pbearperry
Member
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:
The following is from Massad's subscription emails
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
Vonderek
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,537
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.
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.
Last edited:
Nushif
Member
[soapbox]
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.
[/soapbox]
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
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.
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
Member
Nushif said:
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
Member
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
Member
Agreed. We're probably at an impasse, in addition to derailing the thread.
That said, Hennessy is awesome and I salute your taste.
That said, Hennessy is awesome and I salute your taste.
jonmerritt
Member.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 463
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!
What "problem"?
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.
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
Member
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?
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
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
What have YOU done for Liberty today?
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
True Second Amendment Freedom
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.
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
Member
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
Member
no way will any attack of this type happen in modern America;
afterall, today we have a cell phone behind every blade of grass
afterall, today we have a cell phone behind every blade of grass
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.
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
Member
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 “no knock” 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.
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
Member
Why dont you just ask Mas? He is a member here.
TexasBill
Member
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'!"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked