Forums | MacLife

OKC doesnt even compare. 9/11 was a lot more than just some collapsed buildings and dead people.

The "war" that 9/11 supposedly started was long ago given up as lost; the detour to Iraq effectively ended it.

There are plenty of lessons to be learned from 9/11, but it'll take time to digest 'em. But I think it's likely 9/11 will just become a kind of isolated, meaningless blip in history like the OKC bombing. Not that that's what I think of the two events; but I'm amazed that so little effort has been expended on deriving a deeper meaning from these acts.

Steyr AUG wrote:

OKC doesnt even compare. 9/11 was a lot more than just some collapsed buildings and dead people.

What a fantastically empty post.  Even for you.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

but I'm amazed that so little effort has been expended on deriving a deeper meaning from these acts.

You can't ask what it really means, without someone claiming you hate America.

so should Obama (assuming he wins) go after OBL in Pakistan or should he let bygones be bygones.

I agree.   7 years is long enough.    Priorities change.

The terrorists attack on 9/11 were serious. They showed how our open society could be used against us. Unfortunately, we took all the wrong lessons.

Instead of realizing that open societies present a certain amount of risk, which we used to feel was a worthy price for freedom, we instead turned to create a closed, almost fascist society,

Instead of looking at practical measures we could take to prevent future attacks, we created new, utterly ridiculous, bureaucracies that do nothing.

Instead of seeing leaders come out and try to calm the public, we have smurf leaders that use the attacks to stir people up, and used the fear to pass unconstitutional laws.

We shouldn't forget the attacks, but instead remember how badly we reacted to them.

Did the president submit a declaration of war to Congress for consideration? Did the president want a declaration of war?

ScifiterX wrote:

Um the United Kingdom & Israel have stopped a number of plots res. While they are our allies it wasn't our efforts but their's which stopped the plots. No amount of spin by our leaders changes that fact.

We have stopped some as well.

radarman wrote:

The terrorists attack on 9/11 were serious. They showed how our open society could be used against us. Unfortunately, we took all the wrong lessons.

Instead of realizing that open societies present a certain amount of risk, which we used to feel was a worthy price for freedom, we instead turned to create a closed, almost fascist society,

A closed facist society? What society are you referring to? How is it closed, how is it facistic?
That's ludicrous.

Instead of looking at practical measures we could take to prevent future attacks, we created new, utterly ridiculous, bureaucracies that do nothing.

I thought you were going to say we created beuracracies that did too much (hence the tag taht we were bcoming a facist state). This ties in directly to the other thread about the  pain ray. You say that we should have taken practical measures, but that means nothing. It would have to be negotiated among people with competing ideas as to what's practical or over the line. And waht's practical to some would be an invasion of privacy to others. You make it seem as if practical measures that we could take are so simple and obvious that no debate would even be necessary about them. Yet, nearly any expansion of law to address preventing threats was met with shrill denunciations that we were delving into a facist state.

So if Obama wins he can repeal all of the laws passed. Then he could either go back to pre 9/11 mentality which didnt' do much to actually protect us, or he could try to pass some other measures that supposedly will protect us, only he'll be met with the exact same arguments and would also have to pass measures that have the practical efffect of actually preventing future attacks (not responding to attacks but preventing). So I think any practical measures that we could take to prevent future attacks would be ones that would never be implemented by you as to do so would require a trade off of costs and benefits that you wouldn't make.

Instead of seeing leaders come out and try to calm the public, we have smurf leaders that use the attacks to stir people up, and used the fear to pass unconstitutional laws.

We shouldn't forget the attacks, but instead remember how badly we reacted to them.

But then you also have one side saying any changings or any attempt to beef up security is us sliding into a facist state. One aspect of prevention is to be vigilant and have people vigilant, yet one side constantly says any warnings are fear mongering. Or alternatively, if the adminstration says get back to your lives as usual, then the argument is that we should be asking them to sacrifice more, or are ignoring threats. In other words, the other side is arguing anything and everything. They want prevention, but they dont' want to implement any policies. They want vigilance but any warnings are fear mongering and not heeding warnings that supposedly are there is negligence on the part of the adminstration. Which requires a comission be established that demand answeres and policies that should be implemented so as to prevent future attacks. BUt those should never be implemented as they are violations of rights and there is no real threat anyway.

I seem to remember that the dept of homeland security was bipartisan. I seem to remember when the president had a deal to sell a port hub to a company in Dubai that democrats climbedd on their soapbox and argued xenophobically that it was a security threat and that 100% of cargo should be checked and that Bush wasn't doing enough. And remember when it was the last election and we were regaled with stories about how we actulaly had Osama and were holding him as an october surprise? again, the dems and libs were NEVER serious about this issue it was always simply a club used to bash the president no matter what action he took.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-11 9:06 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

resedit wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Um the United Kingdom & Israel have stopped a number of plots res. While they are our allies it wasn't our efforts but their's which stopped the plots. No amount of spin by our leaders changes that fact.

We have stopped some as well.

If you mean the shoe bomber then yes American citizens have stopped terrorist plots. Our peace keepers not so much.

Do I really need to provide them?
It would take me some time as I don't bookmark that stuff - but there are plenty of cases where US intelligence has found cells and prevented possible attacks, both here and abroad - but particularly abroad.

Note that there hasn't been a single successful attack in the US since 9/11.
You think that's just by coincidence?

I attribute the lack of terrorism to us providing a target within their own land and our few remaining' allies police actions. We didn't stop the plots so much as postpone them due to priority shift. And no intelligence didn't find smurf at best Interpol found cells and our leaders took credit. At worst Interpol found cells.