I Refuse To Be Terrorized

I’m only going to say that once.

This is my way of being ‘strong’ against terrorism.  If the active ingredient in terrorism is fear, then I chose not to be afraid.  Eat that al Qaeda!

I guess what brought this post on was another one of those scary headlines that popped up yesterday: Al Qaeda Cell in the U.S. Or On Its Way, According to New Intel 

I know not everyone feels this way.  Enter Rick Santorum for example:

“Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view,” said the former senator from Pennsylvania

First off, which war?  Iraq?  If that’s the case, I think Santorum might be right.  After all, if we get attacked here it would pretty much shred the already illogical rhetoric and justifications regarding the Iraq conflict that we’ve been spoon fed by the administration and their enablers.  You know, “fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”, and “spreading freedom will defeat the hateful ideology”, and “if we leave now, they’ll follow us home”.  Yep, I’d say that would give us a different view.  But do we really need a terrorist attack here at home to see it now? 

If he’s not referring to an attack at home, what “unfortunate events” is he referring to?  And is this guy actually using the botched UK plot in some sort of political context?  It sure looks like it.  He’s saying that if there were “unfortunate events”,  Americans will wise up or something.  Wise up to what?  We’re going to suddenly realize that we should invade yet another country? 

Look, I fully support the job that the FBI, CIA, DHS and the rest of the alphabet soup are trying to legally do to prevent terrorist attacks.  In the past, however, these operations were always done in clandestine fashion and success in these areas had usually kept a low profile.  That’s a good thing.  That’s the way it’s supposed to be.  But I’m afraid those guys can’t prevent this other kind of terrorism, which is the one where the threat alone is used as a political weapon.  I think they call it fearmongering.  Maybe it’s the wrong term.  But what else do you call an attempt to literally scare the populace into voting for a particular political party?

someone tell me when it’s safe, ok?

Advertisement

WMD’s Go Out, Bomb Belts Come In

Remember that favorite wingnut talking point about why we never found WMD’s in Iraq?  It still comes up every so often, even though it requires some suspension of disbelief.  Let me remind you: Saddam’s WMDs are in Syria

That’s right.  Saddam whisked away his precious WMD’s to Syria.  Presumably, his only real defense against an invading American military.  For some reason, Saddam chose living in a hole and having his palaces looted over using his stockpiles against his nemesis when they were invading his own country.  How noble of him.

Well, today, I saw this news on LGF:  Iraqi official says 200 explosive belts captured in truck crossing from Syria

Iraqi security forces have seized 200 explosive belts in a truck that crossed into Iraq from Syria on Wednesday, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

The incident occurred at the Waleed border crossing point, Khalaf said. The Iraqi government and US authorities have accused Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq, a claim that Syria denies saying it is impossible to control the long desert border. (AP)

After 4+ years of war in the region and still no sign of those WMD’s.  If they’re in Syria, you’d think that someone over there would have tried to export something more potent than bomb belts by now.