Well I don't think the 9-11 truthers have made their case yet. I
think the Radical Islamic and other foreign terrorist threat is real
even if the US pulls all of its troops and government money out of
the Middle East and all other countries mainly because the US
government with the way it has conducted Foreign policy over the
years and the way it has conducted the war has victimized so many
people and pissed them off. So many of these people want revenge, it
would be unjust revenge harming innocent people and their property
just like when governments do it in the name of their victimized
people but like the politicians in governments the terrorist leaders
play and incite the emotion of revenge and nothing is going to stop
some of the victims or their family from trying to get that
revenge.
Of course I think that many of the Islamic Radicals would have
been a threat to the US even if the US had never meddled in the
Middle East and they would have been even more of a threat to
Southern Europe because they want an Islamic Empire. Just read what
Yahiya Emerick the American covert to Islam and the author of The
Complete Idiots Guide to Islam says one of the things Muslims in
general want- The unification of all MUslim terriotories into one
federally organized Islamic caliphate, also another point the
replacement of all antireligious ruling elite with sincre Muslims who
will rule according to Shariah. And he is no considered a radical,
the radicals typically want all of the former Islamic Emprire at its
height including much of Southern Europe under an Islamic Emprire
again, a few want the world to be under Islamic control and they want
to gain that control by any means necessary which would include
atrempting terrorist attacks in the US because these people do hates
us for what liberty we still manage to hang on
to.
The reality is it is a very good idea to be on guard to stop
radical Islamic terrorist acts or for that matter any terrorist acts
no matter what their reason is. If the US government pulls out of
the Middle East it would be very very foolish for us to let down our
guard but its just as foolish to count on the US federal government
to protect us from the terrorist and they are only making things
worse and wasting a whole lot of money, talent and time by being over
there. If the US government must have something to do with the fight
against Islamic terrorism outside of the US then by fat he better way
would be to let the private sector handle the matter by issuing
Letters of Reprisals, offering bounties that make sense, only 20
million for Bin Ladin is laughable and a insult to peoples
intellegents, now 1 billion would likely get
results.
So what should the US government do? Bring every single troop
home from around the world except for the few Marines for the US
Embassies, cut off every single penny of Us government foreign aid.
GEt out of the UN, get out of NATO, the WTO, THe IMF, the World Bank,
the Law of the SEas
Treaty.
Put the Mexican government on notice and annouce to the Mexican
people the intent to declare war on Mexico if the Mexican government
does not stop violating the soverienty of the states in the
US.
The US Miltary is basically good for one thing, helping to protect
the US borders from mass invasion such as from China, Russia and
possibly in the future from the EU or the UN and to a lessor extent
Mexico, Cuba, the up coming South American
Union.
Build up the Navy and Marines to reflect these mass threats, to
protect our borders. Defend the
US.
Return to a state miltia system in place of the US Army under the
control of the state government, shoot for a goal of 30% of the adult
population to volunterly join and train in the miltia, that would
be 60 million people, encourage teens between 14 and 18 to join and
train with their parents
permission.
Keep a smaller group of US Army personal going to help train the
state miltias and to be a secondary quick respose teams to the Navy
and Marines first team response in case of invasion- Maybe 10% to 20%
of what the US Army is today including Gurd and Reserves. Abloish the
National
Guard.
Abloish the US border patrol, abloish ICE, abloish all federal
law enforcement within the states. US Custom agents will check goods
and people coming into the country but they should not have law
enforcement authority, if the Us custom Agents need law enforment
then they should just have to work with private dock or airport owner
security, local police, the county sheriff or maybe in some states
something like the Texas Rangers but federal law enforcemet in any
cabicity is a danger to the soverienty of a state and should not be
allowed for any
purpose.
FBI agents can find jobs with state bureus of investagation.
Necessary and constitutional CIA and NSA activities can be rolled
over into the Navy, the US Army and the state miltias and state bureu
of investagation with each of these including all 50 states having
their own seperate authority.
--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> See www.infowars.com and www.prisonplanet.com to understand the
terror war. The war on terror is a Bushite hoax. If there were a
threat, "our" government (LOL!) would have closed the southern border.
>
> Bob Barr for president. Vote Libertarian.
> For Life and Liberty,
> David Macko
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: timstarr2001
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:45 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: George Carlin: "We Like War"
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonberg@> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Do you have any idea of the excruciatingly low threat level
> >presented to Americans in America by terrorism?
>
> This simplistic threat-denial never ceases to amaze me, nor the
> blithe comparisons of risks presented by intentional human action
to
> natural disasters like lightning strikes, etc.
>
> Risk is a function of frequency and magnitude, as well as
intentions
> and capabilities. The frequency of terrorist attacks is one of
the
> easiest things for terrorists to control, as terrorists hold
almost
> all the initiative when it comes to their attacks. As for
magnitude,
> given that the 9/11 attacks were pulled off with no weapons more
> formidable than box-cutters, I'd say that the magnitude of
terrorist
> attacks is pretty much under their control, too.
>
> Natural disasters are pretty infrequent, and their frequency does
not
> vary easily. Other risks, such as car accidents, that are often
> compared to terrorism, are of greater frequency, but still remain
> pretty constant in their frequency, and are of relatively low
> magnitude per-incident.
>
> I take it that your argument is that there's no need for the War
on
> Terror because the risk of terrorism is so low. However, one of
the
> main reasons why there have been zero terrorist attacks in
America
> since 9/11 has been the War on Terror. Let's list the terrorist
> attacks in America in the decade prior to then:
>
> * 1993 - WTC bombing I
> * 1995 - OKC bombing
> * 1995 - US military base in Saudi Arabia (not US soil, but zero
> attacks upon US military bases in Saudi Arabia - or any other
> countries besides Iraq & Afghanistan - since 9/11, either)
> * 1996 - US military base in Saudi Arabia - again
> * 1998 - TWA800
> * 1998 - US embassies in Africa (technically US soil; there
haven't
> been any terrorist attacks on US embassies since 9/11, either)
> * 2000 - USS Cole (there haven't been any terrorist attacks upon
US
> warships since 9/11, either)
>
> That makes for a grand total of 7 major terrorist attacks upon US
> soil or US targets in the decade prior to 9/11. Compare that to
the
> complete absence of any such attacks after 9/11. What does that
say
> about the effect of the War on Terror upon the risk of such
terrorism?
>
> Now, consider the fate of other countries which have been less
> aggressive than America in the War on Terror:
>
> Britain: Subway bombings
> Spain: Train bombing
> Indonesia: Bali bombing
> France: Massive rioting by Muslim youth
> Netherlands: Assassination of Theo van Gogh, threats upon Hirsi
Ali
> forced her into hiding, loss of MP position by Ali under pressure
> from Islamo-fascist sympathizers
> Denmark: Motoons riots, destruction of Danish embassies
>
> Even here in America, the press was too scared to publish any of
the
> Motoons, except for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and Borders'
Books
> was too scared to carry that issue on their newsstands.
>
> And you say that the threat to Americans from the War on Drugs is
> greater than the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat? Let's see,
Islamo-
> fascists want to kill us indiscriminately in surprise attacks for
> being infidels. Drug warriors want to arrest and prosecute us if
> we're involved in the drug trade, according to US criminal
procedure.
>
> Which is easier for most Americans to do, convert to Islam, or
avoid
> taking part in the illegal drug trade? Which would most Americans
> rather face, death by suicide bomber, or arrest by US police &
> prosecution in U.S. courts on drug charges?
>
> I'm all for ending the War on Drugs, in large part because it
acts as
> a price support program for black marketeers who fund terrorism.
But
> it's not a greater threat to most Americans than the threat posed
by
> Islamo-Fascist terrorism.
>
> Tim Starr
> Fight for Liberty!
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
