Posted on 07/08/2005 11:01:56 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
The London bombing once again begs the question: Why haven't terrorists struck the United States in the past four years?
Certainly the effects of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are still felt by Americans.
Unfortunately, terrorists have succeeded in changing how we live our daily lives.
Americans worry more about being blown up now than when thousands of Soviet ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads were pointed at the United States.
These days, we live under the constant fear of being the next victim of a random act, a mentality that makes us more fearful and less generous to strangers and forces changes in behavior that cost us all time and money.
Nonetheless, it is useful to ponder why the bad guys haven't struck within the United States itself since 9-11.
It certainly is not because Osama & Co. hate us less than they once did.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
No, that kind of sh!t can't ever happen.
Exactly.
new = knew
It was spelled right! Oy!
I'm sure that Steven Emerson's analysis is neither complete nor current. Suffice it to say that radical Islam is everywhere in America. It's certainly on cable TV, with Islamic sermons being delivered right to motel rooms and homes across the land. It's on the Internet. It's on radio. And we'll be bringing in more thanks to our globalist leaders.
How would an 80's child that did not live through most of the cold war know?
Maybe we are next on the agenda.
You forgot the:
1993 wtc bombing
 |
 |
Men willing to die to feed their children aren't going to be stopped by silly fences.
**************
Not then, because I wasn't yet born. However, I'm willing to consider it now.
Look, I realize that conspiracies have a certain comfort level. Deals are being. People are in charge. There is an organizational structure.
But the truth of the matter is, we're at war. These people really, really hate us. Many of these people have dedicated their entire lives to inflicting pain and suffering on our society.
As Americans we can debate how best to deal with these cretins. But make no mistake as to which side is right and which side you are on in this war.
The poster was refering to "since the 1993 WTC Bombing..."
You could be right, but I clearly remember the smoke from the first tower turning very dark after some period of time. I believe the sprinkler system functioned as it was designed to, but it simply wasn't designed to deal with an event involving fuel-fed fires burning on multiple floors simultaneously.
- Because our level of awareness and surveillance has greatly increased.
- Because the US does not have the high concentrations of disaffected Muslim youth present in England and some other parts of Europe.
- Because Muslims in the US are less angry at their country of residence than their European counterparts, as to date they have encountered less prejudice and economic and social discrimination here.
That this reason is is *very* important, and an advantage we should be careful not to squander - that for example for a good while it's probably been worth more to make it difficult for overseas terrorist operations to recruit US supporters who can readily blend in to US society than it is to anger Muslims in order to extract stale intelligence from low-level operatives imprisoned at Gitmo.
I can read English fine, thank you. Just because you qualified your fantastic statement with a modal auxiliary expressing likelihood doesn't diminish my point. There was never any possibility of such happening.
Now if you are saying that GWB doesn't have the 'nads to do what many of us are calling for him to do in a situation of that premise, then just say so, if you aren't, then explain.
Yet I should have thought my intention was obvious enough. Verbum sapienti satis est and all that, but maybe I overestimated your mental powers?
People who talk about the 'protesters' beating America in Vietnam have misunderstood as completely as Brezhnev did.
In December, 65, LBJ's economic advisers flatly told him that he could have three of the following four things.
1. A major increase in domestic spending (i.e., Medicare, War on Poverty).
2. A major war.
3. No tax increase and therefore a booming, full employment economy.
4. No inflation.
LBJ tried to have it all. And because of this inflation started to take off in the late 60s and surged to 10% plus well before the oil crisis. That's the level at which people on fixed incomes are going to be screaming bloody murder. Nixon had to end inflation. Economically, a perfect storm situation was brewing because this coincided with the emergence of Japan as the primary exporter and the entry of the main cohort of the baby boom with their worthless liberal arts BA's into the work force, depressing entry level salaries from 60's soaring levels. He pursued deflationary measures, abandoned the Bretton Woods "gold standard", and decided to get out of Vietnam. The reasons for getting out of Vietnam were economic, not political.
After all, if the peace movement was so powerful why wasn't it the dominant political force of the 70's and 80's ? Why couldn't it put McGovern into the White House or keep Reagan out ? Once horror stories about college graduates parking cars or waiting on tables filtered back on campus, didn't the counterculture and the student left collapse pretty quickly ?
Brezhnev thought it was the peace movement. He therefore decided to put the Soviet Union on what amounted to a total war footing to build a military that would intimidate a craven West. He poured vast sums into Soviet proxy states in Africa and Asia. He built a huge blue water navy from scratch. He made a mistake that ran the Soviet economy straight into the ground because he overestimated Western pacifism and defeatism. One might say that the decisive battle of the Cold War was over deploying the Pershing missiles and the reelection of Reagan, Kohl, and Thatcher and the total defeat of the European and American no-nukes protesters.
So you know in advance what GWB will do in such a circumstance? Why aren't you at the casino or reading palms?
If you intended to say something but didn't, how the hell, since I do not know you from a hole in the wall, know what your intentions are. Was it an implication? If so, then why did you not write that? Is it because again I find your ability to communicate deficient or is it because you are?
On the contrary, I think you greatly overestimate your mental power, or underestimate your weakness.
You underestimate the resolve of the American people, my countrymen, to protect their nation.
I should have been more descriptive. I asked ho would an 80's child know. I did not mean that to be offending and I hope I didn't. I truly am curious. I refer all the time to World War 2, yet that was long before my time.
Widely shared by reasonable people, though.
No, I just recognize the ignorance of the Antis who say "Bush is a traitor because he won't build a fence on the border."
If the American people really felt strongly about illegal workers and their employers they would do something where the illegals live and work.
But the American people don't feel any serious threat as evidenced by the number of local and state governments that have adopted sanctuary policies.
It appears that the American people are not in favor of illegal aliens but don't want the undocumented employees in their own town deported.
No state government has adopted any sanctuary laws. Just big city mayors easily bullied by ethnic lobbies.
A house in Long Island that had been letting illegals stay ten to a room and thereby bringing down the neighborhood was torched. A vigilante act. The neighbors cheered. Other houses in the town immediately threw out their illegal ten to a room tenants. Illegals create filth and chaos wherever they congregate and are as welcome as plague rats.
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.