The following is from Massad's subscription emails


PDA






gym
April 28, 2011, 11:26 PM
I am quoting in part from tonights email, I hope that's ok, as I have the upmost respect for his insights into our countrys future, and have thought this of late also, trying not to be an alarmist but this validates my feelings, as to why the terorist buzz has been at the low level for some time, and I hope the mods leave it in the general topics scince it's going to be us, that will have a lot to do with possiblly stopping this and preparing for the possibility even though we all hope it never happens, it is gun related as you can get, The end are my words where i write, end quote
Quote in part:
The general consensus of police, military, and national intelligence is that itís only a matter of time before this nation experiences an incident reminiscent of Beslan or Mumbai: armed, trained, committed terrorists massacring the innocent with automatic weapons and explosives. My old friend Jeff Chudwin, Chief of Police in Olympia Fields, Illinois and one of the nationís leading authorities on such things, gave a compelling presentation on the topic.
At a time when we need more, better-trained and -equipped cops than ever, weíre seeing police layoffs, hiring freezes, and budget cuts. Many of the presenters addressed how to deliver quality training with less money for equipment, ammunition, and pay for officers attending.
For the private citizen, what all this is saying is to be prepared for disaster. Remember Hurricane Katrina, just six short years ago. In a nation where there are only about 800,000 cops to serve an estimated 320,000,000 citizens, itís absolutely true that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Jeff Chudwin warns that itís only a matter of time before Beslan and Mumbai scenarios are acted out in the USA by enemies of our country. "end quote"
"We used to hear be aware and stay alert", this administration for some reason refuses to address this, I am not sure why.IMO, We the people must be prepared to fend off a suprise attack, or series of attacks designed to disrupt and confuse the people of this great country by a foreign power or those who act in accordance with an enemy of the USA. Just my thoughts.
As we know it doesn't take much to knock out power, or take down the internet, and stop the markets from functioning, a coodinated attack even small in stature could throw us into a state of dissaray and panic. I surelly don't want to over react to this stuff but I would say something feels like it's coming. Just remember what crazy old chaney tried to drum in our heads, report anything suspicious to law enforcement. It's that one guy who sees that little thing that seems off, that can save a lot of heartache.

If you enjoyed reading about "The following is from Massad's subscription emails" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
eqlzr
April 28, 2011, 11:49 PM
Not to minimize the significance or seriousness of what you are saying, but honestly if you observe around my SoCal town, what you tend to see very near my house are massive crackdowns by police officers (at least 10-15 motorcycle and patrol car cops per mile sometimes) not on drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, terrorists, thugs, cons, thieves or robbers (all of which are more common than cockroaches), but instead on people talking on their cellphones.

We have huge, fancy and presumably expensive LED scoreboard-like signs hanging over all of our freeways now. Occasionally they are used for "Amber Alert" type messages (such and such child taken, look for a '88 blue Toyota Corolla), but far more often, instead of providing helpful info about traffic or whatnot, they are used to threaten motorists ("Click It or Tickit", or "$159+ for texting! It's not worth it!"). Who the H paid for those signs if it wasn't the tax-paying, hardworking commuters?

IMHO, all this is incredibly <removed>. Honestly, do we need more cops, or just better priorities?

LawScholar
April 29, 2011, 12:21 AM
eqlzr,

Cracking down on cell phone use is the same thing, scientifically, as cracking down on drunk driving.

The most recent studies suggest talking on the phone makes an individual about 4-6x as likely to have an accident. That's about the same as drunk driving. Texting and driving increases crash likelihood by 23x because it involves extended periods of eye contact away from the road (usually covering hundreds of feet with thousands of pounds of steel automobile)

I don't feel like dying so a teeny-bopper can text "lol". I have no problem with such crackdowns.

As for Mossad's point, we pro-gun people have made the same argument from the start, and it stands here: An armed society need not fear such things. If 4 terrorists open up on 50 people waking along, and a handful of those people are CCW holders, they can at least have a fighting chance.

RS14
April 29, 2011, 12:36 AM
There's an argument to be made for a well-equipped and staffed police force, but I don't think terrorism is that argument.

Firstly, terrorist attacks are rare. They capture much attention, certainly, but you're more likely to be murdered for other reasons.

Over the last 10 years in the US, for instance, terrorists attacks have killed roughly 3000 people. There have been roughly 170,000 murders in the US during this period.

In India (discounting regions with active insurgencies, i.e. the northeast; Jammu and Kashmir), terrorist attacks have killed very roughly around 1,200, about half in the south by the PWG. The murder rate seems to suggest roughly 330,000 murders over this period.

I'm not going to compute figures for Ossetia, again because they're experiencing an active insurgency, which isn't in any way comparable to the US situation.

On this basis alone, the argument for law enforcement should center on ordinary crime, rather than headline-grabbing but very rare terrorist attacks.

Secondly, ordinary law-enforcement is for the most part impotent in the event of terrorist attacks--they can help provide first aid and clean up the mess, but local law enforcement doesn't have the intelligence network to look into future threats. Police couldn't have stopped 9/11, and they're unlikely to stop a bombing. The Beslan school, as were the hotels in Mumbai was stormed by Russian Special Forces, not local law enforcement. Local law enforcement did make a difference at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.

In general, law enforcement funds are probably better spent on murder cases and such, since they have the potential to be so much more effective there. A mere 5% reduction in the national murder rate would save more lives than a 100% reduction in the terrorism rate. And while police can be an important part of the response to terrorist attacks, good intelligence work is probably more effective in anticipating attacks and stopping them before they occur.

twofifty
April 29, 2011, 01:01 AM
33,000 or so die each year in motor vehicle traffic accidents. The number of deaths decreases most years even though the number of drivers and miles driven increases.

This suggests that legislative and police efforts are changing people's behaviour for the better. The vehicles are also designed with survivability in mind.

Shawn Dodson
April 29, 2011, 09:16 AM
More info in the PoliceOne article -

"News from ILEETA 2011: Preparing for a Mumbai- or Beslan-style attack in the United States of America" - see: http://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/3555243-News-from-ILEETA-2011-Preparing-for-a-Mumbai-or-Beslan-style-attack-in-the-United-States-of-America/

SuperNaut
April 29, 2011, 09:47 AM
Please note that quite a few current members of D.C. and the F.O.P. think that we gun-owners are terrorists.

Averageman
April 29, 2011, 10:10 AM
First responders are relatively irrelivant to a Mumbai/Belsan type attack.
If you read the reports on Belsan, it was so well planned that any attempts to remove the Terrorists resulted in more bloodshed.
Mumbai Terrorists operated through radio contact with a Command and Control that essentially watched India's version of CNN and moved the Terrorists based upon immeadiate news feeds.
Are we ready for this? Nope!
That being said, I have noticed I am far more likely to be killed by someone on a cell phone not paying attention than a Terrorist bullet.
I do also agree that some of the way LEO's operate is more in line with racking up traffic fines than providing a force that protects the general public.

eqlzr
April 29, 2011, 10:14 AM
Maybe, but we're easy targets for LE cuz generally speaking we're polite and pay our fines. :)

gym
April 29, 2011, 11:15 AM
I didn't mean fo this to get on the path of traffic and texting, sorry I must need to re phrase. Usually when these attacks take place, even in the form of a non-terrorist attack, "just for argument's sake, it's the off duty cop, or civillian with a ccw that is on the scene when it happens and they are likelly to engage first, should an organised attack shch as this happen at a movie or mall. I'm just saying watch yur 6, and carry your weapon all the time where legal, because it's been a long time overdue and signs point to some sort of a similar thing occuring here from the chatter being heard.

Grey_Mana
April 29, 2011, 01:10 PM
The Mumbai attack death toll was 195 (according to Bing).
The Luby's Massacre in 1991 ended with 23 dead, 20 more wounded.
The columbine shooting in 1999 resulted in 13 dead, 21 wounded.
The Fort Hood shooting killed 13 and wounded 30 more.

9/11, we lost 2,752 victims in NYC and 184 in Virginia.

Lessons: the next terrorist/massacre will be in a gun-free zone (a school, an airport / airplane, a city like DC or a state like Maryland where regular people aren't allowed to bear arms.

We've been luck over the past 50 years, that we've only faced relatively stupid enemies on US soil. On Sunday December 7, 1941, we lost 2,350 with an additional 1,178 wounded at Pearl Harbor. No need to cite foreign examples.

jiminhobesound
April 29, 2011, 01:19 PM
I could care less about your academic argument regarding statistics of death. This is the United States, we the people have the right to be free from worry and oppression. Terrorism offends the rights of the people. Since our LEOs are not capable of stopping acts of terror we as citizens must be prepared. Finally, your statistics are seriously flawed because the do not address how may plots were foiled by our LEOs.

hso
April 29, 2011, 01:48 PM
Yes we are over-reacting if we put a national policy in place that limits our freedom.

No Mumbai type attack has much relevance nationally unless we exaggerate it's national importance. We're a nation of 320,000,000. A few "martyrs" with machine guns are not going to do enough real damage to affect the nation if we don't fall prey to terror.

OTOH, as an individual or family such an attack could have real catastrophic consequences and individually and personally being prepared to avoid, escape or react to such a local event should be thought about.

Crippling ourselves (or smothering) with fear on a national level just isn't reasonable.

The swath of destruction left by this weeks tornadoes is an example. For the communities and individuals who suffered death and destruction it was catastrophic. For the nation it was tragic. But the nation barely missed a step and the states and most of the communities are still functioning. The families and communities that were most hard hit are the ones who experienced the real impact.

burley
April 29, 2011, 02:33 PM
Massad's e-mail reads like paronoid ramblings from a firearms salesman using fearmongering to make some money imho. You know what? I'm going to live my life while I can, Massad, zombie hunters, crazy old chaney etal be damned. I might even go outside and walk around in the sun today. What an experience!

Loosedhorse
April 29, 2011, 02:42 PM
9/11, we lost 2,752 victims in NYC and 184 in Virginia.
And 40 in PA.

lexjj
April 29, 2011, 03:00 PM
We do not need more law enforcement in this country. We particularly do not need more militarized law enforcement in this country. We especially do not need more fantasy-based law enforcement in this country.

This line of thinking has done more to destroy the constitutional protections of our country than any terrorist could ever inflict.

Let's just turn all cops into SWAT teams, so we can serve more no-knock warrants at 3 am for misdemeanor offenses. And then, we can use those SWAT teams to "forfeit" all of the "perp's" assets to buy more awesome toys that we can then justify buying by using in even more inappropriate situations.

DoubleTapDrew
April 29, 2011, 03:06 PM
Please note that quite a few current members of D.C. and the F.O.P. think that we gun-owners are terrorists.
Exactly. Instead of focusing on outside threats they want to take away our ability to defend ourselves and leave it up to the 1 cop per 400 citizens (using the OP's stats) for protection. No thanks.

Pistol Ranch
April 29, 2011, 03:07 PM
Reading Ayoob would leave you to believe that he uses a new carry pistol every week.
Snake oil. "The sky is falling":uhoh:

P.R.

gdesloge
April 29, 2011, 03:13 PM
"A few "martyrs" with machine guns are not going to do enough real damage to affect the nation if we don't fall prey to terror."

An EMP attack could, if effectively conducted, affect every citizen of the nation.

gd

hermannr
April 29, 2011, 03:55 PM
The terrorists have already won...look at how they managed to disrupt normal live and freedoms here via 9/11. Have to have a passport to get back into the US from Canada, you have to be kidding. The whole TSA garbage at the Airports. If they had allowed passengers and pilots to carry prior to 9/11, it could not have happened. think about it.

The next attack (and here I do agree, there will most likely be another sometime relatively soon) will probably be in either NYC or Chicago. Not only the biggest bang per body, the least defended.

That is: the least possible chance of encountering an armed civilian that has not been identified by the operators. They cannot handle having unknowns if they remotely expect to succeed.

To the other part. I do not like the signs either, however, I do like the idea of making texting while driving illegal. Texting while driving is most definately dangerous to everyone else on the road. If you kill yourself that is your problem, just don't involve anyone else.

If you have to text or use your cell phone, pull over, stop in a safe place and do it...not while moving.

gym
April 29, 2011, 05:31 PM
I know from where I live the cops "at my request" came in and showed the 350 homeowners ,"who thught they lived in Disney" the stats for the past 3 months and the majority of homeowners were floored by the hundreds of break in robberies etc. If anything it increased the amount of people who went and applied for permits. The cops were the first ones to say, "we cannot keep you safe", like we used to, no money for the patrols and amount of LEOs necessary to do the job, So having them say that helped our cause, people went and got permits and training. The obvious thing is that if such an attack occurs, it's going to be us and plain cloths off duty LEOS who are in wherever it happens that are the first guys on the scene. If it happens at your mall or park, then it's going to be you, we get that right. Screw the texting part, if I am out at an event with my wife at say the beach and van full of terrorists pull up , or outside a terminal or wherever you know you aren't running away unless your family is on the way out and all together and even then you may not. That's what he's saying, I don't care which gun he is using this week, people get guns in the gun business because they have a name, just like actors and actresses get furniture collections and clothes. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And to the few machine guns not making a difference , bullxxx, this country always over reacts, if something like that happens and a lot of people get hurt or killed, the govt is going to clamp down so tight on us you rear end will feel it. It's the perfect excuse to take away our rights. So don't dismiss it as , well a few people go killed, you saw what happened when that congresswoman almost died. Do we need another Brady times 100.
No one wants that, the only thing is to be vigilant, I think we are slipping from the years past, and the terrorists are just waiting for the right oppertunity to strike. So why not exercise more caution, any problem with that?
We may not need more law enforcement but we sure don't need less cops. As we age our younger generation having not been exposed to a major draft type war, is less prepared and will IMO respond with less vigor than out fathers and brothers did, they may panic easier and not be mentally prepared for another catastophic event , the trade center was a decade ago already, kids today are different than the last few generations, I see it with my own grandkids, "god bless them" they aren't and haven't been taught the way we were. Maybe in some states it's less so, but the northen kids just couldn't grasp it as easy as we did, sorry if you dissagree, my 4 grandkids aren't even allowed to look at a gun. I can't interfere that' s the way their parents want it.

Larry E
April 29, 2011, 07:00 PM
Gotta agree with gym's last post. If a Mumbai type incident happens here, and it well may be that the feds will be on all gun owners like flies on a manure pile. The facts won't matter in the slightest, it'll be those "assault rifles", "high capacity ammunition holders", and all the other made up typical baloney argument.

The only thing that would stop the widespread confiscation of firearms, and/or bans on most self defense and hunting guns would be widespread and massive civil disobedience IMHO. Many police departments away from the anti-gun capitals of the country wouldn't agree with or carry out confiscation schemes (he says hopefully), and even if they tried they wouldn't have the manpower. No other organizations have the manpower either.

Lowering our heads, saying it's unconstitutional, and obeying like the Brits and Aussies have done would be the end.

I'm glad I'm old and don't have too much more time to watch the government take away our rights bit by bit, and that boys and girls is what they're doing. :mad:

feedthehogs
April 29, 2011, 07:14 PM
Just another apologist for law enforcement to keep layoffs and budget cuts from happening by trying to create panic and fear.
Of course we will be attacked again.

You can't have a government that treats it's Southern border like a wheel of Swiss and not expect a problem.

Irrational thinking got us the Patriot act. What we don't need is more of it especially after an incident.

Be prepared and alert but don't fall for the propaganda machine.

macadore
April 29, 2011, 07:17 PM
We went through this sort of stuff in the late Sixties and early Seventies. We're much better prepared to deal with it now than we were then. The police don't need any more money or toys.

gym
April 29, 2011, 07:24 PM
Madacore that's 40 years ago, we had race riots with 6 shooters and there was no global economy like today, bury your head in the sand, I was in harlem the night they burned it down that's a totally different scenario, talk about apples and oranges. Now your taalking abot a country with a paid army about 1/3 the size we need. The president cutting back defense spending on the joint fighter strike force, and the latest weapons for our troops on hold. You need to catch up.

pbearperry
April 29, 2011, 07:29 PM
From what I see every day,I think a terrorist act could occur and most of the people in the area would be unaware of it.They are all busy text messaging and talking on the phone.:banghead:

gym
April 29, 2011, 07:38 PM
LOL, your right, either that or they were filming an action movie,

Vonderek
April 29, 2011, 08:37 PM
First off , how are we defining "law enforcement officers"? Are you talking about local cops or are you talking about feds or are you talking about intelligence agencies? If you are talking about local police they aren't foiling any terrorist plots and would be totally ineffective as first responders in the terrorist scenarios you are referencing. In my locale, the police have been transformed into not much more than collection for the local government. My government cannot live within its means in a poor economy so finds ways to squeeze more revenue out of citizens. Local police are usually manning speedtraps in groups of 2 or 3 squad cars and another pair of motorcycle officers all pulling over lines of traffic and doling out tickets. I guess we have to pay for all those dozens of new wireless cameras keeping guard at every intersection in town.

In any event, they are not being used for crime-fighting let alone counter-terrorism. Be careful what you wish for. If you want more police with more weaponry and more military style training you are opening a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

Nushif
April 29, 2011, 08:38 PM
I don't feel like dying so a teeny-bopper can text "lol". I have no problem with such crackdowns.



The problem is that this leads to others not willing to stand up for you to do whatever it is you do.
It's not about texting. It's not about firearms. It's not about what we individually think is right or wrong.
The issue with the notion of "I don't have a problem with some random authority doing <x>" is that that very notion leads to anything ranging from fascism, over dictatorships, up to a tyranny of the masses a la California. So yeah.

floridaboy
April 29, 2011, 08:50 PM
I'm sure my position won't be very popular on here, but que sera, sera. In a town very near to my home, the local chief of police wants to employ drones. The stated purpose is traffic control, fire spotting, finding lost old folks, ect...
Cops who work for this jurisdiction tell me that he wants them for looking over peoples property. Now I'm not anti cop, but did see stats listed showing roughly 1 cop for every 400 citizens in this country. In my opinion, that ought to be more than enough. We, as a nation have more crimes on the books than any of us can keep track of. We incarcerate a larger percentage of our populace than any country on earth. Enough already.

LawScholar
April 29, 2011, 09:33 PM
The problem is that this leads to others not willing to stand up for you to do whatever it is you do.
It's not about texting. It's not about firearms. It's not about what we individually think is right or wrong.
The issue with the notion of "I don't have a problem with some random authority doing <x>" is that that very notion leads to anything ranging from fascism, over dictatorships, up to a tyranny of the masses a la California. So yeah.





The gaping hole in your argument is that talking on a cell phone while driving is not one of the Bill of Rights.

That argument could be copy-pasted to defend NAMBLA, quite frankly. The argument of "the repression of liberties" doesn't work for every single thing the government doesn't allow. The social contract means that if the majority wants to make something illegal, or if something involves people infringing on the rights of others (you know, like the right to be alive) it will be illegal, unless it is an inalienable right. Neither driving or texting are inalienable rights.

Nushif
April 29, 2011, 09:47 PM
The gaping hole in your argument is that talking on a cell phone while driving is not one of the Bill of Rights.

That argument could be copy-pasted to defend NAMBLA, quite frankly. The argument of "the repression of liberties" doesn't work for every single thing the government doesn't allow. The social contract means that if the majority wants to make something illegal, or if something involves people infringing on the rights of others (you know, like the right to be alive) it will be illegal, unless it is an inalienable right. Neither driving or texting are inalienable rights.

Now, excuse my spelling, but ze wife has been feeding me delicious Hennessy but I will argue this.

Now, firstly. Yes. It could be used to defend anything that tries to go against well ... the infringement of anything. But in my not quite humble opinion I think it's a healthy thing to have a natural "resistance" to any infringement of even the stupidest of ... things ... rights?

Because let's look at how we outline rights. Are rights written down in ye olde Constitution? Because there is no right to breed, breathe or eat in the Constitution, but I think we can all kinda agree people should be allowed to breed breathe and eat. So the first premise we have to set up is what exactly constitutes a right.

Now, secondly, we have to establish what he borders to one's rights actually are!
I mean, the common sentiment, or rather ctach phrase is that one's right to wing one's arm extends to the point of the tip of someone's nose. But in modern terms what does that *actually mean?*

And until we can argue these points smartly I'm afraid the point of this whole "God Given Rights" and "Social Contract" are ... well ... moot points. We can't agree on the basic premise of this conversation, so how can we move beyond that? 8)

LawScholar
April 29, 2011, 09:48 PM
Agreed. We're probably at an impasse, in addition to derailing the thread.

That said, Hennessy is awesome and I salute your taste.

jonmerritt
April 29, 2011, 09:57 PM
When the SHTF, local law is going to be busy protecting the local government interests, or bailing out (self preservation, you can't blame them). The individual citizens will have to protect themselves, and in doing so, join together, and become unbeatable. One thing we have that all the others (victims) didn't have or don't have. We have a crapload of firearms and the ammo to go with them. I can personally arm all my neighbors with at least one firearm and no less than 200 rounds each, along with a quick how to shoot the badguy training course (with targets). It's not just self preservation. And that's one thing the terrorists know they will be up against. All those infedel westerners are armed!

gym
April 29, 2011, 10:01 PM
That's what the Japanese said about invading America in WW2, behind every bush there is an American with a gun.

daorhgih
April 29, 2011, 10:23 PM
It was 2004, Mas! Get into the program! Maybe you need to understand "The Perfect Storm" as defined by Mr. G. Beck, the same week of those atrocities, not seven years later. "Day late; $1 short." And think of it this way: religious fanatics attacked that school with weapons, in order to inflict TERROR on those who disagreed with their religion. I'm not saying WHICH religion it was (and frequently is) because the handlers here are too P-freaking-C to let the post stand. Just choosing a random post -- #14 -- let's follow the logic. First, the attackers do not expect, nor do they even want to survive. The only answer to that is a dozen or more very able snipers in every LE area, as the SEAL team that excised the pirates in the recent Maersk hijacking. Terrorist attacks are only noted as or after they go down. One cannot say they are rare; we may only hear of them "rarely." Citing a bunch of numbers of death-by-fanatic proves nothing about scotched attempts. I am waiting for the proof of their tactics of reproducing as rapidly as possible, and take a 51% in any legislative district, and then take it over. I suspect that any repeat of Beslan -- because we love our children -- will be initiated in the school-busses of our most conservative districts of the states. Remember, the attacker uses guns or knives to inflict the direct object of their attacks: TERROR. AND HERE IS ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE HOW MANY ATTACKS DIDN'T HAPPEN: " A mere 5% reduction in the national murder rate would save more lives than a 100% reduction in the terrorism rate." Citation please? There are FUSION centers in every state, and they are VERY busy. If you don't know what one is, ask your sheriff or any State Trooper, or find the Center in your phone book. And it would probably be factual to say that your friendly, non-supremeacist Militia has got a similar system in place. If/When we are ready, the event will not come, or if it comes, then one or a few of us will be first-responders in most cases. Shoot well; shoot straight; shoot often. It may come on your watch. Further, post #33, "...So the first premise we must set up is what exactly constitutes a right. Now, secondly, we have to establish what the borders to one's rights actually are! ..." Be careful or you may end up trying to define who is a "person", and who "deserves" rights. We'll have to wait until the anarchy subsides. Dao.

TexasBill
April 30, 2011, 08:19 AM
The next terrorist strike might not come from Al Qaeda.

Everyone seems to forget the second-worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil: the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City almost exactly 16 years ago. 168 people were killed, including 19 children, and 680 people were wounded. The blast damaged 324 buildings. McVeigh, a home-grown terrorist, was mad at the government because of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Remember what Aum Shinriko did in Japan - Aum Shinriko was a religious group that wanted to overthrow the Japanese government so they conducted Sarin gas attacks in the subways. A more efficient delivery system could have resulted in far more deaths. Only 19 died in all of the attacks, but more than six thousand were affected by the nerve gas. Again, terror from within.

While I have great respect for Massad Ayoob and I am always in favor of having weapons at the ready, the reality is that terrorist attacks aren't usually something that can be resolved with firepower. Generally, following terrorist attacks, the only ones left around to shoot are the victims and innocents. A successful suicide bomber is already dead. The majority of the 9/11 killers, most of whom were Saudi Arabians, died in the plane crashes.

Perhaps what Ayoob envisions is something like the Red Brigade or the Baader-Meinhof Gang?

LemmyCaution
April 30, 2011, 09:01 AM
No.

What Mr. Ayoob is envisioning is across the board cuts to local, state and federal budgets, and he's using fear as a lever to keep his kind's already outsized portion of the pie intact.

Simple self-interest at work here.

feedthehogs
April 30, 2011, 10:33 AM
Texas Bill,
I suggest you read Final Report by the Oklahoma bombing investigatiion committee if you believe that McVeigh and Nichols were the master minds behind the bombing.

There are too many unanswered questions. Heres a quote from Federal judge Richard Matsch who presided over the federal trials of McVeigh and Nichols:

"There are many unanswered questions. It would be very disapointing to me if the law enforcement agencies of the United States Government have quit looking for answers in this Oklahoma bombing tragedy".

Theres more domestic terrorism acts comitted by law enfocement agencies, no knock warrants, ruby ridge, waco, kent state just to name a few than good old born and bred here US citizens.

While this is a veer from the op topic its part of the fear mongering by the past and certainly present administrations toward US citizens who believe that the constitution and bill of rights is the final authority in this country.

While a government that fears it citizens is a good thing, a government that assumes citizens are guilty until proven innocent is not.

macadore
April 30, 2011, 11:07 AM
Madacore that's 40 years ago, we had race riots with 6 shooters and there was no global economy like today, bury your head in the sand, I was in harlem the night they burned it down that's a totally different scenario, talk about apples and oranges. Now your taalking abot a country with a paid army about 1/3 the size we need. The president cutting back defense spending on the joint fighter strike force, and the latest weapons for our troops on hold. You need to catch up.

I'm not the one with my head in the sand. Our military budget is larger than the next 12 military budgets in the world combined and you say it's 1/3 the size we need. Every little podunk police station in the country has or wants a SWAT team. Who are they going to shoot? Their cousins? Out of towners driving through? I stand by my statement.

gym
April 30, 2011, 11:09 AM
Terrorists adapt and change as we do. The next act he was referring to, "in my understanding of the email" was a group of them, Them being anyone who want's to kill American citzens", armed with automatic weapons, and explosives, hitting one or more locations doing massive damage in one or more highlly populated areas. I can't tell you that this will happen, or not, but you have to think on a larger scale. It's not the amount of people that die in car accidents per year outnumbering the amount of terrorist killings, it's the perception that if it happens, it will shake the country to it's very core. Don't you get that, remember Colombine, and that were our own kids, imagine a coordinated attack, "which we know they are capable of" at several locations with hundreds or dozens of men with full auto weapons who are prepared to die, do you have any idea what that would do to the country? or is it something you choose to exclude and rather debate statistics about cell phones. People are different than the old timers here and in my Viet Nam era friends, they freak out easy. that would be an attack on our nations ability to maintain the stable, secure, lifestyle that is the core of our freedom and tranquility, I really think that it is important you look at it as a singular issue not heap it in with everthing that happened before. You need to live in today not yesterday. That is what Mass, "in my interpretation" was saying. Not more enforcement, just don't keep laying off cops of any type, we need all of the eyes and ears out there, maybe divert money to the technology area of law enforcment and be able to pick up the chatter and infiltrate the cells that exhist in our country already.

daorhgih
April 30, 2011, 12:07 PM
Social Era, Political Era, Terrorism Era, Home-grown Militia Era, No/Know Justice, No/Know Peace Era, T.Party Patriots Era vs John Birch Society Era, the Hippie Era, "Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S." Era, "Support Your Local Police And Keep Them Independent" Era, and-on-and-on. What do these Eras have in common? The fact that some of us learned from living through them, and others simply lived them learning nothing on their way. And now we are living in ALL of them at once! I hope you survive. Some of you won't, as is plain from your posted words. Be strong today, and pray for wisdom for tomorrow, if it comes. Dao. Just a messenger, not the message.

SuperNaut
April 30, 2011, 12:13 PM
I'm not sure how to say this politely so I'm just gonna say it:

If a small-scale terrorist guerilla attack were to occur within our borders and the resulting trauma shook our country to it's core, then I believe that we are so weak that the WoT is already lost.

I think I have a little more faith in the resilience of Americans. The aftermath of 911 and Katrina showed a great many Americans how little protection and prevention the government/police can provide. The response of a few was cowering fear, the response of the majority was a rush to prepare. Just look at the number of people who have joined THR in the past few years. These are people from all walks of life who realized that the cops can't be everywhere, and despite what those in power (and their proxies) would like you to believe; we are essentially on our own.

More cops won't prevent a small-scale guerilla terrorist operation, just as more janitors won't prevent spills.

kimbernut
April 30, 2011, 12:40 PM
The vast majority of our people are law abiding citizens within reason. Until our laws change to recognize the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which by the way, Ted Nugent got it right- "the 2nd amendment is our CCW permit, period." Not until a good portion of our population not just a minor percentage takes on the mindset necessary and gets serious about carrying and training for it will we be able to shut down terrorist type attacks quickly and keep casualties to a minimum.

jerkface11
April 30, 2011, 12:53 PM
Imagine that the police are using terrorism as their new reason to need military hardware and training. Did the war on drugs stop working?

Claude Clay
April 30, 2011, 12:58 PM
no way will any attack of this type happen in modern America;
afterall, today we have a cell phone behind every blade of grass

gym
April 30, 2011, 01:33 PM
I write my local dept a check every year, and things are tight. They are scraping the barrell to try and protect us. Two nights ago they grabbed a half dozen men right ouside my complex with weapons hitting cars if they were able to stop them. I see you live in Utah, I understand your point of view, realize that folks in utah, and a few other states like Texas, are a generally tougher, more resiliant group than most of the country, of aging babby boomers and youg kids who go to college and don''t even know who their elected officials are.
I assume you saw the reaction the last few times one or two people were killed in attacks and the Trade center is almost a decade already, and they want to put a Mosque on top of it.
Many people are not from areas that deal well with mass killings. Guys here are more the exception than the general rule. My development is a mix of people, most wiith 2 or 3 homes, this being their winter escape, "snow birds", what I see here from a cross section of the country is entirelly different than what you describe. They are anti gun and afraid of everything. i had a problem with out of state folks who didn't take to the fact that we were even allowed to ccw here. And started telling neighboors that they felt unsafe, and that has never happened in 40 years of carrying. After I helped them during a break in.
So your perception of the steadfastness of the general public, should not be based on the pro gun populace that we associate with for the most part. But the silent majority as it was reffered to years ago. who aren't as resiliant as you think.

macadore
April 30, 2011, 03:28 PM
I believe a lot of people underestimate the tenacity and resilience of the American people. I am unwilling to be stampeded into an Orwellian state out of fear of the unknown. We lost a lot of our freedoms in 1968 when people were stampeded into an irrational fear of guns. Did the GCA of 1968 make anyone safer? We lost a lot of our freedom when people were stampeded into fear of drugs. Do any of you feel safer now that we have ďno knockĒ laws? If you have lived in small town America you have seen police with too much power abuse people. I'm not willing to give another inch. This is the land of the citizen soldier, not the land of the police state.

A lot of people don't realize that the police need for crime to be a growth industry. If crime, or at least the fear of crime, does not increase, there is no need for police budgets to increase. Real crime has been going down for a very long time so we had to have a war on drugs. There are endless things to fear if that's what we choose to do. There are endless things to throw money at and give up freedoms for if that is what we choose to do. I choose not to.

Mt Shooter
April 30, 2011, 03:33 PM
Why dont you just ask Mas? He is a member here.

TexasBill
May 1, 2011, 12:25 AM
Texas Bill,
I suggest you read Final Report by the Oklahoma bombing investigatiion committee if you believe that McVeigh and Nichols were the master minds behind the bombing....

Not everyone shares the same admiration for Charles Key's magnum opus that you seem to. McVeigh himself complained that people believed he was incapable of doing the job without a large group of conspirators or government help. His life was forfeit; he had nothing more to lose: he could have made a "deathbed confession" about any others that were involved but he didn't. Instead, on the day before his execution, a letter he had written was released. In it, McVeigh wrote, "For those die-hard conspiracy theorists who will refuse to believe this, I turn the tables and say: Show me where I needed anyone else. Financing? Logistics? Specialized tech skills? Brainpower? Strategy? ... Show me where I needed a dark, mysterious 'Mr. X'!"

MikeNice
May 1, 2011, 01:47 AM
I'm sure my position won't be very popular on here, but que sera, sera.

It may not be. However, I work with a police force full time, (not a LEO) and I agree with you 100%. Things have gotten to the point that it is more about justifying budgets and curing irational fears than ending crime.

There was a war on crime declared years ago. What we ended up with was a war on freedom to ensure safety for those that refuse to take responsibility for their own life.

parsimonious_instead
May 1, 2011, 09:32 AM
The bad guys always have the initiative.
Unless their "mission planning" is conducted via easily intercepted
communications, no one will know until the incident itself
begins to unfold.
Alert, armed and trained citizens probably won't deter such evil,
but will help mitigate the damage.

Budget cuts are happening all around, and you could argue:
"In an age of globally competitive knowledge work, we're cutting school
budgets and falling behind other countries."
"In an age in which our media landscape has become a cultural wasteland,
we're cutting funding for the fine arts."
"In an age of severe weather, we're cutting funding for warning
sytems, levee building and wildfire fighting."
And so on.
You can argue for or against any spending priority, but it seems as if
we've grown accustomed to asking our governments at every level
to do too much, for too long. Something has to give, and it's probably
best if every sector feel the pain of the fiscal scalpel.

Deanimator
May 1, 2011, 10:33 AM
If it happens, I predict it will happen in Chicago:

1. Corrupt, ineffective city government.
2. Corrupt, ineffective police force.
3. Rampant racial, ethnic and religious hatred.
4. Dozens of highly concentrated, high value targets.
5. Easy routes of access and escape from innumerable directions.
6. An existing base of religious and political extremists.
7. Multiple first tier media outlets to spread panic.

Something to think about:

As I recall, last year there were MULTIPLE thefts of lightbars from police vehicle facilities. A young boy was able to impersonate a police officer and enter "secure" police facilities on MULTIPLE occasions. There may have been uniform thefts as well.

All it would take would be for "police" to show up at a crowded public venue favored by a particular demographic, and to open fire while hurling the appropriate slurs... followed by attacks on the real police when they respond... followed by the real police firing on each other... followed by a political firestorm and witchhunt. It'd make Katrina look like a Morris dancing festival in Newfoundland.

I can't imagine why it hasn't already happened, apart from apparent serious damage to the command and control structure of the various Islamist terrorist groups inflicted by the last two presidential administrations.

massad ayoob
May 1, 2011, 01:51 PM
Response is at www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/massadayoob, titled "Combine Criticism With Critical Thinking." Immediately below it is the entry under discussion here on THR, titled "Sobering Knowledge From Cops." Commentary links can be found at each.

Cordially,
Mas

gym
May 1, 2011, 03:54 PM
Thank you for your interjection sir.
Gym

jerkface11
May 1, 2011, 04:55 PM
But, read some of the commentary that followed that last blog! Because the politician appointed to head Homeland Security hints that gun owners might be suspect, you should hate the police officer who patrols your neighborhood?

Hate them? No. There's no reason to ever trust them though. 99% would start confiscating guns tomorrow if ordered. After all they don't want to lose their job.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 05:11 PM
99% would start confiscating guns tomorrow if ordered.

Some would, but I think 99% is too high.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

mljdeckard
May 1, 2011, 05:16 PM
I agree. Not where I live either.

If you enjoyed reading about "The following is from Massad's subscription emails" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!