h1

I Refuse To Be Terrorized

July 11, 2007

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?

duckcover.jpg
someone tell me when it’s safe, ok?

Advertisements

19 comments

  1. Unfortunately, we no longer have the “duck and cover” drills of the 50’s and the 60’s. What in the world will we do now?!


  2. Funny, I was going to add a ‘duck and cover’ pic to this post. lol

    Here comes…


  3. Oh, come on… you know he’s talking about the WOT.


  4. I liked duck and cover, like that desk was really going to save our behinds.

    I find it very laughable that they would come up with this crap just as Bush is loosing GOP support and 6 months before the first primary. Chertoff with his gut feeling, I bet it was gas. How very transparent.

    I only fear the next maniac step of Bush and the gang.


  5. Oh, come on… you know he’s talking about the WOT.

    Fine. Suppose he is. What will be our ‘different view’? We’ll suddenly support Bush and Cheney? We’ll say “Go ahead and bomb Iran”? Insist that Muslims head for internment camps? I still don’t get it.


  6. The people who listen to John Edwards will shut up about the bumper sticker stuff. Finally.

    I suppose if they could prove Iran was connected, we’d bomb Iran.


  7. Hmmm…I have been saying that the WoT is just a phrase for quite a while now. I don’t think another attack would change that.


  8. You make some good points. I think there is a fine line between being prepared for an attack and fearmongering. What we need is an intelligent debate (i.e. without rhetoric and emotion) about which party (or candidate, or whatever) has the better solutions to oombat terrorism. Of couse, this is not helped when, during every debate, Rudy yells “I was there on 9/11.” Then again, the democrats scream “civil liberties” when the government so much as takes somebody’s library card away. We need rational solutions that will measurably decrease the amount of terrorists in the world – and, at the same time, control border entries. If that means waterboarding, then waterboard for heaven’s sake – just do a better job of keeping it out of the New York Times.


  9. If Lefties aren’t afraid of terrorism, then why are they always complaining that the administration is trying to keep people in fear?
    It’s obviously not working if people aren’t afraid.

    Sometimes I think that Lefty complains way too much.


  10. In Congress, yes, no one else gave up on it. I suggest they find a creative new term, since they don’t seem to like ‘Islamist’, or, come to think of it, anything that can be connected with Islam. If you’re going to deny that there is a coherent effort in all of the separate countries we are workig in to fight terrorism, you’re denying reality as much as if you were to say that Islam is a religion of peace.


  11. Yes, unfortunately, the NeoCons used that fear on America and it worked! No more though…


  12. I agree, the duck and cover generation gave us the 60’s lifestyle. The War and responsibility generation sent us to the moon.

    It’s high time we compare accomplishments, and chose a side.


  13. “Yes, unfortunately, the NeoCons used that fear on America and it worked! No more though…”

    It worked? You mean you were afraid Suzie-Q?
    Sorry to break this to you but the Jews (or NeoCons as you like to call them) Didn’t invent terrorism.

    And if you weren’t afraid Suzie-Q, then obviously the Jews (NeoCons) plan didn’t work, so why do you insist that it did? Make up your mind.


  14. Uh oh. Someone said the N-word in Sage’s presence. She doesn’t mean the Jews, Sage, as much as you want it to be so.

    Anyway, I look at it this way…

    Should the people who tell you to be afraid be the ones you automatically trust to keep you safe? Does the action of saying that there is a threat somehow qualify you to combat it? This is the fallacy here.


  15. Well, are you saying that the United States is not capable of fighting terrorism when we have seen at least o dozen failed plots in the last twelve months and no successful ones?


  16. Of course the ability to thwart plots is essential to combating terrorism, but the lack of a successful plot doesn’t in and of itself prove that your overall strategy is sound. For example, I would view an increase in the number of plots or a visible spread of the ideology as a sign of a flawed approach.


  17. We can’t stop people from being Muslim and thinking about what their religion really means without genocide. Not advocating genocide, just saying…


  18. If the active ingredient in terrorism is fear, then I chose not to be afraid. Eat that al Qaeda!

    Only the ability to understand how to work groups and individuals, will allow a person to judge whether those methods are currently being used or not.

    Of course the ability to thwart plots is essential to combating terrorism, but the lack of a successful plot doesn’t in and of itself prove that your overall strategy is sound. For example, I would view an increase in the number of plots or a visible spread of the ideology as a sign of a flawed approach.

    That’s a pretty good example, but do you really believe in such a flawed conclusion?


  19. That’s a pretty good example, but do you really believe in such a flawed conclusion?

    Sure.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: