Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Option one is to pretend that 9/11 was an isolated incident (or a hidden internal conspiracy), not the revelation of a new and serious long-term danger. Many anti-war types prefer option one. Option two is to acknowledge the danger of mass-scale terrorism using weapons of mass destruction, but rely on negotiations, economic incentives, “grand bargains,” etc. to solve the problem (the favorite Democratic solution). In the absence of a credible threat of force (and maybe even then, given the nature of our terrorist foe), I think option two is doomed. Option three is to deploy force to preempt one rogue state and frighten others, while depending on a rapidly-spreading wave of democratization to assure long-term change, and permit relatively rapid American military withdrawal. Option three is not working out as planned. Option four is an expanded American military and a combination of more attacks (eg. a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities) with an extended and enlarged occupation of Iraq, working real social transformation and democratization. In the absence of a major new terror strike on the U.S., or an Iran on or over the nuclear brink, option four is politically unsustainable.

---

This seems to me to be an isolated incident that has been contained.

---

Guess we can mark Suzy down for option one.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again on risk management, even with pre-911 level security, you or I are less likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than to be hit by a bus.

---

Are you suggesting that in managing our limited security resources, we'd save more lives if we devoted more time to managing the risk of folks getting hit by buses and less to terrorist attacks.

---

The bus example is facetious, but we do have limited resources and virtually unlimited risks, including those posed by natural disasters (e.g., Katrina). We, as a country, don't do a great job at balancing. I'm not singling out this administration. Certainly Bush overemphasizes the terror risk compared with other risks, but Gore would have overemphasized the global warming risk.

The Office of Homeland Security should really be an Office of National Risk Management, and take an objective view of all the risks facing our country.

It's human nature though, we fear a terrorist attack because we saw the horrific scenes of 911. We may not buckle our seatbelts, we may light up another cigarette, or eat another BK quad-stacker, all of which pose more risk to our lives personally than a terrorist attack.

---

Those examples you gave TICG are examples of risks we can personally manage. If i smoke, drink and eat quad stackers everyday, that is my choice and I need to live with the consequences. (until i sue RJ Reynolds, Budweiser and BK because these are all bad for me and I didn't know better ) but I personally don't have a lot of control over the airport security.

We obviously have limited resources, and yes, we (gov't) may react to the issue of the day, but what options are there??? Don't we have to respond to this and do what we can to avoid it, or at least minimize it?

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and I'd also liked to be marked down for chicken salad for lunch.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and I'd also liked to be marked down for chicken salad for lunch.

---

I would do that for you, Suzy, but, based on your postings, I'm afraid you might confuse it with something much less tasty.

---

Quote:

---

"Why isn't the left also patting anyone responsible (regardless of political affiliation) on the back? "

Because even though this story broke out of London, and isn't a left or right issue, we are under President Bush's watch, and good golly, there is simply no way anything good can happen while he is in office. The hate some people have for him is sad.

This thread was more or less non political until SP said:

"I agree. I think this administration will grab at any straw to make their decisions in Iraq seem valid and if that means causing mass panic, then that's what they will do. ". This was in response to TICG commenting that the government shouldn't reveal so many details about these type of things.

Can't the story simply be what it is? Hard working men and women stopping these terrorists from murdering innocent people. Nah-lets say it was all a set up to make Bush look better and win the November elections....

---

Quote:

---

"Why isn't the left also patting anyone responsible (regardless of political affiliation) on the back? "

Because even though this story broke out of London, and isn't a left or right issue, we are under President Bush's watch, and good golly, there is simply no way anything good can happen while he is in office. The hate some people have for him is sad.

This thread was more or less non political until SP said:

"I agree. I think this administration will grab at any straw to make their decisions in Iraq seem valid and if that means causing mass panic, then that's what they will do. ". This was in response to TICG commenting that the government shouldn't reveal so many details about these type of things.

Can't the story simply be what it is? Hard working men and women stopping these terrorists from murdering innocent people. Nah-lets say it was all a set up to make Bush look better and win the November elections....

---

Didn't you see the posts from "kind anon" of the SPADL yesterday? You are not allowed to snipe or even disagree with SP. And you certainly aren't allowed to use a "crazy" emoticon when speaking about her!

P.S. Snarkiness is also discouraged.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again on risk management, even with pre-911 level security, you or I are less likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than to be hit by a bus.

---

Are you suggesting that in managing our limited security resources, we'd save more lives if we devoted more time to managing the risk of folks getting hit by buses and less to terrorist attacks.

---

The bus example is facetious, but we do have limited resources and virtually unlimited risks, including those posed by natural disasters (e.g., Katrina). We, as a country, don't do a great job at balancing. I'm not singling out this administration. Certainly Bush overemphasizes the terror risk compared with other risks, but Gore would have overemphasized the global warming risk.

The Office of Homeland Security should really be an Office of National Risk Management, and take an objective view of all the risks facing our country.

It's human nature though, we fear a terrorist attack because we saw the horrific scenes of 911. We may not buckle our seatbelts, we may light up another cigarette, or eat another BK quad-stacker, all of which pose more risk to our lives personally than a terrorist attack.

---

Those examples you gave TICG are examples of risks we can personally manage. If i smoke, drink and eat quad stackers everyday, that is my choice and I need to live with the consequences. (until i sue RJ Reynolds, Budweiser and BK because these are all bad for me and I didn't know better ) but I personally don't have a lot of control over the airport security.

We obviously have limited resources, and yes, we (gov't) may react to the issue of the day, but what options are there??? Don't we have to respond to this and do what we can to avoid it, or at least minimize it?

---

First of all, yes, the fact that this was caught was a good thing. Second, I am not pointing fingers at the administration (this time).

Putting aside those risks you can personally manage, even if we focus just on national level risks, what are the risks of a death or injury from a terrorist attack vs. those from a flood or a hurricane? Among terrorist threats, where are they greatest? Are we looking at the totality of the threats out there? While some TSA loser is yelling at your grandma for bringing her hand lotion on the plane to Toledo, terorists could be plotting to blow up the midtown tunnel in NY. Limiting it just to airline security, screening should be tougher on international flights, and flights to NY, and DC. Young males of arab descent or foreign nationals from certain countries should be scrutinized closer than some blond haired, blue eyed girl from Texas. Is that politically incorrect, yes, but it's also good risk management. Might that girl from Texas also blow up the plane -- it's a possibility -- but not as likely as the 25 year old male student here on a visa from Syria.

---

Quote:

---

You can do anything you want, -5-; is there anyway to stop you? Say, while you're marking me down, can you make me taller with bigger...diamonds? Oh, and I'd also liked to be marked down for chicken salad for lunch.


Suzy

---

Sure, Suzy! We've all pictured you with bigger . . . . diamonds.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again on risk management, even with pre-911 level security, you or I are less likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than to be hit by a bus.

---

Are you suggesting that in managing our limited security resources, we'd save more lives if we devoted more time to managing the risk of folks getting hit by buses and less to terrorist attacks.

---

The bus example is facetious, but we do have limited resources and virtually unlimited risks, including those posed by natural disasters (e.g., Katrina). We, as a country, don't do a great job at balancing. I'm not singling out this administration. Certainly Bush overemphasizes the terror risk compared with other risks, but Gore would have overemphasized the global warming risk.

The Office of Homeland Security should really be an Office of National Risk Management, and take an objective view of all the risks facing our country.

It's human nature though, we fear a terrorist attack because we saw the horrific scenes of 911. We may not buckle our seatbelts, we may light up another cigarette, or eat another BK quad-stacker, all of which pose more risk to our lives personally than a terrorist attack.

---

Those examples you gave TICG are examples of risks we can personally manage. If i smoke, drink and eat quad stackers everyday, that is my choice and I need to live with the consequences. (until i sue RJ Reynolds, Budweiser and BK because these are all bad for me and I didn't know better ) but I personally don't have a lot of control over the airport security.

We obviously have limited resources, and yes, we (gov't) may react to the issue of the day, but what options are there??? Don't we have to respond to this and do what we can to avoid it, or at least minimize it?

---

First of all, yes, the fact that this was caught was a good thing. Second, I am not pointing fingers at the administration (this time).

Putting aside those risks you can personally manage, even if we focus just on national level risks, what are the risks of a death or injury from a terrorist attack vs. those from a flood or a hurricane? Among terrorist threats, where are they greatest? Are we looking at the totality of the threats out there? While some TSA loser is yelling at your grandma for bringing her hand lotion on the plane to Toledo, terorists could be plotting to blow up the midtown tunnel in NY. Limiting it just to airline security, screening should be tougher on international flights, and flights to NY, and DC. Young males of arab descent or foreign nationals from certain countries should be scrutinized closer than some blond haired, blue eyed girl from Texas. Is that politically incorrect, yes, but it's also good risk management. Might that girl from Texas also blow up the plane -- it's a possibility -- but not as likely as the 25 year old male student here on a visa from Syria.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14285388/?GT1=8404
This quotes terrorism experts from around the world. Many are thinking this may have been 'the big one' that has been hinted at for a while now.

---

I don't buy it. Clearly this story was planted by Bush and all his minions. The November elections are just around the corner....

Quote:

---

Yeah, tuna...

---

I'll take the tuna if Suzy doesn't want it!

-smilin' sunshine

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

saying that they wouldn't be so quick to put it on the news if it didn't make them look good.

---

I'm still trying to determine at what point the current administration began controlling the media. can SP post a link for me? I'm very confused

---

No need to be snarky. If you don't understand that the administration can control the media by what is leaked, to which sources, at certain times, based on favors for later scoops, etc. then you aren't as savvy as you pretend to be.

---

Quote:

---

Just an explanatory note about myself for those that may categorize me as some wild-eyed liberal...

When I heard the news this morning, first thing I think is a great tragedy was avoided. Seconds later however, I'm thinking, crap, like airport security wasn't bad enough -- eventually we'll have to board the plane naked and carry transparent suitcases. You see, while so many you are high-fiveing about the job well done by Scotland Yard, I'm thinking about how we'll all have to suffer needlessly because of this (especially those of us that frequently fly) and why more thought isn't given to the responses to these types of things. I'm basically a negative person who sees a black cloud in every silver lining. I attack the Bush adminstration because they're the ones currently in power screwing things up. In 2008, quite possibly a democrat will take office and if they have the same congressional majorities Bush has, will be able to screw up just as much (just different things). And I'll be criticizing then just as much as I do now -- mark my words.

So, in addition to my charming innuendos, my role here as I see it is to bring you folks down to earth.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just an explanatory note about myself for those that may categorize me as some wild-eyed liberal...

When I heard the news this morning, first thing I think is a great tragedy was avoided. Seconds later however, I'm thinking, crap, like airport security wasn't bad enough -- eventually we'll have to board the plane naked and carry transparent suitcases. You see, while so many you are high-fiveing about the job well done by Scotland Yard, I'm thinking about how we'll all have to suffer needlessly because of this (especially those of us that frequently fly) and why more thought isn't given to the responses to these types of things. I'm basically a negative person who sees a black cloud in every silver lining. I attack the Bush adminstration because they're the ones currently in power screwing things up. In 2008, quite possibly a democrat will take office and if they have the same congressional majorities Bush has, will be able to screw up just as much (just different things). And I'll be criticizing then just as much as I do now -- mark my words.

So, in addition to my charming innuendos, my role here as I see it is to bring you folks down to earth.

---

WOW! could you be anymore self-centered? No props for the cautions being taken...just that you are going to be inconvenienced??? Get over yourself!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Just an explanatory note about myself for those that may categorize me as some wild-eyed liberal...

When I heard the news this morning, first thing I think is a great tragedy was avoided. Seconds later however, I'm thinking, crap, like airport security wasn't bad enough -- eventually we'll have to board the plane naked and carry transparent suitcases. You see, while so many you are high-fiveing about the job well done by Scotland Yard, I'm thinking about how we'll all have to suffer needlessly because of this (especially those of us that frequently fly) and why more thought isn't given to the responses to these types of things. I'm basically a negative person who sees a black cloud in every silver lining. I attack the Bush adminstration because they're the ones currently in power screwing things up. In 2008, quite possibly a democrat will take office and if they have the same congressional majorities Bush has, will be able to screw up just as much (just different things). And I'll be criticizing then just as much as I do now -- mark my words.

So, in addition to my charming innuendos, my role here as I see it is to bring you folks down to earth.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again on risk management, even with pre-911 level security, you or I are less likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than to be hit by a bus.

---

Are you suggesting that in managing our limited security resources, we'd save more lives if we devoted more time to managing the risk of folks getting hit by buses and less to terrorist attacks.

---

The bus example is facetious, but we do have limited resources and virtually unlimited risks, including those posed by natural disasters (e.g., Katrina). We, as a country, don't do a great job at balancing. I'm not singling out this administration. Certainly Bush overemphasizes the terror risk compared with other risks, but Gore would have overemphasized the global warming risk.

The Office of Homeland Security should really be an Office of National Risk Management, and take an objective view of all the risks facing our country.

It's human nature though, we fear a terrorist attack because we saw the horrific scenes of 911. We may not buckle our seatbelts, we may light up another cigarette, or eat another BK quad-stacker, all of which pose more risk to our lives personally than a terrorist attack.

---

Those examples you gave TICG are examples of risks we can personally manage. If i smoke, drink and eat quad stackers everyday, that is my choice and I need to live with the consequences. (until i sue RJ Reynolds, Budweiser and BK because these are all bad for me and I didn't know better ) but I personally don't have a lot of control over the airport security.

We obviously have limited resources, and yes, we (gov't) may react to the issue of the day, but what options are there??? Don't we have to respond to this and do what we can to avoid it, or at least minimize it?

---

First of all, yes, the fact that this was caught was a good thing. Second, I am not pointing fingers at the administration (this time).

Putting aside those risks you can personally manage, even if we focus just on national level risks, what are the risks of a death or injury from a terrorist attack vs. those from a flood or a hurricane? Among terrorist threats, where are they greatest? Are we looking at the totality of the threats out there? While some TSA loser is yelling at your grandma for bringing her hand lotion on the plane to Toledo, terorists could be plotting to blow up the midtown tunnel in NY. Limiting it just to airline security, screening should be tougher on international flights, and flights to NY, and DC. Young males of arab descent or foreign nationals from certain countries should be scrutinized closer than some blond haired, blue eyed girl from Texas. Is that politically incorrect, yes, but it's also good risk management. Might that girl from Texas also blow up the plane -- it's a possibility -- but not as likely as the 25 year old male student here on a visa from Syria.

---

EVERYONE should be scrutinized, not just arab born or arab looking people. Remember the OK City bombing? My understanding is that these terrorists arrested in the UK were from the UK. Yes, they were Muslims, but they are homegrown.

---

That's a great theory, but it doesn't work in real life. If we scrutinize everyone, we shut down our transportation system. The next best thing is to profile would be terrorists. I am sorry, but there are more terrorists that look like Middle Easterners than look like Timothy McVeigh.

The UK terrorist were homegrown, but when their pictures come out, I doubt they'll look like John, Paul, George, or Ringo.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just an explanatory note about myself for those that may categorize me as some wild-eyed liberal...

When I heard the news this morning, first thing I think is a great tragedy was avoided. Seconds later however, I'm thinking, crap, like airport security wasn't bad enough -- eventually we'll have to board the plane naked and carry transparent suitcases. You see, while so many you are high-fiveing about the job well done by Scotland Yard, I'm thinking about how we'll all have to suffer needlessly because of this (especially those of us that frequently fly) and why more thought isn't given to the responses to these types of things. I'm basically a negative person who sees a black cloud in every silver lining. I attack the Bush adminstration because they're the ones currently in power screwing things up. In 2008, quite possibly a democrat will take office and if they have the same congressional majorities Bush has, will be able to screw up just as much (just different things). And I'll be criticizing then just as much as I do now -- mark my words.

So, in addition to my charming innuendos, my role here as I see it is to bring you folks down to earth.

---

WOW! could you be anymore self-centered? No props for the cautions being taken...just that you are going to be inconvenienced??? Get over yourself!!!!

---

You don't think a million others are thinking the same thing? I'm at least honest enough to say it.

---