Mexico Border NOT Open to Terrorists?

#2
#2
#3
#3
Weren't you the one who said none of this was going on in Mexico? And that we had more to fear from up north rather than here since nothing was documented to be occuring in this area?
 
#4
#4
CSpindizzy said:
Weren't you the one who said none of this was going on in Mexico? And that we had more to fear from up north rather than here since nothing was documented to be occuring in this area?
Click to expand...
Yes, all the reports that were cited in the article, are from 2004 and prior...and all have been conclusively rebuked by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and the Mexican gov't. Like I said, nothing new.
 
#5
#5
Rebuked? Proof? And are these the same agencies responsible for so many classic moves on intel? And what of 2004? A year and a half does not make something lack credibility. We lose people all the time.....where's Osama?
 
#6
#6
CSpindizzy said:
Rebuked? Proof? And are these the same agencies responsible for so many classic moves on intel? And what of 2004? A year and a half does not make something lack credibility. We lose people all the time.....where's Osama?
Click to expand...
Yes, they have been rebuked. Just because some Muslim psychopath is now on record saying he has been to Mexico and that we are going to be attacked by people named David, Paul, and Peter, does not mean that is going to happen. It sounds like a clever rouse to me. Get the U.S. looking in other places and for people not named Mahmud and Abdul, and we can pull this off, again. And they will probably pull it off, because people like you buy into it like they have no agenda is announcing this.
 
#7
#7
People like you who think Mexico is not an open door are the same ones who allow so many gaps in security in the first place. Anyone thinking Canada is the top security threat to border security is losing it. Look at the ports. Look at the whole southern border. We cannot stop drugs and a flood of illegals coming across. Honestly do you seriously think there is no chance of Al Qaeda either already or planning on using this route for more attacks?

If you remember before 9/11, Al Qaeda announced there will be attacks and we had loads of info on it coming from planes. Anyone thinking this is automatically a ruse because they annouce it obviously has short term memory loss on how Al Qaeda operates.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
People like you who think Mexico is not an open door are the same ones who allow so many gaps in security in the first place. Anyone thinking Canada is the top security threat to border security is losing it. Look at the ports. Look at the whole southern border. We cannot stop drugs and a flood of illegals coming across. Honestly do you seriously think there is no chance of Al Qaeda either already or planning on using this route for more attacks?

If you remember before 9/11, Al Qaeda announced there will be attacks and we had loads of info on it coming from planes. Anyone thinking this is automatically a ruse because they annouce it obviously has short term memory loss on how Al Qaeda operates.
Click to expand...
I do believe the possibility is there, however, it is not an alarming possibility. The fact is that al Qaeda pulled off a gimmick attack on 9/11. They did not have sophisticated weaponry, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, they barely had capable pilots (by aviation standards.) They had box cutters and airplanes loaded with people who were just oh so courageous. Each of those hijackings could have been thwarted had a man stood up to the attackers...they didn't. Regardless of lapses in security, the final lapse was in the courage and fortitude of the American men sitting on those planes. To actually enter America with a nuclear weapon of some sort, requires less vague chatter (the planes operation...woo, sophisticated) than comandeering an airplane with a razor blade.
 
#9
#9
And it's amazing that such cheap and low-tech methods brought down how many four buildings, killed almost 3000, hit the center of our Defense Department, shut down aviation for a few days, shut down portions of our economy, and caused chaos with a flood of new security measures. Who's counting courage when the methods were just as deadly as a massive attack by the Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor. You have 19 guys with box cutters that did what no one else has done in our history. While you make their methods seem trivial I think it is a testament to their resolve and the thinking they put into this to make the human mind and body more deadly than missiles, aircraft carriers, or massive armies.
 
#10
#10
CSpindizzy said:
And it's amazing that such cheap and low-tech methods brought down how many four buildings, killed almost 3000, hit the center of our Defense Department, shut down aviation for a few days, shut down portions of our economy, and caused chaos with a flood of new security measures. Who's counting courage when the methods were just as deadly as a massive attack by the Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor. You have 19 guys with box cutters that did what no one else has done in our history. While you make their methods seem trivial I think it is a testament to their resolve and the thinking they put into this to make the human mind and body more deadly than missiles, aircraft carriers, or massive armies.
Click to expand...
I think it is a testament to the fact that Americans have been brainwashed by pacifists for two generations. The lack of action onboard those planes is, in my opinion, a direct result of the following line of thinking, "Just give them your (insert wallet, cash drawer, car, etc.), remember their physical features, and report it to the police later. In all ways placate your attacker. Never put up any resistance."
 
#11
#11
Or the fact that most are wrapped up reading the paper, listening to the iPod, using the laptop, or playing Sudoku to even notice something that happened so fast.....realize up to that point things like this were only hijacking. Do people want to risk tanking the plane for the potential of just being a hostage?
 
#12
#12
CSpindizzy said:
Or the fact that most are wrapped up reading the paper, listening to the iPod, using the laptop, or playing Sudoku to even notice something that happened so fast.....realize up to that point things like this were only hijacking. Do people want to risk tanking the plane for the potential of just being a hostage?
Click to expand...
You have just illustrated my point.
 
#16
#16
So let me guess....if you had a chance to retreat to live and fight another day because the value of living today was greater than dying, you'd choose to charge right into a hail of bullets?
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
So let me guess....if you had a chance to retreat to live and fight another day because the value of living today was greater than dying, you'd choose to charge right into a hail of bullets?
Click to expand...
Yes, if it was for a cause I believed in.

I believe that life is extremely precious and my career is dedicated and predicated on combat. There is always a very large chance that on every single patrol that myself or one of my soldiers will receive a fatal wound. Yet, we don't just sit inside the confines of the FOB waiting for some other unit to take care of it.

Honestly, posing this question is encouraging cowardice.
 
#19
#19
So the same logic you have criticised others for on here does not apply to you? You cannot answer a simple question posed by someone else to you?
 
#20
#20
So you would disobey orders that were to hold for say a right moment and charge out on your own guns blazing?
 
#22
#22
I didn't ask about being hit on patrol. I asked you specifically about you taking initiative to just fight recklessly or wait for the moment best suited for the odds of better success.

And you are also saying that all Americans need to be the same way as you with their lives?
 
#23
#23
CSpindizzy said:
So the same logic you have criticised others for on here does not apply to you? You cannot answer a simple question posed by someone else to you?
Click to expand...
I can indeed answer a simple question posed by someone who is obviously completely ignorant of the definition of the word that he is trying to use.

Pacifist:
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

What part of that says that self preservation is not pacifistic. Everyone desires to preserve themselves, however, truly courageous and just men will put the greater good above their own wants and needs.

Also, considering that there were at least 50 men on each of the flights, and only 4 hijackers armed with boxcutters, I doubt they would have even risked much physical harm. Especially not to the point of being cowed by the idea of "self-preservation."
 
#24
#24
CSpindizzy said:
I didn't ask about being hit on patrol. I asked you specifically about you taking initiative to just fight recklessly or wait for the moment best suited for the odds of better success.

And you are also saying that all Americans need to be the same way as you with their lives?
Click to expand...
In the sense that when confronted with a physical threat to keep them from doing what is right and just, then yes.

As to the odds of better success, 50-75 men against 4, armed with box cutters...sounds like pretty good odds to me.
 
#25
#25
Let's wander back to your original comment and see how pacifism has infected people's minds to not act against hijackers. You basically said that this idea more or less caused people to be cowards.

So to elaborate on what you are defining above, the military laying low would be pacifist because they are not resisting at that moment. If units withheld from battle at particular moments they would be pacifists.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top