Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 Jeff, that wasn't me, unless you were referring to an earlier post than was quoted.Yeah, I was referring to the other one where you said my comment would likely incite political arguments. I was wrong; you were right. There is a first time for everything. Sorry, I thought you might be making that connection, but want to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border? Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said: "ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks. "There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago. Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No. Because you have a lying, policy-driven, ideological administration which will say or do anything to further its agenda regardless of the events and occurrences which reality throws to the people. The answer is, "No. There is no desire to combat terrorism if to do so would hamper "greater policy." Is it a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top? With a complicit media? And does half the nation stand in defense of these actions? Can they not see it or do they simply incapable of critical thought and fall in line and believe whatever they are told? I'm hard-pressed that on one hand we are waging a war against terrorism (don't get me laughing) across the world while allowing suspect individuals to casually enter the country in the name of compassion while simultaneously demanding that the populace become labored to defend themselves domestically from the very threats we face! I find such a position insane. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 We were speaking about political correctness. Who knows what you mean by that. I see this phrase constantly on reactionary blogs, tweets and web sites, so I know it is a propaganda ridden phrase that is essentially a dog whistle for reactionaries, who define it as the ridiculously stupid "cultural Marxism". I only know the phrase from the perspective of the far left, and it has zilch to do with law enforcement. Again, you equated it to "racial profiling," and that's just not the source of the phrase originally. But, I don't care care actually, because no matter what it meant originally, now it is landed square into the silly propaganda sphere and people should feel free to use it how they like. You can't argue about propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm hard-pressed that on one hand we are waging a war against terrorism (don't get me laughing) across the world while allowing suspect individuals to casually enter the country in the name of compassion while simultaneously demanding that the populace become labored to defend themselves domestically from the very threats we face! Sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Generally speaking, I think it's pretty well established that the government likes a good boogeyman and typically is in no hurry to completely get rid of them. Pay attention to what Russia has been saying recently. They're in there now bombing all they can, while saying that our government has been lying, that they haven't really been bombing targets like they claim. Why would they say such a thing if it were false? They have no reason to tick us off about this. If anything we should be working together, yet according to them, we even leaked the flight path of their plane that got shot down. Edited December 3, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 FBI is taking over investigation.Let's hope they solve it faster than Patty Hearst, or Whitey Bolger.SLA was a terrorist group. I think they solved it quick, it was a matter of apprehension, same for Whitey.The US Marshalls seem to always get their man, or lady, sooner or later. I cannot believe they are remaking Point Break, maybe the chase and hunt makes for great Hollywood stuff. If you mean burning down the club house of the SLA, that was the LAPD. The FBI came in to hunt for Patty Hurst afterwords. And how can you call the Bolger case "quick." Yeah, apprehension is sort of the point, isn't it? If there are more to this event, don't we want them apprehended pronto? No, I mean issuing a warrant for Patty Hearst's arrest pretty soon after the bank robbery in San Francisco, from there I am pretty sure they got an indictment relatively quickly. I think they "solved" that case as soon as they developed the film in those grey cameras they had many moons ago. With Whitey, I think they always knew it was him, it was a question of how he was able to trade information to hold them off. I think they are trying to go after Whitey's wife/gf a 2nd time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Why do all these police wear military desert camouflage? Have you ever been in San Bernardino? Many times. I live in SoCal. I bought my last car about a mile from the shooting sight. OK just checking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Generally speaking, I think it's pretty well established that the government likes a good boogeyman and typically is in no hurry to completely get rid of them. Pay attention to what Russia has been saying recently. They're in there now bombing all they can, while saying that our government has been lying, that they haven't really been bombing targets like they claim. Why would they say such a thing if it were false? They have no reason to tick us off about this. If anything we should be working together, yet according to them, we even leaked the flight path of their plane that got shot down. If you know about this, then you know more than you are letting out. And so do I. Who is really the terrorists in all this? A year into fighting people who cut off the heads of innocent people we find an old adversary taking the lead role and doing more in a month that what we ever accomplished. But instead of joining them in the fight, we allow a NATO country to shoot down one of their jets while it conducts their nations very effective missions against our common enemy???? And now we are discovering (at least those who look at where the facts lead are discovering) that a NATO country may be helping to finance our enemy by purchasing their stolen oil? Again, who is really the terrorist? And who here cannot stand to see the truth? Edited December 3, 2015 by Bella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border? Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said: "ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks. "There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago. Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No. Because you have a lying, policy-driven, ideological administration which will say or do anything to further its agenda regardless of the events and occurrences which reality throws to the people. The answer is, "No. There is no desire to combat terrorism if to do so would hamper "greater policy." Is it a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top? With a complicit media? And does half the nation stand in defense of these actions? Can they not see it or do they simply incapable of critical thought and fall in line and believe whatever they are told? I'm hard-pressed that on one hand we are waging a war against terrorism (don't get me laughing) across the world while allowing suspect individuals to casually enter the country in the name of compassion while simultaneously demanding that the populace become labored to defend themselves domestically from the very threats we face! I find such a position insane. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Generally speaking, I think it's pretty well established that the government likes a good boogeyman and typically is in no hurry to completely get rid of them. Pay attention to what Russia has been saying recently. They're in there now bombing all they can, while saying that our government has been lying, that they haven't really been bombing targets like they claim. Why would they say such a thing if it were false? They have no reason to tick us off about this. If anything we should be working together, yet according to them, we even leaked the flight path of their plane that got shot down. If you know about this, then you know more than you are letting out. And so do I. Who is really the terrorists in all this? A year into fighting people who cut off the heads of innocent people we find an old adversary taking the lead role and doing more in a month that what we ever accomplished. But instead of joining them in the fight, we allow a NATO country to shoot down one of their jets while it conducts their nations very effective missions against our common enemy???? And now we are discovering (at least those who look at where the facts lead are discovering) that a NATO country may be helping to finance our enemy by purchasing their stolen oil? Again, who is really the terrorist? And who here cannot stand to see the truth? Infowars! I can't subscribe to that. However, I think the whole thing is party-driven, think-tank crap run by complete idiots who have no business being entrusted with national security. Edited December 3, 2015 by Jeff Matthews 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border? Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said: "ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks. "There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago. Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No. Because you have a lying, policy-driven, ideological administration which will say or do anything to further its agenda regardless of the events and occurrences which reality throws to the people. The answer is, "No. There is no desire to combat terrorism if to do so would hamper "greater policy." Is it a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top? With a complicit media? And does half the nation stand in defense of these actions? Can they not see it or do they simply incapable of critical thought and fall in line and believe whatever they are told?I'm hard-pressed that on one hand we are waging a war against terrorism (don't get me laughing) across the world while allowing suspect individuals to casually enter the country in the name of compassion while simultaneously demanding that the populace become labored to defend themselves domestically from the very threats we face! I find such a position insane. Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. Was the guy last week who walked into a building in Colorado and shot it up killing people, including a police officer a terrorist? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. This might be true. Let's just take it at face value and say it is. So, what? Does this mean we should let undocumented people into this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive.Generally speaking, I think it's pretty well established that the government likes a good boogeyman and typically is in no hurry to completely get rid of them.Pay attention to what Russia has been saying recently. They're in there now bombing all they can, while saying that our government has been lying, that they haven't really been bombing targets like they claim. Why would they say such a thing if it were false? They have no reason to tick us off about this. If anything we should be working together, yet according to them, we even leaked the flight path of their plane that got shot down. If you know about this, then you know more than you are letting out. And so do I.Who is really the terrorists in all this? A year into fighting people who cut off the heads of innocent people we find an old adversary taking the lead role and doing more in a month that what we ever accomplished. But instead of joining them in the fight, we allow a NATO country to shoot down one of their jets while it conducts their nations very effective missions against our common enemy???? And now we are discovering (at least those who look at where the facts lead are discovering) that a NATO country may be helping to finance our enemy by purchasing their stolen oil? Again, who is really the terrorist? And who here cannot stand to see the truth? Good God, well at least they have your "thoughts and prayers." Lets start off with where you think "the real terrorist in all of this" was born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive.Generally speaking, I think it's pretty well established that the government likes a good boogeyman and typically is in no hurry to completely get rid of them.Pay attention to what Russia has been saying recently. They're in there now bombing all they can, while saying that our government has been lying, that they haven't really been bombing targets like they claim. Why would they say such a thing if it were false? They have no reason to tick us off about this. If anything we should be working together, yet according to them, we even leaked the flight path of their plane that got shot down. If you know about this, then you know more than you are letting out. And so do I.Who is really the terrorists in all this? A year into fighting people who cut off the heads of innocent people we find an old adversary taking the lead role and doing more in a month that what we ever accomplished. But instead of joining them in the fight, we allow a NATO country to shoot down one of their jets while it conducts their nations very effective missions against our common enemy???? And now we are discovering (at least those who look at where the facts lead are discovering) that a NATO country may be helping to finance our enemy by purchasing their stolen oil? Again, who is really the terrorist? And who here cannot stand to see the truth? Good God, well at least they have your "thoughts and prayers." Lets start off with where you think "the real terrorist in all of this" was born. LOL. The idea that the vicious conundrum outlined above is intentional makes the birthers look pretty uncreative. That said, it is an interesting conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. Was the guy last week who walked into a building in Colorado and shot it up killing people, including a police officer a terrorist? The count on that is probably jihadists: 40 all other guys: 51 at least at this point. But that's only if you start counting after 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. This might be true. Let's just take it at face value and say it is. So, what? Does this mean we should let undocumented people into this country? You lost me with undocumemted. I thought initial indication was that Farook was American. Boston Marathon bombers were documented as far as I recall. I am missing the documented/undocumented connection. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. This might be true. Let's just take it at face value and say it is. So, what? Does this mean we should let undocumented people into this country? Weren't the people who carried out the latest Terror attack documented? Edited December 3, 2015 by Zen Traveler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist. This might be true. Let's just take it at face value and say it is. So, what? Does this mean we should let undocumented people into this country? You lost me with undocumemted. I thought initial indication was that Farook was American. Boston Marathon bombers were documented as far as I recall. I am missing the documented/undocumented connection. Yes. There's not much we can do about citizens. They have the right to live here. As regards the documented Boston bombers, you can't turn back the clock. Documents don't always predict everything. My aim was at the current issue: whether we should bring undocumented Syrian "refugees" here into our land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You lost me with undocumemted. I thought initial indication was that Farook was American.Boston Marathon bombers were documented as far as I recall. I am missing the documented/undocumented connection. You beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2015 One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border? Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said: "ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks. "There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago. Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No. I don't think you have one accurate statement in that entire post. Do you have a soure for any of that, other than Ted Cruz' speach last night. He sent his thiughts and prayers by the way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts