A little scary...

[yeat182]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844984/

[yeat182]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/boston.threat/index.html

[ohlookitspaul]

i'm the third guy on the right

[Love As Arson]

This administration is genius in how they control the American public with fear.

[yeat182]

what exactly did they control with this?

[Love As Arson]

what exactly did they control with this?
The people. Fear turns them into sheep as it requires them to place their trust in the leaders for their safety.

[yeat182]

The people. Fear turns them into sheep as it requires them to place their trust in the leaders for their safety.

i don't know anyone that i would apply the term "fear" to, it just made you think, thats all...

[richter915]

The people. Fear turns them into sheep as it requires them to place their trust in the leaders for their safety.
that's how bush won election2k4...it's pretty clever.

[open mind]

i don't know anyone that i would apply the term "fear" to, it just made you think, thats all...
i thought it was "a little scary"..........meh.

[yeat182]

i thought it was "a little scary"..........meh.

yeah, its a little scary that a group of terrorist could sneak across the border undetected...and its a little scary that their target is 30 miles away from me. but i'm not over-reacting, i said it was a little scary.

[richter915]

yeah, its a little scary that a group of terrorist could sneak across the border undetected...and its a little scary that their target is 30 miles away from me. but i'm not over-reacting, i said it was a little scary.
12 million outta homeland security for a four day inauguration fiesta doesn't sound too appealing now eh????????????

[open mind]

yeah, its a little scary that a group of terrorist could sneak across the border undetected...and its a little scary that their target is 30 miles away from me. but i'm not over-reacting, i said it was a little scary.
fear and being a little scared are not related?

[UndefinedBoy]

i don't know anyone that i would apply the term "fear" to, it just made you think, thats all...

You said yourself it scared you hearing this. By sending out alerts like this, it could be argued that you'vd been scared enough to support policies and decisions because you believe you are in danger. It leads to people blindly obeying. Do you really think thats a far stretch or is it too much of a "conspiracy theory" for you?

[yeat182]

You said yourself it scared you hearing this. By sending out alerts like this, it could be argued that you'vd been scared enough to support policies and decisions because you believe you are in danger. It leads to people blindly obeying. Do you really think thats a far stretch or is it too much of a "conspiracy theory" for you?

what policies and decisions? releasing the photo's of the suspects? hell yes i support that..

[UndefinedBoy]

what policies and decisions? releasing the photo's of the suspects? hell yes i support that..

No, no, not those kinds of policies. I'm talking about things like The Patriot Act and pre-emptive war.

[yeat182]

No, no, not those kinds of policies. I'm talking about things like The Patriot Act and pre-emptive war.

both of those came well before this though...so again, what policy is being promoted by using this story to scare the public? if anything it is raising awarness that our borders are a joke and that there are people out there that want to do bad things to us.

[UndefinedBoy]

both of those came well before this though...so again, what policy is being promoted by using this story to scare the public? if anything it is raising awarness that our borders are a joke and that there are people out there that want to do bad things to us.

Those were examples...stories like this will keep you in the worrying state you are in now. I'm not saying that stories are promoting specific policy, I'm just saying it could be argued they lead people into mindsets in which they wouldn't argue with things like pre-emptive war. I'm not really singling out this story, it's just one of many. This one is just more specific.

[yeat182]

Those were examples...stories like this will keep you in the worrying state you are in now. I'm not saying that stories are promoting specific policy, I'm just saying it could be argued they lead people into mindsets in which they wouldn't argue with things like pre-emptive war. I'm not really singling out this story, it's just one of many. This one is just more specific.

i understand what you are saying, but lets wait until they actually use it for some sinister purpose before we start blaming them for it? i mean, a dirty bomb plot doesn't "scare" anyone else, just me?

[UndefinedBoy]

i understand what you are saying, but lets wait until they actually use it for some sinister purpose before we start blaming them for it? i mean, a dirty bomb plot doesn't "scare" anyone else, just me?

No it "scares" other people, but in my eyes different people react to it differently. Some allow that fear to drive them to supporting pre-emptive war (you can't deny pre-emptive war is based on fear) or things like the Patriot Act (not entirely out of fear, but its part of it), and some don't.

[Poopy]

No it "scares" other people, but in my eyes different people react to it differently. Some allow that fear to drive them to supporting pre-emptive war (you can't deny pre-emptive war is based on fear) or things like the Patriot Act (not entirely out of fear, but its part of it), and some don't.

The Michael Moore argument, fear is how Bush controls people does not even make sense. The administration should not hide every perceived threat to America and wait for an attack to occur before doing something. That would be reactive, instead the Bush administration decided to be proactive in fighting the war on terror. Being proactive is how you stop bad things from happening BEFORE they happen.

[yeat182]

yeah, funny how when they don't make threats public the administration is accused of hiding things from the people, and when they do make it public, they are accused of using it as propaganda technique to instill fear in the masses....i guess Bush just can't win, no matter what he does.

[Poopy]

yeah, funny how when they don't make threats public the administration is accused of hiding things from the people, and when they do make it public, they are accused of using it as propaganda technique to instill fear in the masses....i guess Bush just can't win, no matter what he does.

Thats exactly what it is. Some people will hate him till the day he dies. I am just glad he has the resolve to stand firm. I think thats why he won the election, hes a good leader.

[UndefinedBoy]

yeah, funny how when they don't make threats public the administration is accused of hiding things from the people, and when they do make it public, they are accused of using it as propaganda technique to instill fear in the masses....i guess Bush just can't win, no matter what he does.

I've never necessarily said I completely agree with that argument, only that it could be argued, and I do see some validity to it.

[UndefinedBoy]

Is it that hard for you guys to agree that pre-emptive war is based entirely on fear, and that only a frightened public would support it? Is it that far of a stretch to consider that if Bush wanted the war, he would want a public willing to support it, and that by scaring them he could?

Again, I don't have much of a problem with this specific article at all, I'm speaking generally now for the sake of debate...

[yeat182]

Is it that hard for you guys to agree that pre-emptive war is based entirely on fear, and that only a frightened public would support it? Is it that far of a stretch to consider that if Bush wanted the war, he would want a public willing to support it, and that by scaring them he could?

Again, I don't have much of a problem with this specific article at all, I'm speaking generally now for the sake of debate...

i can buy that, but then you have to admit that a pre-emptive war may in fact be a legitimate way to keep us safe, or at least that they believe it is the best way to stop a future attack.

[UndefinedBoy]

i can buy that, but then you have to admit that a pre-emptive war may in fact be a legitimate way to keep us safe, or at least that they believe it is the best way to stop a future attack.

I agree it may be the most effective method, but at the same time it's the most dangerous.

[yeat182]

I agree it may be the most effective method, but at the same time it's the most dangerous.

fair enough. i agree its risky, but so is doing nothing.

[open mind]

The Michael Moore argument, fear is how Bush controls people does not even make sense. The administration should not hide every perceived threat to America and wait for an attack to occur before doing something. That would be reactive, instead the Bush administration decided to be proactive in fighting the war on terror. Being proactive is how you stop bad things from happening BEFORE they happen.
throughout our nations history fear has been used to further political goals, it's not just bush.
what bad things were going to happen if we didn't go into iraq again? (the search for wmds is over, none were found)

[Poopy]

throughout our nations history fear has been used to further political goals, it's not just bush.
what bad things were going to happen if we didn't go into iraq again? (the search for wmds is over, none were found)

Hindsight is 20/20. Congratulations you can say I told you so.

[open mind]

Hindsight is 20/20. Congratulations you can say I told you so.
it's also a demonstration of the use of fear to push your policies through.

[Poopy]

it's also a demonstration of the use of fear to push your policies through.

And if the fears had come true then I could say I told you so. Where would that get us?

[open mind]

And if the fears had come true then I could say I told you so. Where would that get us?
that's not what i'm talking about, i used iraq as an example of fear being used as a tool.
being that those fears weren't grounded in a little thing called reality your question is ludicrous

[Poopy]

that's not what i'm talking about, i used iraq as an example of fear being used as a tool.
being that those fears weren't grounded in a little thing called reality your question is ludicrous

Your whole argument is ludicrous because we wouldnt know the reality of the situation unless we invaded Iraq.

[open mind]

Your whole argument is ludicrous because we wouldnt know the reality of the situation unless we invaded Iraq.
bullshit, our intelligence community if given more time would have eventually figured it out.

[Poopy]

bullshit, our intelligence community if given more time would have eventually figured it out.

The same intelligence agency which thought that WMD's existed? They would all of the sudden change their minds. Along with all the other intelligence agencies in other countries who thought WMDs were there? With countless weapons inspections and failed UN resolutions for cooperation?

[open mind]

The same intelligence agency which thought that WMD's existed? They would all of the sudden change their minds. Along with all the other intelligence agencies in other countries who thought WMDs were there? With countless weapons inspections and failed UN resolutions for cooperation?
the same intelligence agencies who got their intel from people like chalabi who stood only to gain from ousting saddam would have been found to be full of shit as soon as our intelligence community went and tried to verify their claims yes.
speculation and uncorraborated reports were used alot during the build up to war, given time they would have been discredited.

[Poopy]

the same intelligence agencies who got their intel from people like chalabi who stood only to gain from ousting saddam would have been found to be full of shit as soon as our intelligence community went and tried to verify their claims yes.
speculation and uncorraborated reports were used alot during the build up to war, given time they would have been discredited.

Again, hindsight is 20/20, congratulations.

[open mind]

Again, hindsight is 20/20, congratulations.
well since you aren't arguing that fear isn't used as a tool against the people and everything else you've said didn't make logical sense, i'll say thank you and next time don't be a sucker for bullshit.

[Poopy]

well since you aren't arguing that fear isn't used as a tool against the people and everything else you've said didn't make logical sense, i'll say thank you and next time don't be a sucker for bullshit.

What I am saying dude is that fear isnt used as some underhanded tool, its an effect of a scary situation. A scary situation that Bush did something about. Everyone can now look back and see that no WMDs were found (which does not necesarily mean that they werent there). All of your rhetoric stems from the fact that you think Bush is a liar, a cheat, and an evil person, and he isnt. just ask the majority of Americans.

[open mind]

What I am saying dude is that fear isnt used as some underhanded tool, its an effect of a scary situation. A scary situation that Bush did something about. Everyone can now look back and see that no WMDs were found (which does not necesarily mean that they werent there). All of your rhetoric stems from the fact that you think Bush is a liar, a cheat, and an evil person, and he isnt. just ask the majority of Americans.
a scary situation? what was the situation again? let's see, a country that wasn't aggresive towards us that didn't have any wmds (or as i'm sure you'd like to say that there was no evidence of them having them found when we got there)
when did i say bush was evil? you know there have been plenty of shitty leaders who've had majority support before right?

[Poopy]

a scary situation? what was the situation again? let's see, a country that wasn't aggresive towards us that didn't have any wmds (or as i'm sure you'd like to say that there was no evidence of them having them found when we got there)
when did i say bush was evil? you know there have been plenty of shitty leaders who've had majority support before right?

Iraq had WMD programs in the past. They are a terrorist friendly nation. Just because they didnt come out and say that they wish to wage war on the US is no reason to let them be. 9/11 was an awakening for most Americans that our past policies for fighting terrorism just arent working. Its not enough to be defensive and wait for a country to show some aggression. We invaded Afghanistan as a reactive response, we invaded Iraq as a proactive response. Bush has changed the way we fight terrorism and I think 10 years from now he will be seen as a visionary for starting something great.

[yeat182]

it's also a demonstration of the use of fear to push your policies through.

what policies?

[scitsofreaky]

Iraq had WMD programs in the past. They are a terrorist friendly nation. Just because they didnt come out and say that they wish to wage war on the US is no reason to let them be. 9/11 was an awakening for most Americans that our past policies for fighting terrorism just arent working. Its not enough to be defensive and wait for a country to show some aggression. We invaded Afghanistan as a reactive response, we invaded Iraq as a proactive response. Bush has changed the way we fight terrorism and I think 10 years from now he will be seen as a visionary for starting something great.
I have to disagree with, well, all but the first statement.
Most terrorist groups didn't like Saddam because he wasn't a fanatical muslim, he was just power crazy/hungry. Besides, I don't think that there were too many terrorist cells operating in the country. Also, he didn't have the means to do very much to the US, so attacking Iraq could have waited at least until we were closer to being done in Afganistan, so that we could have had more troops sent in (although Rumsfeld can be directly blamed for the lack of adequate personell in Iraq).
Oh, and I doubt he will "be seen as a visionary for starting something great", because I don't think a war that we can't win is something great. And Iraq won't be "over" (what ever that may mean) for many many many years. Many years Many.

[Alan Rupp]

I have to disagree with, well, all but the first statement.
Most terrorist groups didn't like Saddam because he wasn't a fanatical muslim, he was just power crazy/hungry. Besides, I don't think that there were too many terrorist cells operating in the country. Also, he didn't have the means to do very much to the US, so attacking Iraq could have waited at least until we were closer to being done in Afganistan, so that we could have had more troops sent in (although Rumsfeld can be directly blamed for the lack of adequate personell in Iraq).
Oh, and I doubt he will "be seen as a visionary for starting something great", because I don't think a war that we can't win is something great. And Iraq won't be "over" (what ever that may mean) for many many many years. Many years Many.
Terrorist groups operating in Iraq:
Abu Bakr al-Seddiq Battalions
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula
Al Qaida
Al-Arabiya
Al-Sadr Militia
Ansar al Islam
Ansar al Sunna
Ansar Al-Zawahri
Army of Ansar al-Sunna
Holders of the Black Banner
Iraqi insurgents, militants, terrorists
Islamic Army in Iraq
Islamic Defenders Front
Islamic Jihad Organization in Iraq
Islamic Response
Karbala Squadron
Khalid Ibn al-Walid Brigade
Lions of the Allah Brigade
Mehdi Army
Mohammed’s Army (Iraq)
Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
Mujahideen Corps
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Return Party
Saraya al-Mujahideen
Tawhid and Jihad

[scitsofreaky]

Before or after the war? So, I will take back what I said, for the most part.
Also, I never heard diffinitivly that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, in fact, I think there were strong arguements against ties between Bin Ladin and Saddam. And, since Al Qaeda is our main target, we should focus on them. We can't take on all the terrorist groups at once, hell, I don't think we can even take one out.

[UndefinedBoy]

Before or after the war? So, I will take back what I said, for the most part.
Also, I never heard diffinitivly that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, in fact, I think there were strong arguements against ties between Bin Ladin and Saddam. And, since Al Qaeda is our main target, we should focus on them. We can't take on all the terrorist groups at once, hell, I don't think we can even take one out.

It's unlikely Saddam and Bin Laden would've gotten along...Osama was a fundamentalist who wanted nothing but the best for his people, while Saddam killed Muslims...I don't get the feeling the two would've worked very well together.

[Poopy]

Before or after the war? So, I will take back what I said, for the most part.
Also, I never heard diffinitivly that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, in fact, I think there were strong arguements against ties between Bin Ladin and Saddam. And, since Al Qaeda is our main target, we should focus on them. We can't take on all the terrorist groups at once, hell, I don't think we can even take one out.

I dont believe just because the war on terror is "hard" that we should give up. Then the terrorists would win.

[Poopy]

It's unlikely Saddam and Bin Laden would've gotten along...Osama was a fundamentalist who wanted nothing but the best for his people, while Saddam killed Muslims...I don't get the feeling the two would've worked very well together.

Well both hate America, and either have caused or could cause the death of Americans, and thats enough to make them an enemy in my book.

[yeat182]

It's unlikely Saddam and Bin Laden would've gotten along...Osama was a fundamentalist who wanted nothing but the best for his people, while Saddam killed Muslims...I don't get the feeling the two would've worked very well together.

it was unlikely that FDR/Churchill would get along with Stalin, but they did.

[UndefinedBoy]

it was unlikely that FDR/Churchill would get along with Stalin, but they did.

The circumstances are a bit different, but regardless until there is more proof its not right to assume there was a connection, and base a war on that assumption.

[UndefinedBoy]

Well both hate America, and either have caused or could cause the death of Americans, and thats enough to make them an enemy in my book.

Thats not enough to connect the two...

[open mind]

what policies?
pre-emptive war.

[open mind]

Iraq had WMD programs in the past. They are a terrorist friendly nation. Just because they didnt come out and say that they wish to wage war on the US is no reason to let them be. 9/11 was an awakening for most Americans that our past policies for fighting terrorism just arent working. Its not enough to be defensive and wait for a country to show some aggression. We invaded Afghanistan as a reactive response, we invaded Iraq as a proactive response. Bush has changed the way we fight terrorism and I think 10 years from now he will be seen as a visionary for starting something great.
1)yeah back when he was our fucking ally 2)not to any group threatening our security and certain allies support terror and we don't bomb them3) maybe you don't know this but one country didn't attack another on 9/11.

[Poopy]

Thats not enough to connect the two...
I never said it would be. They arent connected, but both still posed a threat.

[open mind]

Well both hate America, and either have caused or could cause the death of Americans, and thats enough to make them an enemy in my book.
well we might as well blow up most of the world if that's all it takes.

[scitsofreaky]

I never said it would be. They arent connected, but both still posed a threat.
What threat did Saddam pose to the US? Maybe when he was shotting a gun in the air (which he seemed to always be doing) he was really aiming at Amerinca!

[kchubb]

1)yeah back when he was our fucking ally 2)not to any group threatening our security and certain allies support terror and we don't bomb them3) maybe you don't know this but one country didn't attack another on 9/11.

1. They used WMD on the kurds and thats when we went there in there in the early 90's to stop their invasion of kuwait. We were hardly allies at this time...

2. They had obvious ties to terrorist organizations and unclear ties with al qaeda. Either way they were a terrorist friendly nations and after 9/11 Bush told the world that any nation supporting terrorism will not be tolerated.

There are several reasons for going into Iraq and the DOD has stated them from the beginning of the war. Which of our allies support terrorism, besides Israel? Iran is next on the list and N Korea in the near future...

3. A country didn't attack America, that is true. Terrorist did. Where do terrorists live? Who allows them to live there? Who funds their organizations? Who equipts them? Who supports them? Who ALLOWS them? Iraq and afganistan were all guilty of these along with many other things.

[open mind]

1. They used WMD on the kurds and thats when we went there in there in the early 90's to stop their invasion of kuwait. We were hardly allies at this time...

2. They had obvious ties to terrorist organizations and unclear ties with al qaeda. Either way they were a terrorist friendly nations and after 9/11 Bush told the world that any nation supporting terrorism will not be tolerated.

There are several reasons for going into Iraq and the DOD has stated them from the beginning of the war. Which of our allies support terrorism, besides Israel? Iran is next on the list and N Korea in the near future...

3. A country didn't attack America, that is true. Terrorist did. Where do terrorists live? Who allows them to live there? Who funds their organizations? Who equipts them? Who supports them? Who ALLOWS them? Iraq and afganistan were all guilty of these along with many other things.
1)got me there point is we're uneven about our wmd policies.
2)iraq didn't fund terrorist organizations so much as they gave money to the families of suicide bombers and the like.unclear ties? give me a fucking break, that's such a vague term it means we couldn't find anything to prove they ever cooperated. allies who've supported terror? saudi arabia for one
3)auctually that sounds more like saudi arabia then iraq.