<p>Golani, you have it exactly correct.</p>
<p>The difference between the loss of life in the NYC bombing of 9/11 and the earlier Oklahoma City bombing wasn’t planning, money, or technological sophistication. It was dumb luck. There have always been those who use random destruction as a means of publicizing their hatred. The main difference in the outcome of various acts expressing that hatred is psychological. The psychological difference between the act in America’s media center, which fortuitously (for the haters) resulted in the destruction of two large buildings and a relatively large loss of life, and the one in media outland Oklahoma City, is the exploitation of the event by those who want to manipulated the psyche of America. They’ve been very successful. Many Americans are afraid – very afraid – to the point where they are willing to give a blank check to those who feed their fear and promise safety. It’s nothing new. The “Japs” were evil, alien creatures in 1942. The Nazis the same. The “Commies” were the same in the 50’s and 60’s - Chinese worse than Ruskies, IIRC. </p>
<p>Demagoguery doesn’t change it’s nature, only its details. For those of you who live in fear and are willing to sacrifice the hard-won freedoms and principles of our nation because, surely, “this time it’s different” - well, you have a long and multitudinous history. Welcome to the club.</p>
<p>So what u uessentially aree trying to convince people of us is that murders are one in the same to terrorism. Because what Timothy McVeigh did was a large scale murder. What Muslim Arabs want to do is terrorize, McVeigh wanted to Murder.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Terrorism is as dangerous to America as WWII was. Liberals Like Harry Reid and Howard Dean are the ones who think this war is different - that we can live as we’ve always lived and still win this war. Maybe we can but only if we are willing to occasionally take casualties like 9/11 or like Israel faces on a daily basis. I’m not willing to do that, at least not without a fight.</p>
<p>Also, Kluge, I am assuming that you believe these muslim violent radicals do not pose a real threat to us. That that terrorism is not a big deal? So thus we should not be fighting a war on terror?</p>
<p>I’m not afraid. Angry, perhaps, but not afraid. And I’m not writing checks to buy safety, rather, I expect my check to buy the elimination of terrorists and those who harbor, support and fund terrorists.</p>
<p>Is there anything any of you have said or believe that couldn’t, wouldn’t and wasn’t said by the patriotic Americans who interned Japanese-Americans - fellow citizens - in 1943, or who participated in the Red Scare witchhunts, McCarthyism, and blacklists of the 1950’s, and the mindless “love it or leave it” political orthodoxy of the 1960’s? Do you really think you’re different, and that 19 fanatics armed with boxcutters are really a greater threat to America than the Imperial Japanese battleships, the “rape of Nanking”, aircraft carriers and kamikazi’s, or the Third Reich’s V-2’s, Messerschmidts, concentration camps, and Panzer divisions, or the USSR’s ICBM’s, submarines, nuclear weapons, etc? Abandoning principle with the excuse that “this time it’s different” is a staple behavior of the fearful and easily led, generation after generation. Sometimes the greatest exercise of courage and strength is to refrain from lashing out aimlessly in response to an injury. </p>
<p>Latetoschool - “elimination of terrorists” - in what fantasy lifetime do you expect that to happen? In the real world, we’ve had “terrorists” in all eras, in all nations, from time immemorial. The world has never been “safe”, no matter what Mommy and Daddy told you. My grandmother used to tell me stories of teaching school in the Southwest when Pancho Villa was raiding across the border. My (Republican) mom knew Japanese-Americans who had their property taken and who were sent off to “camps”. I’ve spoken with holocaust survivors, and the grandchildren of American slaves. The Huns, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Visigoths – you name it. Just when did you figure that “terrorism” was going to disappear? And more to the point, if there’s no moral ground to distinguish “us” from “them” - who’s to say who are the terrorists?</p>
<p>Golani - I’m sorry, but you have literally no clue as to McVeigh’s motivations; you’re resorting to wordplay to justify a distinction that actually doesn’t exist. McVeigh’s motivation was indistinguishable from the 9/11 hijackers - and he actually worked harder and created a more technologically sophisticated means of carrying out his plan.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Your rhetoric is over-the-top. America isn’t “abandoning principle” nor is it “lashing out aimlessly”. As if that and your other comments and comparisons weren’t inflammatory enough, you also said this:</p>
<p>
If you truly believe that, and having read your comments for several months I think you actually might, then …
.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it is obvious that kluge just doesn’t get it yet. The primary difference between OC and 9/11 is that OC was done by a band of 2 or 3 true dead-enders, whereas 9/11 (the 93 WTC bombing, embassy bombings, Kobar Tower, USS Cole, Spain train bombings, London bombings, Indonesia bombings, Egyptian bombings, Saudi bombings, Jordanian bombings, Moroccan bombings, etc., etc.) are done by a very large, well orchestrated but yet amorphous organization that has vowed all of our deaths. These attacks have been conducted by an ideology that has been openly attempting to find methods of being much more proficient at it such that, if they are successful, the casualty count of 9/11 will be insignificant compared to their ideal attack. </p>
<p>Sadly 3,000 killed in one day have not been enough to wake people like kluge up to this threat and many more will have to die before they finally emerge from their slumber. Perhaps only when someone close to kluge is impacted will he wake up - and then will likely defiantly accuse the administration of not doing enough to protect us.</p>
<p>We were actually very “lucky” that the attacks occurred as early in the morning as they did. Fully-occupied WTC–an hour later–would have resulted in tens of thousands dead.</p>
<p>I agree. Also, just think if the planes had hit lower in the buildings thus trapping everyone in the upper floors.</p>
<p>The administration is not doing enough to protect us. We have open ports, borders, and our public transportation system is wide open to attack. But don’t bring any toothpaste on an airplane!</p>
<p>It’s absurd that some popcorn vendor in Indiana is receiving money from Homeland Security, and that New York, Washington DC and Boston receive less funding than many less vulnerable areas in the country.</p>
<p>But yet all that you say that is left undone has not resulted in an attack. Yet, that which HAS been done has foiled numerous attacks and resulted in the capture of many leaders of al-Qaida. The things that have been done and which have been proven to be successful are what the left attacks. Is it any wonder why the American public is distrus tfull of the Dems when it comes to security?</p>
<p>I do feel safer knowing that the popcorn stand is seen by the DHS as a terrorist target and money is used so wisely…</p>
<p>Keep clapping those cougar sticks together, FF.</p>
<p>Perhaps if I clap them long and loud enough it may cause you to lift your head out of the hole in the ground?? Naw, I don’t think even that will do it; I suspect that it will only be a Democratic administration making claims of terrorism and the dire threats of dictators like Saddam that you will ever wake up to reality.</p>
<p>Kluge, if I may, I do not believe you understand the nature of this particular enemy. If it hasn’t been removed for content violation, please do read even just a few pages of the the AL Qaeda training manual I posted somewhere in this thread, a few posts back. </p>
<p>This is not a coherent group who approached with an ambassador, or attempted to open diplomatic dialog. They didn’t call, send an email, write a letter, send a mediary, or approach through benign activity such as culture, academics or sport, or with economic activity such as trade, commerce and education. They didn’t have their leader dial up our leader, or any other leader. Instead, they flew planes - our planes - into our buildings. They didn’t target military installations. They targeted centers of commerce and economic success. They didn’t target our highly capable, incredibly efficient and world-envied armed forces. They specifically, deliberately, targeted unarmed, unsuspecting and defenseless civilians, at their places or on their way to their places of employment. This enemy wears no uniform, has no identifiable headquarters, and no stationary assets that a traditional military might approach.</p>
<p>They have sworn to kill us; they will do all in their power to do so, and they’re working hard on improving their chances to do exactly that, even as we sit here posting in disagreement about it. </p>
<p>But most importantly, as it relates back to your post in response to mine, they’re very difficult to find, even with modern technology, intelligence forces, and the collaboration and support of over 100 other countries.</p>
<p>I could type a very, very long post about how identifying and locating a single terrorist involves significant understanding of transliteration of honorific, personal, descriptive, patronymic, georgraphic/tribal, and occupational names - and even then one probably has an equal chance of finding someone like “Brian in Boston”. I could also use up every bit of server space CC has to explain how troops and intel assets on the ground risk their lives to identify new, emerging cells before they can formalize.</p>
<p>But I don’t think I could type the post long enough to convince you, or even to get you to reconsider your position. I would urge though to try to look very far past the domestic politics of it - you don’t like Bush, fair enough. I couldn’t stand Clinton - either of them - and couldn’t imagine a Gore or Kerry presidency. But neither of us has to like whatever party happens to occupy the WH in order to be able to comprehend the insidious nature of this particular enemy.</p>
<p>Allmusic, that’s irrational rhetoric. There is no such thing as absolute security - even a novice law enforcement officer could tell you that. </p>
<p>I’d suggest though that it’s no accident that UK was most recently targeted. All manner of criminals typically seek to exploit the weakest link. Clearly, the U.S. is no longer so easily attacked.</p>
<p>It isn’t irrational in the slightest. No one is expecting “absolute security”, but there is a big difference between absolute domestic security and NO security, which is what we have at the moment. The way DHS has allocated money is patently absurd. If the administration cared about security and safety, there would be a far greater effort to secure the ports and borders, and DHS would allocate significantly more money to more vulnerable areas of the country. </p>
<p>The US will never, ever be able to kill every terrorist. Experts believe that there are probably cells in this country, right now, waiting patiently for their moment to attack, and guess what? They have plenty of opportunties, since domestic security is absolutely deplorable. Sure, we’re killing them <em>there</em>, but we are not making ourselves safer in the process. We are much less safe then we were.</p>
<p>
On what basis do you assert this?</p>