:20 PM
Can someone from Norway ellucidate for us why it took police an hour-and-a-half to arrive on the scene?

TonyR
07-25-2011, 04:25 PM
It is a tangential relationship that your object of worship is trying to subtly relate.

You seem to be having a very difficult time understanding. It's not that difficult. Sullivan condemns "Christianism" in defense of Christianity, not in opposition to it.

I coined the term "Christianism" many moons ago to defend Christianity and the gospels from their political co-opters. And I think it's indispensable in understanding the motivations of the terrorist, Anders Breivik (yes, I've given up my quixotic attempt to call him by the English name he gave himself on his manifesto).

One of the core messages of Christianity is a rejection of worldly power. The core message of Christianism is, in stark contrast, the desperate need to control all the levers of political power to control or guide the lives of others. And so the notion that Breivik is a "Christian fundamentalist" seems unfair to those genuine Christian fundamentalists who seek no power over others (except proselytizing), but merely seek to live their own lives in accord with a literal belief in the words of the Bible.

But Christianist? Breivik's picture should accompany the term in any dictionary. Christianism is all about power over others, and it has been fueled in the last decade by its mirror image, Islamism, and motivated to fury by hatred of what it sees as is true enemy, liberalism. Both Islamism and Christianism, to my mind, do not spring from real religious faith; they spring from neurosis caused by lack of faith. They are the choices of those who are panicked by the complexity and choices of modernity into a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion in order to attack what they see as their cultural and social enemies. They are not about genuine faith; they are about the instrumentality of faith as a political bludgeon.

What do you disagree with?

TonyR
07-25-2011, 04:28 PM
Can someone from Norway ellucidate for us why it took police an hour-and-a-half to arrive on the scene?

Not from Norway, but... police aren't equipped to handle such things in Norway because violence is so rare. I've read that many police there don't even carry guns. They didn't have a helicopter readily available so they had to drive. And when they got to the place there wasn't a boat readily available to get them to the island.

Shananahan
07-25-2011, 04:41 PM
What do you disagree with?
I don't understand why he chooses to and tries so hard to tie Breivik to his 'Christianism' concept. One of the main reasons Breivik did what he did was because of his complete disagreement with what Sullivan refers to as 'Islamism', but it didn't have anything to do with 'a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion', much less religion at all.

Why is everybody in such a hurry to put this guy into a category and classify him? All this debate and discussion of politics and religion, etc, is really boring to me, and 99.9% of it has had nothing to do with the tragedy or Breivik himself.

El Minion
07-25-2011, 05:07 PM
You seem to be having a very difficult time understanding. It's not that difficult. Sullivan condemns "Christianism" in defense of Christianity, not in opposition to it.

I coined the term "Christianism" many moons ago to defend Christianity and the gospels from their political co-opters. And I think it's indispensable in understanding the motivations of the terrorist, Anders Breivik (yes, I've given up my quixotic attempt to call him by the English name he gave himself on his manifesto).

One of the core messages of Christianity is a rejection of worldly power. The core message of Christianism is, in stark contrast, the desperate need to control all the levers of political power to control or guide the lives of others. And so the notion that Breivik is a "Christian fundamentalist" seems unfair to those genuine Christian fundamentalists who seek no power over others (except proselytizing), but merely seek to live their own lives in accord with a literal belief in the words of the Bible.

But Christianist? Breivik's picture should accompany the term in any dictionary. Christianism is all about power over others, and it has been fueled in the last decade by its mirror image, Islamism, and motivated to fury by hatred of what it sees as is true enemy, liberalism. Both Islamism and Christianism, to my mind, do not spring from real religious faith; they spring from neurosis caused by lack of faith. They are the choices of those who are panicked by the complexity and choices of modernity into a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion in order to attack what they see as their cultural and social enemies. They are not about genuine faith; they are about the instrumentality of faith as a political bludgeon.

What do you disagree with?

Yup, that is the republican christian conservatives in a nut shell. There obsession with teaching creationism, controlling peoples reproduction and sex lives, gays, marriage of church and state, etc.

Cito Pelon
07-25-2011, 05:23 PM
A condemnation of "right wing thought"? No, not really. A condemnation of what he calls "Christianism"? Yes.

He did what he did, knowing it was evil, because of a passionate commitment to a political cause, which has become fused with a politicized parody of one religion, and with a passionate paranoid hatred of another one.

You know these guys like sir, epic, TOG are so far out on the wing there is no retrieving them to the middle. They are commited to the fringe and will never be brought to sanity.

TonyR
07-25-2011, 06:17 PM
I don't understand why he chooses to and tries so hard to tie Breivik to his 'Christianism' concept. One of the main reasons Breivik did what he did was because of his complete disagreement with what Sullivan refers to as 'Islamism', but it didn't have anything to do with 'a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion', much less religion at all.

Sullivan claims to have read the manifesto and it's my understanding that Breivik discussed religion/Christianity quite a bit in it. And I assume he mentions the threat of the left ruling party and Islam to Christianity among his main motivations. Is this not correct in your view? Again, in case this isnt' clear, Sullivan, himself a Catholic, is not criticizing Christians or Christianity. Quite the opposite. He's critical of those who co-opt religion for political purposes.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 08:14 PM
You know these guys like sir, epic, TOG are so far out on the wing there is no retrieving them to the middle. They are commited to the fringe and will never be brought to sanity.


LOL...ok.


:Broncos:

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 08:23 PM
LOL...ok.


:Broncos:

Well.. Being in company with you is at least better than being in company with Epic.

How I can go from arguing for abortions in one thread to being accused of far right wing in another, I don't quite understand. Whatever though.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 08:27 PM
Well.. Being in company with you is at least better than being in company with Epic.

How I can go from arguing for abortions in one thread to being accused of far right wing in another, I don't quite understand. Whatever though.


Eh. People like to compartmentalize. Its easier to say I or you are solid right wing then actually see that like most people, our political opinion is shaded, depending on the topic being discussed.

OTOH, the left and right wingers have at least picked a side, and stop playing the i'm a centrist bull****. No one is purely middle, just as no one is purely right wing or purely left wing.

:Broncos:

That One Guy
07-25-2011, 08:36 PM
Eh. People like to compartmentalize. Its easier to say I or you are solid right wing then actually see that like most people, our political opinion is shaded, depending on the topic being discussed.

OTOH, the left and right wingers have at least picked a side, and stop playing the i'm a centrist bull****. No one is purely middle, just as no one is purely right wing or purely left wing.

:Broncos:

Yep, the only person worse than a nutjob is someone who refuses to stand up for anything.

Archer81
07-25-2011, 08:37 PM
Yep, the only person worse than a nutjob is someone who refuses to stand up for anything.


Pretty much.

Odd the way this thread is turning.

:Broncos:

Haroldthebarrel
07-26-2011, 12:23 AM
Can someone from Norway ellucidate for us why it took police an hour-and-a-half to arrive on the scene?

It is a fairly remote island. Only the millitary has helicopters that can carry these kind of missions. Secondly, it wouldnt have mattered much due to the weather. So the swat took a boat.
Thirdly, the bomb confused everybody including the police and swat who were present immidiately after the explosion at the builiding and still the swat were the first to arrive.

The man had spent nine years planning this terror!!

Perry1977
07-26-2011, 01:41 AM
The attacker was a right-wing nutjob. That much seems apparent.

But this isn't a political issue. Nutjobs are nutjobs regardless of their motivations. They can take ANY political/cultural agenda and use it as motivation to perform acts unimaginable to a "sane" person. As much as you might disagree with the policies and agenda of the right side of the political spectrum, this attack can in no way logically be construed as a condemnation of that line of thought. Using it as such is both misguided and a bit ****ed up.

You are the smartest guy here. I have read this entire thread and you were a step or two ahead of everyone at the beginning, and you managed to maintain perspective throughout.

Rigs11
07-26-2011, 09:54 AM
oh oh.remember when we crazy liberals warned you righties about the consequences of the hate you were spewing?

Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say

(CNN) -- The threat of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's fatal bombing and assault in Norway is significant and growing, analysts said Monday.

The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START.

While extremist animal rights and environmental groups also pose threats, those groups either have not tended to seek to kill or have only targeted individuals, according to researchers.

But extremist right-wingers -- from Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to a neo-Nazi accused of trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade this year -- have shown a willingness to target the public, LaFree said.

Such groups are among the fastest-growing extremist organizations in the country, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in February. Right wing anti-government groups grew by 60% in 2010 over the previous year, the center reported, attributing much of the growth to militia groups.

The group also reported a smaller increase in the number of anti-immigrant vigilante groups, SPLC reported.

The suspect in the Oslo, Norway, bombings published papers on the internet stressing "unity over diversity" and calling for a violent response to a policy of multiculturalism that he said was destroying European society.

Despite the rise of anti-government militia groups and the sovereign citizen movement -- whose adherents say they are not subject to U.S. law or taxation -- highly organized white supremacist groups have suffered setbacks in recent years with some of the movement's leaders imprisoned and others stripped of their resources by civil lawsuits, said Gary Ackerman, research director at START.

But as McVeigh and Terry Nichols showed in the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City -- in which 168 people died -- it doesn't take a large group to pull off a devastating attack.

Most adherents to extremist ideologies are harmless, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino.

"Most of them are not going to do anything but bore their relatives and friends with ridiculous papers and treatises," he said.

But a divisive political climate, often coupled with personal disappointments and a personality receptive to extreme views, can help turn believers into dangerous actors willing to use violence to further their ideological beliefs, Levin said, adding that he believes the greatest threat is not from large organized groups but rather individuals or small cells.

The sense that society is falling apart because of foreign influence is often a lure to people who become members of extremist groups, no matter where those groups fall on the political or religious spectrum, Levin said.

"The notion that the political bonds that used to hold us together are falling apart will cause people to opt out," he said.

But the threat from Islamic terrorism tends to get the lion's share of media coverage, not to mention law enforcement attention, Ackerman of START said.

Ackerman said nationally, law enforcement has been focused since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 on the threat of Islamic terrorism, even as the threat from domestic anti-government groups has been growing.

"Some people believe we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to domestic right-wing extremists," he said.

And some efforts to combat the problem have been controversial. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to apologize in 2009 after a report surfaced warning law enforcement of the possibility that veterans returning from combat were susceptible to being radicalized by right-wing groups.

State police also seem more focused on the Islamic threat, Ackerman said.

State police agencies polled by START researchers in 2008 overwhelmingly reported the presence of potentially dangerous extremist groups across the political spectrum, with nearly 90% saying neo-Nazi, skinhead, militia groups and other right-wing groups were present in their state. About two-thirds reported radical Islamic groups.

But they tended to rank Islamic terrorists as the greatest concern ahead of right-wing groups in terms of the threat posed, LaFree said.

"I think there's a little bit of perceptual bias there," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/25/domestic.extremism/index.html?iref=allsearch

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 10:05 AM
oh oh.remember when we crazy liberals warned you righties about the consequences of the hate you were spewing?

Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say

(CNN) -- The threat of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's fatal bombing and assault in Norway is significant and growing, analysts said Monday.

The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START.

While extremist animal rights and environmental groups also pose threats, those groups either have not tended to seek to kill or have only targeted individuals, according to researchers.

But extremist right-wingers -- from Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to a neo-Nazi accused of trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade this year -- have shown a willingness to target the public, LaFree said.

Such groups are among the fastest-growing extremist organizations in the country, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in February. Right wing anti-government groups grew by 60% in 2010 over the previous year, the center reported, attributing much of the growth to militia groups.

The group also reported a smaller increase in the number of anti-immigrant vigilante groups, SPLC reported.

The suspect in the Oslo, Norway, bombings published papers on the internet stressing "unity over diversity" and calling for a violent response to a policy of multiculturalism that he said was destroying European society.

Despite the rise of anti-government militia groups and the sovereign citizen movement -- whose adherents say they are not subject to U.S. law or taxation -- highly organized white supremacist groups have suffered setbacks in recent years with some of the movement's leaders imprisoned and others stripped of their resources by civil lawsuits, said Gary Ackerman, research director at START.

But as McVeigh and Terry Nichols showed in the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City -- in which 168 people died -- it doesn't take a large group to pull off a devastating attack.

Most adherents to extremist ideologies are harmless, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino.

"Most of them are not going to do anything but bore their relatives and friends with ridiculous papers and treatises," he said.

But a divisive political climate, often coupled with personal disappointments and a personality receptive to extreme views, can help turn believers into dangerous actors willing to use violence to further their ideological beliefs, Levin said, adding that he believes the greatest threat is not from large organized groups but rather individuals or small cells.

The sense that society is falling apart because of foreign influence is often a lure to people who become members of extremist groups, no matter where those groups fall on the political or religious spectrum, Levin said.

"The notion that the political bonds that used to hold us together are falling apart will cause people to opt out," he said.

But the threat from Islamic terrorism tends to get the lion's share of media coverage, not to mention law enforcement attention, Ackerman of START said.

Ackerman said nationally, law enforcement has been focused since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 on the threat of Islamic terrorism, even as the threat from domestic anti-government groups has been growing.

"Some people believe we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to domestic right-wing extremists," he said.

And some efforts to combat the problem have been controversial. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to apologize in 2009 after a report surfaced warning law enforcement of the possibility that veterans returning from combat were susceptible to being radicalized by right-wing groups.

State police also seem more focused on the Islamic threat, Ackerman said.

State police agencies polled by START researchers in 2008 overwhelmingly reported the presence of potentially dangerous extremist groups across the political spectrum, with nearly 90% saying neo-Nazi, skinhead, militia groups and other right-wing groups were present in their state. About two-thirds reported radical Islamic groups.

But they tended to rank Islamic terrorists as the greatest concern ahead of right-wing groups in terms of the threat posed, LaFree said.

"I think there's a little bit of perceptual bias there," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/25/domestic.extremism/index.html?iref=allsearch

You take an environment where resentment has resonated since the Civil Rights era and you allow modern advances in technology and it's no surprise that the known population is booming. Even those who just had whispers in the back of their mind before can find like-minded individuals to embrace their philosophies with them.

We'll see this in our own personal biases though so I wont go so far as to recommend strategies for dealing with it.

Rigs11
07-26-2011, 10:23 AM
You take an environment where resentment has resonated since the Civil Rights era and you allow modern advances in technology and it's no surprise that the known population is booming. Even those who just had whispers in the back of their mind before can find like-minded individuals to embrace their philosophies with them.

We'll see this in our own personal biases though so I wont go so far as to recommend strategies for dealing with it.

the guy in norway specifically cited the co founder of Stop the Islamization of America over 50 times.

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 12:56 PM
It is a fairly remote island. Only the millitary has helicopters that can carry these kind of missions. Secondly, it wouldnt have mattered much due to the weather. So the swat took a boat.
Thirdly, the bomb confused everybody including the police and swat who were present immidiately after the explosion at the builiding and still the swat were the first to arrive.

The man had spent nine years planning this terror!!

Honestly, from an outsider's perspective, it appears that Norway has buried its head in the sand regarding the potential of this kind of attack.

I don't necessarily blame them for that, other than believing them to be a little naive. I feel sad that the world really has changed for Norwegians - both literally and metaphorically.

There have been things (some minor) that just illustrate how foreign this kind of thing is to the people there. The delay in getting to the island was the biggest thing. I don't care what the situation was here, there would be hell to pay if a gunman had that long to calmly walk around, shooting people. That's why the number of dead was such a surprise. I kept wondering how in the heck he managed to kill that many, with the guns it sounds like he had. The answer is that he had so much time to do it. The dramatically revised count of the dead on the island is another example. How do they miscount 15 bodies, or whatever it was? The response of the defense attorney today was another thing. He said something to the effect of, "He must be insane to have done something like this." It's a strange comment. I don't think a defense attorney would say much here in the US, at this point. He definitely wouldn't throw out such a broad speculation. He might leak potential strategies, to see what he might be up against. But he wouldn't be holding press conferences, or whatever. I guess it's just a different system?

It's definitely a different deal than what we've unfortunately become accustomed. It's too bad - Norway sounds as if they will be forced to join the cynical (but unfortunately real) rest of the world.

Rock Chalk
07-26-2011, 12:58 PM
the guy in norway specifically cited the co founder of Stop the Islamization of America over 50 times.

So..what are you suggesting?

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that everyone who disagree's with Islamic nutjobs be quiet and say nothing. That they no longer be allowed to speak in a country where speach is a protected right.

The blame is on the nutjob who took offense to words in a manner which killed people. What, people are not supposed to speak now for fear of some nutjob retaliating violently?

**** them. **** you.

Nutjobs who use violence to act against speech are to ****ing blame and that's the end of it.

I will be damned if I am going to live in fear for my life and let my daughters live in fear for their life because of their beliefs, whatever they may be.

What if I said the EPA was a bunch of crooks and criminals and they retaliated and blew up a power plant and killed 80 hard working americans? You are saying I am to blame for that? **** off.

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:00 PM
So..what are you suggesting?

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that everyone who disagree's with Islamic nutjobs be quiet and say nothing. That they no longer be allowed to speak in a country where speach is a protected right.

The blame is on the nutjob who took offense to words in a manner which killed people. What, people are not supposed to speak now for fear of some nutjob retaliating violently?

**** them. **** you.

Nutjobs who use violence to act against speech are to ****ing blame and that's the end of it.

I will be damned if I am going to live in fear for my life and let my daughters live in fear for their life because of their beliefs, whatever they may be.

What if I said the EPA was a bunch of crooks and criminals and they retaliated and blew up a power plant and killed 80 hard working americans? You are saying I am to blame for that? **** off.



Same thing that everyone is doing/saying Alec...don't you get it.

It's been politiked for purpose, and if you disagree - no matter which line you are on - you are a terrorist.

LOL - The joke's on us though. Each and everyone of us is now a terrorist. We have marginalized each other to the point that if you "aren't with us" (whomever US is defined at that particular moment) - "you are against us".

Welcome to a brave new world.

Rigs11
07-26-2011, 01:14 PM
So..what are you suggesting?

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that everyone who disagree's with Islamic nutjobs be quiet and say nothing. That they no longer be allowed to speak in a country where speach is a protected right.

The blame is on the nutjob who took offense to words in a manner which killed people. What, people are not supposed to speak now for fear of some nutjob retaliating violently?

**** them. **** you.

Nutjobs who use violence to act against speech are to ****ing blame and that's the end of it.

I will be damned if I am going to live in fear for my life and let my daughters live in fear for their life because of their beliefs, whatever they may be.

What if I said the EPA was a bunch of crooks and criminals and they retaliated and blew up a power plant and killed 80 hard working americans? You are saying I am to blame for that? **** off.

wow ,what i am saying is that:

A. other religions other than muslims can have terrorists
B. by failing to realize this,and spewing the hate that rightwing nutjobs have been spewing since 911, there are other nutjobs that will take it too far

got it?

Archer81
07-26-2011, 01:28 PM
wow ,what i am saying is that:

A. other religions other than muslims can have terrorists
B. by failing to realize this,and spewing the hate that rightwing nutjobs have been spewing since 911, there are other nutjobs that will take it too far

got it?


Oddly enough even with what occurred in Norway most acts of terror are still perpetrated by mooslims.


:Broncos:

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:29 PM
Oddly enough even with what occurred in Norway most acts of terror are still perpetrated by mooslims.


:Broncos:

I wonder if school shootings count.

Archer81
07-26-2011, 01:34 PM
I wonder if school shootings count.


I'd count them. Have to break that 1% of terror acts threshold to justify pulling 90 year old white women out of lines in airports somehow.


:Broncos:

Shananahan
07-26-2011, 01:36 PM
Honestly, from an outsider's perspective, it appears that Norway has buried its head in the sand regarding the potential of this kind of attack.

I don't necessarily blame them for that, other than believing them to be a little naive. I feel sad that the world really has changed for Norwegians - both literally and metaphorically.
I wouldn't worry too much.

Here's a quick writeup from a Norwegian that I liked:
In the safest, most boring country, the worst lone gunman shooting happens. The worst in the world, in history. But it will not make our country worse. The safe, boring democracy will supply him with a defense lawyer as is his right. He will not get more than 21 years in prison as is the maximum extent of the law. Our democracy does not allow for enough punishment to satisfy my need for revenge, as is its intention. We will not become worse, we will be better. We lived in a land where this is possible, even easy. And we will keep living in a land where this is possible, even easy. We are open, we are free and we are together. We are vulnerable by choice. And we will keep on like that, that’s how we want to live. We will not be worse because of the worst. We must be good because of the best.

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:42 PM
I'd count them. Have to break that 1% of terror acts threshold to justify pulling 90 year old white women out of lines in airports somehow.


:Broncos:

Sure you do, it totally explains how the war on terror is against "us".

Rigs11
07-26-2011, 01:43 PM
Oddly enough even with what occurred in Norway most acts of terror are still perpetrated by mooslims.


:Broncos:

it depends on what your definition of terror is.invading other countries doesn't count right?

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 01:45 PM
"We are vulnerable by choice."

Then enjoy the repercussions of your choice.

One of the first people the gunman killed was an off duty policeman hired for security. Yeah, embrace that whole "our cops don't carry guns because we're so safe" concept and, yet, keep in mind that had he been carrying a gun, 90 more people may still be alive.

I look back at the security measures put in place after 9/11 and regret many of them but, at the same time, there's going overboard as we did and then there's being stupidly naive like they appear to be doing. Don't brag about your naivete when talking about how you're going to be releasing the "worst lone shooter in history" in 21 years because that's the max your country can give.

TailgateNut
07-26-2011, 01:45 PM
I wouldn't worry too much.

Here's a quick writeup from a Norwegian that I liked:


contrary to the US where we opt to give up freedom to terrorism.

As an example: when i went through security at DIA they asked m to step aside because they found what they believed to be a WEAPON in my carry on. When the tsa dude rummaged through my bag he found my truck keys which had a "dinky" pocket knife on the key ring. This thing, which i'vee had for over a decade had a blade which was maybe 1-1/4" long. He gave me the option of shipping it back to my home for $12 or having it tossed in the bin. I opted for the bin. Then when we are en route to LAX they serve drinks in glasses (real glass). I guess they think 1st class travelers can't be terrorists.Hilarious! , and would be unable to break the glass and use it as a weapon.

wee are one 'fraidy-cat' nation1

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 01:46 PM
it depends on what your definition of terror is.invading other countries doesn't count right?

No, dunce, invading a country has never been considered terrorism. Stop trying to take political shots and engage in the conversation or STFU and GTFO.

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:47 PM
contrary to the US where we opt to give up freedom to terrorism.

As an example: when i went through security at DIA they asked m to step aside because they found what they believed to be a WEAPON in my carry on. When the tsa dude rummaged through my bag he found my truck keys which had a "dinky" pocket knife on the key ring. This thing, which i'vee had for over a decade had a blade which was maybe 1-1/4" long. He gave me the option of shipping it back to my home for $12 or having it tossed in the bin. I opted for the bin. Then when we are en route to LAX they serve drinks in glasses (real glass). I guess they think 1st class travelers can't be terrorists.Hilarious! , and would be unable to break the glass and use it as a weapon.

wee are one 'fraidy-cat' nation1

Totally agreed. It's like one big dog & pony show. The only real means, is giving up freedoms. It doesn't actually make things "safer".

Archer81
07-26-2011, 01:48 PM
it depends on what your definition of terror is.invading other countries doesn't count right?


Even with your expanded (and quite retarded) criteria, islam still wins.


:Broncos:

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:51 PM
it depends on what your definition of terror is.invading other countries doesn't count right?


Not here.

Shananahan
07-26-2011, 01:52 PM
Then enjoy the repercussions of your choice.

One of the first people the gunman killed was an off duty policeman hired for security. Yeah, embrace that whole "our cops don't carry guns because we're so safe" concept and, yet, keep in mind that had he been carrying a gun, 90 more people may still be alive.

I look back at the security measures put in place after 9/11 and regret many of them but, at the same time, there's going overboard as we did and then there's being stupidly naive like they appear to be doing. Don't brag about your naivete when talking about how you're going to be releasing the "worst lone shooter in history" in 21 years because that's the max your country can give.
I don't understand why you feel the need to take this kind of tone with the response. The guy wasn't bragging about his country's naivete, he was proclaiming pride for the culture he lives in.

I'd say that despite the tragedy Norway has been doing a pretty good job with regards to gun violence:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/23/nation/la-naw-norway-gun-policy-20110724

TailgateNut
07-26-2011, 01:56 PM
Totally agreed. It's like one big dog & pony show. The only real means, is giving up freedoms. It doesn't actually make things "safer".


but it makes the gullible feel safer....


the whole airline security protocol is a frigging joke. an expensive joke

alkemical
07-26-2011, 01:56 PM
but it makes the gullible feel safer....


the whole airline security protocol is a frigging joke. an expensive joke

When you really look at these "scanners", and realize it was a business deal and not a "safety" issue - it looks even worse. :(

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 01:59 PM
I don't understand why you feel the need to take this kind of tone with the response. The guy wasn't bragging about his country's naivete, he was proclaiming pride for the culture he lives in.

I'd say that despite the tragedy Norway has been doing a pretty good job with regards to gun violence:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/23/nation/la-naw-norway-gun-policy-20110724

He was in the same breath saying the shooter wont be put away for as long as he'd like and then saying they aren't going to change anything because of this incident. Maybe if the country had been prepared in the first place, it couldn't have become the worst lone shooting in history.

If they don't assess the situation and recognize where they failed to protect their citizens, they will stand alone to blame when the next occurrence happens.

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Totally agreed. It's like one big dog & pony show. The only real means, is giving up freedoms. It doesn't actually make things "safer".

Yet, despite the desperate desires of our enemies, we haven't had another attack.

Weird.

alkemical
07-26-2011, 02:03 PM
Yet, despite the desperate desires of our enemies, we haven't had another attack.

Weird.

Which illustrates my point on how much it's a dog & pony show. Perhaps the "threat" isn't as we were sold.

BroncoInferno
07-26-2011, 02:05 PM
Yet, despite the desperate desires of our enemies, we haven't had another attack.

Weird.

It does not follow that because we have not been attacked by a terrorist since 9/11, that the REASON we have not been attacked is because of sacrificing freedoms. Nothing more that installing a lock on cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11, and that measure wouldn't have cost any sacrifice of freedom.

Shananahan
07-26-2011, 02:05 PM
He was in the same breath saying the shooter wont be put away for as long as he'd like and then saying they aren't going to change anything because of this incident. Maybe if the country had been prepared in the first place, it couldn't have become the worst lone shooting in history.

If they don't assess the situation and recognize where they failed to protect their citizens, they will stand alone to blame when the next occurrence happens.
I guess you must have missed it, but a large reaction to his killing spree was exactly what Breivik wanted. He spent nine years planning the entire thing with the hopes of changing the culture in his country and in Europe as a whole.

I think a reaction like the one I quoted is a very admirable one in light of this, and in many ways one which could be more successful in deterring a similar attack in the future than an overreaction in the name of prevention.

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 02:07 PM
I guess you must have missed it, but a large reaction to his killing spree was exactly what Breivik wanted. He spent nine years planning the entire thing with the hopes of changing the culture in his country and in Europe as a whole.

I think a reaction like the one I quoted is a very admirable one in light of this, and in many ways one which could be more successful in deterring a similar attack in the future than an overreaction in the name of prevention.

Want to understand this before I respond. Not sure I'm tracking.

Miss I.
07-26-2011, 02:12 PM
Want to understand this before I respond. Not sure I'm tracking.

Here's my take for what it's worth, it's like giving into to a child's tantrum. If you give them what they want when they display bad behaviour it will encourage them to continue that behavior because they know it will work.

Instead the quote from the Norwegian embraces what a lot of Americans embraced after 9/11, giving up freedom for the sake of safety is not the answer. Instead we embrace that our freedom of choice, perhaps engage in more basic precautions, but never change our fundamental beliefs because of the actions of a madman.

But that's just my take.

TailgateNut
07-26-2011, 02:13 PM
It does not follow that because we have not been attacked by a terrorist since 9/11, that the REASON we have not been attacked is because of sacrificing freedoms. Nothing more that installing a lock on cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11, and that measure wouldn't have cost any sacrifice of freedom.


...and strip searching 90 year old grandmothers....and having everyone remove their shoes and belts....


...my wife was actually told that it was illegal to carry those eyelash curler thingys a few months ago. "Stand back or I'll curl your eyelashes"Hilarious!

Shananahan
07-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Want to understand this before I respond. Not sure I'm tracking.
Well, if the culture of the country doesn't change, and instead becomes strengthened and more resolved, wouldn't that be the ultimate failure for Anders Behring Breivik? Might that not deter others with similar wishes as Breivik?

I'm not saying it's the answer because I don't think there is one; I just really like the attitude displayed in that quote.

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:15 PM
I wouldn't worry too much.

Here's a quick writeup from a Norwegian that I liked:

That seems a little ridiculous.

If Norway really feels as if they don't need to change anything after this, then I promise you it will happen again, and soon.

Unfortunately, Norway has a soft underbelly that has been exposed, at this point. If Islamic terrorists hadn't thought about them before, they are going to think about them now.

It's not as if Norway has stayed neutral in the things that raise Islamic extremists' ire. As far as I am aware, they have participated in the same military involvements as the US and the UK.

I truly feel sympathy for Norwegians. I know exactly how they are feeling. I had nephews and nieces at Columbine. I experienced Oklahoma City and 9/11, like all Americans. We had a mass shooting in a mall here in Utah a few years ago, and I at least knew people who knew a few of the victims. Unfortunately, these kinds of things have become all too familiar for us, here in the US.

But I guess I would say it's a situation of "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!" If, after this, they choose to leave things in their country as they are, then I guess I think they're foolish. If I lived in Norway, and nothing changed from this, I would consider moving elsewhere. You have to expect some measure of protection from your government. Unfortunately, that protection can make life less convenient than it was. Can the pendulum swing too far the other direction? Sure. But some of it is just trial and error. You have to find the minimum amount of protection required to effectively protect yourselves from the vast majority of possible situations like this.

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Which illustrates my point on how much it's a dog & pony show. Perhaps the "threat" isn't as we were sold.

I'm not sure I understand, you crazy bastard. ;) Are you pulling a gaffney here, saying that 9/11 was done by us?

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 02:21 PM
Here's my take for what it's worth, it's like giving into to a child's tantrum. If you give them what they want when they display bad behaviour it will encourage them to continue that behavior because they know it will work.

Instead the quote from the Norwegian embraces what a lot of Americans embraced after 9/11, giving up freedom for the sake of safety is not the answer. Instead we embrace that our freedom of choice, perhaps engage in more basic precautions, but never change our fundamental beliefs because of the actions of a madman.

But that's just my take.

If that's what he said, I'd be for it. I read it as rather than reassuring the people that they would take steps to ensure this never happened again, he was flaunting "we wont change". Even if it is something so small as making an arrangement with the city's hospital that in the case of emergency, the police can borrow their helicopter and telling police officers to start carrying sidearms just for precaution, that'd be fine. Hopefully they are going to reassess things and see what they could've changed but to pretty much say they aren't going to cave to him and make it a moral stand seems silly.

I guess I may be reading too far into what he said and not accounting for what he didn't say. Maybe this was just a speech to get everyone's spirits up rather than talk business.

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 02:23 PM
Well, if the culture of the country doesn't change, and instead becomes strengthened and more resolved, wouldn't that be the ultimate failure for Anders Behring Breivik? Might that not deter others with similar wishes as Breivik?

I'm not saying it's the answer because I don't think there is one; I just really like the attitude displayed in that quote.

Yes, morally it's great. Ideally it's great.

Morals and ideals don't keep people alive though. There's a very fine line between standing up for reasonable morals and stupidly sticking to your ideals. What good would it be to tell the psycho that he can't shake Norwegian resolve if it allows someone else (last I heard they were still investigating reports that there was a second person on the island that day) to do this again?

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:24 PM
It does not follow that because we have not been attacked by a terrorist since 9/11, that the REASON we have not been attacked is because of sacrificing freedoms. Nothing more that installing a lock on cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11, and that measure wouldn't have cost any sacrifice of freedom.

It's a complicated equation. We obviously have intelligence that is not available to the masses. If there is a threat of which we're individually unaware, I expect our government to do what it takes to protect us against it.

Obviously, that has the potential for abuse. And I don't really know the answer to that.

What I will say is that I, personally, feel the criticism of our security is much ado about nothing. I have flown quite a lot recently, including out of DIA. I don't particularly enjoy going through the headache of security. But I don't think it's all that big of a deal, either. It's a minor inconvenience. I have said it before and I'll say it now: I will gladly trade that minor inconvenience for avoiding another 9/11, which we've effectively done.

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 02:25 PM
That seems a little ridiculous.

If Norway really feels as if they don't need to change anything after this, then I promise you it will happen again, and soon.

Unfortunately, Norway has a soft underbelly that has been exposed, at this point. If Islamic terrorists hadn't thought about them before, they are going to think about them now.

It's not as if Norway has stayed neutral in the things that raise Islamic extremists' ire. As far

I truly feel sympathy for Norwegians. I know exactly how they are feeling. I had nephews and nieces at Columbine. I experienced Oklahoma City and 9/11, like all Americans. We had a mass shooting in a mall here in Utah a few years ago, and I at least knew people who knew a few of the victims. Unfortunately, these kinds of things have become all too familiar for us, here in the US.

But I guess I would say it's a situation of "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!" If, after this, they choose to leave things in their country as they are, then I guess I think they're foolish. If I lived in Norway, and nothing changed from this, I would consider moving elsewhere. You have to expect some measure of protection from your government. Unfortunately, that protection can make life less convenient than it was. Can the pendulum swing too far the other direction? Sure. But some of it is just trial and error. You have to find the minimum amount of protection required to effectively protect yourselves from the vast majority of possible situations like this.

You said it much nicer than I did.

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:31 PM
...and strip searching 90 year old grandmothers....and having everyone remove their shoes and belts....


...my wife was actually told that it was illegal to carry those eyelash curler thingys a few months ago. "Stand back or I'll curl your eyelashes"Hilarious!

The shoes and belts thing is inconvenient. But is it really that big of a deal? Really? It takes, what, another ninety seconds to get through it? Is that all that terrible?

As for the other stuff, I think you have to address those situations individually. If there are individual situations where authority gets abused, then those individual situations should be addressed. The system will never be perfect. But over time, you should be able to mitigate those problems.

I do feel that each person should be subject to the same criteria, as it pertains to security. I don't care how old or young they are. I don't know the situation you're referring to with the elderly woman, so I can't really comment on it. But since the people we're trying to stop have shown that they really don't hesitate when it comes to using people of all ages to further their cause, I think it would be foolhardy to treat people differently, based on their ages.

TailgateNut
07-26-2011, 02:31 PM
It's a complicated equation. We obviously have intelligence that is not available to the masses. If there is a threat of which we're individually unaware, I expect our government to do what it takes to protect us against it.

Obviously, that has the potential for abuse. And I don't really know the answer to that.

What I will say is that I, personally, feel the criticism of our security is much ado about nothing. I have flown quite a lot recently, including out of DIA. I don't particularly enjoy going through the headache of security. But I don't think it's all that big of a deal, either. It's a minor inconvenience. I have said it before and I'll say it now: I will gladly trade that minor inconvenience for avoiding another 9/11, which we've effectively done.


by not allowing fingernail clippers and shampoo in carry on baggageROFL!

or by removing ones' belt which subsequently prevents you from using it to strangle someone after boarding the plane.

we are pussified beyond compreheension!

Miss I.
07-26-2011, 02:33 PM
I am pragmattic and believe some increased security is necessary. However, having said that if it goes to the extent of taking my freedom or having me live in fear for the rest of my life, I would not change a damned thing. That just allows the madman to win and I can't live with that.

Two quotes embrace an ideology I agree with and is why I interpreted the Norwegian texts as I did:
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy...
While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued;
but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties
to the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." Samuel Adams

I have a lot of admiration for the things are founding fathers went through to give us a free nation. It's why I think the Patriot Act is such a violation of those things they did for us and why I find it objectionable in its current form. I may believe in some added security, but not to the extent that we give our enemies what they want by doing so.

TailgateNut
07-26-2011, 02:36 PM
The shoes and belts thing is inconvenient. But is it really that big of a deal? Really? It takes, what, another ninety seconds to get through it? Is that all that terrible?

As for the other stuff, I think you have to address those situations individually. If there are individual situations where authority gets abused, then those individual situations should be addressed. The system will never be perfect. But over time, you should be able to mitigate those problems.

I do feel that each person should be subject to the same criteria, as it pertains to security. I don't care how old or young they are. I don't know the situation you're referring to with the elderly woman, so I can't really comment on it. But since the people we're trying to stop have shown that they really don't hesitate when it comes to using people of all ages to further their cause, I think it would be foolhardy to treat people differently, based on their ages.


The whole thing is a JOKE. I removed my "flip-flops" for security cause I might be able to "bitch slap" a fly with them once on board the plane, but they will serve wine in a glass bottle while on board? Makes sense to me!Hilarious!

DomCasual
07-26-2011, 02:43 PM
The whole thing is a JOKE. I removed my "flip-flops" for security cause I might be able to "b**** slap" a fly with them once on board the plane, but they will serve wine in a glass bottle while on board? Makes sense to me!Hilarious!

Like I said, those things have to be addressed. But you can't throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water, just because there are a few things in the process that don't make sense.

Look, I hate most things about the government. And I truly don't care for the fact that the government is generally too inept to quickly address the kinds of issues you're talking about. But I think there has to be a system in place to do everything possible to prevent another 9/11. I would rather have a flawed system that seems to be working than no system at all.

I honestly believe that the things we've put in place since 9/11 have been largely responsible for preventing a repeat. Whether or not there would have been an easier way to accomplish the same results, I don't know - I guess that would depend on the real intelligence that's been received since then.

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 02:47 PM
I am pragmattic and believe some increased security is necessary. However, having said that if it goes to the extent of taking my freedom or having me live in fear for the rest of my life, I would not change a damned thing. That just allows the madman to win and I can't live with that.

Two quotes embrace an ideology I agree with and is why I interpreted the Norwegian texts as I did:
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy...
While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued;
but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties
to the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." Samuel Adams

I have a lot of admiration for the things are founding fathers went through to give us a free nation. It's why I think the Patriot Act is such a violation of those things they did for us and why I find it objectionable in its current form. I may believe in some added security, but not to the extent that we give our enemies what they want by doing so.

The founding fathers also didn't live in a world where rights were ample as they are now. If we took everyone convicted of a crime to the gallows, do you think we'd have the crime problem we currently do? Did ANYONE do 20 years to life in the state pen in their day?

We can have whatever world we want. There's always a balance that must be maintained though. The more leeway you give people to violate the social contract and the more forgiving you are, the more they will. We as a society believe the leeway given a person is more important than their adherence to the terms a citizen should be expected to uphold.

Archer81
07-26-2011, 05:13 PM
by not allowing fingernail clippers and shampoo in carry on baggageROFL!

or by removing ones' belt which subsequently prevents you from using it to strangle someone after boarding the plane.

we are pussified beyond compreheension!


It started before 9/11. I played dodgeball and red rover in school. We had jungle gyms made of metal with sharp edges and played basketball and soccer where the score was kept. Those things are more or less banned now.

:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
07-26-2011, 05:17 PM
I am pragmattic and believe some increased security is necessary. However, having said that if it goes to the extent of taking my freedom or having me live in fear for the rest of my life, I would not change a damned thing. That just allows the madman to win and I can't live with that.

Two quotes embrace an ideology I agree with and is why I interpreted the Norwegian texts as I did:
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy...
While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued;
but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties
to the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." Samuel Adams

I have a lot of admiration for the things are founding fathers went through to give us a free nation. It's why I think the Patriot Act is such a violation of those things they did for us and why I find it objectionable in its current form. I may believe in some added security, but not to the extent that we give our enemies what they want by doing so.

This bears repeating.

Rigs11
07-26-2011, 06:28 PM
No, dunce, invading a country has never been considered terrorism. Stop trying to take political shots and engage in the conversation or STFU and GTFO.
Really? Never? By who? Us?foreigners considered dubya a bigger terrorist than bin laden.how is asking a question taking political shots?your turn Nancy

TonyR
07-26-2011, 07:31 PM
Oddly enough even with what occurred in Norway most acts of terror are still perpetrated by mooslims.


Incorrect, according to this:

According to Europol's 2010 data (PDF) attacks by separatist/nationalist groups far outnumber attacks by Islamists.
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/24/277455/who-commits-terrorist-attacks-in-europe/


...and this:

...there have been almost twice as many terror plots from non-Muslims than Muslims in the United States since 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/25/277713/peter-king-targeting-muslims-hearing-despite-norway-attack/

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 08:00 PM
Really? Never? By who? Us?foreigners considered dubya a bigger terrorist than bin laden.how is asking a question taking political shots?your turn Nancy

By any commonly accepted definition of the word terrorism.

I'm not playing this game with you. I'm just gonna get pissed at your attempts and tactics.

Archer81
07-26-2011, 08:10 PM
Incorrect, according to this:

According to Europol's 2010 data (PDF) attacks by separatist/nationalist groups far outnumber attacks by Islamists.
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/24/277455/who-commits-terrorist-attacks-in-europe/


...and this:

...there have been almost twice as many terror plots from non-Muslims than Muslims in the United States since 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/25/277713/peter-king-targeting-muslims-hearing-despite-norway-attack/


From wikipedia...since we are using the beginning date of 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2001

Surprising how many attacks occur around the world. More surprising when you actually see where they occur. Shocking even more how many are done by "islamic" groups.

:Broncos:

Archer81
07-26-2011, 08:14 PM
Really? Never? By who? Us?foreigners considered dubya a bigger terrorist than bin laden.how is asking a question taking political shots?your turn Nancy



LOL


:Broncos:

Kaylore
07-26-2011, 08:26 PM
...there have been almost twice as many terror plots from non-Muslims than Muslims in the United States since 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/25/277713/peter-king-targeting-muslims-hearing-despite-norway-attack/

Wow, so Muslim terrorists are responsible for a little more than half the plots of all the other extremist groups combined? Well they deserve a Nobel Prize! ::)

TonyR
07-26-2011, 08:27 PM
...since we are using the beginning date of 2001.


The study cited in the first link I posted is using only 2010 for its data.

TonyR
07-26-2011, 08:29 PM
Wow, so Muslim terrorists are responsible for a little more than half the plots of all the other extremist groups combined? Well they deserve a Nobel Prize! ::)

No, read it again. About half as many.


From the study cited in the first link of my post:

Terrorism continues to impact on the lives of EU citizens -
in 2010, seven people died in the EU as a result of terrorist
attacks.
Islamist terrorists carried out three attacks on EU territory.
Separatist groups, on the other hand, were responsible
for 160 attacks, while left-wing and anarchist groups
were responsible for 45 attacks. One single-issue attack
was reported from Greece.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf

Inkana7
07-26-2011, 08:29 PM
From wikipedia...since we are using the beginning date of 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2001

Surprising how many attacks occur around the world. More surprising when you actually see where they occur. Shocking even more how many are done by "islamic" groups.

:Broncos:

Just because the Nationalist/Separatist group is Islamic, that doesn't mean they're Islamist terrorists..

That One Guy
07-26-2011, 09:23 PM
No, read it again. About half as many.


From the study cited in the first link of my post:

Terrorism continues to impact on the lives of EU citizens -
in 2010, seven people died in the EU as a result of terrorist
attacks.
Islamist terrorists carried out three attacks on EU territory.
Separatist groups, on the other hand, were responsible
for 160 attacks, while left-wing and anarchist groups
were responsible for 45 attacks. One single-issue attack
was reported from Greece.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf

I don't have it in me to really look for the explanation behind this logic but I'll give you the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, Bali, 9/11, Bali a second time... hmm... am I missing any?

OK, now your turn. Since 9/11, what non-Islamic groups out-did those? I'm not talking the time someone called in a silly bomb threat or something. Sincere attacks that actually succeeded.

And I left out everything Middle Eastern based to make it a real discussion and avoid nitpicking. I mean, if terrorism is the goal, isn't it quality over quantity that should be most important?

Archer81
07-26-2011, 09:40 PM
Just because the Nationalist/Separatist group is Islamic, that doesn't mean they're Islamist terrorists..


Uhh...right...


:Broncos:

alkemical
07-27-2011, 07:10 AM
I'm not sure I understand, you crazy bastard. ;) Are you pulling a gaffney here, saying that 9/11 was done by us?

no, but that's an interesting projection you are tossing out.



ScienceDaily (July 20, 2011) — Instead of calming fears, the death of Osama bin Laden actually led more Americans to feel threatened by Muslims living in the United States, according to a new nationwide survey. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720151539.htm)




http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96507

Jared Laughner, while he was definitely challenged mentally in the aspect that he harmed other people out of what ever difficulties or illness he had suffered from.

But he's more than that:

He's the new boogeyman for the age we live in. We need a poster child of what to fear. We need a template. We had our template with OBL after 9/11...and now Jared Laughner is the boogieman for this era.

Look at how he is described: Conspiracy nut, pothead, didn't buy into one specific political ideology, believed in the unbelievable.



I'm not defending Jared, or the fact that indeed there are some clinically ill people mentally that could cause harm to others, but what I'm trying to illustrate is look how this directive is being driven home with more vigor these days.



Now here's the question that's been burning in my mind:

With the way legislation has been passed (Patriot/Homegrown terror/etc) - Is it because the old guard saw, and realized where the next stage of terrorism was going to come from? Or is it a means of control, corruption & cronyism?

Or is terrorism the tactic that is used when an individual or small group wages war on "The State"? (I don't support citizens as collateral)

Is it because they are powerless? (The "terrorist"?)

Is it insanity? (Seeing the DSM is working to include everything as a disorder, is sort of scary. + Gov't Healthcare = Everyone medicated!)



Action/Reaction will not be the model used to "win" vs. Terrorism. It only validates and recycles the same behaviour. You need a different strategy in order to win.

You wanted to bring up 9/11:

It just makes me sick to know that Bin Laden won. He caused us to change our way of life, he allowed us to be bled dry in wars that didn't match the reasons we were sold.

A large part of America died on 9/11, and each time a terrorist act happens and the leashes are tightened on us, it's another victory for the tyrants of the world.

DomCasual
07-27-2011, 09:40 AM
You wanted to bring up 9/11:

It just makes me sick to know that Bin Laden won. He caused us to change our way of life, he allowed us to be bled dry in wars that didn't match the reasons we were sold.

A large part of America died on 9/11, and each time a terrorist act happens and the leashes are tightened on us, it's another victory for the tyrants of the world.

I'll address this point. The others, I promise I'll toss around. I see why you would argue this - more from the fact that we ended up fighting two wars than anything else.

But I don't think he won, in any other way. I remember the days after 9/11. I, and most other people, believed that another attack was just a matter of time. There were SO MANY easy targets: sporting events, our water supplies, malls, schools, the prospect of crude chemical weapons, etc. But it never happened. I'm sure that gaff could come up with a more sinister explanation for that. I chalk it up to our reaction - mainly in the intelligence community. I would bet that bin Laden was a frustrated man, when he died. I would bet that he never would have guessed he would die without getting off another 9/11 - even on a smaller scale - in the US.

And I saw in your REP that you put the word 'fear." I disagree. I am not fearful in the least. In fact, when I fly, I don't think I ever think of the bad things that can happen. On the other hand, I WAS fearful after 9/11, and I was flying a lot then. I guess I'm just naive enough to believe the things we've put in place since then really have a shot at protecting me.

TailgateNut
07-27-2011, 10:29 AM
I'll address this point. The others, I promise I'll toss around. I see why you would argue this - more from the fact that we ended up fighting two wars than anything else.

But I don't think he won, in any other way. I remember the days after 9/11. I, and most other people, believed that another attack was just a matter of time. There were SO MANY easy targets: sporting events, our water supplies, malls, schools, the prospect of crude chemical weapons, etc. But it never happened. I'm sure that gaff could come up with a more sinister explanation for that. I chalk it up to our reaction - mainly in the intelligence community. I would bet that bin Laden was a frustrated man, when he died. I would bet that he never would have guessed he would die without getting off another 9/11 - even on a smaller scale - in the US.

And I saw in your REP that you put the word 'fear." I disagree. I am not fearful in the least. In fact, when I fly, I don't think I ever think of the bad things that can happen. On the other hand, I WAS fearful after 9/11, and I was flying a lot then. I guess I'm just naive enough to believe the things we've put in place since then really have a shot at protecting me.


Not to laugh, but Hilarious!

anyone who thinks what the TSA, Homeland Security, border security, local, state and feds are doing is anything more than a smokescreen, is naive!

sportind events- secureHilarious!
schools-secureHilarious!
water supply0 secureHilarious!
air travel- secure-Hilarious!
mass transit-secure-Hilarious!

Just infiltrate supply/maint/service of any of those and BINGO.

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 10:32 AM
Not to laugh, but Hilarious!

anyone who thinks what the TSA, Homeland Security, border security, local, state and feds are doing is anything more than a smokescreen, is naive!

sportind events- secureHilarious!
schools-secureHilarious!
water supply0 secureHilarious!
air travel- secure-Hilarious!
mass transit-secure-Hilarious!

Just infiltrate supply/maint/service of any of those and BINGO.

But having those programs in place forces people to try and use their shoes or underwear in attacks. Yes, if the terrorists were better at what they do, they'd get away with it but we don't make it easy.

Not to mention, I'd say anyone that comes in contact with something like what you mentioned would undergo more scrutiny in today's world than they did pre-9/11. Their best chance is a sneak attack rather than a long term infiltration.

DomCasual
07-27-2011, 10:39 AM
Not to laugh, but Hilarious!

anyone who thinks what the TSA, Homeland Security, border security, local, state and feds are doing is anything more than a smokescreen, is naive!

sportind events- secureHilarious!
schools-secureHilarious!
water supply0 secureHilarious!
air travel- secure-Hilarious!
mass transit-secure-Hilarious!

Just infiltrate supply/maint/service of any of those and BINGO.

Yet, it's hard to argue with the results. If it's so easy, why haven't we had a problem in ten years? The terrorists are certainly motivated.

TailgateNut
07-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Yet, it's hard to argue with the results. If it's so easy, why haven't we had a problem in ten years? The terrorists are certainly motivated.


at what cost? not only $$ but sacrifices made!

DomCasual
07-27-2011, 11:00 AM
at what cost? not only $$ but sacrifices made!

That gets a lot more complicated. How much did 9/11 cost our economy? How much would it have cost if we had had two or three more of them?

You're changing the argument, though. You said they were a joke because they were ineffective. I argued that while they may seem ineffective, you couldn't argue with the results. Now you're saying that they are a joke because they're expensive.

Look, the bottom line is that there aren't easy answers. My whole point is that I don't think you can bury your head in the sand, as it appears Norway might intend to do. I agree with you that some of the inconveniences we've been subjected to because of the "War on Terror" seem a little ridiculous. The "War on Terror" itself, however, is very necessary. My opinion is that the stupid stuff we have to do in the process is pretty predictable, considering the bureaucracy calling the shots.

TonyR
07-27-2011, 11:11 AM
OK, now your turn.

My turn? I just posted a link to a relatively recent academic study. You can click it and read it as easily as I can.

TailgateNut
07-27-2011, 11:22 AM
That gets a lot more complicated. How much did 9/11 cost our economy? How much would it have cost if we had had two or three more of them?

You're changing the argument, though. You said they were a joke because they were ineffective. I argued that while they may seem ineffective, you couldn't argue with the results. Now you're saying that they are a joke because they're expensive.

Look, the bottom line is that there aren't easy answers. My whole point is that I don't think you can bury your head in the sand, as it appears Norway might intend to do. I agree with you that some of the inconveniences we've been subjected to because of the "War on Terror" seem a little ridiculous. The "War on Terror" itself, however, is very necessary. My opinion is that the stupid stuff we have to do in the process is pretty predictable, considering the bureaucracy calling the shots.


The point IS that the "stupid stuff" we are subjected to, is exactly that, STUPID STUFF which doesn't do squat aside from being a pricey dog and pony show.

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 11:26 AM
My turn? I just posted a link to a relatively recent academic study. You can click it and read it as easily as I can.

"bombing where 15 are injured" does not equate to "bombing where 3000 are killed". Every bomb threat is technically terrorism. The ones that actually matter are the ones that succeed in spreading terror. THOSE are the ones dominated by Islamic Terrorists as of late.

100 small bombings across the world < 9/11

DomCasual
07-27-2011, 11:33 AM
The point IS that the "stupid stuff" we are subjected to, is exactly that, STUPID STUFF which doesn't do squat aside from being a pricey dog and pony show.

Well, I'll avoid going off on a tangent (which deserves a whole different thread); but anytime the government gets involved with a process, people start getting subjected to loads and loads of STUPID STUFF. As a small business owner, I deal with the IRS fairly frequently. The S in IRS actually stands for STUPID STUFF, if I remember correctly.

But, I would rather have to be subjected to some STUPID STUFF while also getting the IMPORTANT STUFF, than to not have any of it at all. Sure, ideally, we could just do the IMPORTANT STUFF - but this is the government we are talking about.

In a nutshell, what do you think should be done to keep things as safe as possible?

alkemical
07-27-2011, 11:38 AM
I'll address this point. The others, I promise I'll toss around. I see why you would argue this - more from the fact that we ended up fighting two wars than anything else.

But I don't think he won, in any other way. I remember the days after 9/11. I, and most other people, believed that another attack was just a matter of time. There were SO MANY easy targets: sporting events, our water supplies, malls, schools, the prospect of crude chemical weapons, etc. But it never happened. I'm sure that gaff could come up with a more sinister explanation for that. I chalk it up to our reaction - mainly in the intelligence community. I would bet that bin Laden was a frustrated man, when he died. I would bet that he never would have guessed he would die without getting off another 9/11 - even on a smaller scale - in the US.

And I saw in your REP that you put the word 'fear." I disagree. I am not fearful in the least. In fact, when I fly, I don't think I ever think of the bad things that can happen. On the other hand, I WAS fearful after 9/11, and I was flying a lot then. I guess I'm just naive enough to believe the things we've put in place since then really have a shot at protecting me.


You just outlined the fear in the previous paragraph. FEAR of another terrorist attack, FEAR caused a gross overreaction (it's what the USA is good at).

You say we haven't had a terrorist attack for the last ten years, that's when it gets wonky:

Does the bomb scare at Hillary's election office count as "terror"? (this was some time back)

Do the AZ shootings count?

Is it "only" terror from Muslims that count?

This is what i'm talking about. Bin Laden won. We changed the way we lived, and we live in terror. He also won, in the way he helped bleed Soviet Russia.

Now, we see and hear reports of all sorts of people getting through security with stupid things and easy ways.

I'm not saying that NO "terrorists" were stopped - but i find the "return" to be minimal for the cost(s) involved (as outlined in another post here: in terms of $ & "freedom".)

I mean, the terrorists shouldn't hate us for our freedoms now. We are branded and herded like cattle. They should love us. ;)

alkemical
07-27-2011, 11:41 AM
"bombing where 15 are injured" does not equate to "bombing where 3000 are killed". Every bomb threat is technically terrorism. The ones that actually matter are the ones that succeed in spreading terror. THOSE are the ones dominated by Islamic Terrorists as of late.

100 small bombings across the world < 9/11

Is it just the body count that matters?

Terrorism isn't about the body count, it's about the terror. Fear is a motivator.

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 11:45 AM
Is it just the body count that matters?

Terrorism isn't about the body count, it's about the terror. Fear is a motivator.

People don't really care unless they're impacted. You mentioned a bomb scare at Hillary's office. Who really cared? I've never been there and don't plan to go there. It was nothing more than passing news to me.

Once you get into body counts though, you start to know people who know people who were there. You see the destruction on a large scale and are actually impacted. Impact is what ultimately matters. The fear that it could've been you or someone you know.

It's also relative. What the IRA was doing didn't really matter to most people whereas if anything close to that happened in the US, they'd be one of the most feared and despised groups in the world. Terrorism is relative and based on fear. For that very reason, public perception is pretty much everything.

alkemical
07-27-2011, 11:47 AM
People don't really care unless they're impacted. You mentioned a bomb scare at Hillary's office. Who really cared? I've never been there and don't plan to go there. It was nothing more than passing news to me.

Once you get into body counts though, you start to know people who know people who were there. You see the destruction on a large scale and are actually impacted. Impact is what ultimately matters. The fear that it could've been you or someone you know.

It's also relative. What the IRA was doing didn't really matter to most people whereas if anything close to that happened in the US, they'd be one of the most feared and despised groups in the world. Terrorism is relative and based on fear. For that very reason, public perception is pretty much everything.

So, it only matters when you* care, correct?

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 11:49 AM
So, it only matters when you* care, correct?

If by I you mean generically as the American public, then yes.

If you mean I as in me the individual, it only matters to me when I care.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective.

TailgateNut
07-27-2011, 11:50 AM
So, it only matters when you* care, correct?


he has the same attitude about who is affected/impacted and responsible for the debt.

Generation "me"

alkemical
07-27-2011, 11:53 AM
If by I you mean generically as the American public, then yes.

If you mean I as in me the individual, it only matters to me when I care.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective.


Everything looks bad if you remember it - Homer J Simpson

If it's a matter of perspective, remember that the next time an event happens else where in the world, and you interact with someone from there. That, to them - it's worse than anything they've experienced.

As for Hillary's bomb threat NOT happening, so it doesn't count. Then you can't count "foiled" terror plots. (They didn't happen). This is an illustration though of Fear & Terrorism.

It was illustrating that "anybody" can be "gotten". It's how it works.

Anyway - just some things to type and stuff. ;)

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 11:59 AM
Everything looks bad if you remember it - Homer J Simpson

If it's a matter of perspective, remember that the next time an event happens else where in the world, and you interact with someone from there. That, to them - it's worse than anything they've experienced.

As for Hillary's bomb threat NOT happening, so it doesn't count. Then you can't count "foiled" terror plots. (They didn't happen). This is an illustration though of Fear & Terrorism.

It was illustrating that "anybody" can be "gotten". It's how it works.

Anyway - just some things to type and stuff. ;)

Exactly. To the Irish, the IRA was the boogyman in the closet. To Americans, it's Al Qaeda. That's just the idea that undermines the argument that Muslim terrorists aren't as bad as anyone else. It's whoever we fear the most that is the worst - not quantifiable to any degree but something like terrorism isn't. People who use a concept like pure number count on something as indepth as terrorism are oversimplifying it and missing the true point to make one of their own.

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 12:00 PM
he has the same attitude about who is affected/impacted and responsible for the debt.

Generation "me"

That could be the answer and we could start calling you guys "Generation who is gonna pay my bills?"

alkemical
07-27-2011, 12:07 PM
Exactly. To the Irish, the IRA was the boogyman in the closet. To Americans, it's Al Qaeda. That's just the idea that undermines the argument that Muslim terrorists aren't as bad as anyone else. It's whoever we fear the most that is the worst - not quantifiable to any degree but something like terrorism isn't. People who use a concept like pure number count on something as indepth as terrorism are oversimplifying it and missing the true point to make one of their own.

"bombing where 15 are injured" does not equate to "bombing where 3000 are killed". Every bomb threat is technically terrorism. The ones that actually matter are the ones that succeed in spreading terror. THOSE are the ones dominated by Islamic Terrorists as of late.
100 small bombings across the world < 9/11

Extrapolate.

TailgateNut
07-27-2011, 12:08 PM
That could be the answer and we could start calling you guys "Generation who is gonna pay my bills?"

We already are feeling the effects of the "me/entitled generation". The, we are to good to do a hard days work for a paycheck generation. The we will spit on our country when it doesn't kiss our ass but are also willing to reap the benefits of living here at the same time, generation.


FWIW:Animals are smarter than humans. They eat their useless offspring!

alkemical
07-27-2011, 12:11 PM
he has the same attitude about who is affected/impacted and responsible for the debt.

Generation "me"

I've been thinking about this "generation me" concept for a bit, and looking at generational differences (i'm in my early 30's).

I personally want to work with, and include previous generations. I only think it's fair to try to work with them to find solutions.

In looking at "generation me" - I think this could/should apply to people of that 'mindset' - than a basis of "birth year", etc.

alkemical
07-27-2011, 12:13 PM
We already are feeling the effects of the "me/entitled generation". The, we are to good to do a hard days work for a paycheck generation. The we will spit on our country when it doesn't kiss our ass but are also willing to reap the benefits of living here at the same time, generation.


FWIW:Animals are smarter than humans. They eat their useless offspring!

Humans don't eat their young, they just eat each other.

cannable animals

cannibal animals

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 12:23 PM
Extrapolate.

I don't think that was sarcasm so I'll go along.

The site cited (Ha!) counted all attacks. It counted a car bombing in which 15 were injured right alongside the OKC bombings and 9/11. To them, that could mean (if the car bomber were a nationalist, hypothetically) that non-Muslims commit twice as many attacks as Muslim terrorists. In reality, if put on a sliding scale, car bombing<OKC<9/11. The "terror" spread from 9/11 was probably 1,000 times the terror spread from any attack in the past. If not more. Terrorism is about effectiveness, not just numbers.

I think I basically restated what I had already said but hopefully it gets the point across better?

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 12:25 PM
I've been thinking about this "generation me" concept for a bit, and looking at generational differences (i'm in my early 30's).

I personally want to work with, and include previous generations. I only think it's fair to try to work with them to find solutions.

In looking at "generation me" - I think this could/should apply to people of that 'mindset' - than a basis of "birth year", etc.

Very much. I can point out 25 year olds that have worked harder than a 40 year old has in their entire life. It's just another "back in my day..." opportunity.

alkemical
07-27-2011, 12:26 PM
I don't think that was sarcasm so I'll go along.

The site cited (Ha!) counted all attacks. It counted a car bombing in which 15 were injured right alongside the OKC bombings and 9/11. To them, that could mean (if the car bomber were a nationalist, hypothetically) that non-Muslims commit twice as many attacks as Muslim terrorists. In reality, if put on a sliding scale, car bombing>OKC>9/11. The "terror" spread from 9/11 was probably 1,000 times the terror spread from any attack in the past. If not more. Terrorism is about effectiveness, not just numbers.

I think I basically restated what I had already said but hopefully it gets the point across better?

Let me ponder.

That One Guy
07-27-2011, 12:28 PM
I had my alligators backwards. Error corrected but hopefully point gets across.