"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:

It doesn't take hordes. They're here or on the way. As to what they are
waiting for, well, whatever they are waiting for, right? We haven't
done
so well so far guessing what they have in mind, eh?

Then why would you think your guesses are any better than anyone else?

They're not better than everyone else's...just better than some.

And worse than others. So that leaves them... average. And so far
completely without merit, at least since Bush took action, eh?

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:

It doesn't take hordes. They're here or on the way. As to what they
are
waiting for, well, whatever they are waiting for, right? We haven't
done
so well so far guessing what they have in mind, eh?

Then why would you think your guesses are any better than anyone
else?

They're not better than everyone else's...just better than some.

And worse than others. So that leaves them... average. And so far
completely without merit, at least since Bush took action, eh?


Which proves zip.

Your guesses? You're right.

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote:

Come talk to me about this again when a few terrorists blow up a
building or facility here...

Oh, I believe there will be another incident here in the US... eventually.
But not because of what the administration is doing. It would happen
anyway, and possibly would already have happened if not for us taking the
fight to the terrorists. That, specifically, is where your theory falls
apart. According to you, we are hurrying toward the event. I believe we
have delayed the inevitable, and most likely have foiled some plans along
the way. The facts, as they stand today, favor my hypothesis.

But we're both guessing, right?

Jack

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:25:43 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote:

Come talk to me about this again when a few terrorists blow up a
building or facility here...

Oh, I believe there will be another incident here in the US... eventually.
But not because of what the administration is doing. It would happen
anyway, and possibly would already have happened if not for us taking the
fight to the terrorists. That, specifically, is where your theory falls
apart. According to you, we are hurrying toward the event. I believe we
have delayed the inevitable, and most likely have foiled some plans along
the way. The facts, as they stand today, favor my hypothesis.

But we're both guessing, right?

Jack


Harry's saying that terrorists can blow any federal building at any
time they desire, but they haven't desired to do so.

You're saying they can't blow any federal building at any time they
desire, and, therefore, haven't done so.

I think your *guess* is much closer to the mark.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:04:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:28:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet. Anyone who wants to can drive up right
next to just about any federal office building in DC. If you think
otherwise, you're delusional.


And if the government suddenly decided to subject every person and car
to a complete search before nearing any federal building, you'd scream
that the government was violating their civil "rights".

There's just no pleasing you guys......

Dave


That's not the point. The point is that most of our Homeland Security is
a fraud. You cannot protect a country or its buildings or its
infrastruture against terrorists. If you think otherwise, review the
history of Israel, a country that takes security far more seriously than
we do, has more experience fighting terrorists, and has a much more
highly trained and motivated defense force than we do.


If your claim is that you can not protect something 100% of the time,
then I agree with you. But that shouldn't preclude us from getting
that number up to 60 or 75%. If even one or two lives are spared, it's
a worthwhile effort.

If all we can do is devolve into a police state, then we've lost.

So the alternative is to do nothing? Sit here in blissful ignorance
until the next attack comes and then sit there and "gosh-darn" and
"golly-gee" our way around the issue?

There is a workable medium between those two extremes. But you can't
criticize our efforts because they're not 100% effective on one hand,
and then accuse us of devolving into a police state in the other. You
can't have it both ways.

Dave