Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If sufficient numbers of Americans traveled by rail, then that would be the primary target for terrorism.
Pretty difficult for a grown man to board a school bus.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama wants to raise gas prices
Obama wants to raise gas pricesFollow
If sufficient numbers of Americans traveled by rail, then that would be the primary target for terrorism.
Pretty difficult for a grown man to board a school bus.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Kastigir wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If sufficient numbers of Americans traveled by rail, then that would be the primary target for terrorism.
Pretty difficult for a grown man to board a school bus.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I would have rated Gbaji up as his last post is bang on....
Except for....
People dont want to target the US for some completely random reasons you know. Thye didnt just pick you because you make shItty TV shows. They have genuine grievances. Make some genuine efforts to recognise those grievances, and stop being the blatant enabler of those grievances.
Remove the reasons you are a perpetual target, and perhaps you will (again) be able to enjoy life and travel without being subjected to continual harrasment by men in fluorescent jackets who carry weapons that they like to flaunt at you 'for your own safety'.
Like Gbaji says. They are trying to inflict 'terror'. To make you scared.
It seems to have worked.
Except for....
Quote:
If sufficient numbers of Americans traveled by rail, then that would be the primary target for terrorism.
People dont want to target the US for some completely random reasons you know. Thye didnt just pick you because you make shItty TV shows. They have genuine grievances. Make some genuine efforts to recognise those grievances, and stop being the blatant enabler of those grievances.
Remove the reasons you are a perpetual target, and perhaps you will (again) be able to enjoy life and travel without being subjected to continual harrasment by men in fluorescent jackets who carry weapons that they like to flaunt at you 'for your own safety'.
Like Gbaji says. They are trying to inflict 'terror'. To make you scared.
It seems to have worked.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
The shoebomber was not trying to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon. Neither was the underwear bomber.
Thought exercise time! Why did those two bombers decide to try to take on a hard target like an airplane rather than just blowing themselves up in a crowded area? Like, for example, a New York subway train?
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:24pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The shoebomber was not trying to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon. Neither was the underwear bomber.
Thought exercise time! Why did those two bombers decide to try to take on a hard target like an airplane rather than just blowing themselves up in a crowded area? Like, for example, a New York subway train?
Because they, like you, are foolishly fixated on one type of attack. So I guess that's something else you in common with a bunch of poorly educated brainwashed individuals who just do whatever their leaders tell them out of an absolute faith that they know what's best for them.
Why didn't it occur to any terrorist groups to use planes as weapons for 40+ years? Wasn't one of the lessons of 9/11 supposed to be to *not* make the same mistake of assuming that terrorists can't or wont change their actions or methods? Isn't Biden basically doing exactly that when he makes his "and you don't have to take off your shoes!" comment?
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:11pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I think malls need to have metal detectors and that we should get screened before entering them. And all major sporting events. And some of those big *** churches in Texas.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
paulsol wrote:
I would have rated Gbaji up as his last post is bang on....
Except for....
People dont want to target the US for some completely random reasons you know. Thye didnt just pick you because you make shItty TV shows. They have genuine grievances. Make some genuine efforts to recognise those grievances, and stop being the blatant enabler of those grievances.
Remove the reasons you are a perpetual target, and perhaps you will (again) be able to enjoy life and travel without being subjected to continual harrasment by men in fluorescent jackets who carry weapons that they like to flaunt at you 'for your own safety'.
Except for....
Quote:
If sufficient numbers of Americans traveled by rail, then that would be the primary target for terrorism.
People dont want to target the US for some completely random reasons you know. Thye didnt just pick you because you make shItty TV shows. They have genuine grievances. Make some genuine efforts to recognise those grievances, and stop being the blatant enabler of those grievances.
Remove the reasons you are a perpetual target, and perhaps you will (again) be able to enjoy life and travel without being subjected to continual harrasment by men in fluorescent jackets who carry weapons that they like to flaunt at you 'for your own safety'.
That's great and all, but do you agree that everything else being equal, there's no reason at all to assume that a terrorist wouldn't choose to attack a train instead of a plane, especially if more people actually used the darn things so you wouldn't just kill the 5 people who bothered to show up.
Quote:
Like Gbaji says. They are trying to inflict 'terror'. To make you scared.
It seems to have worked.
It seems to have worked.
Sure. But "making us scared" is not the end goal. It's the means to achieving that goal. So giving them what they want so that they wont attack us, is hardly a good response, is it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I think malls need to have metal detectors and that we should get screened before entering them. And all major sporting events. And some of those big *** churches in Texas.
When the Vice President makes an argument for us to spend billions on "mall and sporting event" infrastructure instead of some alternative by highlighting the lack of security requirements when entering them you'll have a point.
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:18pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Because they, like you, are foolishly fixated on one type of attack.
And why do you suppose this is? Why airplanes? Just because they somehow have the creativity to lace their underwear with explosives to get past security but not enough creativity to find people somewhere besides on an airplane?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
there's no reason at all to assume that a terrorist wouldn't choose to attack a train instead of a plane,
The question you should be asking, but are too frightened of the answer and its implications, is why are these people trying to attack you in the first place. Their motives are far more important than their methods.
Quote:
So giving them what they want so that they wont attack us, is hardly a good response, is it?
If what they want is for bombs and bullets with 'Made in the USA/Israel/France/UK' to stop being used to oppress and kill them so that the 'West' can continue to live far beyond its means, then I'm all up for giving them what they want.
After all, if it was me and my family being forced to live in poverty, with the ever present threat of imprisonment, torture or death if I raise my voice to object, then I'd probably be looking at perpertrating some sort of retaliation against those who are enabling my 'leaders' to oppress me.
Common sense really.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because they, like you, are foolishly fixated on one type of attack.
And why do you suppose this is? Why airplanes? Just because they somehow have the creativity to lace their underwear with explosives to get past security but not enough creativity to find people somewhere besides on an airplane?
It doesn't matter Joph. The burden isn't on me here. The reason is not "so they can hijack them and use them as weapons". You're free to try to come up with some other reason, but barring that, I'm going to continue to state that anyone thinking that trains are somehow a better alternative to planes because you don't have to go through as much security to get on them is a moron. Not that this changed my opinion of Biden at all, but there you go anyway.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It doesn't matter Joph.
Of course it does. Come on, use your noodle for something besides spouting aimless rhetoric. Why airplanes?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
there's no reason at all to assume that a terrorist wouldn't choose to attack a train instead of a plane,
The question you should be asking, but are too frightened of the answer and its implications, is why are these people trying to attack you in the first place. Their motives are far more important than their methods.
In the grand scheme of things, absolutely. But in the context of whether trains are better than planes because you don't have to go through lengthy security and/or take off your shoes? Not so much.
Quote:
Quote:
So giving them what they want so that they wont attack us, is hardly a good response, is it?
If what they want is for bombs and bullets with 'Made in the USA/Israel/France/UK' to stop being used to oppress and kill them so that the 'West' can continue to live far beyond its means, then I'm all up for giving them what they want.
The question of "what they want" is far more complex than that though, and is made up of multiple motivations. And unfortunately the people making the demands are often *not* the same people who are being oppressed. In fact, more often than not, they're the ones doing the oppressing (or the ones who want to be the next group to do the oppressing).
Quote:
After all, if it was me and my family being forced to live in poverty, with the ever present threat of imprisonment, torture or death if I raise my voice to object, then I'd probably be looking at perpertrating some sort of retaliation against those who are enabling my 'leaders' to oppress me.
Uh huh. And the power gained by those who use you isn't anything to be concerned about at all, right? Or do you actually believe that if all the western nations just all stopped buying oil and involving ourselves in the affairs of the ME, that the whole region would become a paradise of peace and love? Really?
Quote:
Common sense really.
One born every minute is more like it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140gbaji,
Posted: Mar 07 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why not trains? Isn't that the much more relevant question?
gbaji wrote:
Why not trains? Isn't that the much more relevant question?
You don't think the motivation for choosing an airplane is relevant in comparing them to trains?
Seriously, Gbaji. Why airplanes? Stop dodging and just answer it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Or do you actually believe that if all the western nations just all stopped buying oil and involving ourselves in the affairs of the ME, that the whole region would become a paradise of peace and love? Really?
They arn't pissed off that you are buying their oil, or that the West has involvement in the region. They are pissed off that the West has supported the oppressive, violent dictatorial regimes that have resulted in a living hell for vast numbers of people. Have you no awareness of whats going on over there at all?
Its not about 'peace and love'. Its about letting people live their lives with the minimum of intervention and control, free to pursue their own personal happiness. Something you bang on about all the time....but only for 'us' in the West. Those people dont want to spend all their lives struggling to eat, to educate their kids or fighting and dying because thats all they have left.
They want to live their lives to the best of their abilities. The same as me and you. The inate racism that 'we' (generic 'we') in the West have towards those people is what enables their oppression. And as long as we think of them as 'lesser', then their oppression will be continued.
And as can be seen throughout the region atm, they, like us, have a point where they stand up and say 'FUck you, we've had enough'.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
You don't think the motivation for choosing an airplane is relevant in comparing them to trains?
Seriously, Gbaji. Why airplanes? Stop dodging and just answer it.
Seriously, Gbaji. Why airplanes? Stop dodging and just answer it.
Unfortunately he'll never understand how you've cornered him. He's either honestly too stupid to understand the point you're making, or too proud to admit it.
Lemme help you out, gbaji.
If you just want to kill a lot of people, a train is a stupid target. For that matter, so is killing the number of people on a plane. If you want to kill a TON of people, you CRASH A PLANE INTO A TON OF PEOPLE.
Can we move on now to the part where you pretend like this is irrelevant or some other ****?
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You don't think the motivation for choosing an airplane is relevant in comparing them to trains?
Seriously, Gbaji. Why airplanes? Stop dodging and just answer it.
Seriously, Gbaji. Why airplanes? Stop dodging and just answer it.
Unfortunately he'll never understand how you've cornered him. He's either honestly too stupid to understand the point you're making, or too proud to admit it.
Lemme help you out, gbaji.
If you just want to kill a lot of people, a train is a stupid target. For that matter, so is killing the number of people on a plane. If you want to kill a TON of people, you CRASH A PLANE INTO A TON OF PEOPLE.
Can we move on now to the part where you pretend like this is irrelevant or some other sh*t?
Well, it's also more about the symbolism of bringing down a plane, specifically. The symbolism of making the most strictly securitized public place feel unsafe. And showing the US government to be inept in its security measures.
^All of which was pretty much already stated earlier in this thread, just not in so many words.
Not to mention it's a lot easier to guide a plane to exactly where you want it to go.
Damn those pesky metal tracks.
Damn those pesky metal tracks.
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I think malls need to have metal detectors and that we should get screened before entering them. And all major sporting events. And some of those big *** churches in Texas.
When the Vice President makes an argument for us to spend billions on "mall and sporting event" infrastructure instead of some alternative by highlighting the lack of security requirements when entering them you'll have a point.
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:18pm by gbaji
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
trickybeck wrote:
Well, it's also more about the symbolism of bringing down a plane, specifically. The symbolism of making the most strictly securitized public place feel unsafe. And showing the US government to be inept in its security measures.
Trickybeck gets it. 9/11 was about using the planes as weapons to attack the US government and commerce. The subsequent attacks have been about humiliating the government by showing it unable to protect its citizens in a place filled with government agents, security, metal/chemical detectors, etc. The bombers didn't go on a plane because they had never heard of a train before or didn't know where the nearest Christmas-packed church was. They did it because they wanted to bring down a plane for the symbolism of bringing a bomb past all of our security and taking down the thing the government's been fanatical about protecting.
Gbaji's shallow mind though reads this as they're just "foolishly fixated on one type of attack" 'cause their idiot leaders tell them to do it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I think malls need to have metal detectors and that we should get screened before entering them. And all major sporting events. And some of those big *** churches in Texas.
When the Vice President makes an argument for us to spend billions on "mall and sporting event" infrastructure instead of some alternative by highlighting the lack of security requirements when entering them you'll have a point.
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:18pm by gbaji
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Sporting venues are typically watched by private security though, not TSA/Homeland Security government folks. I don't know if it gets stepped up for Superbowl/World Series style events.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I think malls need to have metal detectors and that we should get screened before entering them. And all major sporting events. And some of those big *** churches in Texas.
When the Vice President makes an argument for us to spend billions on "mall and sporting event" infrastructure instead of some alternative by highlighting the lack of security requirements when entering them you'll have a point.
Edited, Mar 7th 2011 6:18pm by gbaji
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#151REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 10 2011 at 11:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hope-and-change-gas-prices-have-gone-67-percent-obama-became-president_553930.html
Recent Visitors: 267
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama wants to raise gas prices
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC