If you regard the "Dix Six" as a potentially terrifying terrorist plot, but oppose USA PATRIOT and the MCA, then that's good news.
Gee whiz Budney, welcome to this webpage, it's called THR.
You think that maybe some of us belive the above, and we don't like being treated like we're stupid?
2 for 20? Your scoring is mighty harsh since you disregard most of your early posts.
Some of your highlights:
NO. The plot was real enough. I never said otherwise.
You never said it wasn't a threat? But wait! I can use the quote key too.
If this is the best homeland security can come up with, then we should rejoice: there are obviously no credible threats out there.
Or are we grasping at straws to inflate a nonexistent threat to keep the people afraid?
It's interesting how worked up some people seem to get over a ridiculous non-threat.
You only called "some" of us sheep? Cast that sheep net kinda wide here.
It isn't high-road to call others "sheep," but I think there's a stronger reason that some of us shouldn't do that: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Wait, there's more. First off,
So far, no logical flaws have been pointed out.
is not the definition of a Strawman argument. A strawman is when you bring up something absurd, framed as if it is your opponent's argument, and then smack it down. It is considered one of the weakest and most pathetic props for a failing debator.
These are strawmen:
"ZOMG! So you're saying that three mentally retarded homeless terrorists were plotting to sneak onto the Nimitz with box cutters, take over and wreak havoc on the entire Eastern seaboard?
Are you trying to say that they might have taken Fort Dix after all? That we can't tell that they're a bunch of morons based on the mere fact that they intended to storm a military base with fewer men than, oh, a softball team?
You mean that some collection of dipsh-ts might actually win a direct confrontation with the US armed forces?
And here, you hurt your own argument:
But concerned enough to sell away your habeas corpus, fourth and fifth amendment rights? To abdicate your rights as a citizen and beg daddy government to protect you? From six dipsh-ts who've watched too many movies?
Which brings us back to the original question: do these ridiculously negligible risks actually justify the elimination of our rights as American citizens "for our own protection"?
Do you really think the posters on THR are that stupid?
Because even when people who AGREE with you about those issues find themselves wanting nothing more than to beat you over the head, then you're probably not gonna win any battles with your flaming rhetoric.
And we've got one military man here who doesn't think the body count would be very high. No offense to him, as it is his area of expertise, but I think it depends on the base. From the ones that I've been on, there isn't much difference between most base buildings, and most regular office buildings. Only the victims getting their heads sawed off are more likely to end up on Al Jazeera.
Yet when this is brought up, because it goes against your earlier posts trying to dismiss these six whackadoos, we must somehow be in favor of disarming soldiers. Guess what dude, I teach CCW to anyone in the National Guard for free. On my own dime, on my own time, I put my money where my mouth is. So once again, your insinuations are nothing more than annoying, and do nothing more than make people who should be your allies mad at you.
A single "blaze of glory" assault by untrained men is an extremely poor use of limited manpower.
Who cares? I'm glad the enemy is logistically stupid. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that it can't happen, or that it hasn't happened hundreds of times in Iraq, and thousands of times in Israel.
Which, in all seriousness, is my point: the best counter-measure to threats of this type is an armed populace. But that's the one counter-measure that the current administration shows no interest in taking.
