Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The Gulf
- Add a comment
- Go to If They Were Home, You Wouldn't Need $3.5 Billion To Address IED Problem
You are absolutely correct, mellyn. September 11 showed that there is
a vast American terrorist infrastructure already in place. Steven Emerson, one of the world's leading authorities on terrorism, has a book out called
American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (2002), which details how terrorists use our freedoms to garner financial, material, and physcial support for the world's terrorist organizations, not the least of which are HAMAS and al Qaeda, many of them overlapping. I am not an alarmist, but I am realistic. Fighting terrorist 'over there' isn't a bad idea if you do it diplomatically and surgically, which we could have done had the Bush administration not decided to prolong their ill-conceived efforts, but it is only a matter of time before terrorists pull off another September 11-like act. We just need to brace ourselves for the inevitable. I just hope that Bush is still in office when it happens so he can be blamed, not his successor.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 8, 2006 at 10:18 AM
| link to this | reply
WHAT ELSE CAN WE SAY, BUT ACT SAUL
Saul, this is why I gave myself a brake from the news. It was just sickening. You're right. What else can I say. I'm furious? Yes! When I think of all the good programs that are cut off and seniors struggle to get their medication, poor people so forth and so on. The soldiers should be here. This president said he didn't want them (Al-Queda)fighting on our soil; huh, he needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They are here, have been here, and more will come. 
Thanks for your writing.
With His Blessing,
mellyn
posted by
mellyn
on February 8, 2006 at 6:08 AM
| link to this | reply
thanks, DrJPT
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Right you are, Prof. This political correctness has gotten out of hand...
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Stopped in to Read Your View
posted by
Dr_JPT
on February 6, 2006 at 1:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Uh, wrong meaning of "booby"
Maybe it was political correctness; they worried "booby" could be misconstrued.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 6, 2006 at 12:50 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm with you, Prof Peabody, but it has entered the mainstream vocabulary.
Funny, the first time I ever saw the acronym, I thought someone had misspelled IUD and, for just a second, couldn't figure out how the hell an IUD exploded and killed an American soldier (the obvious answer to that was too horrible to even contemplate).
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 12:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Whatever happened to "booby traps"
When did everyone drink the Kool Aid and start calling booby traps "IED"s? That sounds like a birth control device. It's not a more precise term. Everyone knows implicitly what a booby trap is; WW II, Korea & Viet Nam (especially Nam!) can relate to it. This is just another euphemism, like calling innocent civilian casualties "collateral damage". I don't like it!
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 6, 2006 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply