[MediocreButArrogant]

I think the guy who planted the bomb at Harvey's in Stateline had lost a bunch of money there.

John Birges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by sierramadre44

Al Qaida is like a cat --- it sits and studies its target, its habits, and probes its weaknesses. There are very intelligent people involved in this extremist group with very specialized skills. Not the kind you see on the news

Pure hype. Al qaeda is a bunch of loosely affiliated groups with varying agendas and skills. They are not some organization of super criminals.

I disagree with this statement especially where the No Such Agency is involved. The key to learning more about potential threats is NOT to publicize the information one receives. It is of only telling those that need to know.

So, your theory is that the politicians and the agency heads only publicize the retard terrorists that they catch, but all the uber-terrorists are kept under wraps? That these people running the country are totally aware that they are prosecuting incompetents and, even worse, persecuting innocents in some cases in order to do what? Keep the uninformed scared and the informed disgusted?

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

So, your theory is that the politicians and the agency heads only publicize the retard terrorists that they catch, but all the uber-terrorists are kept under wraps?

I don't think anyone's keeping them under wraps. They routinely get vaporized by drone launched Hellfire missiles. Maybe you should try another news source?

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

I don't think anyone's keeping them under wraps. They routinely get vaporized by drone launched Hellfire missiles

(A) Not in the US - you know, the same country where Las Vegas is.
(B) Are you really so sure those people are terrorists? It's not like they were on the battlefield or anything - this country has made a drastic turn in its ethics from condemning assassinations to celebrating them.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

(A) Not in the US - you know, the same country where Las Vegas is.

Any contemporary military organization, or criminal enterprise for that matter, with a rank and order, sends its soldiers to do battle while their Generals strategize in relative safety. In other words, your "uber-terrorists" aren't likely to be on US soil.

(B) Are you really so sure those people are terrorists? It's not like they were on the battlefield or anything - this country has made a drastic turn in its ethics from condemning assassinations to celebrating them.

Are you sure they weren't terrorists? And what you characterize as assassination, I see as an act of war. Perhaps instead of a targeted missile strike on a single car, we should dump a few tons of ordnance on an entire village in order to eliminate the same target. Then people won't confuse assassination with warfare.

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

Any contemporary military organization, or criminal enterprise for that matter, with a rank and order, sends its soldiers to do battle while their Generals strategize in relative safety. In other words, your "uber-terrorists" aren't likely to be on US soil.

Ok, I will be more explicit. My post, which you responded to, was specifically about the apprehensions and subsequent parading of people who are of little to no threat WITHIN THE USA. You quoted a sentence of my post out of context and used it as a strawman.

Are you sure they weren't terrorists?

Are you sure they weren't pink elephants? Your faith in military technology, analysts and politics is misplaced. In traditional warfare the rules of engagement have been well defined for centuries if not millenia. that is far from the case regarding current engagements and there is little to no oversight of the policies being used today.

And what you characterize as assassination, I see as an act of war. Perhaps instead of a targeted missile strike on a single car, we should dump a few tons of ordnance on an entire village in order to eliminate the same target. Then people won't confuse assassination with warfare.

Formally declare war and you can call it an act of war. That means all the standard mechanisms of oversight come into play and we get people whose job it is to represent us in deciding what is right to do in our name and what is not. Instead of the situation now where the people making those decisions are the ones who are not accountable. BTW, if its war then there is no such thing as a "non-enemy combatant" nor even a "terrorist." Just enemy soldiers and commanders.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

Ok, I will be more explicit. My post, which you responded to, was specifically about the apprehensions and subsequent parading of people who are of little to no threat WITHIN THE USA. You quoted a sentence of my post out of context and used it as a strawman.

Here's what I quoted -

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

So, your theory is that the politicians and the agency heads only publicize the retard terrorists that they catch, but all the uber-terrorists are kept under wraps?

First, there was nothing in your post that limited your observations to terrorists captured in the US. Second, I went on to explain one reason it was unlikely to find your "uber-terrorists" in the US. Lastly, the previous administration was very clear that they intended to take the fight directly to the terrorists on their own soil. The fact that we're not capturing "uber-terrorists" on US soil would be seen as a measure of success to most people, present company excluded.

Are you sure they weren't pink elephants? Your faith in military technology, analysts and politics is misplaced. In traditional warfare the rules of engagement have been well defined for centuries if not millenia. that is far from the case regarding current engagements and there is little to no oversight of the policies being used today.

I trust all of the above more than an anonymous intarweb poster that offers no concrete facts to the contrary.

Formally declare war and you can call it an act of war. That means all the standard mechanisms of oversight come into play and we get people whose job it is to represent us in deciding what is right to do in our name and what is not. Instead of the situation now where the people making those decisions are the ones who are not accountable. BTW, if its war then there is no such thing as a "non-enemy combatant" nor even a "terrorist." Just enemy soldiers and commanders.

There is no nation state to declare war on. To the extent we can declare war, we have. The previous administration called it The War on Terror. You may have heard of it. Although the current administration has dropped the use of the term "War on Terror", they too have explicitly stated we are at war with Al Qaida.

[hockeygirl4]

Lol...Buffalo!!! Don't need to attack a city that's going to kill itself anyway. Just blame the politicians there who need to dip into all the major companies pockets...

I agree that terrorists kill less people than bees, but at the same time, we can't just ignore what these people do, otherwise other countries are going to try and walk all over us too, knowing we'll ignore it.

[DavieJ89]

Originally Posted by jfkIII

I was talking politics with some stanger in a local pub tonight. We were discussing next November's elections and the impact that the current political environment will have on them. We both agreed that the next election will result in landslide victories for non-incumbents (i.e., vote the existing groups out...no matter which political party affiliation). But he then predicted that Al Quida will most likely attack the U.S. on the west coast...either Los Angeles or Las Vegas after those elections. He described Al Quida as a patient group that was intent in attacking the US...and that it would be on the west coast this time.

I was a little drunk...as I won a subtantial amount of money on a SuperBowl pool....but he got me thinking about it.

What do you think?

I dont mean to bump up an old thread here, but I had a dream that reminded me of this thread

I had it while I was staying in Vegas too. I had a dream that terrorists hijacked planes and were taking out the casinos on the strip one by one. Seeing the Bellagio get destroyed in a dream was horrifying to me

The dream was so vivid that night I woke up that morning and could have sworn that it had actually happened

Im not kidding either

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by DavieJ89

The dream was so vivid that night I woke up that morning and could have sworn that it had actually happened

It is appropriate that you used the term vivid - people exaggerate the importance of things that give them vivid memories. The video of the WTC collapse is exceptionally vivid compared to dry statistics reported on the nightly news like 50,000 people die in car accidents each year or 35,000 people die from heart disease each month.

So no one has nightmares about thousands of people dying on the road or even really worries about it all that much. But lots of people have nightmares about terrorism and way too many people spend way too much time worrying about it.