conspiracy theory or stoopid terrorists?

[nostatic]

So consider 2600 homes lost, 600K acres burned, 20 dead, $3Billion is losses. Wouldn't a terrorist be happy with that kind of result? If they had half a brain, 20 people with 20 cars and 20 flares could have burned half the state paralyzed the 6th largest economy in the world. Cheap, low tech, low risk, indefensible, high payoff.

So, are they (the terrorists) just dumb? Only want "big" public spectacles? Or is it as a friend of mine says...there isn't a huge network of organized terrorists in the US...instead they are a figment of the administrations imagination...a convenient boogieman.

[singpilot]

Who says it WASN"T them?????

[island911]

ditto
This last spring there was a local news story suggested that forests would be targets.

The story attempted to put people at ease by noting that the Japanese, during WW2, did just that, along the west coast (Oregon, I believe) but was rather ineffective.

[nostatic]

I never said it wasn't...but if it wasn't, shouldn't it? Couldn't? Wouldn't?

I'm awash in contractions...

[ronin]

one thing. if it WAS terrorists, they'd have claimed it by now

[island911]

Originally posted by ronin
one thing. if it WAS terrorists, they'd have claimed it by now

enter; conspiracy theory.

[nostatic]

did any group claim responsibility for 9/11?

[ronin]

certainly. all the way to the point of impact

[singpilot]

I remember saying at the beginning of the Osama hunt in Afghanistan that the best thing the Afghanis could do would be to cut him up and feed him to the Camels. It would drive the Americans nuts to never find him.

Ditto for Saddam.

If they declared or claimed the forests, they would be showing their hand, and we'd be making it harder next time..

I know this is one of those threads that no one is sure about.

Bartender!!!! Another Beer!

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
did any group claim responsibility for 9/11?

Hmmm, good question. Did Jack Olsen ask for someone to illegally copy and scan the article of BB2 ? ( I think you will find your answer there )

But I think I get your point; they're trying to kill us with little care for credits.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by nostatic
I never said it wasn't...but if it wasn't, shouldn't it? Couldn't? Wouldn't?

I'm awash in contractions...

Your contractions are about 5 seconds apart!

[ronin]

shall we see how far dilated the patient is?? (as he snaps on a set of surgical gloves)

[Aurel]

I have to agree with Nostatic: all these fires started at about the same time in different places are highly suspicious, and could have been the result of a coordinated action, very much like the hijackings of 9/11. On the other hand, it also suggests how vulnerable any country is, and will ever be, to motivated terrorists. Unless we want to live in a society similar to that described in 1984 from Geroge Orwell, with totally closed borders, a chip implanted in each lawful citizen for GPS tracking and analysis of all our actions by a centralized computer. Just realize that it would take only a couple of letters filled with flour sent in strategic locations to totally paralyse the country again. So far, there has been more terrorsim in the middle east, where american presence upsets the locals. Does it mean that they cannot attack the homeland due to the outstanding job of Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Co. ? Gimme a break...

Aurel

[944S Boyeee]

No - the fires were not a "terrorist" act.

Fires don't scare people enough - they move too slow, seem like they can just be "put out" and in this day and age, it's a weak weapon.

You all do realize there are no actual "terrorists", right?

Let me put it this way - the fires are real because they are not "scary" enough. ANYTHING that happens in the US is meant to scare the public into the 1984-ish lifestlye Aurel mentioned above.

Why would "they" start fires when they plan on dropping a nuke on a major US city within the next two years?

Nuke = giving up the freedoms 9/11 couldn't take away.

Then the threat of WWIII will arise after some country tries to "take on" the US in an all-out Battle Royal, this ='s even more freedoms being given up in the name of protection.

Anyone really look at the Patriot Act? Do you know there is a section that states "Use of ANY weapon will be seen as a Terrorist attack". It's tucked in there....go look. Seems to me everyone could be a Terrorist, right.....? How do they stop it???? How will America ever be safe?????

It's called Biometrics and ID chips folks, don't fool yourselves.

The rich run the world, not the "Governments". Satan is here in full-effect and we all will be his byacthes soon!

Jeff (944SBoyeee)

[wckrause]

Hey, are these implantable chips with GPS going to have On-Star capability? Because if they do, then I won't get that service in my next new car.

So let me get this straight nostatic. If the fires weren't set by terrorists, then that proves that there are no terrorists....I think there must have been a few fields of weed that went up in smoke near your residence.

[Aurel]

You make a good point 944SBoyee: the psychological impact of the fires is not as strong as something that people cannot understand, like nuke, bio or chem attacks.
Thinking about it, those fires may even be a good thing for California, with all the construction jobs they will create. Humm, was that Schwarzenegger`s method to bring business back to California ? (just kidding).

When you say that Satan is here in full effect, I will tell you that I do not beleive in Satan. At least, not as a power trying to fight God. Satan is just the sum of all our fears, and by definition, anything that propagates fear is satanic. So, terrorism is satanic, but a media that propagates the fear of terrorism is satanic as well. Terrorism would have no impact if it was not given so much publicity. Satan is very human indeed.

Aurel

[nostatic]

I'm just asking the question...I didn't say "if P then Q". Considering the now questionable "data" used to take us to war in Iraq, I think questioning the government is not only warranted, but in fact what a responsible citizen should do.

I believe there are terrorists (I think 9/11 was undertaken by a terrorist group, and not the CIA). But I also believe that the threat of terrorism is being used to slowly disintegrate personal freedoms, placing even more control in the hands of a select few.

A change in our foreign policy would make us a lot safer than any "Patriot" act passed here at home. Just my opinion though...

[Aurel]

I have been questioning the whole thing from day one, but since I happen to be french, my opinon has always been considered as garbage, which I have learnt not to be offended about anymore.
. I could also revive the WMD thread again, but that would be just being silly

Aurel

[Pete Pranger]

I figure it was the Dems giving Arnie a "welcome to Cali" party. Or maybe Rush snuck out of rehab for a smoke and "ooops..." But a terrorist plot, now THATS a longshot.

One question on this concern over the Patriot Act. What's your alternative? I'm not personally a big fan of losing our personal freedoms, but in comparisons to the Democrats reaction to the last attack on US soil (internment camps), this was tame. It's not like Tom Ridge made this decision on his own, I think it was congress that passed it (democratic majority at the time if I remember correctly).

But aside from all that, what was a better alternative? How do you protect 236,000,000 people in a country with open borders where personal freedom is paramount? What would YOU have done? I don't have an outstanding alternative.

To be honest, I am more concerned by the fact that I can't have a smoke in a bar almost anywhere anymore. In CA you can't buy a rifle because somebody determined that it qualifies as "an assault rifle", yet cow feces in a publicly funded museum qualifies as "art". I can't swap out a catalitc converter or unplug an airbag that might kill me, but an illegal alien gets free college. And a license. I have the freedom of speech right up until it "offends" somebody, unless I am a liberal and then EVERYTHING I say is okay and patriotic, even if its anti-American.

Pete

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Pete Pranger

But aside from all that, what was a better alternative? How do you protect 236,000,000 people in a country with open borders where personal freedom is paramount? What would YOU have done? I don't have an outstanding alternative.

To be honest, I am more concerned by the fact that I can't have a smoke in a bar almost anywhere anymore. In CA you can't buy a rifle because somebody determined that it qualifies as "an assault rifle", yet cow feces in a publicly funded museum qualifies as "art". I can't swap out a catalitc converter or unplug an airbag that might kill me, but an illegal alien gets free college. And a license. I have the freedom of speech right up until it "offends" somebody, unless I am a liberal and then EVERYTHING I say is okay and patriotic, even if its anti-American.

Pete

For one thing, I'd quit trying to impose our government and value system on the rest of the world. That would go a lot further towards keeping the American public safe from outside interest than unchecked surveillance and data mining.

I'm VERY happy that people can't smoke in bars or resturants (I end up playing in them, and the few that still allow smoking make for a miserable evening), and see no reason for people to own automatic weapons.

Not sure how illegal aliens get free college, but I'll take your word that it is a rampant problem. The license thing is a mixed bag, and I'm not crazy about it either. As for freedom of speech, I don't think liberals have a corner on the market there...the right has plenty of hot air blasting about. And if you want to get labeled as "un-American", dare to say anything negative about homeland security. Although I'm sure this bbs is being scraped daily, so I'm already on their list