[quote]pat36 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
All these measures are nothing more than a dog and pony show. Do you really think the rest-a-cops at the airport are capable of thwarting a terrorist attack by a determined nut?
So tell me - what happens if a routine search that could have picked up on something sinister gets canned, and then a terrorist attack results from skipping the routine?
Then what? Then what kind of encroachment on your liberties will you see? Then what kind of a furor will we see, as many will say why didn’t we suffer this mild inconvenience in order to protect citizens?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t - no thanks.
And, on some level, you are right - much of it is a show. But if they don’t do it, the ACLU will squeal and retard the process in whole.
Second, if we allow the encroachment on our rights, like allowing such crap as the patriot act, getting corn-holed at the airport, etc. then it is my opinion the terrorists already won. They succeeded in there goal of making us afraid. I say fuck’em, I am not afraid and see no reason for further monitoring of my behavior.
I don’t think the terrorists have alerady won because you have to take your belt and shoes off at the airport.
This fictional libertarian utopia doesn’t exist and never has. The practical reality is we trade off a little freedom for a hope in better protecting the nation.
If you don’t agree, no problem - but the trade-off stands: do we do a little now in order to head off the necessity of doing a lot more later?
I am not a terrorist, so they don’t need to monitor me, but it gives the government further control as if I behave in a way they don’t like, they will harass me despite the fact that said behavior wouldn’t be considered terroristic in nature.
I see your point, but do terrorists run around with a “Terrorist For Hire” t-shirt on? Terrorists want to appear to be just like you - they aren’t soldiers. They want to give off the impression that their behavior isn’t “terroristic in nature”.
Well, how do you combat that?
Third, the uselessness of shining a flashlight up the asshole of ordinary Americans is further accentuated by the fact that we have a wide-the fuck-ass-open border with Mexico. Why the fuck would a terrorist fly into the U.S. and get marked or corn-holed by a bunch of rent-a-cops when they can fly into mexico and walk across the border unabated.
I couldn’t agree more - the border(s) are one of our most problematic areas for security from terrorism.
And, don’t forget - terrorists aren’t interested in “flying” for the sake of transportation: they want to use the aircraft to murder hundreds or thousands. We aren’t just trying to keep terrorists from moving about - we also want to stop them from murdering scores of people at 35,000 feet.
If we are really that afraid that we are willing to be monitored and controlled then let’s just declare marshal law and get it over with, I mean really.
Luckily, we do we have people in place who don’t share your hyperbolic approach. You present a false choice. There isn’t a choice between a libertarian utopia and martial law - there are obviously many points in between.
But, perhaps unintentionally on your part, if we are too lax in trying to stop terrorists from striking, we may very well usher in the heightened “martial law” you fear the most. A little sacrifice now may prevent a larger sacrifice later - can you imagine what your liberties would look like if we give potential the free reign you suggest?
It’s been said many times before - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
It remains amazing to me that so many “liberty lovers” remain so weak and feckless in defense of the liberty they claim to hold so dear.
My approach is a tad different. All the terrorist attacks through out the world have many common threads and that’s where efforts should be concentrated.
Many people scream its discrimination, but it’s really common sense. You want to monitor people, monitor those who pose the greatest threat. What do we know about terrorists? We know most of them are middle eastern, they are all muslims, they have some radical associations most likely obtained through a local mosque.
From there we can further drill down the tendencies that separate the talkers from those who participate in action. So here are some not so popular but more likely far more productive steps in thwarting terrorist attacks.
- Seal the fucking border with Mexico.
- Stop or severely limit access to the U.S. from the middle east.
- Target likely proponents of terror, rather that taking a crap shoot at the general population.
- Severely limit visa’s foreigners from the middle east.
- Seal the fucking border with Mexico.
- Continually work to get energy self sufficient so we can tell the middle east to go fuck itself.
It sucks for those middle easterners and muslims who have no bad intentions, but let’s get real. The problem comes from where they come from and their culture. It’s not from the Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc.
If we are going to survey and search, it should be concentrated on the most likely suspects and not the population at large. It may even force them to clean their own house. To separate those who came here for a better life from those who come here to enforce their radical philosophies through the blood of innocence.
[/quote]
Pat,
I wanted to sound you out. In particular, I wanted to see how important you think those issues you mentioned are.
From reading it, you sound pretty passionate about those areas.
I must ask you: What if the only politician who has the skills to set that list in motion is pro-choice?
Would you vote for said candidate?
JeffR