j0z3r:

PuroFreak:

If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...

Just to play devil's advocate for one second... Do you really think that Sept. 11 happened "just for the sake of killing Americans"? That screams of ignorance to me, no offense.

Let me explain my point of view by turning the tables on the point. If you were a resident of a small country and your country was invaded, bombarded and literally torn asunder by a much larger, richer country with far, far greater military superiority, how would you deal with it? You can't fight them in the trenches because they deal with your rpgs and assault rifles with .50 caliber humvee mounted machine guns and remote launched patriot missiles. So how do you, a poor countryman, stand up to that?

Terrorism does not just go one way, and the attacks against our towers pale in comparison to what has been done in the past to some of these countries. Our continued support of Israel in itself could be deemed an act of State-sponsored terrorism. And how about those missiles we launch from many miles away that they can neither see coming nor know when they are coming until they are there? I'd say that counts as "instilling terror". Oh but wait, it's not terrorism unless a Muslim does it, right?

This argument I keep hearing that says followers of Islam hate us for being us is ridiculous. The truth is that some people in some countries, who happen to subscribe to the Islamic faith, hate us for what we do to them, not simply for who we are. And that includes our overt military actions as well as the vast amount of military support we give to countries like Israel so they can deal out an ass-whooping or two.

If all you do is think in extremes, then we are getting nowhere fast. And it is thoughts like these that will eventually lead us into a police state.

Ok, I understand you were trying to play devils advocate but if you REALLY examine all the facts you did a rather poor job. All but a couple of the Sept 11th Hi-jackers were from where? Saudi Arabia... How many bombs have we EVER droppped on that little *** hole of a country? How many times has Isreal attacked the Saudis??? Hmmm... The excuse of us attacking them is old and played out and doesn't even hold up 99% of the time. If the terrorists from Sept 11th were from Iraq then ok, you might have a point. Or even if they were from some other country we have bombed. Ok, say they were from Afghanistan, we never attacked their pissy little country until after Sept. 11th.... WE HELPED THEM BEAT THE RUSSIANS!!! How the hell is that considered an act of terror on the Muslims???

Also I don't believe that only Muslims are terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist without a doubt! The scientist who they believe mailed off the Anthrax letters was a terrorist. Bill Ayers is a terrorist... Or an activist if you ask his buddy Barry Obama. The fact is plain and simple that Islamic extremists do want to do us harm and kill Americans. There is no way to spin that without just straight out lying. But on the other hand, no, not all Muslims want to harm us, but we have to take action and make sure we are safe here at home. It is a real theat to us and to our children and no amount of appeasment or sympathy will change that.

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

j0z3r:

PuroFreak:

If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...

Just to play devil's advocate for one second... Do you really think that Sept. 11 happened "just for the sake of killing Americans"? That screams of ignorance to me, no offense.

Let me explain my point of view by turning the tables on the point. If you were a resident of a small country and your country was invaded, bombarded and literally torn asunder by a much larger, richer country with far, far greater military superiority, how would you deal with it? You can't fight them in the trenches because they deal with your rpgs and assault rifles with .50 caliber humvee mounted machine guns and remote launched patriot missiles. So how do you, a poor countryman, stand up to that?

Terrorism does not just go one way, and the attacks against our towers pale in comparison to what has been done in the past to some of these countries. Our continued support of Israel in itself could be deemed an act of State-sponsored terrorism. And how about those missiles we launch from many miles away that they can neither see coming nor know when they are coming until they are there? I'd say that counts as "instilling terror". Oh but wait, it's not terrorism unless a Muslim does it, right?

This argument I keep hearing that says followers of Islam hate us for being us is ridiculous. The truth is that some people in some countries, who happen to subscribe to the Islamic faith, hate us for what we do to them, not simply for who we are. And that includes our overt military actions as well as the vast amount of military support we give to countries like Israel so they can deal out an ass-whooping or two.

If all you do is think in extremes, then we are getting nowhere fast. And it is thoughts like these that will eventually lead us into a police state.

the other big difference about what we do as a military and what the terrorists that took down the towers did to us was this:

we try to limit civilian loss in a war. they target the civilian population.

im not saying that the US has never killed a civilian in war time. Im not saying mistakes have never been made. the target and intended targets are military related. If it is a military target i have no problem at all with sending in a smart bomb launched from hundreds of miles away.

i understand your argument of "how else will they fight back" but that does not justify killing thousands of people just tying to get to work. if the planes would have just attacked military targets (the pentagon, the white house, military bases) and their goal was not to bring down our economy by taking out the WTC i could make an argument their actions, though against my beliefs, would have had more honor. unfortunately that was their goal; to kill as many as they could and make the people of the US suffer economicly as well.

as far as the nation of Islam hating the US for who we are...
not every muslim hates us. some do. the ones that do hate us are the ones we hear all the time. it is easy to see that those outspoken muslims do, in fact, hate the us. the other part of the "all muslims hate us" problem is that there is no great uprising of muslim people that is being covered in the media. there may be an islamic group out there that is speaking up against terrorism but their voice is not loud enough to be heard over the roar of the crowd that is screaming "death to america, death to isriel, death to the infadels"

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

Kuzi -

Not to support that kind of attack, but I think from their point of view they saw it as the most effective tactic. "Honor" is usually only a factor in the decision-making process of the party that will, in all likelihood, win the engagement.

Look at self-defense classes. These classes teach women how to kick a guy in the 'nads, or poke his eyes. These aren't exactly looked at as "honorable" fighting tactics, but the party on defense is assumed to be at a significant disadvantage. They are taught to compensate for this disadvantage by using less-than-honorable tactics. I think it's similar in the case of those terrorist attacks. The U.S. can clearly overpower their rogue "military" in a fair fight, so they are forced to use other means to accomplish their objectives.

Another way to look at it is that we intend to target fuel, power, and communications infrastructure in attacks. A guy who works for the power company may be a civilian, but that is still considered a valid military target. It will affect the ability of the target nation to defend itself. In the same way, our economy is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and a collection of businessmen all stacked up in a 110+ story building is too sweet of a "military" target to resist.

---

phobicsquirrel:

ummm milk it..

i see what you are saying about honor. ....and the "military" target of the WTC. i still think calling the US fighting tactics "terror" is at least a bit of a misnomer. we only try to strike fear into the hearts of enemy combatants, not the population at large.


im still not saying we are successful 100% of the time but its our goal.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

Certainly the impact on the psyche of the average citizen in the target nation is far less impacted by a surgical military strike than something like the attack on the WTC. Of course, there are a number of old people in Japan who would readily point out that our attacks have not always been so precisely targeted at military. I'm sure those attacks were more terrifying for the average citizen than the WTC attacks --- and I vividly recall feeling very terrified on and after that day.

---

phobicsquirrel:

ummm milk it..

dutyje:

Certainly the impact on the psyche of the average citizen in the target nation is far less impacted by a surgical military strike than something like the attack on the WTC. Of course, there are a number of old people in Japan who would readily point out that our attacks have not always been so precisely targeted at military. I'm sure those attacks were more terrifying for the average citizen than the WTC attacks --- and I vividly recall feeling very terrified on and after that day.

im no historian, but im fairly sure that we did not have a "smart bomb" in WWII. we worked with what we had. what we had was carpet bombing with very dumb bombs (and later on a nuke). we arent the only ones that did that in WWII. Germany, the US, Japan, and England all took part in that.

its interesting to look at the evolution of war. such styles as carpet bombing would not be stood for in the present time. there would have to be a very drastic shift in the mind of people around the world for that tactic to be used again. ... same with Atomic bombs.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

But if you look back even further in the evolution of war, a couple armies went out in a field somewhere and battled each other. This was a good way to eliminate civilian casualties, because the civilians left before the battle began. Obviously, at some point, somebody realized they needed something bigger to win the war. That's really where the line seems to get drawn -- the most honorable available tactic that will still result in victory.

---

phobicsquirrel:

ummm milk it..

Another thing - do you suppose the smart bomb was invented to minimize civilian casualties, or maximize the performance of the weapon in destroying its target? Obviously, the reduction in civilian casualties is a lovely side bonus and a great way to position it as a more honorable weapon, but I would suspect the primary motivation was its ability to reliably eliminate a very specific target.

---

phobicsquirrel:

ummm milk it..

dutyje:

... but I would suspect the primary motivation was its ability to reliably eliminate a very specific target.

agreed. its like having a sniper rifle with 500lbs of TNT on it.
...and I dont care what your point of view on any war its, that right there is cool.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

dutyje:

... but I would suspect the primary motivation was its ability to reliably eliminate a very specific target.

agreed. its like having a sniper rifle with 500lbs of TNT on it.
...and I dont care what your point of view on any war its, that right there is cool.

NOT so KEWL on the receiving end I'd bet.

---

This took place in Lufkin Texas. Yet ANOTHER example of how low the Obama camp is willing to go just to hurt someone that doesn't agree with them. Liberals are supposed to be more tolerant, but the only tolerate people who thinkg like they do!!

www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html?imw=Y

Dear Friends: We have had some interesting things going on our street this week but this 'takes the cake'. The election is less than a month away - people need to be aware of this information of the tactics that have been used this week on my neighbor. She is not a 'mental case nor political activist' just your everyday young Mom with small children and a husband out of the military. If this is the kind of 'change' Mr. Obama is referring to, we are definitely in for more than what has met the eye. What has happened here is not only appalling but frightening to think we may no longer have the freedom to speak against 'the powers that be' without the Secret Service showing up at your door. Keeping in mind, there is no taped conversation - simply a disgruntled volunteer who was not getting the response she was looking for. Jessica has contacted several politicians and news organizations - some who have told her 'this is out of my jurisdiction'. Pleeeze! Enough is enough - I for one will stand behind this young woman and notify every person I can possibly think of to make people aware of this travesty! I hope you will forward this on as well to as many people as you possibly can - especially to our elected officials and news organizations. Feel free to email me for verification.

On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as 'Obama Volunteers of Texarkana' (Texas).

She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied:

'No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' I hung up.

Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:

'I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor.'

My husband laughed and told them “No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying.” I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently “Oh? Well why would she make that up?”

I replied that I supposed she wasn’t happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said “That’s right, you were rude!” The last time I checked being rude wasn’t a crime in America.

Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, 'So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?'

They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama supporter…someone calling from his campaign…are you kidding?

I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house.

They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before “embarrassing you by going to all your neighbors and family”, another threat? I told them to be my guest and talk to whomever they wanted but they weren’t going to investigate my thoughts on my porch.

They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me I just say 'Yeah sure count me in, or just hang up' apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them more useless trips. Yeah right. I said 'Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?' I said I was sorry they made a wasted trip but if they had a problem with some made up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing.

At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show me their badges. They had done the quick flip when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female Agent refused to give me one stating “You’re not going to get a card.” The male Agent gave me a card and told me I could contact Houston with any questions.

The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn’t cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesn’t have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.

I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isn’t tapped, et cetera. I am hearing a lot of “Out of my Jurisdiction”.

Do I also hear jackboots? This is the most discusting act of political HATRED I have ever heard and it is sad thought our tax dollars were spent to persue this womans total lie! She should have charges filled for making a false police report and have to pay back the money it cost to send the agents to investigate!

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

Weird. I have a couple problems with the story, though, Puro.

First, the Secret Service makes its own determination about who to investigate. Nobody "high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America" has the authority to "bring the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen." Not a McCain campaign staffer, not an Obama campaign staffer, not a George Washington campaign staffer. If the Secret Service showed up at her door, that was the Secret Service's decision. They still answer to the current president, not the possible future one.

Second, if the Secret Service agent refused to produce proper ID, that agent violated the law and should be dealt with appropriately by her employer, the Treasury Dept.

Third, if the agents were rude and abusive, that, too, falls on the Treasury Dept. to deal with. I don't see how it's the fault or responsibility of Sen. Obama, since he does not have that kind of control over the Secret Service.

Fourth, if a campaign worker maliciously misreported this conversation to bring suspicion on this lady, that worker should be fired and charged with violation of whatever law(s) she violated. Her actions, however, should not be generalized to "the Obama camp." I somehow doubt Sen. Obama is even aware of the existence of every low-level phone-bank operator working in Texarkana, TX, much less what they're up to.

Fifth, if the Secret Service is still investigating this, that suggests they haven't found what the actual facts of the situation are, yet. Presumably, they know more details than you, me, or the Lufkin Daily News. The lady in Lufkin may be telling the truth, or she may not. Maybe we should wait for the evidence before we start allcapping about what liberals always do or how low the Obama camp is.

Sixth, your attribution of all this to "the Obama camp" -- or the lady's attribution of it to "higher ups" in that camp -- is difficult to make sense of. Why would the Obama camp do it? He's ahead in all the polls. He's gonna get drilled in TX, and there's nothing he can do about that. Why risk his lead on one ill informed voter in Lufkin, TX? The man's not irrational.

---

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

<sigh>

---

phobicsquirrel:

ummm milk it..

Luko:

We're all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.