Jump to content

Terror on the ground


Recommended Posts

More fearmongering.

Howard Dean sums it up quite nicely: "I'm concerned that every times something happens that is not good for President Bush, he plays his trump card, which is terrorism. His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore in times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge."

And these warnings are useless for anything other then causing panic, a more useful warning would say something like "A reminder -- folks in the Citicorp building need to take extra notice of any vehicles or people hanging around. If you see someone who you don't know is authorized to be in the building, walk up, smile and ask 'May I help you?'"

Also useful would be to actually force the evacuation of any buildings that are really so threatened, so that everyone who works there wouldn't be under pressure to negotiate their own safety with their employers (should I go in? Maybe I can call in sick? No, what if everyone should stay out, maybe we should all get together and then get permission as a group?)

A "warning" that just boils down to "Orange alert! Woo woo! Worry a lot! Okay, now yellow alert! Don't worry so much!" serves no purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More fearmongering.

Howard Dean sums it up quite nicely: "I'm concerned that every times something happens that is not good for President Bush, he plays his trump card, which is terrorism. His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore in times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge."

And these warnings are useless for anything other then causing panic, a more useful warning would say something like "A reminder -- folks in the Citicorp building need to take extra notice of any vehicles or people hanging around. If you see someone who you don't know is authorized to be in the building, walk up, smile and ask 'May I help you?'"

Also useful would be to actually force the evacuation of any buildings that are really so threatened, so that everyone who works there wouldn't be under pressure to negotiate their own safety with their employers (should I go in? Maybe I can call in sick? No, what if everyone should stay out, maybe we should all get together and then get permission as a group?)

A "warning" that just boils down to "Orange alert! Woo woo! Worry a lot! Okay, now yellow alert! Don't worry so much!" serves no purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These terror warnings are sinister. They are as you stated, more of the fearmongering. A scared public is a plyable public. Leading up to the election you are going to see the rhetoric increase to a fever pitch. "URBAN AREAS TARGETED BY TERRORISTS DURING ELECTION" in other words, "Democrats stay home or you might die."

When my party determined that being Republican was more important than being American they lost me. I don't think most Republicans are interested in a fair election, its win at any cost the end justifies the means... and that's damned dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These terror warnings are sinister. They are as you stated, more of the fearmongering. A scared public is a plyable public. Leading up to the election you are going to see the rhetoric increase to a fever pitch. "URBAN AREAS TARGETED BY TERRORISTS DURING ELECTION" in other words, "Democrats stay home or you might die."

When my party determined that being Republican was more important than being American they lost me. I don't think most Republicans are interested in a fair election, its win at any cost the end justifies the means... and that's damned dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting article, in regard to PSYCOLOGICAL terror:

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.

"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon.

Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, said generating fear was a common tactic.

"A lot of leaders gain their appeal by helping people feel they are heroic, particularly in a fight against evil," Greenberg said in a telephone interview from Hawaii, where he presented the findings to a meeting of the American Psychological Association.

"Sometimes that may be the right thing to do. But it is a psychological approach, particularly when death is close to peoples' consciousness."

For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students to think about either their own death or a neutral topic.

They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was charismatic, said Solomon.

"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.

The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style, Solomon said.

Fearing doom, choosing charisma

The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking about death.

Greenberg, Solomon and colleagues then decided to test the idea further and set up four separate studies at different universities.

"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."

When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.

"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said.

Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the situation.

Another study focused directly on Bush and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry.

"I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote, don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq."

He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are used.

"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act differently, then they don't act differently," Solomon said. Solomon says he personally opposes Bush but describes himself as a political independent who could vote Republican.

[ 08-02-2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting article, in regard to PSYCOLOGICAL terror:

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.

"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon.

Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, said generating fear was a common tactic.

"A lot of leaders gain their appeal by helping people feel they are heroic, particularly in a fight against evil," Greenberg said in a telephone interview from Hawaii, where he presented the findings to a meeting of the American Psychological Association.

"Sometimes that may be the right thing to do. But it is a psychological approach, particularly when death is close to peoples' consciousness."

For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students to think about either their own death or a neutral topic.

They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was charismatic, said Solomon.

"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.

The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style, Solomon said.

Fearing doom, choosing charisma

The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking about death.

Greenberg, Solomon and colleagues then decided to test the idea further and set up four separate studies at different universities.

"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."

When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.

"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said.

Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the situation.

Another study focused directly on Bush and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry.

"I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote, don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq."

He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are used.

"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act differently, then they don't act differently," Solomon said. Solomon says he personally opposes Bush but describes himself as a political independent who could vote Republican.

[ 08-02-2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, so, if you fear death through terrorism, then you support Bush, but if you don't have that fear, you support Kerry?

Oh, OK then.

Guess what? You have a right to fear terrorists, you have EVERY reason to fear Terrorism, you have every reason to support Bush over Kerry in the terrorism problem that we have.

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them.

If people have to fear terrorism in order to support Bush, then we need to remind them EVERY fricking day of the danger of terrorist attacks, because that is why we are at war......

Americans are basically ignorant, and stupid, nd shortsighted. If it did NOT happen yesterday, they forget about it. This is dangerous, the american people need to be reminded EVERY day that we are at war, because THEY are in danger....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, so, if you fear death through terrorism, then you support Bush, but if you don't have that fear, you support Kerry?

Oh, OK then.

Guess what? You have a right to fear terrorists, you have EVERY reason to fear Terrorism, you have every reason to support Bush over Kerry in the terrorism problem that we have.

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them.

If people have to fear terrorism in order to support Bush, then we need to remind them EVERY fricking day of the danger of terrorist attacks, because that is why we are at war......

Americans are basically ignorant, and stupid, nd shortsighted. If it did NOT happen yesterday, they forget about it. This is dangerous, the american people need to be reminded EVERY day that we are at war, because THEY are in danger....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Americans are basically ignorant, and stupid, nd shortsighted. If it did NOT happen yesterday, they forget about it. This is dangerous, the american people need to be reminded EVERY day that we are at war, because THEY are in danger....


Go look in the MIRROR.

You seem to have adopted BUSH's perspective, in regard to the intelligence of the American People.

The ONLY purpose, in promoting FEAR, is to INCITE, an, otherwise irrational, reaction from those you are attempting to influence.

How, can you sit there and PROMOTE, much less, JUSTIFY, such action?

Proper RESPONSE, to PROBABLE terrorist activity, will be dealt with, as effective as possible... REAGARDLESS.

Who is President, is IRRELEVANT to the SAFETY of the AMERICAN people...UNLESS, that President, is ACTIVELY provoking others..(as with BUSH)..then the DANGERS are INCREASED...and NOT lessoned, as your GOD(bush)claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Americans are basically ignorant, and stupid, nd shortsighted. If it did NOT happen yesterday, they forget about it. This is dangerous, the american people need to be reminded EVERY day that we are at war, because THEY are in danger....


Go look in the MIRROR.

You seem to have adopted BUSH's perspective, in regard to the intelligence of the American People.

The ONLY purpose, in promoting FEAR, is to INCITE, an, otherwise irrational, reaction from those you are attempting to influence.

How, can you sit there and PROMOTE, much less, JUSTIFY, such action?

Proper RESPONSE, to PROBABLE terrorist activity, will be dealt with, as effective as possible... REAGARDLESS.

Who is President, is IRRELEVANT to the SAFETY of the AMERICAN people...UNLESS, that President, is ACTIVELY provoking others..(as with BUSH)..then the DANGERS are INCREASED...and NOT lessoned, as your GOD(bush)claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Good point El Che. I guess there is NO possible way that the terrorists could have been planning it while Clinton was in office and just didn't get to implementing it until Bush was in office, is there. Maybe all the other attack on the U.S. in the last 20 years have been invited by Bush also. I can see him sending out a form letter to all the terrorists years ago telling them that he is going to be president someday so they had better get their attacks while there was a president who wouldn't do anything to retaliate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Good point El Che. I guess there is NO possible way that the terrorists could have been planning it while Clinton was in office and just didn't get to implementing it until Bush was in office, is there. Maybe all the other attack on the U.S. in the last 20 years have been invited by Bush also. I can see him sending out a form letter to all the terrorists years ago telling them that he is going to be president someday so they had better get their attacks while there was a president who wouldn't do anything to retaliate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Now look at this

It's been.. 3 years.... have you seen anymore terrorists attacks on our soil? Nope.. you know why? Cause there afriad of what Bush will do. Just watch, the moment Kerry is elected the terrorist attacks will start again. Now.. where's my proof? My proof is at the Democratic Convention

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

So, El Chi, our security IS working and we are safe for now. Proof of it working is that we havn't had an attack on US Soil for over three years. Remember that please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Now look at this

It's been.. 3 years.... have you seen anymore terrorists attacks on our soil? Nope.. you know why? Cause there afriad of what Bush will do. Just watch, the moment Kerry is elected the terrorist attacks will start again. Now.. where's my proof? My proof is at the Democratic Convention

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

So, El Chi, our security IS working and we are safe for now. Proof of it working is that we havn't had an attack on US Soil for over three years. Remember that please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

ROFLOL!!

quote:

So, El Chi, our security IS working and we are safe for now. Proof of it working is that we havn't had an attack on US Soil for over three years. Remember that please

yeah, and the reason there are no elephants in DALLAS Texas, is because of my elephant repellant ....see how good it works?...NO elephants to be seen!!!...roflol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

ROFLOL!!

quote:

So, El Chi, our security IS working and we are safe for now. Proof of it working is that we havn't had an attack on US Soil for over three years. Remember that please

yeah, and the reason there are no elephants in DALLAS Texas, is because of my elephant repellant ....see how good it works?...NO elephants to be seen!!!...roflol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

ROFLOL!!


Laugh all you want Street, but it's true. Check the site's and do you're own research and you'll find it yourself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

Right now, the Terrorists can't get into our country because of HomeLand Security and Bush's new policy. There stopping more people at the border than before, but you'll never hear that on the news

ROFLOL!!


Laugh all you want Street, but it's true. Check the site's and do you're own research and you'll find it yourself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Look who's wearing blinders.... LOL

It is MOST definitely you.

Or do you think an operation of 911's scope takes 8 months to plan and execute?

They started their planning of 911 during Clinton's watch. Why? You ask, because EVERY time that we got hit, the terrorists got what they wanted.

They hit us in Somalia, BADLY, and CLinton pulled our troops, Osama used Somalia as an example of WHY he was using terrorist tactics to attack the US.

He thought that if we took casualties, that we would RUN!!!

Guess who taught them that lesson?

His name is William Jefferson Clinton.

911 is a DIRECT result of HIS policies in regards to terrorism.

Shall I go over the REST of the terrorist attacks that took place on CLintons watch, where we did little if anything to respond, EXCEPT run.

Woohoo, we shot a million dollar missile, and blew up a tent, and we shot a few million dollar missiles, the day Monica Lewinsky REALLY went public and blew up an aspirin factory.

Yeah, those are REAL scary responses....

The terrorists were laughing at us, we were a paper tiger as far as they were concerned.

They DON'T think that anymore.....

[ 08-03-2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Kerry is NOT capable of understanding and dealing with the danger, he will run,, just as Gore would have run, just as Clinton ran before him.

Democrats run, therefore INVITING more terrorist attacks. A preemptive policy and an attack after the fact, keeps us safer. You don't grin and bear it, you take the fight to them

But didn't the terrorist attacks take place several MONTHS after bush was in office? So WHO was "inviting" the terrorist attack at that time? Was it Bill Clinton, former president? Was it Al Gore, former vice president? Who was it Jaguar? WHO was in OFFICE when this tragedy took place? I think it's time to take the blinders off, Jaguar.


Look who's wearing blinders.... LOL

It is MOST definitely you.

Or do you think an operation of 911's scope takes 8 months to plan and execute?

They started their planning of 911 during Clinton's watch. Why? You ask, because EVERY time that we got hit, the terrorists got what they wanted.

They hit us in Somalia, BADLY, and CLinton pulled our troops, Osama used Somalia as an example of WHY he was using terrorist tactics to attack the US.

He thought that if we took casualties, that we would RUN!!!

Guess who taught them that lesson?

His name is William Jefferson Clinton.

911 is a DIRECT result of HIS policies in regards to terrorism.

Shall I go over the REST of the terrorist attacks that took place on CLintons watch, where we did little if anything to respond, EXCEPT run.

Woohoo, we shot a million dollar missile, and blew up a tent, and we shot a few million dollar missiles, the day Monica Lewinsky REALLY went public and blew up an aspirin factory.

Yeah, those are REAL scary responses....

The terrorists were laughing at us, we were a paper tiger as far as they were concerned.

They DON'T think that anymore.....

[ 08-03-2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...