"Overstating Our Fears": Terror Threat Overblown Says CIA Analyst in Wash. Post

FEAR=FUNDING

You may have noticed that the "Terror Industry" is alive and well in the Washington
Metro area.

Satellite offices for just about every agency and government/military and information system contractor on the planet have sprung up like mushrooms.

In Mclean, Tysons Corner, Reston, Herndon and the Dulles Rt. 28 corridor we have offices
for Mitre, SCIS, CSC, BDM, Bilderberg Group, Booz Allen Hamilton, Bechtel, BEA, BAE, CIA, DOD, DOJ, FBI, DEA, Postal Service Forensics Lab, DHS, National Anti-Terrorism Center, just to name a few.

Now that roughly half of our taxes go to pay for all of this nonsense, it's no wonder we can't afford free university education, medical care, or much of anything to improve our way of life.

I always find it rather ironic that Germany and Japan have the best of the best in education, health care, transportation and social services while we scrape by two pay checks away from
complete financial disaster.

The Military Industrial Complex will stop at nothing to keep their funding going.

Originally posted by gormly



Although I am NOT a big believer in the GWOT, I certainly DO think our actions and heightened security ARE part of the reason we have not been "attacked" again since 9/11. (That and a concentration of "them" in certain places)

This argument is used over and over again, and it makes no sense to me. If us not having been attacks proves the presidents policies are working, then doesn't that mean that pretty much every president before him must have had outstanding policies, because they were never attacked successfully by Islamic terrorists.

Just this week reports are saying Al Qaida is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their numbers are greater than ever before. Not to mention the entire Islamic world hates the US more than ever. Even though we haven't been attacked at home, we have lost over four thousand Americans as result of Bush's War on terror (more than we lost in the 9-11 attacks) and Al Qiada is stronger than ever.

Here is what gets me the most though. If we were to face another terror attack, do you think all the people claiming that Bush's policy are whats keeping us safe would then say never mind Bush's policies caused an attack. No! They would want even more hardlined policies.

Thats the paradox. They claim fighting wars and taking our rights away works because we haven't been attacked, but if we were attacked, they would claim the solution would be to take away MORE rights and go to MORE wars.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Originally posted by Grambler

Originally posted by gormly



Although I am NOT a big believer in the GWOT, I certainly DO think our actions and heightened security ARE part of the reason we have not been "attacked" again since 9/11. (That and a concentration of "them" in certain places)

This argument is used over and over again, and it makes no sense to me. If us not having been attacks proves the presidents policies are working, then doesn't that mean that pretty much every president before him must have had outstanding policies, because they were never attacked successfully by Islamic terrorists.

Just this week reports are saying Al Qaida is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their numbers are greater than ever before. Not to mention the entire Islamic world hates the US more than ever. Even though we haven't been attacked at home, we have lost over four thousand Americans as result of Bush's War on terror (more than we lost in the 9-11 attacks) and Al Qiada is stronger than ever.

Here is what gets me the most though. If we were to face another terror attack, do you think all the people claiming that Bush's policy are whats keeping us safe would then say never mind Bush's policies caused an attack. No! They would want even more hardlined policies.

Thats the paradox. They claim fighting wars and taking our rights away works because we haven't been attacked, but if we were attacked, they would claim the solution would be to take away MORE rights and go to MORE wars.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

War is a part of being a man. We have to kill em all or they will kill us all. You liberals are all the same... I supose you want to sit down and have a beer with the animals?
George Bush keeps me safe at night and you to liberal. I don't care if I have we has to put camaras on my kamode if thats what it takes. But why not just blow up the whole lot of em and solve the problem!

" The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times."
Joseph Paul Goebbels

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering

its because reporting news on terrorism justifies its use as a weapon to get attention for your cause

thats why you arent suppost to report it in the news. Everyone is suppost to ignore it so its goal isnt achieved
Goal being = to get attention for a cause

this simple rule of procedure, is evidence to whats really going on here