If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...
Just to play devil's advocate for one second... Do you really think that Sept. 11 happened "just for the sake of killing Americans"? That screams of ignorance to me, no offense.
Let me explain my point of view by turning the tables on the point. If you were a resident of a small country and your country was invaded, bombarded and literally torn asunder by a much larger, richer country with far, far greater military superiority, how would you deal with it? You can't fight them in the trenches because they deal with your rpgs and assault rifles with .50 caliber humvee mounted machine guns and remote launched patriot missiles. So how do you, a poor countryman, stand up to that?
Terrorism does not just go one way, and the attacks against our towers pale in comparison to what has been done in the past to some of these countries. Our continued support of Israel in itself could be deemed an act of State-sponsored terrorism. And how about those missiles we launch from many miles away that they can neither see coming nor know when they are coming until they are there? I'd say that counts as "instilling terror". Oh but wait, it's not terrorism unless a Muslim does it, right?
This argument I keep hearing that says followers of Islam hate us for being us is ridiculous. The truth is that some people in some countries, who happen to subscribe to the Islamic faith, hate us for what we do to them, not simply for who we are. And that includes our overt military actions as well as the vast amount of military support we give to countries like Israel so they can deal out an ass-whooping or two.
If all you do is think in extremes, then we are getting nowhere fast. And it is thoughts like these that will eventually lead us into a police state.
the other big difference about what we do as a military and what the terrorists that took down the towers did to us was this:
we try to limit civilian loss in a war. they target the civilian population.
im not saying that the US has never killed a civilian in war time. Im not saying mistakes have never been made. the target and intended targets are military related. If it is a military target i have no problem at all with sending in a smart bomb launched from hundreds of miles away.
i understand your argument of "how else will they fight back" but that does not justify killing thousands of people just tying to get to work. if the planes would have just attacked military targets (the pentagon, the white house, military bases) and their goal was not to bring down our economy by taking out the WTC i could make an argument their actions, though against my beliefs, would have had more honor. unfortunately that was their goal; to kill as many as they could and make the people of the US suffer economicly as well.
as far as the nation of Islam hating the US for who we are... not every muslim hates us. some do. the ones that do hate us are the ones we hear all the time. it is easy to see that those outspoken muslims do, in fact, hate the us. the other part of the "all muslims hate us" problem is that there is no great uprising of muslim people that is being covered in the media. there may be an islamic group out there that is speaking up against terrorism but their voice is not loud enough to be heard over the roar of the crowd that is screaming "death to america, death to isriel, death to the infadels"
Not to support that kind of attack, but I think from their point of view they saw it as the most effective tactic. "Honor" is usually only a factor in the decision-making process of the party that will, in all likelihood, win the engagement.
Look at self-defense classes. These classes teach women how to kick a guy in the 'nads, or poke his eyes. These aren't exactly looked at as "honorable" fighting tactics, but the party on defense is assumed to be at a significant disadvantage. They are taught to compensate for this disadvantage by using less-than-honorable tactics. I think it's similar in the case of those terrorist attacks. The U.S. can clearly overpower their rogue "military" in a fair fight, so they are forced to use other means to accomplish their objectives.
Another way to look at it is that we intend to target fuel, power, and communications infrastructure in attacks. A guy who works for the power company may be a civilian, but that is still considered a valid military target. It will affect the ability of the target nation to defend itself. In the same way, our economy is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and a collection of businessmen all stacked up in a 110+ story building is too sweet of a "military" target to resist.
i see what you are saying about honor. ....and the "military" target of the WTC. i still think calling the US fighting tactics "terror" is at least a bit of a misnomer. we only try to strike fear into the hearts of enemy combatants, not the population at large.
im still not saying we are successful 100% of the time but its our goal.
Certainly the impact on the psyche of the average citizen in the target nation is far less impacted by a surgical military strike than something like the attack on the WTC. Of course, there are a number of old people in Japan who would readily point out that our attacks have not always been so precisely targeted at military. I'm sure those attacks were more terrifying for the average citizen than the WTC attacks --- and I vividly recall feeling very terrified on and after that day.
Certainly the impact on the psyche of the average citizen in the target nation is far less impacted by a surgical military strike than something like the attack on the WTC. Of course, there are a number of old people in Japan who would readily point out that our attacks have not always been so precisely targeted at military. I'm sure those attacks were more terrifying for the average citizen than the WTC attacks --- and I vividly recall feeling very terrified on and after that day.
im no historian, but im fairly sure that we did not have a "smart bomb" in WWII. we worked with what we had. what we had was carpet bombing with very dumb bombs (and later on a nuke). we arent the only ones that did that in WWII. Germany, the US, Japan, and England all took part in that.
its interesting to look at the evolution of war. such styles as carpet bombing would not be stood for in the present time. there would have to be a very drastic shift in the mind of people around the world for that tactic to be used again. ... same with Atomic bombs.
But if you look back even further in the evolution of war, a couple armies went out in a field somewhere and battled each other. This was a good way to eliminate civilian casualties, because the civilians left before the battle began. Obviously, at some point, somebody realized they needed something bigger to win the war. That's really where the line seems to get drawn -- the most honorable available tactic that will still result in victory.
Another thing - do you suppose the smart bomb was invented to minimize civilian casualties, or maximize the performance of the weapon in destroying its target? Obviously, the reduction in civilian casualties is a lovely side bonus and a great way to position it as a more honorable weapon, but I would suspect the primary motivation was its ability to reliably eliminate a very specific target.
This took place in Lufkin Texas. Yet ANOTHER example of how low the Obama camp is willing to go just to hurt someone that doesn't agree with them. Liberals are supposed to be more tolerant, but the only tolerate people who thinkg like they do!!
Dear Friends: We have had some interesting things going on our street this week but this 'takes the cake'. The election is less than a month away - people need to be aware of this information of the tactics that have been used this week on my neighbor. She is not a 'mental case nor political activist' just your everyday young Mom with small children and a husband out of the military. If this is the kind of 'change' Mr. Obama is referring to, we are definitely in for more than what has met the eye. What has happened here is not only appalling but frightening to think we may no longer have the freedom to speak against 'the powers that be' without the Secret Service showing up at your door. Keeping in mind, there is no taped conversation - simply a disgruntled volunteer who was not getting the response she was looking for. Jessica has contacted several politicians and news organizations - some who have told her 'this is out of my jurisdiction'. Pleeeze! Enough is enough - I for one will stand behind this young woman and notify every person I can possibly think of to make people aware of this travesty! I hope you will forward this on as well to as many people as you possibly can - especially to our elected officials and news organizations. Feel free to email me for verification.
On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as 'Obama Volunteers of Texarkana' (Texas).
She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied:
'No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' I hung up.
Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:
'I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor.'
My husband laughed and told them No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying. I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently Oh? Well why would she make that up?
I replied that I supposed she wasnt happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said Thats right, you were rude! The last time I checked being rude wasnt a crime in America.
Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, 'So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?'
They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama supporter someone calling from his campaign are you kidding?
I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house.
They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before embarrassing you by going to all your neighbors and family, another threat? I told them to be my guest and talk to whomever they wanted but they werent going to investigate my thoughts on my porch.
They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me I just say 'Yeah sure count me in, or just hang up' apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them more useless trips. Yeah right. I said 'Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?' I said I was sorry they made a wasted trip but if they had a problem with some made up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing.
At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show me their badges. They had done the quick flip when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female Agent refused to give me one stating Youre not going to get a card. The male Agent gave me a card and told me I could contact Houston with any questions.
The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didnt cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesnt have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.
I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isnt tapped, et cetera. I am hearing a lot of Out of my Jurisdiction.
Do I also hear jackboots? This is the most discusting act of political HATRED I have ever heard and it is sad thought our tax dollars were spent to persue this womans total lie! She should have charges filled for making a false police report and have to pay back the money it cost to send the agents to investigate!
Weird. I have a couple problems with the story, though, Puro.
First, the Secret Service makes its own determination about who to investigate. Nobody "high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America" has the authority to "bring the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen." Not a McCain campaign staffer, not an Obama campaign staffer, not a George Washington campaign staffer. If the Secret Service showed up at her door, that was the Secret Service's decision. They still answer to the current president, not the possible future one.
Second, if the Secret Service agent refused to produce proper ID, that agent violated the law and should be dealt with appropriately by her employer, the Treasury Dept.
Third, if the agents were rude and abusive, that, too, falls on the Treasury Dept. to deal with. I don't see how it's the fault or responsibility of Sen. Obama, since he does not have that kind of control over the Secret Service.
Fourth, if a campaign worker maliciously misreported this conversation to bring suspicion on this lady, that worker should be fired and charged with violation of whatever law(s) she violated. Her actions, however, should not be generalized to "the Obama camp." I somehow doubt Sen. Obama is even aware of the existence of every low-level phone-bank operator working in Texarkana, TX, much less what they're up to.
Fifth, if the Secret Service is still investigating this, that suggests they haven't found what the actual facts of the situation are, yet. Presumably, they know more details than you, me, or the Lufkin Daily News. The lady in Lufkin may be telling the truth, or she may not. Maybe we should wait for the evidence before we start allcapping about what liberals always do or how low the Obama camp is.
Sixth, your attribution of all this to "the Obama camp" -- or the lady's attribution of it to "higher ups" in that camp -- is difficult to make sense of. Why would the Obama camp do it? He's ahead in all the polls. He's gonna get drilled in TX, and there's nothing he can do about that. Why risk his lead on one ill informed voter in Lufkin, TX? The man's not irrational.
Weird. I have a couple problems with the story, though, Puro.
First, the Secret Service makes its own determination about who to investigate. Nobody "high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America" has the authority to "bring the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen." Not a McCain campaign staffer, not an Obama campaign staffer, not a George Washington campaign staffer. If the Secret Service showed up at her door, that was the Secret Service's decision. They still answer to the current president, not the possible future one.
Second, if the Secret Service agent refused to produce proper ID, that agent violated the law and should be dealt with appropriately by her employer, the Treasury Dept.
Third, if the agents were rude and abusive, that, too, falls on the Treasury Dept. to deal with. I don't see how it's the fault or responsibility of Sen. Obama, since he does not have that kind of control over the Secret Service.
Fourth, if a campaign worker maliciously misreported this conversation to bring suspicion on this lady, that worker should be fired and charged with violation of whatever law(s) she violated. Her actions, however, should not be generalized to "the Obama camp." I somehow doubt Sen. Obama is even aware of the existence of every low-level phone-bank operator working in Texarkana, TX, much less what they're up to.
Fifth, if the Secret Service is still investigating this, that suggests they haven't found what the actual facts of the situation are, yet. Presumably, they know more details than you, me, or the Lufkin Daily News. The lady in Lufkin may be telling the truth, or she may not. Maybe we should wait for the evidence before we start allcapping about what liberals always do or how low the Obama camp is.
Sixth, your attribution of all this to "the Obama camp" -- or the lady's attribution of it to "higher ups" in that camp -- is difficult to make sense of. Why would the Obama camp do it? He's ahead in all the polls. He's gonna get drilled in TX, and there's nothing he can do about that. Why risk his lead on one ill informed voter in Lufkin, TX? The man's not irrational.
I'm sorry, but most liberals are NOT tolerant of people who have opposing poitical views. Just look at the fact that Gov. Palin was supposed to speak at a benefit then was told she couldn't come because the liber speakers who were going said they wouldn't speak if she was there.
And yes, that woman no how big or small of a part she plays, she IS still infact a member of the Obama Camp. PERIOD! That is a fact, she works directly for them. I'm not even saying Sen. Obama had anything to do with it or even knows about it. But the fact remains that this person should be terminated without hesitation and have charges brought against her. I'm not blaming the Secret Service in any way either, I never did. They have to investigate something that is reported to them as a possible threat. Maybe the way they handled it wasn't appropriate, but they were doing their jobs.
You're still overlooking the question of whether any of this woman's story is true, Puro. The Secret Service doesn't seem to be convinced it is, or they wouldn't still be investigating. Like I said, if it is, the other woman should be fired and have charges brought against her. I'm not aware that anybody's disagreeing with you on that. I'm just saying let's wait and see what the actual facts are, first.
As for blaming the Sec. Svc., I didn't say you were blaming them. I'm blaming them. They decide what to investigate, and they decide how to investigate it. If they went off half-cocked on this one, then they're the ones who went off half-cocked; the Obama camp can't order them to do anything. If they misbehaved during the investigation, then that's on them, too.
I don't know what benefit you're talking about, but most liberals I've ever known are as normal, pleasant, and reasonable as most people. Some are loudmouth know-it-alls, and so are some conservatives.
You're still overlooking the question of whether any of this woman's story is true, Puro. The Secret Service doesn't seem to be convinced it is, or they wouldn't still be investigating. Like I said, if it is, the other woman should be fired and have charges brought against her. I'm not aware that anybody's disagreeing with you on that. I'm just saying let's wait and see what the actual facts are, first.
As for blaming the Sec. Svc., I didn't say you were blaming them. I'm blaming them. They decide what to investigate, and they decide how to investigate it. If they went off half-cocked on this one, then they're the ones who went off half-cocked; the Obama camp can't order them to do anything. If they misbehaved during the investigation, then that's on them, too.
I don't know what benefit you're talking about, but most liberals I've ever known are as normal, pleasant, and reasonable as most people. Some are loudmouth know-it-alls, and so are some conservatives.
Urbi, most liberals may be normal and pleasant. But Obama and his whole camp aren't. I happen to have it on good authority that he is really a Muslim who shares a name (and who knows what else) with the currently deceased former dicktater of Iraq. Hmmm, too many coincidences here...it just doesn't compute.
BTW, I've reached sensory overload with this election *** and can't take it anymore...sorry for hijacking your serious discussion.
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Liking her or not isn't the point though. It was a charity event that Hillary Clinton and a few others had agreed to speak at to help raise money and then said they wouldn't speak if Gov Palin was invited. That is low. That is totally intolerant of someone else's views and putting them ahead of helping a worthy cause.
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Isn't that a little harsh? Can't we just say she's in over her head? Maybe in 10/15 years she'd have been a little more ready for the show.
It's a statement of personal feeling. It may be harsh, but it's how I feel. Honestly, I find it offensive that she was even chosen. In 10 or 15 years, sure, things may be different. But she was nominated now. I wouldn't want somebody to have nominated George Freaking Washington when he was 17 on the argument that at some point in the future, he might be ready for the job.
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Liking her or not isn't the point though. It was a charity event that Hillary Clinton and a few others had agreed to speak at to help raise money and then said they wouldn't speak if Gov Palin was invited. That is low. That is totally intolerant of someone else's views and putting them ahead of helping a worthy cause.
Hm. That does seem like the wrong decision. My firm belief, though, is that you'd find a lot of liberals who'd agree with me, if asked.
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Isn't that a little harsh? Can't we just say she's in over her head? Maybe in 10/15 years she'd have been a little more ready for the show.
It's a statement of personal feeling. It may be harsh, but it's how I feel. Honestly, I find it offensive that she was even chosen. In 10 or 15 years, sure, things may be different. But she was nominated now. I wouldn't want somebody to have nominated George Freaking Washington when he was 17 on the argument that at some point in the future, he might be ready for the job.
It's funny that the republican VP Nom is being bashed for "inexperience" when in fact she has more experience as an elected official then the Democrats PRESIDENTIAL nom. If you really want to get down to it, she has more executive experience than anyone on either ticket. She isn't experieced in the b.s. of Washington, but why is that a bad thing?? She hasn't been drug down into the sea of corrupt immoral bafoons that fill the capitol building. Thats NOT a character flaw if you ask me...
It's funny that the republican VP Nom is being bashed for "inexperience" when in fact she has more experience as an elected official then the Democrats PRESIDENTIAL nom.
. . . who's also being bashed for "inexperience."
I'll just note that inexperience isn't what I objected to, and then let this one drop. Nothing personal, Puro. I just don't have the energy to have this particular conversation again.
I don't mean anything personal by any of this either, but I just don't understand your arguement I guess on the Palin issue because you even said yourself that is it was 10-15 years down the road you might not object... but you just said "inexperience isn't what I objected to" I'm not trying to pick a fight, its just that you kinda contradicted yourself on that one...
Not really. You're just assuming too much. I might not object 10-15 years down the road not because she'll have more experience, but because a person can change drastically in that amount of time. If that happened with Gov. Palin, she might be qualified to hold high office. Or at least she might not be a joke.
I guess this is a case where we just disagree on a matter of opinion. Neither of us is right or both of us are right. I don't see her as a joke at all. I see her as one of the few true conservatives out there. The only reason I think so many people see her as a joke is because of all the press she has gotten and the attention they pay to things that really don't matter. I think on the issues she represents many of the things that I believe to be good for our country.
A lot of people have played the "woman" card to try to get votes, I think that is wrong. Just like many have tried to play the "black" card to both get votes for and against Sen. Obama. That is also wrong.
My own wifes grandmother asked me if I didn't like Sen Obama because he is black. I couldn't believe she asked me that! Race, sex, religion are all things that shouldn't matter what so ever. If J. C. Watts would run for Pres. I would vote for him in a heartbeat! He was one of the most fine upstanding members of congress this country has ever seen. Of course that is probably why he got out there as quick as he did! haha
i have noticed a freakish amount of hate from my (way) left of center friends. i never put it together that being left IS the cause of being mean. however, i have never heard a conservative say they wanted to kill Clinton while he was in office, or kill Obama now. I have, however, heard several people say they wish bush would get killed, or wish death upon him.
i dont get that. he thinks differently than you. he is still a human no matter how much you hate him. If you dont like him or his kind vote him/them out. its how the system works.
one of my friends said something to me that i dismissed the other day: "if you wanna see real hate, just disagree with a liberal."
i would have not thought of that again had this conversation not taken place here. I am going to see if i can test this theory by going into the world and disagreeing with both sides and seeing how each react. its not scientific, but it will be fun and it will improve my argument skills. HA!
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Isn't that a little harsh? Can't we just say she's in over her head? Maybe in 10/15 years she'd have been a little more ready for the show.
It's a statement of personal feeling. It may be harsh, but it's how I feel. Honestly, I find it offensive that she was even chosen. In 10 or 15 years, sure, things may be different. But she was nominated now. I wouldn't want somebody to have nominated George Freaking Washington when he was 17 on the argument that at some point in the future, he might be ready for the job.
I understand it's a personal feeling. But there's a difference between not wanting her nominated and calling her a joke, and I think it's an important difference. It seems as a society we're now incapable of supporting our candidate/opinion/etc. without bashing or otherwise tearing down the other side.
To be sure, I think she was a very poor choice for VP and she's had some lame answers, etc. But that doesn't make her a joke or a bad person. I just think she was well-suited to be the governor of Alaska.
I understand it's a personal feeling. But there's a difference between not wanting her nominated and calling her a joke, and I think it's an important difference. It seems as a society we're now incapable of supporting our candidate/opinion/etc. without bashing or otherwise tearing down the other side.
It's not a matter of taking sides. She would be a joke no matter who nominated her, whether I supported that person or not. Conversely, there were lots of highly qualified, highly intelligent people Sen. McCain could've picked, none of whom I would've "bashed or otherwise [torn] down," but Gov. Palin isn't one of them. She's just laughably unqualified for the job.
Luko:
To be sure, I think she was a very poor choice for VP and she's had some lame answers, etc. But that doesn't make her a joke or a bad person.
I didn't say she was a bad person, and I disagree with the first half: i think it does make her a joke. A vice presidential candidate who can't speak a coherent English sentence in an interview -- even an adverse interview -- is a joke. A vp candidate who can't name a SCOTUS decision other than Roe v. Wade is a joke. A vp candidate who can't accurately describe the constitutional duties of the vp is the very definition of a joke. A really bad joke.
I don't say that with a harsh tone in my voice. It's just an observation of reality as I see it. I have certain minimal requirements for anybody who wants to represent me in high public office. Gov. Palin doesn't even come close to meeting them. To me, that makes her -- as a vp nominee -- a joke.
Comments
we try to limit civilian loss in a war. they target the civilian population.
im not saying that the US has never killed a civilian in war time. Im not saying mistakes have never been made. the target and intended targets are military related. If it is a military target i have no problem at all with sending in a smart bomb launched from hundreds of miles away.
i understand your argument of "how else will they fight back" but that does not justify killing thousands of people just tying to get to work. if the planes would have just attacked military targets (the pentagon, the white house, military bases) and their goal was not to bring down our economy by taking out the WTC i could make an argument their actions, though against my beliefs, would have had more honor. unfortunately that was their goal; to kill as many as they could and make the people of the US suffer economicly as well.
as far as the nation of Islam hating the US for who we are...
not every muslim hates us. some do. the ones that do hate us are the ones we hear all the time. it is easy to see that those outspoken muslims do, in fact, hate the us. the other part of the "all muslims hate us" problem is that there is no great uprising of muslim people that is being covered in the media. there may be an islamic group out there that is speaking up against terrorism but their voice is not loud enough to be heard over the roar of the crowd that is screaming "death to america, death to isriel, death to the infadels"
Not to support that kind of attack, but I think from their point of view they saw it as the most effective tactic. "Honor" is usually only a factor in the decision-making process of the party that will, in all likelihood, win the engagement.
Look at self-defense classes. These classes teach women how to kick a guy in the 'nads, or poke his eyes. These aren't exactly looked at as "honorable" fighting tactics, but the party on defense is assumed to be at a significant disadvantage. They are taught to compensate for this disadvantage by using less-than-honorable tactics. I think it's similar in the case of those terrorist attacks. The U.S. can clearly overpower their rogue "military" in a fair fight, so they are forced to use other means to accomplish their objectives.
Another way to look at it is that we intend to target fuel, power, and communications infrastructure in attacks. A guy who works for the power company may be a civilian, but that is still considered a valid military target. It will affect the ability of the target nation to defend itself. In the same way, our economy is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and a collection of businessmen all stacked up in a 110+ story building is too sweet of a "military" target to resist.
im still not saying we are successful 100% of the time but its our goal.
its interesting to look at the evolution of war. such styles as carpet bombing would not be stood for in the present time. there would have to be a very drastic shift in the mind of people around the world for that tactic to be used again. ... same with Atomic bombs.
...and I dont care what your point of view on any war its, that right there is cool.
NOT so KEWL on the receiving end I'd bet.
www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html?imw=Y
Dear Friends: We have had some interesting things going on our street this week but this 'takes the cake'. The election is less than a month away - people need to be aware of this information of the tactics that have been used this week on my neighbor. She is not a 'mental case nor political activist' just your everyday young Mom with small children and a husband out of the military. If this is the kind of 'change' Mr. Obama is referring to, we are definitely in for more than what has met the eye. What has happened here is not only appalling but frightening to think we may no longer have the freedom to speak against 'the powers that be' without the Secret Service showing up at your door. Keeping in mind, there is no taped conversation - simply a disgruntled volunteer who was not getting the response she was looking for. Jessica has contacted several politicians and news organizations - some who have told her 'this is out of my jurisdiction'. Pleeeze! Enough is enough - I for one will stand behind this young woman and notify every person I can possibly think of to make people aware of this travesty! I hope you will forward this on as well to as many people as you possibly can - especially to our elected officials and news organizations. Feel free to email me for verification.
On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as 'Obama Volunteers of Texarkana' (Texas).
She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied:
'No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' I hung up.
Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:
'I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor.'
My husband laughed and told them No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying. I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently Oh? Well why would she make that up?
I replied that I supposed she wasnt happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said Thats right, you were rude! The last time I checked being rude wasnt a crime in America.
Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, 'So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?'
They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama supporter someone calling from his campaign are you kidding?
I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house.
They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before embarrassing you by going to all your neighbors and family, another threat? I told them to be my guest and talk to whomever they wanted but they werent going to investigate my thoughts on my porch.
They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me I just say 'Yeah sure count me in, or just hang up' apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them more useless trips. Yeah right. I said 'Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?' I said I was sorry they made a wasted trip but if they had a problem with some made up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing.
At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show me their badges. They had done the quick flip when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female Agent refused to give me one stating Youre not going to get a card. The male Agent gave me a card and told me I could contact Houston with any questions.
The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didnt cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesnt have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.
I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isnt tapped, et cetera. I am hearing a lot of Out of my Jurisdiction.
Do I also hear jackboots? This is the most discusting act of political HATRED I have ever heard and it is sad thought our tax dollars were spent to persue this womans total lie! She should have charges filled for making a false police report and have to pay back the money it cost to send the agents to investigate!
First, the Secret Service makes its own determination about who to investigate. Nobody "high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America" has the authority to "bring the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen." Not a McCain campaign staffer, not an Obama campaign staffer, not a George Washington campaign staffer. If the Secret Service showed up at her door, that was the Secret Service's decision. They still answer to the current president, not the possible future one.
Second, if the Secret Service agent refused to produce proper ID, that agent violated the law and should be dealt with appropriately by her employer, the Treasury Dept.
Third, if the agents were rude and abusive, that, too, falls on the Treasury Dept. to deal with. I don't see how it's the fault or responsibility of Sen. Obama, since he does not have that kind of control over the Secret Service.
Fourth, if a campaign worker maliciously misreported this conversation to bring suspicion on this lady, that worker should be fired and charged with violation of whatever law(s) she violated. Her actions, however, should not be generalized to "the Obama camp." I somehow doubt Sen. Obama is even aware of the existence of every low-level phone-bank operator working in Texarkana, TX, much less what they're up to.
Fifth, if the Secret Service is still investigating this, that suggests they haven't found what the actual facts of the situation are, yet. Presumably, they know more details than you, me, or the Lufkin Daily News. The lady in Lufkin may be telling the truth, or she may not. Maybe we should wait for the evidence before we start allcapping about what liberals always do or how low the Obama camp is.
Sixth, your attribution of all this to "the Obama camp" -- or the lady's attribution of it to "higher ups" in that camp -- is difficult to make sense of. Why would the Obama camp do it? He's ahead in all the polls. He's gonna get drilled in TX, and there's nothing he can do about that. Why risk his lead on one ill informed voter in Lufkin, TX? The man's not irrational.
I'm sorry, but most liberals are NOT tolerant of people who have opposing poitical views. Just look at the fact that Gov. Palin was supposed to speak at a benefit then was told she couldn't come because the liber speakers who were going said they wouldn't speak if she was there.
And yes, that woman no how big or small of a part she plays, she IS still infact a member of the Obama Camp. PERIOD! That is a fact, she works directly for them. I'm not even saying Sen. Obama had anything to do with it or even knows about it. But the fact remains that this person should be terminated without hesitation and have charges brought against her. I'm not blaming the Secret Service in any way either, I never did. They have to investigate something that is reported to them as a possible threat. Maybe the way they handled it wasn't appropriate, but they were doing their jobs.
As for blaming the Sec. Svc., I didn't say you were blaming them. I'm blaming them. They decide what to investigate, and they decide how to investigate it. If they went off half-cocked on this one, then they're the ones who went off half-cocked; the Obama camp can't order them to do anything. If they misbehaved during the investigation, then that's on them, too.
I don't know what benefit you're talking about, but most liberals I've ever known are as normal, pleasant, and reasonable as most people. Some are loudmouth know-it-alls, and so are some conservatives.
BTW, I've reached sensory overload with this election *** and can't take it anymore...sorry for hijacking your serious discussion.
Liking her or not isn't the point though. It was a charity event that Hillary Clinton and a few others had agreed to speak at to help raise money and then said they wouldn't speak if Gov Palin was invited. That is low. That is totally intolerant of someone else's views and putting them ahead of helping a worthy cause.
It's funny that the republican VP Nom is being bashed for "inexperience" when in fact she has more experience as an elected official then the Democrats PRESIDENTIAL nom. If you really want to get down to it, she has more executive experience than anyone on either ticket. She isn't experieced in the b.s. of Washington, but why is that a bad thing?? She hasn't been drug down into the sea of corrupt immoral bafoons that fill the capitol building. Thats NOT a character flaw if you ask me...
I'll just note that inexperience isn't what I objected to, and then let this one drop. Nothing personal, Puro. I just don't have the energy to have this particular conversation again.
A lot of people have played the "woman" card to try to get votes, I think that is wrong. Just like many have tried to play the "black" card to both get votes for and against Sen. Obama. That is also wrong.
My own wifes grandmother asked me if I didn't like Sen Obama because he is black. I couldn't believe she asked me that! Race, sex, religion are all things that shouldn't matter what so ever. If J. C. Watts would run for Pres. I would vote for him in a heartbeat! He was one of the most fine upstanding members of congress this country has ever seen. Of course that is probably why he got out there as quick as he did! haha
i dont get that. he thinks differently than you. he is still a human no matter how much you hate him. If you dont like him or his kind vote him/them out. its how the system works.
one of my friends said something to me that i dismissed the other day:
"if you wanna see real hate, just disagree with a liberal."
i would have not thought of that again had this conversation not taken place here. I am going to see if i can test this theory by going into the world and disagreeing with both sides and seeing how each react. its not scientific, but it will be fun and it will improve my argument skills.
HA!
To be sure, I think she was a very poor choice for VP and she's had some lame answers, etc. But that doesn't make her a joke or a bad person. I just think she was well-suited to be the governor of Alaska.
I don't say that with a harsh tone in my voice. It's just an observation of reality as I see it. I have certain minimal requirements for anybody who wants to represent me in high public office. Gov. Palin doesn't even come close to meeting them. To me, that makes her -- as a vp nominee -- a joke.