Posted on 10/12/2004 8:42:25 PM PDT by knak
up on drudge:
WASH TIMES: U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico... Members of the group, said to be wearing backpacks, secretly traveled to northern Mexico and crossed into a mountainous part of Arizona, Gertz to report in Pgae One Splash, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE...
Then get to typing and prove it. I will even increase the numbers to include every last liner mile from the Gulf to the Pacific. I pulled out several hundred miles that, historically, have never been used for crossing purpose. It will still be a great deal and will save billions within two years.
So just get busy an back it up. BTW, I was a construction estimator and project designer for eight years. I estimated on full commercial pricing. Discounts for the volume of work involved were not applied.
Get to hitting those keys Skippy.
It's still true of Russia. And people in our government still try to find excuses to give them money and favors. People who want to give nuclear fuel to terrorist nations. Or money to guys like Yassir Arafat. All that money changing hands going down a big black hole and we can't even defend our borders.
People come across the border, commit crimes and they shrug it off. But they want to send billions to the thugs and tyrants around the world.
What kind of creature are you, asgardshill?
Well, considering that the massive nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union is no longer pointed at our heads, I can afford to delay much worry about that for the present time.
People who want to give nuclear fuel to terrorist nations. Or money to guys like Yassir Arafat.
I personally wouldn't recommend doing either. But that's just me.
All that money changing hands going down a big black hole and we can't even defend our borders.
"Defending our borders" covers a lot of ground, much like "defeating evil in all its forms." The reasons why complete border defense is simply impossible have been laid out in great detail in this and many other threads.
What kind of creature are you, asgardshill?
A mildly annoyed one right now. I've got 228 meg worth of data on one of those little keychain-sized devices that I need to transfer to my home PC, but my computer isn't recognizing it.
Here you go, chief. Your figures have been weighed, have been measured, and have been found wanting. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
(Thanks, Poohbah)
Makes sense to me. The employee health plan for homicide bombers sucks.
The part they did seal must be doing the trick since suicide bombings are falling off. Likewise we don't need to have the same kind of security in the desert areas and the coast as we do near cities.
Civilians usually cost more than soldiers...if you want ones with any training at all. If not, do you really think an untrained, unequipped, weaponless civilian is going to stop a team trying to bring in a nuclear bomb?
If you were Osama, would you risk a very expensive bomb finding out? Civilians stopped two of his terror attacks on airlines with their bare hands. And they volunteered, we didn't have to pay them a dime for it.
Good god, why can't people do math? First of all, your figure assumes people standing guard 24 hours a day, 365 days a week.
Assuming 3 shifts a day and weekends off, you need 4 people to stand one guard slot...and 3 more people for each of those 4 in support roles. Now your "83 feet" figure is suddenly 1 person every 1000 ft.
(Three or four people to support one guy on guard duty. Maybe civilian contractors is the way to go.)
Know what the visibility is in the mountains near the Canadian border? At night or in bad weather? One man every 1000 ft doesn't cut it. And even if he did, that one man with no other soldiers near him wouldn't even be a speedbump to a trained terror team.
This is amazing. You're telling me that armed terrorists are going to shoot their way into this country with a nuclear bomb and you think we shouldn't do anything about it because we can't do anything about it because it's too expensive or because it's too foggy in Canada.
Incredible.
What are you going to say after the first nuke goes off? Are you going to say, "Well they have us over a barrel, let's do what they want. It's too expensive to defend the borders."
Are you even an American?
Red herring. The thread is about terror attacks.
Are you trying to tell me that you believe the two are unrelated? How can we possibly keep out terrorists if we can't control illegal immigration?
I think we have to spend whatever it takes to control the borders. No matter whether it costs 38 billion or 380 billion it's a bargain. This country makes 11 trillion dollars a year.
What about you? What do you think we should do about terrorist teams with nuclear bombs?
What country are you from?
After we prevent them from coming in via commercial air travel don't you think that would be the logical way for them to go -- through Mexico?
It's like burglars broke down your front door so you reinforce the front door and leave the back door unlocked because they never came in that way before.
The Russians are in the process of upgrading their ICBM fleet to the Topol M:
"All-Russian solid propellant ICBM set to replace all older models in the first decade of the 21st Century. The system was to include a new manoeuvrable MIRV dispenser bus to defeat American anti-ballistic missile defences. Last Launch Date: 12 October 2002"
When you pay people to stop working on things that will kill you they will start thinking of new things to kill you.
Bottom line is, I think we should stop paying blackmail.
To: justshutupandtakeit
"There has NEVER been ONE terrorist act perpetrated by anyone coming over the Souther border. NOT ONE."
Actually, there have been many criminal acts committed against US citizens by illegals and I'm quite sure the victims were feeling terror as they were robbed, raped, killed, etc.
The Democrats, who don't give a shit about our national security, will scream bloody murder about the republicans being racists. Then the sheeple vote out the Republicans in the next election, they the Democrats remove the security around the borders as a sign of "We've kicked the racists out".
your premise might be true if people weren't fearful for their safety. It is a question of what they fear MOST, being called "racist" or being physically attacked.
Most people will opt for safety.
Taking the Kerry approach that terrorism = crime will not go very far here.
Don't change the subject then attempt to prove me wrong. Stick to the subject and that ain't crime.
Your papers, please.
Ah, Mr. bahblahbah, your papers are not in order. Come with us.
No, I don't think "lock(ing) this place down" is a solution to the problem of terrorist attacks.
The salaries of over 800,000 new Federal employees dedicated to border patrol. The cost of UAVs, helicopters, HMMWVs, and maintenance for all of the above.
Agree. One doesn't need to be a senior security specialist to figure this out. Of course, some here can't quite grasp the fact that our borders have become a nation security time bomb.
Hard to believe some can't understand this. There has to be some private agendas going on here.
Hey, if it ever starts happening here, again, we can do like the Jews do, each time their people get blown to bits, we can run out there as fast as possible, with all those guys in white suites and gloves and pickup the pieces as fast as quickly as possible. Didn't the Jews start building a wall?
Hehe....
Well it is very simple. The Souther border is both far more heavily patrolled and far more dangerous while the Northern is neither. But the biggest reason the terrorists will not sneak in illegally is that the probability of them being caught is far too high which would compromise their mission. This is the reason the 9/11 murderers all came into the country legally.
If we could be assured that our enemies were stupid then we could expect stupid behavior. But they are not and take years to set up these operations and the networks which support them. This is the greatest incentive to use legal immigrants who do not have to worry about being deported.
They will not be sneaking across borders with weapons or traveling around with weapons. They will not have any contact with weapons until the time to use them. If you were a terrorist would YOU take any unnecessary risks knowing that the slightest slip-up could doom your mission? Even a random police stop could prevent its success with illegals.
Actually it doesn't take much thinking to figure out that terrorists use the least risky methods to accomplish their designs not the MOST risky. Would YOU try to smuggle weapons across dangerous borders when there are MUCH easier methods to use.
You wanted to know where I obtained insight into the terrorist mind. One excellent source is to study the 9/11 Commission Report discussion of that terrorist operation. However, there have been many publications over the last century which go into their thinking. Another factor which has generally been ignored is that in order to get into the US from Mexico you have to get to Mexico. This gives the authorities still another chance to discover any plot or its participants. I am sure that immigrants from the ME are given great scrutiny by the Mexican authorities since 9/11. They would not like to have terrorists enter Mexico for transit to the US either.
Now if you insist on worrying a better subject would be the Sleeper cells which have been established here or better yet the real enemy, the DemocRAT Party and its propaganda arm the RATmedia. We have nothing to fear if they can be neutralized.
Still fighting the Cold War, eh? Well, I suppose somebody has to :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.