Are we safer...

[OzmO]

Don't count me in on that number, I'm proud to say I never bought into the bullshit...  Very early on I started asking WTF.  As soon as the president said, "they hate us for our freedoms" I said oh hell, here we go and sure as shit everything stunk right off the bat...  The networks and the whitehouse are directly responsible for many who did buy into it so it's not like you can even define them as willing, more like "lied to"  It's pretty hard for people to make the right choice when all the input is 98% bullshit.

I was for a while.  I certainly didn't buy into any of the hate crap as i know many Arabs on a personal level.  I was ok with all the changes we saw at airports and such.  But when we started our move towards Iraq i was against it.  I saw it as BS, understanding that we had a level of control in the area with Saddam in power and even if he did have WMD's he was far less likely to use them becuase he knew it would a death wish.

Just goes to show how stupid scared people can be as the number 1 argument for invading was the WMD's.

[kh300]

the politicians like to use us to make them look better.. i forgot what happend but bush was giving some speech about terrorism, then the next day they released facts about dry runs going on at airports.. we didnt want that shit to go public. that was info for law enforcement only, but they used it for their own agenda.

you guys are in a position we like. you arnt afraid. you think there isnt a threat out there. thats how we want it. we dont want you to think your in danger at the airport, because air travel keeps the economy going. we dont want you to be afraid of going to the mall.. but these damn politicians want to use it. they arnt the ones doing the work, they only fuck shit up for us. which is why im getting fed up with this administration. they try to keep reminding you guys, and too much shit that goes down gets to the public. not all but some. its blows our cover, it shows them how we operate.. it makes them look better, but makes our job harder.

go to the superbowl, it will be filled with DHS agents, dressed as regular fans. all over the stadium. the guy checking your ticket isnt some douche off the streets, he looking out for something.. that doesnt go into the news.you wont hear a word about it.. so its not bs propaganda. they'll be there  to do a job and make sure those fans are safe, and there isnt someone walking in there with c4 strapped to their chest.

i wish there wasnt a threat. i wouldnt mind going back to being a street cop. but thats not gonna happen, im way to busy..last meeting with Mike McConnell, he explained a terrorist's biggest tool is complacency.  meaning the terrorists have no problem waiting 5-10 years between attacks. waiting for us to put our guard down. waiting for us to get comfortable, wanting for us to say its a waste, the threat is gone.  -seems to be working.. but not for me

[OzmO]

A threat will be always there.

But are we passed the point of getting manipulated by our government by it?

[240 is Back]

Scared people vote republican.  They vote repub when they feel they need protection.

People who aren't scared vote Dem.  They focus upon economy or health care, issues that are SECOND to avoiding terror attacks.

Remember the repubs running commercials of mushroom clous with osama's face on it, before the 2006 election?  That was, plain and simple, fearmongering.  They were hoping people would be scared and vote republican.  They were reminding people of the threat - terrorizing them.

[Eyeball Chambers]

The terrorists attacked us, and certain parts of our government responded by revoking some of our rights, and weakening our system of government.

[kh300]

A threat will be always there.

But are we passed the point of getting manipulated by our government by it?

depends. terrorism means something totally different to the politicians then it does to law enforcement.. 240's right in the fact that the republicans use it to advance their agenda..  

ill tell you this much. without DHS, and without the FBI focusing on terrorism.. we will be in serious danger. not crashing a plane into a building danger.but dropping a bomb that kills hundreds of thousands. possibly taking out a whole city -im not fucking around.

whos doing a bigger disservice to us? the republican saying we need to keep counter terrorism going, using scare tactics? or the dems who promise you healthcare, and this and that?

doesnt matter in the end. because whoever's in office will know what goes on. they know they wont be able to get rid of counter terrorism programs.. so there will be no money for the dems to spend. there all full of shit.

[OzmO]

depends. terrorism means something totally different to the politicians then it does to law enforcement.. 240's right in the fact that the republicans use it to advance their agenda.. 

ill tell you this much. without DHS, and without the FBI focusing on terrorism.. we will be in serious danger. not crashing a plane into a building danger.but dropping a bomb that kills hundreds of thousands. possibly taking out a whole city -im not fucking around.

I whole heartedly agree.

whos doing a bigger disservice to us? the republican saying we need to keep counter terrorism going, using scare tactics? or the dems who promise you healthcare, and this and that?

I think if being prudent we could have had both.    I don;t know if we can now.

whos doing a bigger disservice to us? the republican saying we need to keep counter terrorism going, using scare tactics? or the dems who promise you healthcare, and this and that?

What i see happening is our economy taking a huge dump while our taxes get raised regardless of who's in office.

[Hugo Chavez]

depends. terrorism means something totally different to the politicians then it does to law enforcement.. 240's right in the fact that the republicans use it to advance their agenda..  

ill tell you this much. without DHS, and without the FBI focusing on terrorism.. we will be in serious danger. not crashing a plane into a building danger.but dropping a bomb that kills hundreds of thousands. possibly taking out a whole city -im not fucking around.

whos doing a bigger disservice to us? the republican saying we need to keep counter terrorism going, using scare tactics? or the dems who promise you healthcare, and this and that?

doesnt matter in the end. because whoever's in office will know what goes on. they know they wont be able to get rid of counter terrorism programs.. so there will be no money for the dems to spend. there all full of shit.

yea, what was up with all this law enforcement labeling everything under the sun terrorism...  Right after 9/11, even some guy with a joint was supporting terrorism.  Very annoying pattern... terror this, terror that etc etc everyone jumped on the terrorist label.

[kh300]

yea, what was up with all this law enforcement labeling everything under the sun terrorism...  Right after 9/11, even some guy with a joint was supporting terrorism.  Very annoying pattern... terror this, terror that etc etc everyone jumped on the terrorist label.

law enforcemnt isnt labeling anything that isnt what it is.. politicians do as they please.

[Hugo Chavez]

law enforcemnt isnt labeling anything that isnt what it is.. politicians do as they please.

well that's just not true, I've heard them do it.  One example off the top of my head was in LA, they were making the case that the gangs were actually terrorists.  Why the need to modify them into terrorists?  Gang thugs are gang thugs, bad shit... does calling them terrorists make it easier to put them away, or perhaps the idea was to call greater public attention to the gang problem, I don't know all I know is they were calling them terrorists.  I didn't see that before 9/11... and I don't know who it was that put it out, but there were all those commercials saying if you light up, you're supporting terroism.

[24KT]

whos doing a bigger disservice to us? the republican saying we need to keep counter terrorism going, using scare tactics? or the dems who promise you healthcare, and this and that?

Wasn't it the Republicans who cut the counter-terrorism budget upon taking office?
And why does it have to be an either/or situation? You can have counter-terrorism AND healthcare.

well that's just not true, I've heard them do it.  One example off the top of my head was in LA, they were making the case that the gangs were actually terrorists.  Why the need to modify them into terrorists?  Gang thugs are gang thugs, bad shit... does calling them terrorists make it easier to put them away, or perhaps the idea was to call greater public attention to the gang problem, I don't know all I know is they were calling them terrorists.  I didn't see that before 9/11... and I don't know who it was that put it out, but there were all those commercials saying if you light up, you're supporting terroism.

Don't forget when they named the librarians and the teachers association terrorist organizations.