Well said 6. And I never took note of the lack of reviews by the right wingers here until you brought it up. I wonder how many of them are real participants in the hobby, and how many are just shills for the right wing, spending their days surfing to any and every political discussion board to make sure the "talking points" reflect the perspectives of the Terrible Trio.
Never could understand how Bible-thumping fascists can justify their patronage of the world's oldest profession.
very, very sad.
But somehow inevitable...
Maybe they have changed there M.O
-- Modified on 7/7/2005 8:07:24 AM
It's too early to point any fingers and Al Q. didn't take credit for the WTC for a couple days. Madrid was a day or so later as well.
NO I belive that all men & Women are created equal. But what certain groups of people do with their freedom is questionable.
I have spent hours this morning on the telephone with friends and family in England (London to be exact) just mnaking sure none of them were hurt.Everyone I know there uses the mass transit system.
We have welcomed these people from all over the world in to our midst, and in return we have September 11th, Madrid, London now, and what next?
Have we asked for it because of our involvement in the middle east? Maybe?
But the thing to remember here is that the people responsable for these attacks are all loyal to ISLAM. Go ahaed, and stop these people. Question them. Don't let them on to our transportation systems.
I know you say "if we do that for them, when is it our turn?" I don't have a good answer, but as late all atacks around the world are due to some extreme islamic group. The answer to me seams pretty simple!
OK wether you agree with me or not, is OK. And part of this is due to me being very tired and still worried about a few I have not spoken to as yet.
I think I am really just venting right now on this forum too? I do not know if anyone here has lost a family member or friend in any terrorist attack, but when you do, will you change your mind about profilling certain groups of people?
Kyliesd
-- Modified on 7/7/2005 6:16:34 PM
even I have a lesser problem with racial profiling. It is a reality versus idealism problem.
It is obvious that the islamic terrorists bear one unifying feature: they are islamic. Therefore, I doubt sincerely that an inquiry at the local parochial school bingo night will yield any results, but your local meeting of young islamists may.
The balance is between the danger we face as opposed to civil rights. As we get closer and closer to the nuclear terror, just how far can we go to investigate? Where is the line?
I think that we will be wrestling with this question for many years to come I'm afraid.
Minor civil rights "infringements" compare to "a little bit pregnant". I see both sides of the argument, and both sides have excellent points and positions.
The concept of profiling makes sense, but it starts you down that slippery slope to internment to "prevent" terrorism. We've walked in those shoes back after 12/7/41 and we can't go there again.
There needs to be an expedited access within the legal system, a fast track process that allows LE to get the search warrants and such needed, plus a comprehensive examination of legal technicalities-perhaps a legal review presided over by RETIRED judges and attorneys, that can spell out exact circumstances where civil rights may be compromised in the interests of national security.
None of the vague generalities, there would need to be enough specifics define a clear scenario. Which means no idealists from either side of the political spectrum.
The amazing part of this discussion is that JBIRD is the conservative, and I am the liberal, but we are both in basic agreement: there is no easy solution.
Even Alan Dershowitz agrees that torture, where one is seeking a nuclear weapon about to explode, can be acceptable.
Our constitution is, thankfully, flexible, and we will, I fear, be exploring exactly how flexible we want it to be for many more years.
We also all remember well the internment of Japanese Americans post 12/7/41, and that this confinement was found acceptable by the US Supreme Court. A sad period in our history, but if we go back in time to the early 40's, we can all understand how the court came to this decision.
In my view the only way to analyze the issue will be in terms of a balancing test, as outlined in my prior posting. The danger of racial profiling versus the seriousness of the situation.
Be rest assured that if a nuclear weapon does go off, we will need to do everything possible to make sure that we don't go too far.
Remember the Oklahoma City bombing. The first reaction was that the source was outside the U.S. and probably the Middle East, so we can't jump to conclusions. It was one of our own countrymen who blew the building up.
I agree that it is probably A.Q. but the conclusion needs to be given a few days.
This absolutely was not an IRA bombing. Even in their most active days the IRA never targeted innocent civilians....they only went after police/military and government targets or inflicted property damage. Also, the IRA typically would warn aheaed of time that there was a bomb at the location allowing the innocent time to evacuate. And to some the IRA are freedom fighters, not terrorists.
He will have a "great" legacy.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I suppose you think that the WTC tragedy was justified also. Was Bush responsible for that too? You are one stupid motherfucker!!!
I said that all the bombing and death are a part and will be part of Bush "legacy". It was a sarcastic comment I guess my friend you can't read between the line. Bush and the terrorist should be put on trial togheter. It's an old point but still valid: no Iraq invasion unsder false pretens = today of 2000 US soldiers would be still alive along with many British and Italian soldiers; no Iraq invasion = no death of innocent civilans in Madrid (Spain had soldiers in Iraq at that time); no Iraq invasion = no death of more innocent civilians in London; no Iraq invasion today we would still have the good will of 99% of the world which we had after 9/11; No Iraq invasion and Iraq today would be a terrostis heaven (it was not a terrorist heaven before the invasion). Not to mention the money wasted for this Bush/Cheney war that could have been used to secure Afghanistan which is turning back to be a terrorist heaven again. I know these are all old points but will be part of Bush legacy, think of all the people will be still alive if Bush was not president.
You're so fucking dumb you don't even understand the point I'm making. You and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along famously! Like I said before, nothing justifies these terrorist attacks, and once again, you are one dumb motherfucker!
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 8:11:52 PM
He probaly will call me a motherfucker in print too. But I can assure your that he would not if we were face to face and live to talk about it.
No amout of reasoning can make a person like that see the gross errors that have been made, so why waste your time. It amazes me how people like him always charge the questioning the manner in which President Bush has executed the war on terrorism is akin to dishonoring the victims of 9/11/2001. Nothing could be further from the truth. I for one have questioned the timing of the incursion into Iraq and I will continue to do so, it focused important military resources on the wrong fight. We should have and should still be pouring troops into Afganistan to pacify every single inch of that country and the Pakistani border region. I think that the war on terror will be won, I just do not think that Mr. Bush will be the President that even come close to winning it. For us to win the struggle against terror, we need a President that has not hesitation in pulling the trigger, but who also understands when and where to pull that trigger.
long before Bush and Iraq. Blaming Bush for the terrorist attacks in both Madrid and London is just plain dumb. Indeed, these types of attacks will continue long after Bush is gone. They are being carried out by people who HATE our way of life because they are STUPID, IGNORANT FUCKS, and in fact would close down a board such as this in a nanosecond if they had the chance. The war in Iraq didn't cause terrorist attacks. That's just an excuse that only the truly ignorant believe. If the war in Iraq had never taken place, these fuckface terrorists would simply find some other "excuse." Yes, gross errors have been made in the response to terrorism and the war in Iraq, but to imply that Bush is responsible for these terrorist attacks is wrong, stupid, and very repulsive.
BTW, don't try to be such a tough guy. There's always somebody right around the corner who will call you a motherfucker and then proceed to bash the shit out of you. On this anonymous board, you scare absolutely no-one, and only look foolish in the process. So just forget this face to face crap - it'll never happen.
-- Modified on 7/10/2005 5:39:45 AM
-- Modified on 7/10/2005 5:41:20 AM
before you try writing anything else. I did not blame President Bush for terror and fully understand that it has been around for ages and will be around for ages more. People that cannot sit down and work through peaceful means of resolving their grievances resort to killing innocent people, like the latest terrorist groups are doing now. My disagreement is with the way the President Bush is fighting the terror threat that we face. He has had some successes, but also has had some grievious failures. President Clinton had successes in dealing with terrorists, but also some major failures. One of the key mistakes that Mr.Bush made was to wholesalely reject the procedures that Mr.Clinton's administration used instead of taking what seemed to have worked reasonably well and tailoring it to make it more effective, while throwing out the bullshit. Instead Mr.Bush has tended to come back to some policies that he threw out at the start of his administration.
On your last point, your reading comprehension was righton. I am a tough guy, but there is always someone tougher that I will meet one day. So your point is well taken, I may meet you face to face, abeit unlikely, and bash your head in, only to have mine bashed in several blocks later. Hopefully our society will not come to such an environment.
that was directed toward me was "it amazes me how people like him always charge the questioning the manner in which President Bush has executed the war on terrorism is akin to dishonoring the victims of 9/11/2001." I would respond to this if I could get past your fractured English. Unfortunately, I can't. But I don't recall mentioning anything about dishonoring the victims of 9/11, so I really don't know what you are refering to. I suppose much of what I wrote was a further rant in response to magnaccione's statement, just as the rest of your comments were a rant of your own choosing, none of which I really disagree with. As to meeting you face to face, perhaps you could bash my head in, although I strongly doubt it. It would be better to sit down and have a beer, of course, but if you want to continue to state how tough you are to an anonymous board, then we will continue to laugh at the absurdity of it all.
can PM me, my username is here for all to see.
-- Modified on 7/10/2005 6:46:57 PM
aliases, I will continue to use them when I choose. I have a username, and I'd bet that you're familiar with it. But I choose many times to use an alias (I have a number of them, and I'd bet that you're familiar with a few of them as well) depending on the subject matter, board that I'm on, whether I want to be a nice guy or argumentative, and my mood. Some people get annoyed when aliases are used, and others couldn't care less. You're in the former group, and I'm in the latter. That's just the way things are, I guess. This issue has been around TER's boards for quite some time, and clearly it's not going away anytime soon. But it just seems to me that you can respond to an alias as well as a username. To my way of thinking, there's no difference.
I can see from a later post that this alias thing is something that pisses you off. Well, get used to it, because that's the way it is!
-- Modified on 7/11/2005 4:57:18 AM
London's been a target. London will be a target. For a long time. Anyone who thinks that anything Bush or Blair has or hasn't done since September 11 has increased or decreased London's likelihood of being a target for Al Queda is simply a damn fool. And to make a cheap political statement like that on a day like today, while bodies are still being pulled out of the wreckage, reveals precisely the sort of sub-human fuckwad that you are.
RLTW
Blair is in hot water in the UK, and Witless about to become immersed in even hotter water. In this country, democracy left the building on election Day 1999, but the Fourth Reich can't even dress up what they're doing. so, another terrorist attack as another Weapon Of Mass Distraction.
Do I think the Witless/Cheney/Rove triad is an evil one? Fucking A, yeah. Ask 41 for an opinion sometime. He would rather have had Jeb run, he's referred to Cheney and the neocons as "The crazies" and he fired Rove, for leaking to Novak-in 1991.
One other thing, while I think you're a bright guy, this is a hooker board. I really would prefer not to debate here unless you have reviews. So many of the Hitlerjunge here have no reviews. I would respect the Right more is they were not reeking in intellectual dishonesty on this board.
Well said 6. And I never took note of the lack of reviews by the right wingers here until you brought it up. I wonder how many of them are real participants in the hobby, and how many are just shills for the right wing, spending their days surfing to any and every political discussion board to make sure the "talking points" reflect the perspectives of the Terrible Trio.
Never could understand how Bible-thumping fascists can justify their patronage of the world's oldest profession.
delete
-- Modified on 7/9/2005 1:06:00 PM
Number 6, that really is a fascinating theory that our conservative "hobbyists" might be something other than they pretend. On its face, it doesn't make much sense that conservatives of the fundamentalist stripe would be real participants, given that the Bush administration would like to frog-march us all to jail. Just yesterday, Bush made it a condition that all world NGO's (Non-governmental agencies) must condemn prostitution, before they can receive funds to fight AIDS.
As to why they're here, maybe you don't have to look any further than the George W. administration's payments to such conservative commentators as Armstrong Williams ($240,000) and Maggie Gallagher ($21,500). And of course, there's no bigger example of press disinformation than that White House correspondent "Jeff Gannon".
C'mon, fess up, conservative brethren. Did Karl R. slip you guys a ten-spot to spread the meme?
-- Modified on 7/10/2005 12:50:59 AM
or nonchalance?
Tough call. Maybe. 
RLTW
He told me he would post a review!
This has got to be one of the stupidest statements ever uttered on this board.
Magnaccione, you are truly one dumb motherfucker. Please do us all a favor, move to France
"July 7, 2005 — In what appears to be the first major break in the London terrorist attacks, U.S. authorities tell ABC News that British police have recovered two unexploded bombs in London.
In addition, British investigators say that parts of timing devices have been recovered from several of the blast sites. The unexploded devices and timing mechanisms should provide important evidence that could help determine who was behind the attacks, sources told ABC News.
ABC News has learned that police in London found two unexploded devices after the morning's four subway and bus bombings that U.S. officials say left at least 40 people dead and 700 others injured.
Officials also found remnants of timing devices left behind on the subways, and officials now believe that all the bombs were detonated by timing devices. Earlier today, British investigators believed that the bomb on the bus was the work of a suicide bomber, sources said.
Yeah, we've had bombings, never suicide bombings though. That has dark implications. A guy with a plastic explosive belt could walk onto any bus or subway platform in any major city. This ups the ante.
Yes, it most certainly does.
I honestly think that due to the experience they have had in dealing with suicide bombers for years now, it would behoove both the British and American governments to consult, at the very least, with the Israeli's.
We know from the news reports of the last 5 years of the number of suicide bombings that have succeeded in Israel, but what has received less press has been the much greater number of suicide bombings that were thwarted by the Israeli government and their various forces; IDF, Mossad, etc.
Love em, or hate em, the Israeli's could surely provide valuable information and data on combating this most heinous form of terrorism. And while there is little doubt there have been cooperative efforts behind the scenes, perhaps now with the ante having been upped to the next level, it might be time to stop wasting time on color coded terrorism alert warning systems, and get to some serious prevention measures on a wider scale. Lets face it, this has nothing to do with who is in the White House, and I think we all recognize that. (except maybe magnacccione). This has to do with ideological warfare. Period.