<p>Terrorism is on the increase worldwide. This is well documented, and I think you know that.</p>
<p>Come on, AM, can’t you show me nothing but surrender?</p>
<p>What did you mean by “we”, kemosabe?</p>
<p>Got yourself a double negative there, girl!</p>
<p>What “we” are we discussing?</p>
<p>
Yes, I admit to listening to lots of old pop music lately. You said that “we are much less safe than we were.”
And AM gets up…takes off her leather jacket…and taped to her chest, there’s the answer–we got jack-knives and pen-knives, and…switchblades preferred…</p>
<p>There is no ‘we’ in ‘u’</p>
<p>
gee, tell that to all of the terrorists that are in prison now and who had their many plots disrupted. I love it when the left accuses others of ignoring facts and then let major facts such as no domestic terrorists attacks in 5 years and many thwarted attacks and many terrorists in prison or dead. I guess all of that gets trumped by the siren call of the Democratic talking points. Go ahead, keep repeating them and calling for the disruption of the Bush anti-terror program - it’s a sure way for election defeat.</p>
<p>Do you think our borders are safe? Our ports? Our transportation systems? What has been done in the past five years to ensure their safety?</p>
<p>I think that the single biggest mistake this administration has made is not recognizing the importance of clamping down on illegal immigration. Huge, huge problem. Still, I don’t see how “we” are less safe right now than we were five years ago, kemosabe.</p>
<p>Allmusic, to understand the improvements to maritime, port, aviation and transportation security interests since 9/11, you have to go back to the concept that legacy U.S. Customs was nothing more than a revenue collecting agency pre 9/11, and, at that time, the 170 or so ports in the country all had some sort of “security” but nothing to the level of security that might address terrorism. </p>
<p>DHS is 22 legacy federal agencies brought together, Customs being one of them; it was reorged into Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and sub-offices such as Intelligence, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others make up the bulk of it. But when you’re asking about port security, you’re really talking about container security, so you’d have to understand something about the Container Security Initiative (CSI). </p>
<p>TSA is also now part of DHS, which was under Transportation before 9/11. Anyone who boarded a plane pre-9/11 and has flown since can see the changes in airline security, without having to explain it all in a post. Most of FAA is under DHS as well. </p>
<p>Since you posted “we’re no safer”, and someone else posted “support that statement”, and you subsequently responded “what has been done to ensure ‘their’ safety”, and since I do not feel like typing out a huge, long post of explanation (I did that a few times in the Dubai ports thread - explained extensively about container security), I think it’s your responsibility to take the time to do the research to understand exactly what these agencies are doing, how they’re spending their money, and what that means in terms of safety today vs. five years ago. </p>
<p>Why don’t you visit the DHS website, the TSA website, the Federal Maritime Commission website, and familiarize yourself with what they do, how they spend their budgets, etc. If that’s not enough material, I’ll happily provide you with names, telephone numbers and email addresses of experts and DHS officials who are specifically tasked with border, port, container, aviation and transportation security. </p>
<p>Once you do all that, then, if you still think that “we’re no safer than we were five years ago”, by all means come back, post again, and cite your premise. But it’s not fair to NOT do any of this research, type a post that says we’re no safer, and then ask someone else to prove to you how we are - not when our tax dollars have already paid for the public communication on work product that is sitting out there, all you have to do is look it up.</p>
<p>"I think that the single biggest mistake this administration has made is not recognizing the importance of clamping down on illegal immigration. Huge, huge problem. "</p>
<p>I totally agree and if hindsight tells us that we were, in fact, less safe, I believe this will be the reason.</p>
<p>
</a>
I hope den Beste is right.</p>
<p>Well I earlier suggested racial profiling in our security which would definitely make America safer; however, alot of you Liberals complained about such a measure. He is the current problem with many Liberals. They LOVE to talk about how bad America is and that Bush is doing nothing right and everything wrong, yet they never offer an alternative. They talk about borders and ports being unsecure and yet they do not want to close the border and make it harder for people to illegaly cross. They do not like how “Bush” is not allowing toothpaste and liquids on board but they do not want to isolate the problem to a certain ethnicity and to focus on them, because your best shot is to eliminate the terrorists and not their tools. Israel has been doing that for 50 yrs, and there has never been a terrorist attack on a passenger el al flight., and anyone who has flown on it knows its one of the most comfortable airlines.</p>
<p>That article is disgusting. How dare this man blame America for the deaths of 9/11. This country has been experiencing terrorism for about 30 yrs and never has it taken the action it has taken now, yet terror never stopped.</p>
<p>Late, I live in an urban area and there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in my public transportation life today. It is identical to how it was on 9/10/01, with no additional security.</p>
<p>Cargo for airlines is not scrutinized, but toothpaste is. </p>
<p>New York and Washington had their DHS funding cut by 40%, although the risk in these urban areas is far greater than Louisville (up 70 percent), Charlotte (64 percent) and St. Louis (31 percent). </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html</a></p>
<p>I am also still wondering why the Amish popcorn man in Indiana is on the Homeland Security list of potential targets, and the recipient of grant money for security.</p>
<p><a href=“Why Is Indiana Popcorn Factory on Terror Target List? - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2186855&page=1</a></p>
<p>I could go on and on. It’s just so easy, but I am glad you feel safer.</p>
<p>Noone is saying the Bush administration has done a perfect job on terrorism, but it sure as hell has done a better job that its preceeding administrations. Look despite what you say or how you feel, you ARE more safer. But maybe you can help me to understand your perverted liberal psyche if u could tell me if you feel less safe because there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, and that more and more terrorists are finding themselves in jail or because George W. Bush is president.</p>
<p>Just saying you are safer doesn’t mean you are, Golani, no matter how you like to justify things in your little mind.</p>
<p>Facts are facts. Read the facts about funding and how money for Homeland Security is allocated; it is all political bunk, like everything else. If the administration wanted to keep the country safe, they would safeguard urban areas with appropriate funding, not popcorn men in Indiana. It’s patently ridiculous.</p>
<p>Isn’t referring to Golani’s “little mind” kind of like referring to you as a “fathead” just because you may be older?</p>
<p>Look at the facts, Driver. Respond to the facts.</p>
<p>I agree with you this administration has made many mistakes on this war on terror. It is closing down Guantanomo Bay prison, it is apologizing for its rough interrogation techniques(torture) and its secret CIA prisons, it is not closing down the borders to illegal immigration, it is not racially profiling Muslims. There are plenty of things Bush has done wrong. But I do know one thing and this that this president has done more in his presidency to combat terror than any other president before him. You seem to believe that the most effective anti-terrorism methods are securing against the tools of the terrorists, but that simply does not work. The 911 hijackers used box cutters. Richard Reid than used a shoe bomb, and now terrorists wanted to use liquid bombs. The solution is to isolate the terrorists, our security agenices must look at their appearance, their behavior etc. But, if you wanted to discuss facts. You would agree with me that now more than ever terrorists would LOVE to destroy our country and hit us with another terrorist attack. 911 was such a success for them that they must be just waiting to do it again. Yet, they havent. So here is the first fact. Since 9/11 there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US. Every attempt has been foiled. Maybe it was because of torture, or racial profiling, or wiretapping, or freezing terrorists’s assets. I simply do not know. Since 9/11 more money was allocated to all “hot spots” of terrorism. So Allmusic, please tell me, why has there not been another terror attack. Is it because of George Bush’s policies or because the Muslim killers do not want to kill us anymore. BTW do not insult my intelligence you have shown everything short of logic and knowledge about this situation. The only thing I and others have seen is your hate for this country and its fine leader.</p>
<p>I know that the Amish Popcorn company is a “hot spot of terrorism”! There’s a fact!</p>
<p>And when you can provide no logical argument, you tell me I “hate my country and its fine leader”, which is a load of nonsense. I hate no one but I do hate bad stupid policies which don’t protect our country…of which this administration is very, very guilty.</p>
<p>I told you that i agreed with you that there are alot of mistakes that Bush is making. I then listed them in addition to the allocation of money. Then I said that since 9/11 there has not been another terrorist attack in the US. That is also a fact. Then i suggested some reasons for it and asked you wether you thought it was because Bush did a fine job or because the Muslim killers do want to chop our heads off anymore. You might have missed that part because you misread, but thats OK I will give you another chance to answer the question. I then told you that since 9/11 there has been an increase of funding for terrorist “hot spots”. This is also a fact. I just do not understand where we disagree. it seems we both feel that Bush made some mistakes. We both know that there hasnt been any more attacks in the US since 9/11 for whatever reasons. I presented some ways to improve our security and so did you. So really we are in agreement except our one sticking point is the word safety. Using the same set of facts as you I conclude I am safer than I was 5 yrs ago, you conclude that you are in more danger than you were 5 yrs ago, again based on the same facts i made my conclusion on.</p>