|
OT--Washington Post admits the obvious
April 30, 2005, 11:31PM Terrorist threats on U.S. at lowest level since 9/11 Officials think focus has turned to troops in Iraq Washington Post WASHINGTON - Reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States are at their lowest level since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to U.S. intelligence officials and federal and state law enforcement authorities. The intelligence community's daily threat assessment, developed after the terrorist attacks to keep policymakers informed, lists, on average, 25 to 50 percent fewer threats against domestic targets than it typically did during the past two years, said one senior counterterrorism official. Many counterterrorism officials think al-Qaida and like-minded groups are focusing on Americans deployed in Iraq, where they operate with relative impunity, and on Europe. Though some are expressing caution and even skepticism, interviews last week with 25 current or recently retired officials also cited progress in counterterrorism operations abroad and a more experienced homeland-security apparatus for a general feeling that it is more difficult for terrorists to operate undetected. The officials represent federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, state and local homeland-security departments and the private sector. "We are breathing easier," said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer, whose officers guard one of al-Qaida's expressed targets and who is regularly briefed by the FBI and CIA. "The imminence of a threat seems to have diminished. We're just not as worried as we were a year ago, but we certainly are as vigilant." "I agree," said John Brennan, acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told of Gainer's assessment. "Progress has been made." Brennan also said the initial post-Sept. 11 belief that there were large numbers of sleeper cells in the United States turned out to be "a lot of hyperbole." Some thought "there was a terrorist under every rock." But some intelligence analysts caution that the drop-off in terrorist-related planning, communication and movement could be a tactical pause. Brennan and others fear most what they are not hearing or seeing, especially the possibility that al-Qaida has acquired chemical or biological weapons and adapted in ways that have evaded detection. Analysts also say a flood of new terrorists motivated by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq may try to travel here and reverse the relative calm of today's environment. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... April 30, 2005, 11:31PM Terrorist threats on U.S. at lowest level since 9/11 Officials think focus has turned to troops in Iraq "think focus has turned" ???? No ****, Sherlock! ROFL! What's the diff where they attack us? Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ....wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? For a liebral? Not if it makes Bush look good. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. |
Doug,
I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home, we should wait till they attack us in our home. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. |
They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that.
"Dr. Dr. K. Grear" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message ... Doug, I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home, we should wait till they attack us in our home. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. |
s
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? |
Doug,
I think their game plan of not attacking us at home is working, they have us running scared. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that. "Dr. Dr. K. Grear" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message ... Doug, I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home, we should wait till they attack us in our home. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that. So I guess they did not *please* to do so since 9-11-01. Right. LMAO!!!!!!!! |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:02:04 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote: Which Smithers are you? Are you Smithers, Robbins, Hertvik, Jackoff? Appears to be one Brad Jesness. Check out this resume: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/nine.html dude has some issues bb |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. |
bb May 2, 5:20 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.boats From: bb - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 00:20:30 GMT Local: Mon,May 2 2005 5:20 pm Subject: OT--Washington Post admits the obvious Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:02:04 -0400, "Harry.Krause" wrote: Which Smithers are you? Are you Smithers, Robbins, Hertvik, Jackoff? Appears to be one Brad Jesness. Check out this resume: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/=ADnine.html dude has some issues bb **************** What inspires you to believe this one-man wrecking crew is responsible for the sudden flurry of profane attack posts in rec.boats? (It would be nice to discover that it isn't one of the regulars just gone off the deep end). |
"NOYB" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. OK, boy. If you think that last paragraph is NOT a non-sequitur, we're done with this. |
"harry.krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. The "intel" the Bush Misadministration "acts" upon is so bad that we have no way of knowing whether threats to our homeland are real or nonexistent. Why, after all that has been revealed about our ****-poor intel would anyone believe the Bu****es about anything? AFter 9-11 happened on his watch, Bush should have jumped from a helicopter into the still-smoldering ruins of the WTC. The blame for our intel failure can be placed at the door of Carter and the Democrats of the 80's. We were told to believe in a kinder world and the past actions of the CIA were considered criminal and they were forbidden to engage in tactics that were popular and sanctioned during the height of the cold war. A crippled CIA relied on Satellite intel and had no-one on the ground when needed. Clinton was more interested in disarming America than in foreign enemies (Waco). To be fair, Bush was probably an isolationist but he as a conservative was going to rearm the military after 8 years of consistent budget cuts for the military under Clinton and the fiscally budget conscious congress (Republican). I agree with your statement that we shouldn't rely on good news intel! I feel that the Bush administration is suffering from an erroding base and needs good news to get his numbers up. He has several agendas for US that need to be addressed and they are not being given fair play in the press. (For the most part not the fault of the press. That's our fault for not thinking thru these issues for ourselves.) |
Carter is actually responsible for quietly pumping funds into our submarine
program, something I think was a really good idea. Quite a bit of intel is gathered by those boats, although we don't hear much about that process. |
|
On 3 May 2005 02:51:52 -0000, Freddy the OT poster hater
wrote: It is going to be a bad year for OT posters. Better get used to it. you could save some bandwidth and be a little more truthful if you changed this sn to simply "freddy the hater". also, all those extra returns at the end of your posts are unnecessary. bb |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. OK, boy. If you think that last paragraph is NOT a non-sequitur, we're done with this. You said there had been an increase in the number of car bombings recently. Since the bombings are effectively targeting Iraqi civilians, why are they relevant to a discussion about terrorist attacks against US citizens? An increase in the number of car bombings against Iraqi wedding parties isn't of much interest to the average American. The fact is...the US mainland has not been attacked since 9/11, and US military casualties have fallen 35% in the last 3 months. We're winning the war on terror. |
"harry.krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message arthlink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .earthlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message tl.earthlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. OK, boy. If you think that last paragraph is NOT a non-sequitur, we're done with this. You said there had been an increase in the number of car bombings recently. Since the bombings are effectively targeting Iraqi civilians, why are they relevant to a discussion about terrorist attacks against US citizens? An increase in the number of car bombings against Iraqi wedding parties isn't of much interest to the average American. The fact is...the US mainland has not been attacked since 9/11, and US military casualties have fallen 35% in the last 3 months. We're winning the war on terror. How utterly naive you are. Terrorist attacks are way up around the world Not against American citizens they're not. , and we'll be hit again, Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. Four carried U.S.-issued passports; the other had a New York state driver's license, which is an acceptable form of identification at the Canadian border. The plaintiffs traveled separately and arrived at the checkpoint throughout the afternoon and night. Travelers who told agents they had attended the conference titled "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" were held for questioning, and women wearing hijab were asked whether they had attended the conference, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Council for American-Islamic Relations. "They were the victims once again of our government's overzealous and counterproductive ethnic and religious profiling in the name of national security," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. The lawsuit seeks to prevent government agencies from detaining, interrogating or photographing Muslims returning to the United States from religious conferences. The five Muslims want their fingerprints and photographs taken at the border destroyed or expunged. Homeland security officials said that 34 people were selected for the secondary questioning at Queenston Lewiston Bridge and four others at Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls. None was charged with a crime. "In this instance, we had credible intelligence that conferences similar to the one from which these individuals were leaving were being used by terrorist organizations to fundraise and to hide the travel of terrorists themselves," said Kristi Clemens, spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Clemens declined to elaborate on the sort of conferences that draw heightened scrutiny or whether people were held at other border crossings. She said U.S. citizens have the right to refuse fingerprinting and that the department has not received complaints about agents forcing citizens to submit fingerprints. Sawsan Tabbaa, 43, an orthodontist in Buffalo, took her four children in the family van for their third trip to the conference, which featured imam Hamza Yusuf. Yusuf is a prominent scholar who visited the White House in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to pray with President Bush and endorse his plans for military action. Tabbaa, who wears hijab, said that at 2 a.m. Dec. 27 she arrived at the border checkpoint where agents asked her about the conference and instructed her to wait inside the customs building. Inside, she said, "I saw all the people from my Islamic community." Tabbaa, a Syrian-born naturalized citizen, said agents refused to let her leave unless she submitted to fingerprinting. After several hours, she said, a female agent escorted her to a room to demonstrate the procedure. "She just grabbed my hand and [began] fingerprinting it," Tabbaa said. "I was just forced to do it. She grabbed my hand." As part of the lawsuit, the NYCLU and CAIR have filed a Freedom of Information Act request about policies related to the fingerprinting or profiling of U.S. citizens at border crossings. © 2005 The Washington Post Company |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "harry.krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .earthlink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message tl.earthlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .atl.earthlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message . .. Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. OK, boy. If you think that last paragraph is NOT a non-sequitur, we're done with this. You said there had been an increase in the number of car bombings recently. Since the bombings are effectively targeting Iraqi civilians, why are they relevant to a discussion about terrorist attacks against US citizens? An increase in the number of car bombings against Iraqi wedding parties isn't of much interest to the average American. The fact is...the US mainland has not been attacked since 9/11, and US military casualties have fallen 35% in the last 3 months. We're winning the war on terror. How utterly naive you are. Terrorist attacks are way up around the world Not against American citizens they're not. , and we'll be hit again, Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. Looking for an out already, eh? If we are holding people without charging them, and not bringing them to a speedy trial, we've lost the war against terrorism. Bull****. They're traitors...and, therefore, they have no rights. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. Looking for an out already, eh? If we are holding people without charging them, and not bringing them to a speedy trial, we've lost the war against terrorism. Maybe it's a new trick Bush's gang has learned from Putin. It's an old Soviet tradition, ya know? Chinese tradition, too. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. I have no problem with the "source" of this story...nor with actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Those 5 folks who were detained are certainly more apt to commit terrorist attacks than an 80 year old grandmother. It's about time they started racial profiling...especially for people who travel to "conferences" that have suspected ties to terrorism. Besides...questioning, fingerprinting, and photographing hardly qualify as "detainment". So what's the big deal? |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:51:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. Four carried U.S.-issued passports; the other had a New York state driver's license, which is an acceptable form of identification at the Canadian border. The plaintiffs traveled separately and arrived at the checkpoint throughout the afternoon and night. Travelers who told agents they had attended the conference titled "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" were held for questioning, and women wearing hijab were asked whether they had attended the conference, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Council for American-Islamic Relations. "They were the victims once again of our government's overzealous and counterproductive ethnic and religious profiling in the name of national security," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. The lawsuit seeks to prevent government agencies from detaining, interrogating or photographing Muslims returning to the United States from religious conferences. The five Muslims want their fingerprints and photographs taken at the border destroyed or expunged. Homeland security officials said that 34 people were selected for the secondary questioning at Queenston Lewiston Bridge and four others at Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls. None was charged with a crime. "In this instance, we had credible intelligence that conferences similar to the one from which these individuals were leaving were being used by terrorist organizations to fundraise and to hide the travel of terrorists themselves," said Kristi Clemens, spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Clemens declined to elaborate on the sort of conferences that draw heightened scrutiny or whether people were held at other border crossings. She said U.S. citizens have the right to refuse fingerprinting and that the department has not received complaints about agents forcing citizens to submit fingerprints. Sawsan Tabbaa, 43, an orthodontist in Buffalo, took her four children in the family van for their third trip to the conference, which featured imam Hamza Yusuf. Yusuf is a prominent scholar who visited the White House in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to pray with President Bush and endorse his plans for military action. Tabbaa, who wears hijab, said that at 2 a.m. Dec. 27 she arrived at the border checkpoint where agents asked her about the conference and instructed her to wait inside the customs building. Inside, she said, "I saw all the people from my Islamic community." Tabbaa, a Syrian-born naturalized citizen, said agents refused to let her leave unless she submitted to fingerprinting. After several hours, she said, a female agent escorted her to a room to demonstrate the procedure. "She just grabbed my hand and [began] fingerprinting it," Tabbaa said. "I was just forced to do it. She grabbed my hand." As part of the lawsuit, the NYCLU and CAIR have filed a Freedom of Information Act request about policies related to the fingerprinting or profiling of U.S. citizens at border crossings. © 2005 The Washington Post Company As it should be. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. I have no problem with the "source" of this story...nor with actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Those 5 folks who were detained are certainly more apt to commit terrorist attacks than an 80 year old grandmother. It's about time they started racial profiling...especially for people who travel to "conferences" that have suspected ties to terrorism. Besides...questioning, fingerprinting, and photographing hardly qualify as "detainment". So what's the big deal? But professor, you objected to the exact same type of policies when practiced by the USSR. Sorry. Can't have it both ways. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. I have no problem with the "source" of this story...nor with actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Those 5 folks who were detained are certainly more apt to commit terrorist attacks than an 80 year old grandmother. It's about time they started racial profiling...especially for people who travel to "conferences" that have suspected ties to terrorism. Besides...questioning, fingerprinting, and photographing hardly qualify as "detainment". So what's the big deal? But professor, you objected to the exact same type of policies when practiced by the USSR. Sorry. Can't have it both ways. No I didn't. I'm all for a National Photo ID card and fingerprint and/or retinal scans at the airport and border crossings. |
Harry.Krause wrote:
All good little fascists and communists want national photo IDs. Is NOYB a 'closet communist'? |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:55:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:
No I didn't. I'm all for a National Photo ID card and fingerprint and/or retinal scans at the airport and border crossings. So what's the new slogan? "America, Land of the once Free?" |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message arthlink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. I have no problem with the "source" of this story...nor with actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Those 5 folks who were detained are certainly more apt to commit terrorist attacks than an 80 year old grandmother. It's about time they started racial profiling...especially for people who travel to "conferences" that have suspected ties to terrorism. Besides...questioning, fingerprinting, and photographing hardly qualify as "detainment". So what's the big deal? But professor, you objected to the exact same type of policies when practiced by the USSR. Sorry. Can't have it both ways. No I didn't. I'm all for a National Photo ID card and fingerprint and/or retinal scans at the airport and border crossings. All good little fascists and communists want national photo IDs. Only us fascists with nothing to hide. What's the difference, really? We already have passports and state-issued drivers licenses. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:55:20 +0000, NOYB wrote: No I didn't. I'm all for a National Photo ID card and fingerprint and/or retinal scans at the airport and border crossings. So what's the new slogan? "America, Land of the once Free?" Land of the free-to-show-your-ID-card-and-be-on-your-way. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message arthlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .earthlink.net... Perhaps. But only if the ACLU continues to dismantle the President's authority to detain illegal combatants in this war on terror. You mean, the government's new hobby, detaining people like these? And, don't hand us any bull**** about the source, as you usually do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr20.html Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security By Michelle Garcia Special to The Washington Post Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08 NEW YORK, April 20 -- American Muslims detained at the border as they returned from a religious conference in Toronto sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday alleging they were targets of ethnic and religious profiling. The five Muslims, all U.S. citizens, say customs officials detained dozens of others from their conference in December, subjecting them to interrogations, fingerprinting and photographing. I have no problem with the "source" of this story...nor with actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Those 5 folks who were detained are certainly more apt to commit terrorist attacks than an 80 year old grandmother. It's about time they started racial profiling...especially for people who travel to "conferences" that have suspected ties to terrorism. Besides...questioning, fingerprinting, and photographing hardly qualify as "detainment". So what's the big deal? But professor, you objected to the exact same type of policies when practiced by the USSR. Sorry. Can't have it both ways. No I didn't. I'm all for a National Photo ID card and fingerprint and/or retinal scans at the airport and border crossings. All good little fascists and communists want national photo IDs. Only us fascists with nothing to hide. What's the difference, really? We already have passports and state-issued drivers licenses. Never read much WW II/Soviet State history, eh? I meant... What's the difference between a national photo idea and a passport or state-issued drivers license? Or even a social security card? |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Harold wrote: You don't really think anyone cares about your idiotic posts, do you? Who's Harold? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Harry.Krause wrote: All good little fascists and communists want national photo IDs. Is NOYB a 'closet communist'? Why don't you tell us, you live in a society that is closer to communism? |
Bert Robbins wrote:
Why don't you tell us, you live in a society that is closer to communism? 1930's Germany was closer to communism than America under Bush! |
Harold wrote:
Doug Kanter, Harry Krause, NOYB, Don White. The same old bunch of OT posters. Why don't you all just get the **** out of this group and take your **** to alt.politics.circlejerkers? That is where assholes like you belong. You seem to have a 'thing' for the male anatomy. Trying to 'come out of the closet', are you? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: Why don't you tell us, you live in a society that is closer to communism? 1930's Germany was closer to communism than America under Bush! I knew that a good communist, like you Don, would know a lot about it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com