Thank you. So if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying we keep doing what we've been doing, just get better at it?

"We are not a martial state, we live by rule of law"
- - I agree. I'm not calling for martial law, but that's what we're going to have if the terrorists manage to smuggle a nuke or a dirty bomb into a major US population center.

There are ways to do a better job of sealing our borders and rooting out undesirables without tearing up the Constitution. There are a great many in our country illegally who should perhaps be monitored or deported.

We need to stop extending the protections of the US Constitution to non-citizens. There are plenty of good people in this country of all backgrounds, including muslim. We just need to get rid of the ones who are bad.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"I'm not sure that Kerry's argument is dishonest because the number of troops on active duty from Missouri outnumbers those from all the other countries except the UK and Italy. What was dishonest about his statement? "

The dishonesty lies in the fact that he is trying to portray the current coalition as something dramatically less than the '91 coalition. Prior posts have shown that other than French troops, (and some Canadians) this coalition is strikingly similar to the '91 coalition which is held up as a "good" coalition.

Although I admit that I thougth the Missouri line would have received more press. I am not sure why it did not have longer legs.

"But seeing as you thought ETA was Irish in a previous post, you really have no clue about this, do you?"
- - You're confusing me with some other moron(!) I never suggested, implied or hinted that the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna was Irish. I'M IRISH. We know who's on our side, the guys with the shamrocks in their lapels.

"Do you even know where Basque is?"
- - No, I'm Irish, remember. I'm so fucking dumb I'm not even sure where I am...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)"

Using a whip to drive folks from the temple, overturning tables . . . sounds a tad violent to me.


(you *did* ask . . . I'm just stirrin' the pot here . . .)

you asked for the last three years' stats and that's what you got. However, go back another ten and you get a whole different picture. We are not talking about loveable feckless amateurs.

"We are not talking about loveable feckless amateurs"

We Irish are NOTHING if not feckless, loveable and amateur.

Basically, however (and tangential) if you take all the terrorist acts OTHER THAN muslim, you find them pretty well directed AT someone. Muslims have opened a new chapter by attacking civilian targets like the WTC (where a great many victims were from countries and population groups with which al Qaeda had no bone to pick) or the Spanish rails. This is a disturbing trend and one that tempts the thought of over-the-top responses. (I'm not pushing for that, before anyone puts those words in my mouth).

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Obviously, no one really cared as much as we did."

The UNSC cared enough to pass seventeen resolutions, and thirty countries came on board with us. Considering how many Saddam was bribing, I'd call that a reasonable coalition.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

from a friend currently currently stationed in quatar:

>if you take all the terrorist acts OTHER THAN muslim, you find them pretty well directed AT someone. Muslims have opened a new chapter by attacking civilian targets like the WTC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...test_news/152156.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ement/ennibomb.shtml

You aren't really Irish are you? You know little about the place.

So what could have been done to stop the IRA? Install demopcracy! Oh wait, it's already a democracy. Send in some firepower! Oh wait, we sent it in the early 70s and it's still there. Pass laws to round up likely suspects and jail them! Oh wait, we did that and turned more people into terrorists as a result. Get the army to stop and search everybody! Oh wait, we did that before and instead of reducing terrorism we just pissed everybody off.

Just another little bit of history repeating itself.

"You aren't really Irish are you? You know little about the place."

I am Irish, just not from Ireland (third generation).

IRA denied responsibility for your first example and claimed regret for the second. Not that that means a lot.

I don't propose to have all the answers, but I believe in strict law enforcement. In this country we have the possibility of prevailing because we are so far from "them," and our leaders are squandering that advantage by leaving our borders open.

Can we exterminate all terrorists? Obviously not. Can we stomp them like cockroaches when we see them? We can and we should.

Stop and search "everyone?" Why?
Round up the usual suspects? Why?"

History repeats itself no more than any other bad habit. If we learn from our mistakes, we can write a different future.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I am Irish

It's a lie. You don't even know who the Chieftans are, for God's sake.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The 'Real IRA' accepted responsibility for Omagh.

>Stop and search "everyone?" Why?

In Northern Ireland the terrorists were difficult to spot in the general population because there were no racist appearance-based prejudices to use. Everybody looked the same. People were stopped at random on the way into town centres, and while driving around the countryside, and asked for identification and possibly searched. If your name was e.g. Sean or Seamus you were more likely to be questioned further. For 20 years, this pissed a lot of law-abiding people off.

>Round up the usual suspects? Why?

Selective Internment. Keeps them away from their scheming terrorist buddies. Yeah, we might pick up a few false positives, but that's worth it, isn't it? The problem happened when the false positives got really pissed off being jailed without charge, and turned into terrorists when they were released. You already do this at Guantanamo.

We do not appear to have learned from these mistakes

>Can we stomp them like cockroaches when we see them? We can and we should.

Chest-beating bluster. Cousin Elwood for President.

One thing that used to piss off a lot of British people was all the donations that American people used to give the Irish Republican movement through groups such as NORAID. That was when many Americans considered them to be freedom fighters instead of terrorists. The distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists can be fine depending from where you are looking at it, and I fear that Al Queda will continue to receive support from the Arab World unless we change tack.

"The problem happened when the false positives got really pissed off being jailed without charge, and turned into terrorists when they were released. You already do this at Guantanamo. "

I don't think you understand Guantanamo. All the people detained there were picked up in afghanistan for committing acts of terrorism or war against US personnel. they were screened over there prior to being brought to Gitmo. these guys are not being picked at random off the streets.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

they were screened over there prior to being brought to Gitmo. these guys are not being picked at random off the streets.

I think it's fair to say that whatever screening process employed was pretty loose- as it was/is in Iraq. Being detained at Gitmo is hardly convincing evidence of actually being a terrorist.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I think it's fair to say that whatever screening process employed was pretty loose- as it was/is in Iraq. Being detained at Gitmo is hardly convincing evidence of actually being a terrorist."

Really? How do you know what screening process was used, or if it was loose? Because someone being detained is complaining? Iraqis are not in Gitmo, only people collected from OEF in Afghanistan. Being detained is not evidence of anything per se, but these people were detained because they were believed to be unlawful combatants, not necessarily terrorists. this belief was arrived at because soldiers captured them doing bad things.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Iraqis are not in Gitmo, only people collected from OEF in Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm aware. Iraqis who are picked up in sweeps are detained in Iraq, as far as I know.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"In Northern Ireland the terrorists were difficult to spot in the general population because there were no racist appearance-based prejudices to use."
- - Too bad. Means the cops will have to work a little harder.

"For 20 years, this pissed a lot of law-abiding people off."
- - I can see where it would. But we stop law-abiding drivers at sobriety checkpoints, so I'm sure it must be legal to stop and check ID. I don't like it, but neither do I object to it.

"Selective Internment. Keeps them away from their scheming terrorist buddies."
- - If they're known participants, I don't see any problem.

"Yeah, we might pick up a few false positives, but that's worth it, isn't it?"
- - Define "false positive." I'm guessing that's someone who hangs with the terrorists, but has never been proven to have participated in anything. I don't know how they do it in Ireland, but around here the cops know who the bad guys are, they just can't arrest all of them because of our concerns for their rights, or more precisely our concern for their lawyers ability to twist their rights into a suit.

"The problem happened when the false positives got really pissed off being jailed without charge, and turned into terrorists when they were released. You already do this at Guantanamo."
- - That's total BS. An upstanding citizen doesn't become a terrorist after being held for questioning. The guy we released from GITMO who went to rejoin al Qaeda should never have been released. He was a terrorist, as proven by his actions upon his release.

"We do not appear to have learned from these mistakes"
- - No we haven't

"Chest-beating bluster. Cousin Elwood for President."
- - Sorry, my bad. Yes, let's apologize for having a stronger economy and higher standard of living. Let's try to understand why these scum hate us... Yeah, that'll help!!

"I fear that Al Queda will continue to receive support from the Arab World unless we change tack."
- - I'm sure you're right, but my idea of changing tack is probably to tack 180º from what you think we should do.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"I think it's fair to say that whatever screening process employed was pretty loose- as it was/is in Iraq. Being detained at Gitmo is hardly convincing evidence of actually being a terrorist."

I don't know how to answer this without sounding like an ass hole, so here it is:

I think your answer is proof positive that you are a bleeding heart moron. The only evidence that we (you and I) have is that the one guy we released went back to Afghanistan, rejoined al Qaeda and is bragging about how he's going to kill Americans.

Being detained at GITMO may not, of and by itself, prove anything. OTOH, it doesn't aid your case that these terrorist scum are actually Boy Scouts.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

The only evidence that we (you and I) have is that the one guy we released went back to Afghanistan, rejoined al Qaeda and is bragging about how he's going to kill Americans.
------------------------------------------

There has been more than 1 person released from Guantanamo - several hundred have been released to their home countries; some subsequently detained by their own Governments, some released.

Just because 1 out of the freed prisoners then went back to Afghanistan and fought does not meant that everyone in Guantanamo should be there.

"Just because 1 out of the freed prisoners then went back to Afghanistan and fought does not meant that everyone in Guantanamo should be there."

Nor is it in any way probative of your point. You choose to believe that our government (your government?) is evil. I don't know why you would make such a supposition, but I would suggest some form of proof might be called for...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I don't know how to answer this without sounding like an ass hole, so here it is:

Whoa, you warned me before delivering the personal attack. You're getting soft.

I think your answer is proof positive that you are a bleeding heart moron.

I choose to interpret this to mean that up until now you weren't sure. That's something.

The only evidence that we (you and I) have is that the one guy we released went back to Afghanistan, rejoined al Qaeda and is bragging about how he's going to kill Americans.

Evidence? Are you kidding me? We have no evidence of anything, really, with regards to Gitmo and the detainees, just as we have no real evidence about any of the detainees in Iraq. And I'm not saying I have a problem with them being there, necessarily, or that they're due an American style trial. But if you think there was some kind of rigorous standard by which they were selected for detention, you should take those rose colored glasses off. It defies common sense to think that the people who decided who got detained didn't err on the side of American safety- detain first and ask questions later.

Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with that approach, but the assertion that we had some rigorous standard in place to select detainees and that there probably aren't people at Gitmo who don't really belong there is not credible.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Whoa, you warned me before delivering the personal attack. You're getting soft."
- - Yeah, I figure that way you understand I'm attacking your viewpoint and not you. It's just that your viewpoint is annoying to me because of what it says about your basic assumptions (see below)

"I choose to interpret this to mean that up until now you weren't sure. That's something."
- - Actually, I should have said that you talk/post like one, because you might not actually be one. You might just be confused or duped.

"Evidence? Are you kidding me? We have no evidence of anything, really, with regards to Gitmo and the detainees, just as we have no real evidence about any of the detainees in Iraq."
- - Actually, I have my government's word for it, and a few folks in the military who assure me that these are bad guys. The Abu Ghraib detainees were picked up for good cause in Iraq after the hostilities were supposedly over. The GITMO geeks were similarly picked up for cause. These are people who would cut your head off with a rusty knife. I personally could give a flying f--- about their rights.

"if you think there was some kind of rigorous standard by which they were selected for detention, you should take those rose colored glasses off. It defies common sense to think that the people who decided who got detained didn't err on the side of American safety- detain first and ask questions later."
- - Precisely what I would hope they would do. However, under pressure, they're not releasing guys they shouldn't because of sentiments like those that you're expressing. I think that's a huge mistake.

"and that there probably aren't people at Gitmo who don't really belong there is not credible."
- - I think it's credible enough for me to support the policy. I'm 99.9% confident that none of those detainees should ever see the light of day. But that's just me.

And I'm a Neanderthal, knee-jerk, reactionary bigot...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...