KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I think the real question is, "How many acts of terrorism would have occured in the past 30 years had KRC been president all along?" 282342[/snapback] Well, for me to be President for 30 years, I would have to eliminate a few laws. There is no way to measure. It is impossible to stop all terrorist attacks as Oklahoma City pointed out. He allegedly had ties to a terrorist organization and it is possible that he did the attack with the blessing of the organization but that evidence is circumstantial at best. Most of the evidence is that he took it upon himself to execute the attack for the benefit of the organization. Terrorism will always exist. There are ways to try to minimize the likelihood of an attack, but attack will still continue to happen. There is no question that we will see another 9/11 type attack. I do not see if from airplanes, but from other methods. A CBRNE (I do not like to use the term WMD because there are too many definitions of the term and it will cloud the issue) attack will happen and I am guessing that it will be a soft target. I do not see a copy of 9/11 happening again. That is why I am having trouble with this debate. You cannot limit yourself to strictly airline hijackings for your terrorist attacks. You need to look at terrorism as a whole, in order to properly debate the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Well, for me to be President for 30 years, I would have to eliminate a few laws. There is no way to measure. It is impossible to stop all terrorist attacks as Oklahoma City pointed out. He allegedly had ties to a terrorist organization and it is possible that he did the attack with the blessing of the organization but that evidence is circumstantial at best. Most of the evidence is that he took it upon himself to execute the attack for the benefit of the organization. Terrorism will always exist. There are ways to try to minimize the likelihood of an attack, but attack will still continue to happen. There is no question that we will see another 9/11 type attack. I do not see if from airplanes, but from other methods. A CBRNE (I do not like to use the term WMD because there are too many definitions of the term and it will cloud the issue) attack will happen and I am guessing that it will be a soft target. I do not see a copy of 9/11 happening again. That is why I am having trouble with this debate. You cannot limit yourself to strictly airline hijackings for your terrorist attacks. You need to look at terrorism as a whole, in order to properly debate the topic. 282356[/snapback] The problem is, the debate wasn't how to prevent and avoid terrorist attacks. The debate was is it wrong to be weary of Arab people on a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 The problem is, the debate wasn't how to prevent and avoid terrorist attacks. The debate was is it wrong to be weary of Arab people on a plane. 282365[/snapback] You need to understand terrorism and counterterrorism techniques before you can address the "was is it wrong to be weary of Arab people on a plane" statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Terrorism will always exist. 282356[/snapback] As long as people feel that they are oppressed and lack the resources, be they political or military in nature, to fight their perceived oppressors, that's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 You need to understand terrorism and counterterrorism techniques before you can address the "was is it wrong to be weary of Arab people on a plane" statement. 282368[/snapback] So should I investigate people's background and political stances the second I get on the plane? Then analyze them and come up with motives? After I come up with plausible motives, I can then be aware who to be afraid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I am not married, but I will make sure when selecting my wife that she will possess certain essential survival skills, such as the ability to abstain from going to the bathroom for long periods of time. 282170[/snapback] My wife is awesome on trips. I swear, her bladder is three times the size of mine! I really got lucky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 As long as people feel that they are oppressed and lack the resources, be they political or military in nature, to fight their perceived oppressors, that's true. 282376[/snapback] Not all terrorist organizations abide by that philosophy (whether recruiting people who feel oppressed or by using the ideal of oppression in their recruiting tactics). Some are based strictly on issues. Take an organization like Kenkoku Giyugun Chosen Seibatsutai. They hate North Koreans. It has nothing to do with the terrorists being oppressed (the group is based in Japan and members are not there because they were oppressed by the DPRK or by anyone else). They just hate the North Koreans and will attack anything related to North Korea. There are numerous other groups that have philosophies that do not exist or recruit based on oppression or similar situations. Even Islamic terrorist organizations are not always recruiting based on oppression. Granted, there are still a lot of oppressed people joining because of their oppression, but not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Oh come on. We're talking about commercial airlines that people board and fly, not these tiny things people take for flying lessons. If you have ever bought a ticket and been a passanger in one of those things, then you can count it. 282339[/snapback] Hate to burst your bubble, but people do pay to be transported in Cessna's. My father-in-law's a pilot and flies both the 4-seat and 9-seat (?) Cessna's for people all the time. And I've been a passanger before. But at least we've established that "Only muslim terrorists who hijack large planes on or about 9/11 and crashed them into important buildings" count in this discussion. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So should I investigate people's background and political stances the second I get on the plane? Then analyze them and come up with motives? After I come up with plausible motives, I can then be aware who to be afraid of. 282379[/snapback] Nope. That would be just as ridiculous as being wary of Arabs just because they are on a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I'm just glad my fair-haired, very light-skinned friend from Iran doesn't have to worry about getting pummeled for going to the bathroom on an airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Not all terrorist organizations abide by that philosophy (whether recruiting people who feel oppressed or by using the ideal of oppression in their recruiting tactics). Some are based strictly on issues. Take an organization like Kenkoku Giyugun Chosen Seibatsutai. They hate North Koreans. Even Islamic terrorist organizations are not always recruiting based on oppression. Granted, there are still a lot of oppressed people joining because of their oppression, but not all. 282385[/snapback] I had never even heard of the "Volunteer Army for Korean Supression" until just now (Google's a beautiful thing!) In my post, I should have added "threatened" to "oppressed." I think that's what racist groups thrive on, like the Know-Nothings, KKK, and neo-nazis, they're afraid their way of life is changing, and they take extreme measures to try and preserve what they think should be the status quo. It's possible then, I'd imagine, that VAKS is similarly motivated (ie, threatened as opposed to oppressed)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Oh come on. We're talking about commercial airlines that people board and fly, not these tiny things people take for flying lessons. If you have ever bought a ticket and been a passanger in one of those things, then you can count it. 282339[/snapback] Not to jump into the discussion about terrorism, but .... I have bought a ticket to ride in a small aircraft of this nature. I would have been upset if the dude sitting next to me (my grandfather) had decided that he wanted to make a statement by holding a gun to the pilot's head and crashing the plane. BTW, there is no screening/security process for small craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I had never even heard of the "Volunteer Army for Korean Supression" until just now (Google's a beautiful thing!) In my post, I should have added "threatened" to "oppressed." I think that's what racist groups thrive on, like the Know-Nothings, KKK, and neo-nazis, they're afraid their way of life is changing, and they take extreme measures to try and preserve what they think should be the status quo. It's possible then, I'd imagine, that VAKS is similarly motivated (ie, threatened as opposed to oppressed)? 282417[/snapback] It is unknown if VAKS is a racist group or a political group. They seem to be only attacking North Korean targets, so that would rule out racism. I am not sure about the oppression/threatened angle. Their attacks seem to be random, so it is tough to get a handle on why they do what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Have anything to back that up with? Or you just using anecdotal evidence you get from the media? Oklahoma ring any bells? CW 282213[/snapback] I wouldn't say the aberration is the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I wouldn't say the aberration is the rule. 282436[/snapback] Well, one day of hijacking is what everyone else in this thread is using as their basis for "Arabs hijack airplanes and kill Americans!" That's an aberration as well, no? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Well, one day of hijacking is what everyone else in this thread is using as their basis for "Arabs hijack airplanes and kill Americans!" That's an aberration as well, no? CW 282459[/snapback] Considering TM didn't use an airplane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Considering TM didn't use an airplane... 282461[/snapback] TM? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 TM? CW 282465[/snapback] Tim McVeigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 This discussion is silly. We all know that not all terrorists are Muslims. But we also ALL know that Muslim, yes MUSLIM Extremists have a hard-on for using commercial aircraft as part of their terrorist tactics and have for a long, long time. These people have even bragged about them doing it and have threatened to do it again! So its not unrealistic, nor is it racist to have feelings of doubt or trepidation when you see young Arab men...especially multiple Arab men on your flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Tim McVeigh 282469[/snapback] Then I'm more confused... My original message was: Well, one day of hijacking is what everyone else in this thread is using as their basis for "Arabs hijack airplanes and kill Americans!" That's an aberration as well, no? Then AD responds about TM? I don't get it... AD, care to elaborate? We all know that not all terrorists are Muslims. But we also ALL know that Muslim, yes MUSLIM Extremists have a hard-on for using commercial aircraft as part of their terrorist tactics and have for a long, long time. These people have even bragged about them doing it and have threatened to do it again! So its not unrealistic, nor is it racist to have feelings of doubt or trepidation when you see young Arab men...especially multiple Arab men on your flight. Again, Arabs have hijacked (as far as I know), four airplanes, all on ONE DAY. Remind me again how that correlates to "We better beware Arabs on planes!" because I just don't see it. Are you saying that had Reid, the shoebomber, succeeded in his plan, then we would get to be afraid of everyone on planes, but becasue he didn't, we should be on the lookout for muslims? That's stupid. http://images.google.com/images?q=shoebomb...lr=&sa=N&tab=wi As an aside, how did I get involved in TWO posts in the PPP forum in one day?! CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts