Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 30, 2016, 10:14:15 AM
-
John Kerry says everything would be okay if terrorism would stop being put in the news.
Media Should Cover Terrorism Less—"People wouldn't know what's going on."
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/08/29/what-john-kerry-has-an-idea-to-ease-the-publics-terrorism-fears-hes-got-to-be-kidding/
-
Remember, also, that President Obama has said that the U.S. can easily absorb another terrorist attack as well.
The elites don't really care about the plebs. The people doing the "absorbing" aren't important to them.
-
Remember, also, that President Obama has said that the U.S. can easily absorb another terrorist attack as well.
The elites don't really care about the plebs. The people doing the "absorbing" aren't important to them.
On 9/11, the 4th plane was probably headed for the Capitol or the White House . . .
-
I imagine they are trying to comment on the hysterical wall to wall media coverage that often accompanies these events and can magnify their impact. However, the quotes make it appear they want to censor the news which would be a horrible idea. I think they do want to censor the media.
-
I think they do want to censor the media.
But only the part that isn't actively working to swing the election to Hillary.
-
But only the part that isn't actively working to swing the election to Hillary.
So only about 5% would be censored.
-
On 9/11, the 4th plane was probably headed for the Capitol or the White House . . .
And do you think the Secret Service wouldn't have gotten the President out of the White House? It's the lowly plebs who'd have suffered the brunt, even of that attack.
-
And do you think the Secret Service wouldn't have gotten the President out of the White House? It's the lowly plebs who'd have suffered the brunt, even of that attack.
GWB wasn't in the White House at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bATjvty5p8k
But your point is taken.
-
And do you think the Secret Service wouldn't have gotten the President out of the White House? It's the lowly plebs who'd have suffered the brunt, even of that attack.
POTUS was in Florida at the time . . . and I'd be surprised if they could have cleared the "important" .gov buildings, since nobody was prepared for a kamikaze attack.
Not even the Pentagon.
(Angel Eyes beat my post by just a bit. ;) )
-
POTUS was in Florida at the time . . . and I'd be surprised if they could have cleared the "important" .gov buildings, since nobody was prepared for a kamikaze attack.
Not even the Pentagon.
(Angel Eyes beat my post by just a bit. ;) )
.....but they didn't have to be ready because there wasn't a 747 sized hole in the building so it must have been an inside job.
-
I imagine they are trying to comment on the hysterical wall to wall media coverage that often accompanies these events and can magnify their impact. However, the quotes make it appear they want to censor the news which would be a horrible idea. I think they do want to censor the media.
I would agree with them somewhat (not the censoring part, but the "tone it down" part) if they weren't ginormous hypocrites. "Hey media! Stop exaggerating the terrorist threat and causing a panic!" "Hey media! We need more exaggerated coverage on ZOMG global warming! We need panic!"
-
I would agree with them somewhat (not the censoring part, but the "tone it down" part) if they weren't ginormous hypocrites. "Hey media! Stop exaggerating the terrorist threat and causing a panic!" "Hey media! We need more exaggerated coverage on ZOMG global warming! We need panic!"
I was just reading some news article the other day, that mentioned the alleged " alarming increase in gun crimes." (Or some phrasing very much like that.)
-
Remember, also, that President Obama has said that the U.S. can easily absorb another terrorist attack as well.
The elites don't really care about the plebs. The people doing the "absorbing" aren't important to them.
The point would be, I think, that we're spending more resources, ineffectively, to combat such a low level of terrorist attacks that it is indeed "cheaper", even in human life, to absorb them.
Or do you support sacrificing freedom in the name of ineffective security?
It's like how the anticipated casualties from a dirty bomb are mostly from the panic - not the actual bomb or contamination.
-
The point would be, I think, that we're spending more resources, ineffectively, to combat such a low level of terrorist attacks that it is indeed "cheaper", even in human life, to absorb them.
Or do you support sacrificing freedom in the name of ineffective security?
It's like how the anticipated casualties from a dirty bomb are mostly from the panic - not the actual bomb or contamination.
Are the resources being spent ineffectively because we are aware of the terrorism? Or are they being spent ineffectively because we've tied the hands of the people who we have trained to kill people and break things? (As well as the people who enforce the laws, but are supposed to try not to kill people and break things.)
-
The point would be, I think, that we're spending more resources, ineffectively, to combat such a low level of terrorist attacks that it is indeed "cheaper", even in human life, to absorb them.
Or do you support sacrificing freedom in the name of ineffective security?
It's like how the anticipated casualties from a dirty bomb are mostly from the panic - not the actual bomb or contamination.
Again something I would agree with, but not coming from the likes of Kerry or Obama.
My most used line when arguing with the "safety over all" people is that "freedom is dangerous". I accept the danger. I accept the chance that I might be blown up on a plane in exchange for no TSA and other security theater. The Obama's and Kerry's though, want us to "absorb" but also want us to accept "safety" over freedom.
Obama has had eight years to dismantle the TSA. He has had eight years to eliminate all the intrusions that Edward Snowden brought to light. He has done none of that. I have to get wiener groped by TSA every other time I fly, but we have no problem letting 10,000 "vetted refugees" into the US from countries where there are no records to vet.
-
Are the resources being spent ineffectively because we are aware of the terrorism? Or are they being spent ineffectively because we've tied the hands of the people who we have trained to kill people and break things? (As well as the people who enforce the laws, but are supposed to try not to kill people and break things.)
I think the idea is that due to the constant news about terrorism, we get people panicking and reaching for anything.
And it's not the door-kickers I'm talking about. The TSA, for example, are explicitly not door kickers, but are expensive and ineffective.
We turn those resources into hiring actual police and we'd save lives by catching criminals faster.
-
Are the resources being spent ineffectively because we are aware of the terrorism? Or are they being spent ineffectively because we've tied the hands of the people who we have trained to kill people and break things? (As well as the people who enforce the laws, but are supposed to try not to kill people and break things.)
Laughed. Then Cried.
Again something I would agree with, but not coming from the likes of Kerry or Obama.
My most used line when arguing with the "safety over all" people is that "freedom is dangerous". I accept the danger. I accept the chance that I might be blown up on a plane in exchange for no TSA and other security theater. The Obama's and Kerry's though, want us to "absorb" but also want us to accept "safety" over freedom.
Obama has had eight years to dismantle the TSA. He has had eight years to eliminate all the intrusions that Edward Snowden brought to light. He has done none of that. I have to get wiener groped by TSA every other time I fly, but we have no problem letting 10,000 "vetted refugees" into the US from countries where there are no records to vet.
Yeah, I laughed at that, too.
-
We turn those resources into hiring actual police and we'd save lives by catching criminals faster.
Or there's even a free option; eliminate a lot of the malum prohibitum crap on the books and have the existing police focus on things that actually harm others.
-
The point would be, I think, that we're spending more resources, ineffectively, to combat such a low level of terrorist attacks that it is indeed "cheaper", even in human life, to absorb them.
Or do you support sacrificing freedom in the name of ineffective security?
Cheapest solution:
Keep them out, deport those here. Kill those that get frisky. Miller time.
It's like how the anticipated casualties from a dirty bomb are mostly from the panic - not the actual bomb or contamination.
Doubtful.
We had two skyscrapers get knocked down in 2001 and the people in Manhattan did just fine getting off the island or going to ground if they lived on the island, to include an impromptu Dunkirk operation between NYC and NJ.
These "anticipated casualties from panic" surmises seem to come from folk and organizations that might be a little less necessary if it turns out folk are more level-headed and self-organizing than they suppose. See "Cajun Navy" for a recent example and the Mississippi River flooding in Iowa & Illinois after Katrina, where folk managed to take care of themselves with little drama.
-
We had two skyscrapers get knocked down in 2001 and the people in Manhattan did just fine getting off the island or going to ground if they lived on the island, to include an impromptu Dunkirk operation between NYC and NJ.
IMO, the problem would come from a bioterror event, with infected people leaving the area and spreading the infection. Then you'd risk having any travelers shot on sight in certain areas in attempts to keep it out.
-
Or there's even a free option; eliminate a lot of the malum prohibitum crap on the books and have the existing police focus on things that actually harm others.
What have you got against fund raising?
-
I think the idea is that due to the constant news about terrorism, we get people panicking and reaching for anything.
Umm ... "See something, say something"?
I can't think of any slogan/program that could possibly be more geared toward stoking people's paranoia.
-
IMO, the problem would come from a bioterror event, with infected people leaving the area and spreading the infection. Then you'd risk having any travelers shot on sight in certain areas in attempts to keep it out.
If you want to look at something that is hyped, but never happens, look at nuke and bioterrorism. It is worth, but taking some care with, but a handful of terrorists with box cutters took down two skyscrapers.
-
I think the idea is that due to the constant news about terrorism, we get people panicking and reaching for anything.
And it's not the door-kickers I'm talking about. The TSA, for example, are explicitly not door kickers, but are expensive and ineffective.
We turn those resources into hiring actual police and we'd save lives by catching criminals faster.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I am damn well sure Obama/Kerry/Clinton have no intention of doing anything that makes sense. IMO, all they would do is censor the news, do more useless CYI actions, and try to profit/benefit from the media hysteria around the next attack.
-
If you want to look at something that is hyped, but never happens, look at nuke and bioterrorism. It is worth, but taking some care with, but a handful of terrorists with box cutters took down two skyscrapers.
And that had never happened until it did.
Frankly, it'd be a lot easier to infect a few "refugees" with ebola or similar right before they get shipped to civilization, and could play merry hell with all sorts of things...especially since they needn't even know they're infected until symptoms start, so no amount of questioning or background checks would identify them. For that matter, one willing martyr playing coyote at the Mexican border could be seeding the southwest with unwitting Catholic vectors who have no connection to the Middle East at all. Several coyotes could self-infect in series as each one becomes symptomatic to keep the job going for weeks.
-
I've actually always been perplexed on the bioterrorism - chemical terrorism - power grid attack issues. To my mind, they are the top "panic" alternatives.
Occam's Razor would suggest that the terrorists are just to dumb to do it. On the other hand, none of them are that tough to carry out. Perhaps so on a large and networked scale, but blowing up a critical substation that affects multiple cities, or a chemical release in a part of a city, or just letting a few people come into the country and be captured either carrying, or infected with, weaponized biologics would be enough to cause panic (with media assistance).