Terrorism

[ITG]

I live about 40 miles from highest concentration of petro chemical plants in the world (I think). If there were an attack there we would be in a world of hurt. Not only from the explosions but from the burning chems. and the fumes.

Where in Texas is this plant?

 

[Biltmore Bob]

ITG...

It's pretty much all of Houston, the Port, Ship Channel, Pasadena, Bay Town, etc...let's not forget Nasa too. "Houston we have a problem."

BT...I'm always up for a good conspiracy. What I got in preparation, I was able to eat off for a good 8 months (as a supplement of course). I still have my travel trailer, we like to camp. When it comes down to it, I really used or use now what ever I got in preparation. And it's always good to have an evacuation plan. Remember the Jews in Germany before the war. Some got out six month to a year before the balloon went up. I bet they were glad they did that, dontcha think?

 

[BellyTank]

Yes but the threat was real and already under way.
I like tinned beans...
B :cheers1:
T

 

[BellyTank]

Comparing Y2K and Nazi Germany? :hamburger


B
T

 

[Biltmore Bob]

No comparison....

Just illustration...pays to be prepared, is all.

 

[BellyTank]

But with the Y2K-BS there wasn't anything at all to be prepared for-
it was purely BS hype for a mass moneymaker-
-unfortunately people believed it... others made a killing.
:cheers1:
B
T

 

[Biltmore Bob]

As it turned out, but what the heck, it was fun...and I'm glad someone made a little or a lot of money off it...wish it had been me. As a matter of fact, most if not all of the Fortune 500 companies really did not know what was going to happen when the clock hit the twelve mark. They all had some pretty extensive contingency plans, you know, just in case.

I'm still thinking 'bout getting an emergency preparedness kit together, and whilst I'm at it, I think I'll grease up the ole shootin irons.

 

[MK]

I completely disagree.

Very blunt but very true, well done The Mad Hatter.
Shows that at least someone has some perspective on things.
Very responsible and absolutely logical- there is no other rational or logical reasoning.
This thread needed some perspective-
B
T

A flippant and illogical remark might make a few people who have the same political persuasion grunt in approval...but that doesn't make it true.

To say that a US President started a war just to make a company money is not only ridiculous...it is also sloppy thinking.

Even the smart liberals that don't like Bush will tell you that.

 

[swinggal]

I think it's really just about questioning everything. Who knows what the turth is? Only time will tell. I'm not naive enough to think Bush started the war,but many people HAVE profited from wars in the past. I'm not saying Bush is but many people (like his grandfather) do and have. There were so many allied countries making profits from the Nazi regime in WW2 that it makes me ill to think about it. IBM with their punch card technology used in the death camps, Coke, Ford, General Motors (Opel), Du Pont, ITT. All of whom should have boycotted selling anything or having any dealings with the Nazis full stop after the war began.

Like my wise old grandad who fought in WW2 used to say, "Because allied countries continued trading with the Nazis it sent them a clear message that they could get away with what they were doing which was so wrong! It made me wonder what the hell I was fighting for sometimes! Every allied product should have been banned!"

I guess some companies don't know how to draw the line between making money and profiteering from others suffering...or they just don't care as long as the profits continue to roll in. I just want that to stop. Terrorism is an evil thing and no-one should profit form it.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter (partisan) is the way they operate. Traditionaly terrorists kill anybody, even the very people they claim to be trying to help. They target mass transportation, schools, police stations, hospitals, etc... A freedom fighter specifically targets the source of his oppression and goes after his antagonists. There may be collateral damage but he tries to limit it. The freedom fighter is the good guy, his contemporaries like him. The terrorist is despised and feared even by his commrads in many cases.

Good one Scotty, But I don't think the promulgators of Y2K and the Green House Effect are related. Global Warming warnings are coming from the far left. The liberals were the ones who claimed nothing was going to happen when Y2K rolled around. I hear the hue and cry about GW from the earth first crowd like ELF and Greenpeace.

"I think it's really just about questioning everything. Who knows what the turth is?"

Swingal, Pontius Pilate asked the Lord Jesus Christ the same thing....

 

[scotrace]

Sooo......

Anybody seen any neat hats lately?

 

[PADDY]

Good hats..etc...

Anybody seen any neat hats lately?

Well Scot, that's a very good suggestion my friend! especially in 'the Lounge.' so......I'm off to think 'nice fluffy' thoughts about good old fashioed hats and check up on the WWII section with a nice chilled cocktail beside me (the UK is cooking under the sun today!! nice change!!)

 

[Biltmore Bob]

The Observation Bar

Wanna talk hats? There's a forum for that too...let's see...oh yeah it's labled Hats.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Just wondering...

Why anyone would chime in if he/she did not want to disscuss the topic at hand.


Just call me Bob the thread killer.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

A flippant and illogical remark might make a few people who have the same political persuasion grunt in approval...but that doesn't make it true.

To say that a US President started a war just to make a company money is not only ridiculous...it is also sloppy thinking.

Even the smart liberals that don't like Bush will tell you that.

No, actually I think he started the war for complex reasons - personal corruption being but one of them.

But tell me, MK, do you have any facts to support your position or are you simply trying to insult me with statements such as the above?

 

[MK]

.

It is not my goal to insult anyone here. I am just trying to encourge people to not make outrageous accusations against people that don't deserve it. Political leaders need to be called on the carpet and be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately they also get slammed with all kinds of things that do not have merit. There are legitimate issues to question the Bush administration on. This is not one of them.

Saying ANY US President would start a war for profit is uncalled for. It is also illogical. That is in keeping with the mis-guided claim that the USA went to war for oil. It would have been far cheeper to just buy the oil without all the bloodshed. If we would have just turned a blind eye to what Saddam was doing, we could have gotten oil for a song.... like the French. It doesn't hold water. There are a lot of bumper-sticker slogans floating around that are not helping. We need to keep crystal clear on who the enemy is and what the real issues are.

The terrorists.....the subject of this thread......don't care if you are liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. If you are a Westerner, a Christian, A Jew or just don't pray to Allah, you are a viable target. They want us to bicker amoungst ourselves. Let's not give them the pleasure.

I am not trying to insult, but be a voice of reason. There is no need to be offended of take it personel. Everyone here is on the same side. It is always my desire that The Fedora Lounge be a place where the issues of the day can be discussed. Hopefully we can all learn a thing or two through the sharing of ideas.

 

[jamespowers]

Makes complete sense to me.
I just don't think that we ought to give in to the "Blame America First" crowd. We didn't ask to be bombed nor did we invite it by any of our actions it just happened because a group of people are intolerant of other people's religion and lifestyles. Nothing we do could change their view of us aside from converting to their religion period.
This is nothing new and goes back to the problem the Mongols had in the Middle East a very long time ago. Their response? They exterminated all that they came in contact with because it was impossible to trust them or let them become part of the Mongol Empire as they did with other religions and people.
I think our treatment of them is far more humane. The difference is that the Mongols didn't have to deal with whiners who were going to complain and cry no matter how hard we try to accomodate and treat these people well then complain later if anything should happen like an attack, bombing, nuclear explosion or dirty bomb should be used. "You should have known or something should have been done to prevent this" will be their cries but the truth will be that they prevented us from knowing or doing anything to prevent this. Quite a Catch 22.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Slicksuit]

I don't believe that Bush invaded Iraq just for corporate benefit, either. Some have suggested that maybe a personal vindetta against Saddam was partially responsible, with the backdrop of terrorism as an excuse.

In and of itself, I don't think that has much merit, until you consider that invading Iraq arguably does give political capital to Bush from his supporters...making it seem as if his administration is doing something to counter the threat of terrorism (all the while packaged in a sugar coating of expanded freedom for the Iraqui people). I think that Bush honestly believed that Saddam was a nacient threat to US interests, despite evidence that Iraq was a pipsqueak nation. Evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9-11 is sketchy and speculative, at best (at least in what's been released to the public).

Once we invaded Iraq, we are there to complete the job, for better or worse. I think that Bush believed that things would have progressed at least a little more smoothly than they have had (such as the failure of the 'shock and awe' campaign).

Did invading Iraq make the prospect of terrorism worse? Possibly. I think that all the talk of Iraq as a breeding ground of terrorism, post-invasion, does have some merit. Would Saddam have given sanctuary to terrorists? I find that unlikely, as I think that deep-down, Saddam knew that pissing off the US would lead to his defeat. And he wanted to hold onto his position more than anything.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter (partisan) is the way they operate. Traditionaly terrorists kill anybody, even the very people they claim to be trying to help. They target mass transportation, schools, police stations, hospitals, etc... A freedom fighter specifically targets the source of his oppression and goes after his antagonists. There may be collateral damage but he tries to limit it.

Wouldn't the RAF in World War Two be a terrorist organization by that definition?

 

[Biltmore Bob]

The RAF was the good guys. And drastic times call for drastic measures. This is an imperfect world. I guess that you could also argue that the US was a terrorist by sending the Enola Gay to Bomb bomb Japan. We have to consider the greater good too. Then we have to ask, "What is the greater good?" well, it's not despotism and enslavery. It's not genocide. And I'll agree with some, we should have done more in Africa and Yugoslavia than we did. But,oh yeah, that was when we had a different President.

As far as war for profit goes, where's the proof. I hear people people talking about big business, corporate greed, Haliburton, corupt polititions, etc..but what proof do you have. MK should not have to proove to someone that his president is not corrupt.

I like enterprising opportunism, if someone can make a buck from any situation, as long as a moral line has not been crossed, more power to them.