Sean Conners aka SConn1

Like Fire, Fear Spreads When Given Plenty Of Air

▼

Like Fire, Fear Spreads When Given Plenty Of Air

fear mongering continues....

from JoeUser Forums
Recently, the White House continued on it's fear mongering campaign, instead of actually dealing with national security or anything that actually might do some good. This week's laughable JFK plot was just another example of rhetoric and fear over facts and reason.

The Bush appointed US Attorney, a group that has recently been scared into loyalty or face firing, announced the plot, describing it's results to be "unthinkable."

Yeah, they were unthinkable, as in impossible.

OF course, this isn't surprising from an administration who just a couple weeks ago contended that a few wanabees were going to go into the heavily fortified Fort Dix complex and somehow terrorize our military. A group that was so competent and skilled, they were found out by a Circuit City clerk.

What the administration failed to mention is that their description of the plot and the results of such an attack would defy the laws of physics, not to mention common sense.

Jet fuel isn't gasoline, and isn't nearly as volitile as what we put into our cars. It would take a minute or 2 just to get any ignition at all if one used a blowtorch. And it doesn't spread nearly as fast as gasoline would. There would also be plenty of opportunity to shut off one of 5 or 6 valves before it ever reached anyone. That is if there was enough oxygen, which there wouldn't be, in the pipeline.

And the governement failed to mention just how pathetic, like the Fort Dix crew, and others like the "shoe bomber" actually was. They had no inside information. No intelligence information. No funding whatsoever from anyone. All they had was what you and I have available at our fingertips, "Google Earth."

There was a real danger in relation to the JFK jet fuel pipelines. If someone could manage to shut down 5 or 6 airports fuel supply, it would have an impact. Tho, we probably would find a way to adapt around the inconveniences, like we always do.

What's more stunning than the plot, is the fact that this US Attorney that worked on this case for about a year and a half didn't even know the real dangers or the physics of the whole situation. Whether she was speaking out of her own ignorance or was directed to spew things that simply weren't in the spectrum of reality is anyone's guess at this point.

This is at least the 13th time the administration has used these lame fear tactics where they either hype up some wanabees who are a bigger danger to themselves in all likelihood than they are to anyone else or use sketchy, old info as if it was current and solid.

The following link reprints a transcript from Countdown, which details the fear mongering...

Link
20,365 views 65 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
We can't act militarily because the U.N. and europe will have their fits,


that's a nice bitch, but the reality is that we can do very little militarily because this is not a military conflict. the overemphasis of military intervention in all of this since 9/11 has been ridiculous.

we have so many "smarter " options to hunt and kill terrorists covertly and with quick strike special force units. the use of massive groundtroops to occupy territories in hostile lands will get us nowhere, actually, worse than nowhere...it takes us backwards. we've been watching the 4+ year backpedal and sit here and "hope" it will turn around somehow.

our diplomatic efforts have been embarrassing, to say the least. this "we don't talk to our enemies" crap is about the worst policy this nation may have ever seen.

kruchev told us point blank "we will bury you" and that didn't stop us talking.

and putting up ridiculous "pre-conditions" that are basically "you do everything we want you to do BEFORE the negotiations start, and we'll negotiate with you."

on what planet would anyone accept those conditions? would you?

we could do 1 thing that could turn many hearts and minds around...and it wouldn't require 1 shot be fired. all we need do is tell our "friends" in the arab world, like the saudi's, the egyptians, the kuwaitis, etc...would it turn everyone around? of course not. the "hardened" terrorist will never be turned around. but it will further isolate and seperate our friends from our enemies.

all we need do is ORDER them to publicly acknowledge and positively promote the aid we provide each and every one of them each and every year. and if they don't, no more aid. right now, none of them do in any meaningful, pblic way to their people.

and all it would take is for 1 member of congress to propose the legislation.

this bill would have MASSIVE AND OVERWHELMING SUPPORT with the american people. from the anti muslim redneck to the pacifict, flower holding hippie. no one can argue that it would be to our benefit if they would actually tell their people exactly how much we do for them every year.

the 1 ally that won't do that is pakistan, which is another issue. mushariff is weak, and could be thrown out in the near future. and while evreyone is being fed dirt on iran, al quaeda enjoys safe haven and a central base of operations in pakistan. mushariff is obviously powerless to stop it. we must take the bull by the horns here. if we are at all serious, we must finish what we started in afghanastan and go into pakistan and kick the living shit out of them and get osama once and for all.

will osama's death or capture end al quaeda? no. but as long as he gets to continue his flaunting, his legend grows. his influence will only snowball. and where his death or capture may start some legends and lore amongst arabs, his continued evasion of our efforts is worse.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, and you know better. When the flow of the conversation goes against him he makes the distinction, and then next week he'll be calling Islam a cancer again with no intention of prefixing "fundy" on it.
---Baker

This isn't true and you know it. I use those adjectives all the time in my writing. Whatever. Okay....I see where you're coming from; sorry I neglected to use the all-important disclaimer when I made my "Islam is a cancer" statement. And not only are you an apologist and an appeaser, you're also an opportunist. For example:

One more thing. People like Rightwinger vilify the "Christian" position on this. The idea of turning the other cheek, of allowing people to be innocent until proven guilty., etc. is to them weakness. After all, it just makes us sitting ducks to them, right?
---Baker

I love how you can dismiss and chuckle derisively about Christians and Christianity in general when it suits you (I've noticed your blatant disdain for KFC), but will champion its beliefs when it supports your position. You're an arrogant, condescending, self-righteous jerk, Baker. Christians are allowed to defend themselves....as a scoffer and a general outsider, you'd have no real way of realizing that. As I said, your semantics are flawless.

And for someone older, up thru their 60's, all you pretty much know is that the USA is a country that put their puppet dictator in place in your country. and when they dared defy his brutality, the usa has been threatening to destroy you, your family, your friends and your nation. and he might be a bit defensive about that.
---Sean

Yes, we did install a puppet dictator....we over threw a Soviet puppet who bankrupted Iran, and put in one of our own. Welcome to the Cold War.
Our puppet dragged Iran into the 20th Century, brutalizing the people with terrors like secularized government and education, and woman's rights, and the horrors of new schools, hospitals and factories, all paid for by Western investment and oil money. He was opposed, and overthrown, by....Wow...Fundamentalist radicals....! And what did the Iranian people get in their wonderful Fundamentalist Revolution of 1979? A return to the thrilling days of 7th century Arabia, when men were men and women were property. A return to the old days of chopping off the hands of a thief and stoning women to death, for the shame they brought on their families....by being raped. Or wearing makeup...or showing their wrists or ankles....or leaving the house without the permission or accompaniment of a male relative. Barbarians....savages. And you can defend them.

I hate any literalist silliness that makes people deny reality in favor of something some guy wrote hundreds or thousands of years ago.
---Baker

But this is exactly what you do....you deny reality; everyone sees it. I'm not going into it again....you know how I feel.


Short of that, people will just keep creating the same environment he predicts here. He'll call us monsters, in response we'll act like monsters, and another generation of young Muslims around the world will fear us in the EXACT same way that Rightwinger fears them. Like I said to charles above, all this "self preservation" bias works both ways.
---Baker

But what you keep missing is the fact that, despite the Fundie propaganda, no one....not me, not Parated, not Charles C., not drmiler.....no one here....is calling for the destruction of the Islamic way of life. Personally, I could give a crap less what they do. Live your life, I live mine....but there are many Islamic people and organizations out there who are, quite loudly and seriously, saying WE should be destroyed. That our way of life should be ended, in favor of their own....for whatever reason, you seem to dismiss this fact. Very easily. I can't do that. No one should, in my opinion.

P.S. Rightwinger: I gave you a lot more than one insightful, and frankly I would again. On this point, though, you are wrong, and the efforts that you and people like you undertake on the Internet defame yourself and your country, and serve the interests of evil people.
---Baker

Well, that's fine....thank you; but I'm not wrong here. You are, and you're one of the few here who just can't, or won't, see it. I'm opposing the interests of evil people; would my just smiling and saying "don't worry, be happy" and ignoring them make the terrorists stop? No....it wouldn't.
In a way, you remind me of Kevin Bacon's character at the end of "Animal House"...chaos is raining down all over the town, and he's standing there smiling and assuring the screaming people "Have no fear! All is well! Don't worry!" Eventually, he's trampled flat by the crowd running screaming from the chaos. Good luck.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I love how you can dismiss and chuckle derisively about Christians and Christianity in general when it suits you (I've noticed your blatant disdain for KFC), but will champion its beliefs when it supports your position."


I'll deride hypocrisy no matter whether it is my religion or someone else's. Unlike others, I don't devote my ire specifically to any one flavor of stupidity, and I don't in any way avoid my own religion. I've been up to my neck in religion for most of my life, easily long enough to know that the problems Islam faces are universal in all religions; they are just expressed differently in different places.

"But what you keep missing is the fact that, despite the Fundie propaganda, no one....not me, not Parated, not Charles C., not drmiler.....no one here....is calling for the destruction of the Islamic way of life."


Yeah, you're claiming that one of these days these "people" are going to kill me in my sleep, and, granted, you DON'T say what you wanna do about it. I have to assume that a) you don't have a clue what to do about it, or b) you do and you'd rather not say it out loud. I've got a feeling you'd have more ideas in a less public venue. I would assume you think cancers should be cured, though.

Like I said, between the two of us, you'd be the one Osama would quote to make his points about how hateful Americans are. Live with that if you can.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's a thought, how would you like it if you were judged by Hillary Clinton's speeches. She's one of your "leaders" after all. Heck, she's even in the same nation as you. More of an association than what you guys are citing more often than not.


Maybe you have not been noticing but the terrorist attacks that we have had were not attacks on specific people these terrorist were mad at. They attacked civilians for the actions of our Gov't. In other words all Americans are bad because of the policies of the Gov't. How do you like the idea that you think radical terrorist are right yet when they blow up a bus you get caught and die. They didn't seem to have a problem killing you even though you agreed with them. Every time Bush flaps his lips we as Americans are criticized even by those who claim to be our allies. So yes we do get judged just for being American because of the policies our leaders chose to pass. You didn't actually think the 9/11 hijackers attacked the Twin Towers cause there was someone in one of those buildings they didn like personally right? You see what I mean about your analogies?

Again, are you talking about one fifth the world's population, or are you talking about those that are actually doing harm? You realize there are white Muslims, too, right? Philippino Muslims? Indian Muslims? Chinese Muslims?


Man you really do have a problem undertanding other peoples points. It's amazing how we actually agree on half of this conversation. According to you:

We're talking 1.3 BILLION people, one in five people in the whole world.


I am talking about everytime the word Muslim is used it describes an entire regilion not just 100 million or less that we are having the problem. I guess I should have said religion instead of race, that was my mistake and I have no problem admiting an error in words. If you wanna condemn me for errors be my guest.

It's like the technology thing before. I don't even think you know who you are talking about when you speak this way. You have a fixed image in your mind that doesn't apply to a tenth of the people you are directing your ire at.


Look Baker, I'll admit that ignorance is usually the cause of most problems this world has. Day in and day out the media feed us information that makes people believe different things everyday. The average person does not bother doing the research before making a statemnet or having an opinion. But then again that sound familiar doesn't it? Here we have a group of people who base their ideas of killing the infidels on a book that they can't even prove it came from their God and that according to many it's the same book the peaceful side of their religion claims the the opposite. While I admire you passion to set the record straight and force people to educate themselves before they open their big mouths (yours trully included), you tend to see only the silver lining of things while not putting much effort into somewhat finding some kind of understanding from those who can only focus on the dark side of the cloud because they are the ones making the trouble. As I have said before I do agree in the concept of not generalizing all Muslims and/or Arabs under the same umbrella (I am keeping my word here), but we should not ignore the fact that ATM it is of the Islamic faith that these people belong to and while one side claims Islam is the religion of peace the other claims it's what drives them to eliminate the infidels. But as long as the peaceful side sits by idle and allows the darker side to wage war in the name of their religion people around the world will look at Islam as evil. There are laws in this country that can put a bystander in jail for failing to prevent a crime. The same can be said about those who claim Islam to be a religion of peace and when they fail to help stop these radicals they are seen as accepting it.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Maybe you have not been noticing but the terrorist attacks that we have had were not attacks on specific people these terrorist were mad at."


Again, are you talking about terrorists or Muslims? You claim that I am not taking into consideration that you are talking about terrorists, not Muslims, but then you make statements about rank-and-file Muslims and pin the characteristics of terrorist attacks to them.

"Here we have a group of people who base their ideas of killing the infidels on a book that they can't even prove it came from their God and that according to many it's the same book the peaceful side of their religion claims the the opposite. While I admire you passion to set the record straight and force people to educate themselves before they open their big mouths (yours trully included), you tend to see only the silver lining of things while not putting much effort into somewhat finding some kind of understanding from those who can only focus on the dark side of the cloud because they are the ones making the trouble."


The difference between you and me is that I don't shift back and forth from condemning terrorism to generalizing all of Islam with the characteristics of terrorists. It's not a silvery lining, the friggin MAJORITY of Muslims are the silvery lining.

Is the fact that the majority of minority citizens in the US don't ever harm anyone a "silvery lining"? To say so would be shouted down as racist. If I were to say that the majority of Catholic priests never molested anyone, would you say that was a "silvery lining"? No, this is about tossing the baby out with the bathwater, however muddy the water is.

"But as long as the peaceful side sits by idle and allows the darker side to wage war in the name of their religion people around the world will look at Islam as evil. There are laws in this country that can put a bystander in jail for failing to prevent a crime. The same can be said about those who claim Islam to be a religion of peace and when they fail to help stop these radicals they are seen as accepting it."


I get so sick of seeing this. There is an outpouring of anger from Muslims after attacks, people just dwell on the ones who commit attacks and ignore the rest. I have wasted way too much time posting link after link by Muslims, many in the Middle East, who condemn terrorism. Does anyone bother to keep it in mind the next week when they have to pop their little anti-Muslim wad? Nope.

What the hell can an American Muslim do to stop terrorists that you or I can't? What can people in nations where they have no freedom of speech, etc., do? George Bush, with the entire military and intelligence machine behind him can't seem to do much about terrorism at all.

Again, people don't think. They don't put themselves in the shoes of the people they hold irrational biases for. If you are going to start tarring entire religions for the acts of the minority, you've got a lot of work to do in Christianity before you move on to other religions.

What have you done to stop Phelps from harassing and abusing the families of US soldiers? What did you do to ensure the quick capture of Eric Rudolph or other abortion clinic bombers/snipers? What have you done about Scientology's continued abuses? What are you doing to stem the racist Christian militias in the US, brimming with weapons and preaching the downfall of our government?

Have they committed a major attack on US soil? Nope. Neither had Islam until 6 years ago. How much could you do to prevent one?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
I get so sick of seeing this. There is an outpouring of anger from Muslims after attacks,
---Baker

But not as great as, for example, the "outpouring" after the bogus "Koran flushings" incident....or the "Mohammed cartoons" incident. Or after the Pope's comment.
I would like to see raging mobs take to the streets to violently protest the hijacking of their faith, and the fact that Muslims are killing people in the name of their god....but we just don't. I wounder how long there would be a terrorism problem if they would just turn all that rage on the Fundie radicals? It doesn't happen. They'll turn out in screaming, rock-throwing mobs, though, every time someone says or does any ridiculously small, insigificant thing they don't like. Yet, 19 of their own can kill 3,000 people at a stroke, and we see no such thing. And still you wonder why so many of us view all of Islam with suspicion.
You do only see silver linings, Baker...you seem to see the violent radicals as simply another stripe of "peaceful Islam", another "denomination"......like maybe they're simply the Methodists, or Episcopalians or Baptists, of Islam, rather than the hateful, destructive monsters they really are. You just don't worry about them.
And if, in your reply to my comments above, you were alluding the fact that maybe I'd like to see all Muslims in death camps, you couldn't be further from the truth. Though I'm quite sure that it suits your view of Neanderthals like me.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You do only see silver linings, Baker...you seem to see the violent radicals as simply another stripe of "peaceful Islam", another "denomination"......like maybe they're simply the Methodists, or Episcopalians or Baptists, of Islam, rather than the hateful, destructive monsters they really are. You just don't worry about them."


And you're a lying waste of skin without the intelligence to debate without making false accusations like that. Anyone that differs with you supports terrorism. This is the last time I'll ever address you. I've given this months, probably better than a year, and you are unreachable. The dust is shaken off my feet; I'm being pulled down into the mud with you.

Bear false witness, hate your enemies AND your neighbors, whatever. Talking to you just makes me hateful, and life is too short. Scoff at the meek, scoff at the peacemakers, call them apologists. Live with whatever judgment you make for yourself. You build the world you live in inside that empty head of yours. Live in your fear and bitterness.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wounder how long there would be a terrorism problem if they would just turn all that rage on the Fundie radicals?


Considering the mainstream Islamic response to the cartoons and the qur'an flushings (I've no idea what they were but whatever) was to shout a bit and complain bitterly to anyone who'd listen I'm not sure that would be an effective tactic against terrorism.

It sure hasn't worked for Bush, and he even backed up his complaints with a few poorly aimed military campaigns!
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
hey rightwinger...thanks for your participation here, but could you do me a favor? could ya turn down the size of your font a little?

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
And you're a lying waste of skin without the intelligence to debate without making false accusations like that. Anyone that differs with you supports terrorism. This is the last time I'll ever address you. I've given this months, probably better than a year, and you are unreachable. The dust is shaken off my feet; I'm being pulled down into the mud with you.

Bear false witness, hate your enemies AND your neighbors, whatever. Talking to you just makes me hateful, and life is too short. Scoff at the meek, scoff at the peacemakers, call them apologists. Live with whatever judgment you make for yourself. You build the world you live in inside that empty head of yours. Live in your fear and bitterness.
---Baker

Hmmm....you know what I said is true; how nice.

It must have hit you right in the ole bullseye; you couldn't really fight it, so you simply puffed out your chest in indignation and dismissed it entirely. How typical. You jump up and down, scream, stamp your feet and squeeze your eyes shut, foaming in impotent rage.
You're still an arrogant, , self-righteous, egotistical, condescending jerk, Baker, and an elitist, without the desire, or even the common decency, to admit---especially to yourself, let alone any of the unwashed, lowbrow rabble, like me---that there may be a truth or truths other than the one to which you so desperately cling.
Go live in your cloudless, baby-blue sky---tinted slightly rosy by the glasses you endlessly insist upon wearing---world, Baker....the rest of us will live in the real one. And when it all hits finally the fan....keep on denying what you see, right till the end. Anything else would be unthinkable. Typical.

Considering the mainstream Islamic response to the cartoons and the qur'an flushings (I've no idea what they were but whatever) was to shout a bit and complain bitterly to anyone who'd listen I'm not sure that would be an effective tactic against terrorism.
---Cacto

No offense, Cacto, but if you "have no idea what they were", and don't care enough to search them, don't comment. After all, I'd hate for your own happy, preconceived notions of Islamics to be rattled too much. But then, you're in almost as much denial as Baker. For your enlightenment:
They burned embassies and newspaper offices across Europe; and oh yeah, I almost forgot---and they raged and chanted and pumped their fists in the air and......oh, and screamed and burned flags and...uh...oh yeah; they threw rocks.

And all that was only for a few political cartoons. They did much the same stuff for Newsweek's erroneous reporting of the toilet-bowl "flushings" of Muslim prayer books, by US guards, at Gitmo.
If that sounds like simply "shouting a bit and bitterly complaining", I think maybe Australia is a little more exciting than I've heard.

hey rightwinger...thanks for your participation here, but could you do me a favor? could ya turn down the size of your font a little?
---Sean

No problem.

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

And all that was only for a few political cartoons. They did much the same stuff for Newsweek's erroneous reporting of the toilet-bowl "flushings" of Muslim prayer books, by US guards, at Gitmo.
If that sounds like simply "shouting a bit and bitterly complaining", I think maybe Australia is a little more exciting than I've heard.


First of all - so that's the incident you meant! I couldn't pick it from your initial description.

More topically - I guess Australia is more exciting, although the throwing of rocks and the burning of embassies are frankly a surprise to me. This really happened everywhere with a Muslim population? How strange I never heard about it beyond a handful of chronologically isolated examples in the Middle East! I must have overlooked the billowing smoke and sky blackened from flung stones emanating from the Muslim/embassy district situated a few miles away from where I live.

Oh, and in Australia it's not uncommon for protests to involve screaming abuse at people, parades and the burning of effigies and flags, even over quite minor issues (such as perceived attacks on religion, or students, or the treatment of ethnic minorities). I'm surprised it's considered extraordinary and unthinkable in the US, but you are a different country; I can't get there by bus! Naturally you'd have different ways.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
How strange I never heard about it beyond a handful of chronologically isolated examples in the Middle East! I must have overlooked the billowing smoke and sky blackened from flung stones emanating from the Muslim/embassy district situated a few miles away from where I live.

Oh, and in Australia it's not uncommon for protests to involve screaming abuse at people, parades and the burning of effigies and flags, even over quite minor issues (such as perceived attacks on religion, or students, or the treatment of ethnic minorities). I'm surprised it's considered extraordinary and unthinkable in the US, but you are a different country; I can't get there by bus! Naturally you'd have different ways.
---Cacto

Just like Baker....you're semantics are virtually flawless. How proud you must be. Congratulations.

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top


Just like Baker....you're semantics are virtually flawless. How proud you must be. Congratulations.


I'm merely trying to point out that when we're talking MAINSTREAM we have to consider the actions of the MAJORITY. Incidents that only happen in a FEW places are NOT MAINSTREAM. Do you understand now or do you still there's only semantic differences (which coincidentally is a branch of linguistics entirely concerned with meaning) between MAINSTREAM and MINORITY?

Please let me know if you continue to have difficulties distinguishing between the two. I'm not sure if I'll be able to help further, but at least I'll know more accurately where you're coming from.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm merely trying to point out that when we're talking MAINSTREAM we have to consider the actions of the MAJORITY. Incidents that only happen in a FEW places are NOT MAINSTREAM. Do you understand now or do you still there's only semantic differences (which coincidentally is a branch of linguistics entirely concerned with meaning) between MAINSTREAM and MINORITY?

Please let me know if you continue to have difficulties distinguishing between the two. I'm not sure if I'll be able to help further, but at least I'll know more accurately where you're coming from.
---Cacto

I understand perfectly the difference between "Mainstream", and "Minority"....what you refuse to acknowledge is that a MINORITY--a Muslim-acknowledged 10-20% of 1.3 billion billion people---is still a big chunk of warm bodies. And, that only a very small MINORITY of the MAINSTREAM of that 1.3 billion seem to be willing to stand with us in opposition, which makes many of us--at least those who aren't in near-total denial--wonder if support for the terrorist MINORITY isn't really a MAINSTREAM ideal. Do you understand me, now?

By the way....if I took your comment #61 too seriously, forgive me. I kind of got that impression from the rest. If that's the case, I apologize.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the MAFIA? What, fighting for Christ hahahahahahahahahahahah! oh my, what a piss-poor analogy.


show me a catholic church that doesn't take their money. where 's the outrage? it doesn't exist.




So that makes them "fighting for Christ"? hahahahahhaha

Piss-poor analogy....still.


Is the Pope sending out "fatwas"    to the mafia to be carried out? Not in about 700 years or so.

Just a rock-thrower you are.