View of terrorism from conservative from England...

I agree with the Brit. The Patriot Act was a major knee jerk over reaction to 9/11. Homeland Security is a duplication of the FBI, but given GRI/KGB powers. However, to treat a terrorist attack as if it were a natural disaster, as suggested by Maher, is just plain ignorant.

Roy Rogers wrote:

I agree with the Brit. The Patriot Act was a major knee jerk over reaction to 9/11. Homeland Security is a duplication of the FBI, but given GRI/KGB powers. However, to treat a terrorist attack as if it were a natural disaster, as suggested by Maher, is just plain ignorant.

Could you explain?

gringaloca wrote:

Roy Rogers wrote:

I agree with the Brit. The Patriot Act was a major knee jerk over reaction to 9/11. Homeland Security is a duplication of the FBI, but given GRI/KGB powers. However, to treat a terrorist attack as if it were a natural disaster, as suggested by Maher, is just plain ignorant.

Could you explain?

Since you seem to be a big Maher fan, so I assume you want me to explain the ignorant comment. Easy enough. He suggests an attack on our country should be expected and lived with as if it were a hurricane or tornado. Regardless of what the young lady said, we cannot control the weather, but we can stamp out those who would attack our country, whether from within or without. To except terrorism as just something that happens is not only giving up, next to the terrorism itself, it is the highest form of cowardice.

Roy Rogers wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Roy Rogers wrote:

I agree with the Brit. The Patriot Act was a major knee jerk over reaction to 9/11. Homeland Security is a duplication of the FBI, but given GRI/KGB powers. However, to treat a terrorist attack as if it were a natural disaster, as suggested by Maher, is just plain ignorant.

Could you explain?

Since you seem to be a big Maher fan, so I assume you want me to explain the ignorant comment. Easy enough. He suggests an attack on our country should be expected and lived with as if it were a hurricane or tornado. Regardless of what the young lady said, we cannot control the weather, but we can stamp out those who would attack our country, whether from within or without. To except terrorism as just something that happens is not only giving up, next to the terrorism itself, it is the highest form of cowardice.

So you think that the British are cowards for carrying on and being more concerned about their liberty than starting wars all over the world just to get revenge? I'm all for searching the people who actually carried out 9-11 but suspending what this country stands for and invading countries who had nothing to do with obviously wasn't the solution. And your opinion that his comment was ignorant, is just that, your opinion. And I would like to know what exactly you are implying with your first sentence there. It came off as rather arrogant. Isn't that one of the characteristics of Maher that you didn't like?

So just let the terrorist bomb away and let FEMA clean up the bodies.. Great idea..

Lucas McCain wrote:

So just let the terrorist bomb away and let FEMA clean up the bodies.. Great idea..

Oh brother. You totally missed the point.

His point is that they are going to happen... My point is you can help prevent it by keeping the enemy on the run and killing as many as you can... No attacks since we have been on the offensive taking the battle to the enemy..

Lucas McCain wrote:

His point is that they are going to happen... My point is you can help prevent it by keeping the enemy on the run and killing as many as you can... No attacks since we have been on the offensive taking the battle to the enemy..

The last I heard they don't even really know where Osama Bin Laden is. Taking out 9-11 on Iraq didn't protect us, it just created more people that want to kill us. And the fact we haven't been attacked lately is pure luck. They'll hit again when we least expect it. Security isn't much better than it was the day of the attacks. Suspending what we stand for isn't protecting us but apparently it's giving some a false sense of security.

Then what has been protecting us?? It's hard to organize an attack when you are stuck in a cave somewhere.. Your finances have been disrupted and your training camps have been destroyed. Communications heavily monitored and the means to move about freely all deter attacks.. Many of the measures taken after 9/11 have helped keep us safe.. I don't count on "luck"..

Lucas McCain wrote:

Then what has been protecting us?? It's hard to organize an attack when you are stuck in a cave somewhere.. Your finances have been disrupted and your training camps have been destroyed. Communications heavily monitored and the means to move about freely all deter attacks.. Many of the measures taken after 9/11 have helped keep us safe.. I don't count on "luck"..

I do agree that operations in Afghanistan have made us safer (though I do not necessarily concede that for the war in Iraq). The question for me is "how much?" Certainly, we are making things more difficult for our enemies. However, terrorists that want to do us harm are in more places than just the Middle East. What are we doing to prevent the next Oklahoma City type bombing?

^ OK I give... I guess it just ain't worth the effort... Seems most citizens are against it anyway.. And according to the Arab video we ain't no safer.. If we don't take the fight to the enemy lets here some other brilliant ideas...

Lucas McCain wrote:

Then what has been protecting us?? It's hard to organize an attack when you are stuck in a cave somewhere.. Your finances have been disrupted and your training camps have been destroyed. Communications heavily monitored and the means to move about freely all deter attacks.. Many of the measures taken after 9/11 have helped keep us safe.. I don't count on "luck"..

They aren't all hiding in caves. Lots of them live in major cities all over the world. Some even live right here in the US. If you think that attacking Iraq, etc. has some how kept us safe, well...there's no need to try to convince you otherwise. The truth is that our ports are no safer than they were the day of the attack and weapons have been snuck onto planes time and time again and not caught by homeland security. We haven't been attacked because they are probably planning some big and if it happens on Obama's watch it will just send this country into a deeper hole of giving up our civil liberties in order to have the government "protect" us when they really aren't.

So no better ideas??? Just rhetoric... What works better than trying to keep your enemy pinned down?? Lets hear your idea...

Obama's policies erode our civil liberties daily.. People don't seem to mind it as long as they think they are going to get something from it... So whats the beef??

It takes me awhile but I just had a good idea... Lets put Bill Maher in charge... He seems to be the smartest when it comes to security...

Lucas McCain wrote:

So no better ideas??? Just rhetoric... What works better than trying to keep your enemy pinned down?? Lets hear your idea...

Again, our enemies are NOT just in the Middle East.

Not an idea... But most originate from there and they get most of their orders,supply and funding from there... Besides US soil where else should we be looking??? Any ideas??

Lucas McCain wrote:

It takes me awhile but I just had a good idea... Lets put Bill Maher in charge... He seems to be the smartest when it comes to security...

Ummm, why would we want to do that? And who ever said he was the smartest at security? I don't even know what you are responding to at this point. I'll give you some time to cool down.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Then what has been protecting us?? It's hard to organize an attack when you are stuck in a cave somewhere.. Your finances have been disrupted and your training camps have been destroyed. Communications heavily monitored and the means to move about freely all deter attacks.. Many of the measures taken after 9/11 have helped keep us safe.. I don't count on "luck"..

What do any of these have to do with invading Iraq, which you've alluded to in several posts?

^ I haven't mentioned Iraq in this thread... Keep up..

Lucas McCain wrote:

Not an idea... But most originate from there and they get most of their orders,supply and funding from there... Besides US soil where else should we be looking??? Any ideas??

Where else should we be looking BESIDES middle eastern countries?

England
Scotland
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Canada

That's seven of possibly dozens more.

My point is that "keeping the enemy on the run" is a good idea...except that means we are only focusing on ONE enemy. Those that want to do our country or citizens in our country harm are not just in the middle east and aren't just muslim extremists. Some of them, such as Timothy McVeigh and Ted Zasinksi (not sure on the spelling - the unibomber), look just like the guy in the checkout line behind you at the local quickie mart.

Terrorism has been occuring on this soil since the days of the first explorers. To think that we even CAN prevent all terrorism is naive. That doesn't mean that we say, "well, we can't prevent it, so why do anything?" We can keep ourselves safer, but we cannot keep ourselves 100% safe.

Don't forget Obama's buddy Bill Ayers when speaking of homeland terrorists.
I agree you can't stop attacks 100% of the time.. And I'm glad you agree that some of the measures help... Our CIA and FBI work closely with the countries you mentioned to monitor terrorist movements and activities and we are NOT just focusing on one enemy.. We can't stop them all but to just let them happen as the weather as Maher suggest is totally ignorant..

Lucas McCain wrote:

Don't forget Obama's buddy Bill Ayers when speaking of homeland terrorists.
I agree you can't stop attacks 100% of the time.. And I'm glad you agree that some of the measures help... Our CIA and FBI work closely with the countries you mentioned to monitor terrorist movements and activities and we are NOT just focusing on one enemy.. We can't stop them all but to just let them happen as the weather as Maher suggest is totally ignorant..

We can debate whether Obama and Ayers are "buddies" all day. I would certainly consider Ayers to be a former terrorist, however.

Honestly, I did not watch the Maher video, so I am not so much commenting on what he had to say, but more of what posters in this thread are discussing.