grade schools targeted

[RC]

Shos,
BTW, thank you.

My concern is not so much a threat of terrorism at my daughters school (or rather, our childrens schools), but how the information was handled.

I simply don't trust them any more.

In Georgia, the schools sent a note home with the kids explaining that they had reason to believe they needed to heighten security and parents should expect to see police at their childrens schools.
No one paniced.

[Shapley]

RC,

Yes, I have a son in sixth grade (parochial school).

I recall that there was much ado over raising the alert level over documents found in Afghanistan just a few months ago. The argument were that the threat wasn't specific enough, the documents were old, the principal people were not in place, etc., etc.

We go from yellow to orange alerts, and I still get up every morning, see my wife off to her job (in a public school building), take my son to his school, and then go to work. We can't let the threat of terrorism disrupt our lives, or the terrorists have won.

Hell, Israelis and Irishmen send their kids to school, go to work, go to the market, etc., every day, and the threat of terror there is much more prevalent there than here in the U.S.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

We go from yellow to orange alerts, and I still get up every morning, see my wife off to her job (in a public school building), take my son to his school, and then go to work. We can't let the threat of terrorism disrupt our lives, or the terrorists have won.

Shapley! The reports from Afghanistan didn't NAME the school your wife works at! Thats the POINT!!!!!!
What the hell is an alert if they aren't going to bother to tell you when they have specific information? The alerts are stupid!

We CAN'T let it control our lives. I INSIST that WE retain that choice. It is MY choice dam...dagnabbit!

The terrorists have won when they terrorize. The more information I have, the more control I have over my life, the less terrorized I feel.

<small>[ 10-08-2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[RC]

Hey - I just wanted to say thanks to all for your tolerance today. I know I've been a real whiner - more than usual I mean. Oh god... I'm a whiner

[Shapley]

RC,

No problem, I'm a parent, too. I remember my reaction on Sept. 11th. I called the school. Why? I don't know. Maybe I had to hear from them that it was Okay. They had lots of calls that day, and they didn't know what to say. I wouldn't have, either.

The point is, we have to keep our wits. School administrators and politicians don't always have the answers, police and fire departments and military personel make the best decisions they can with the information, proceedures, and rules that they have. they are no more or less human than any of the rest of us.

If they had given you the information, there would be as many compaints from others that they "invited panic" for doing so as there are and will be from those that agree with you. It's a thankless job they have. Voice your concern to them. Attend the school board meeting and express your concerns there. Take your children out of school and home-school them. Do whatever you think is best. But don't think that every decision made by politicians is done with some calculated desire towards some evil political end. Many of those people are honestly there to serve, and do so to the best of their meager abilities.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Shap,
I'm going to start a new thread and be really honest about where I'm coming from.

I think you're great - seriously!

[RC]

The point is, we have to keep our wits. School administrators and politicians don't always have the answers

WE have to keep OUR wits.
I don't count on "them" to have any answers or wits in regards to me and mine, I count on me to make decisions for me and mine.
It is my job.

Hey, everyone makes mistakes, even rocket surgeons. There job would be rocket surgery, not making decisions about my childrens safety. That would make me mad. GRRRRR

[RC]

Saxy,

Did you see the article on CNN about it? How they determined that the information belonged to an individual. . .not a group. . .and they said that it wasn't a threat. . .

Heard it for the first time this morning. (No cable tee hee). I'm suspicious now.

They had the information for a month. Told the school leaders two weeks ago and the very day it hits national headlines they discover the guy in Iraq was legit.

Local news last night interviewed mom's lined up in their cars picking up kids from school and every single mom said the same thing I did. At least I don't feel like I've gone off the deep end anymore.

My husband and I have a day and a half to cool off, wade through our options and make a decision (before school on Monday).

Our ideas run the gammut from extreme (hide out in the middle of nowhere until the election is over), petitioning the school board/government for security, volunteering to ride the bus & stand guard at school, my husband becoming teacher at home for a couple of months, to simply negotiating my work schedule to drive the kids to school and remove at least one threat. (At least until the election is over).

About the only thing we gave practically no thought to was to do nothing and hope everything turns out OK. Chances are, absolutely nothing unusual will happen at either school.

Gosh, it's like hurricane season!
I won't regret one second of preparation no matter what happens.

[haggis]

"(hide out in the middle of nowhere until the election is over)"

… volunteering to ride the bus & stand guard at school, my husband becoming teacher at home for a couple of months, to simply negotiating my work schedule to drive the kids to school and remove at least one threat. (At least until the election is over).

Two questions

1. Do you have any reason to believe that the threat is going to go away after the election?

2. Are you going to carry a weapon on that school bus and while you stand guard?

These people have a phrase for unarmed guards; “another hostage/victim”

Our enemies don't care who the president is or will be, their war has always been with you and your husband and your family and me and everyone else whose very existence gives lie to their beliefs.

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, said:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

” About the only thing we gave practically no thought to was to do nothing and hope everything turns out OK. Chances are, absolutely nothing unusual will happen at either school.”

Edmund Burke said, "All evil needs to succeed are for good people to do nothing."

Abraham Lincoln echoed that sentiment, "To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards of us all."

You’re right to be angry, you just need to be able to channel the anger productively.

Alas, too many “knowledgeable” people in government, local, county state, and federal regard the American public as sheep, easily frightened despite overwhelming unambiguous evidence to the contrary; the citizens on flight 93 and the capture of the “beltway snipers”.

Government needs to give us all the information that can be safely released without compromising the safety or effectiveness of the source and then let the American public become a wolf pack, not a herd of sheep.

Unlike many in government and many in our society, I trust you, and your husband and almost every other able bodied American to “do the right thing” when it come to defending ourselves. I believe that properly informed and prepared we are a nation of wolf packs and not easily cowed.

But the important thing is that you are now aware of something that few of us have been willing to face;

Our enemy has been waging war on us for decades and by ignoring them we emboldened them in their efforts to destroy us.

Ignoring them or by accepting their attacks as inevitable but unavoidable, as the Europeans have, signals an acquiescence that sickens me and, in my opinion, leaves us even more vulnerable to their attacks.

We can’t afford to ignore them any more.

[OperaTenor]

Amen, Haggis.

I just wish I knew in my heart and mind our government's first priority was doing just that. Unfortunately, the more I'm learning right now, the less that seems to be the case.

[RC]

1. Do you have any reason to believe that the threat is going to go away after the election?

Do you have any reason to think your knowledge regarding terrorism is more complete than mine?

I have reason to believe that the threat is greater for my country in the next month. I believe the terrorists are probably inspired by their success in Spain.

2. Are you going to carry a weapon on that school bus and while you stand guard?

Your assumption that my husband and I had not considered such is fallacy and patronizing. I can only understand it to be so because I doubt you are sincerely interested in our method of assessment and planning.
"idea" was the key word you overlooked in your reading. If you really do want to contribute your ideas to our planning, I'm all ears. I DO consider you knowledgeable, there is a chance that you have an idea that we haven't thought of - doubtful.

You’re right to be angry, you just need to be able to channel the anger productively.

You don't win a fight because you are more motivated (angrier?), stronger, nor least of all, morally right.

Anger, like fear, is a catalyst only. Once it has served its purpose, it is only in the way of logical thought processes. If I know that and my adversary doesn't, I'm one up already. (Yep, I'm assuming you are letting your fear and anger guide you).

I was very much relieved to see other folks on the news feeling unsheeply like me. But yesterday, the local headlines notified all that there was nothing to fear, it was all a mistake.

My immediate concern is lack of knowledge - withholding of information.

My very next concern is that we have leadership and sheep who are less than rational but believe they are angrier, stronger, and morally more right than terrorist who beleive the same.

<small>[ 10-10-2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[haggis]

"Your assumption that my husband and I had not considered such is fallacy and patronizing."

RC, I'm sorry if it seemed that way to you, it was not my intention to do so. Text without inflection can be interpreted in ways the author didn't intend.

I am still curious if you had planned to be armed. I was in Israel last year and observed that parents rode their children’s buses and were armed.

I was even more surprised to observe that some of the older children and teachers were armed. Ever since they began arming teachers and some pupils a few years ago, attacks on Israeli schools have virtually disappeared.

If our children are our greatest assets why don’t we provide greater protection? And who is more motivated than the parents of those children? I think it’s a great idea to involve parents in the protection process, remember my “pack not a herd” simile?

” You don't win a fight because you are more motivated (angrier?), stronger, nor least of all, morally right”

Permit me to disagree. In my experience possession of at least one of those three factors contribute more often to success than failure.


” My very next concern is that we have leadership and sheep who are less than rational but believe they are angrier, stronger, and morally more right than terrorist who beleive the same.”

Aren’t we morally more right than terrorist who behead innocent people or who target our children as a way to inflict fear in all of us?

<small>[ 10-10-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[piqaboo]

I'll second that being more motivated (aka 'hungrier' or 'wanting it more' or 'hating to lose') or being stronger can definitely contribute to winning any conflict.

Being morally right at least helps in getting allies!

I've never understood why in Christianity its good to be a sheep and not a goat (I'll try to find the passage to which I refer). Goats are agile, strong, adaptable, independent creatures. Sheep are..... sheep.

[RC]

Being "morally right" is in the eye of the beholder. I believe we are more morally right, I'm guessing they believe they beleive they are.

Point is, to assume that anything that you FEEL is felt less than by your enemy can get you into trouble. Best not to fight on emotion alone.

Likewise, to assume you will win because you are stronger, without having as much determination as the enemy won't work either.

Haggis, practically speaking, I obviously could not take a gun onto a school bus. How about police or national guard? I would have thought that would be the natural reaction but it only happened in Georgia.
We aren't talking about declaring marshal law, we're talking about assessing a possible threat and coming up with the most efficient solution.

[haggis]

RC,
You have to take everything I say from my libertarian capitalistic viewpoint and my absolute unshakable confidence in the American public to do the right thing.

I want smaller, less intrusive government, not more. Yes the police and the NGs have a significant role to play in the protection of our society but why shouldn’t we, as citizens, have the ability to assist in the protection of those children similar to Israel?

And no, we are nowhere near as vulnerable to terrorist attack as Israel but I’m sure the citizens of Beslan felt the same way – before it happened.

I also happen to believe that an armed society is a polite and confident society, i.e. “pack not a herd”

Look at all the states that now have concealed handgun carry laws, despite the uproar from the anti-gun crowd none of those states declined into anarchy. To the contrary, violent crimes have decrease is a number of those states, especially in Texas.

It’s hard for a villain to pick a female victim when 19% (42,154) of the total active conceal handgun licenses in Texas are issued to women.

Rape, armed assault and homicide are down dramatically when compared to states that don’t have concealed carry laws.

I do agree with you concerning the election being key although we have established in the past that we are on difference sides of the coin.

But consider the following in light of my point below; the vast Japanese public neither knew about nor had a vote in the decision to attack Pearl Harbor, yet we held them to be so accountable that we killed millions in our march to end that war. That’s called “Jacksonian” and has become a valid projection of our power ever since Jackson was president. Now consider:

Senator Kerry counter-terrorist strategy:

”SENATOR KERRY: I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America. ...

SENATOR KERRY: But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

All of which sounds perfectly reasonable from a certain point of view. What's missing is the incentive for any nuclear-armed terrorist group not to incinerate an American city; there’s no deterrence.

Because liability has been limited by preannounced national policy, according to Kerry, unilateral assured destruction (a nuke in Baltimore) will only be met by a limited, compartmentalized response. And even that response will be contingent on passing the "Global Test."

I should emphasize that a limited, compartmentalized response may actually be the most appropriate policy under the circumstances, given the vast power of the United States and the military weakness of its enemies. The Global War on Terror has been just that: a proportionate, measured response using a mere fraction of American military strength.

George Bush:

”Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

But providing the underlying rigidity was deterrence: an America that could literally annihilate the enemy society and had the willingness to use those means if sufficiently provoked.

”Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Philosophically, the choice between Bush and Kerry is not over the fine-tuning of policy options; it is between limited response with deterrence on the one hand, and limited response with yet more limited response on the other hand.

To be able to chicken out if a nuclear weapon goes off in New York City is to live in a world without deterrence; a world where our enemies misunderstand us even as we have misunderstood ourselves; where nuclear weapons may be used seriously because they were never taken seriously.

A world where you grow up, all at once, with only belated revenge for a meal.

Sorry, got preachy, again, as usual.

RC,
Regardless of our differences, if you are in a state that permits conceal handguns, take a course learn to use a handgun (I assume you already don’t, if you do then I’m being inadvertently condescending and apologize )

Who know, you might like it. My wife did and she never fired a handgun until she was in her 40s

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis:
What's missing is the incentive for any nuclear-armed terrorist group not to incinerate an American city; there’s no deterrence.

There is deterrence now?
If we employed the logic that we were going after the bad guys with nukes, how come we didn't go afte North Korea(who still hasn't backed off of their nuclear program), better yet, why not Iran? We know of Iran's nuclear program, and we know they harbored not just al Qaeda members, but some of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks.

Originally posted by President George W. Bush, Leader of the Free World:
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

You've read the 9/11 report, right? If this is in fact the Bush administration's goal, how come we haven't landed World Enemy #1?
Given the above quote from the President(who I completely truated, and was 100% behind when he made that statement), plus what we know, and knew about Iran, we had infinitely more cause to invade them than Iraq. Oh yes, to top it off they are an extremist Islamic theocracy. Why didn't we go after them?

As much as I don't care for Michael Moore, what do you make of the ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens, and what of the entire US Bin Laden contingent being whisked out of the country right after the 9/11 attacks?

What do you make of the Duelfer Report?

<small>[ 10-11-2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

Haggis,
First, my apologies for 1)presuming you were intentionally condescending and 2) getting preachy -(I had to laugh when you apologized for the same, we are more similar than one might think ).

RC,
Regardless of our differences, if you are in a state that permits conceal handguns, take a course learn to use a handgun (I assume you already don’t, if you do then I’m being inadvertently condescending and apologize )

The part that I took as condescention was not the assumption that I couldn't use a gun, but the assumption that I would not have considered the need for one.

FL is a concealed weapons permitted state. As a private citizen, you may not carry a weapon under any circumstances onto public school grounds or busses, airports, or government buildings. I am acquainted with the use and proportional outcome of many assorted guns as is my spouse.

I do NOT support anyone carrying a weapon who does not regulary train but thats beyond my control. My own permit is expired. This is why I would also NOT want myself or anyone else to carry a weapon on a school bus who was not in regular training. Probably why the law forbids it - makes sense. In such a delicate situation, training would mean military or police IMO.

[RC]

Again, I totally agree in the substance and priority of OT's post.

Haggis, I could not disagree with you more in using the threat of nuclear response to terrorists.
First, the word "terrorist" is obviously subjective - we used it to attack Iraq. If you agree that Iraq was a terrorist threat, then you agree that nuclear weapons were an option there as it would be against any "rogue state", "axis of evil" etc...

Since those labels are also subjective, then ANYone who disagrees with George W, is at risk (France?) - ("If you're not with us..."). Especially when you are circumventing all other opinion (United Nations, and upwards of 50% of the US citizens he supposedly represents).

Second, when you talk of using nuclear weapons in resonse to terrorism, just who do you think you're killing? Terrorists, who think nothing of flying themselves into a building or exploding themselves, really could care less about what method is employed in martyrdom.

If you aren't aiming directly at the terrorists but only at those who harbor and support terrorists, watch out, we have that right here in our own country as well as the UK, Australia, etc... Again, while circumventing any authority or say that the UN has, George W can pick and choose at his own discretion.

I bet Hitler felt pretty cocky too. His downfall was in assuming a bunch of nations couldn't pull together enough force to kick his respectably strong butt. OOOOPS! (This is what I mean by thinking strength alone is going to win a war). I'm not interested in testing the world to see if they can pull together enough force to put George W. in his place. Kinda puts me in the shoes of those Japanese folks you spoke of.

We should focus on being the world leader we are which means, WE set the precedents and WE are the example. Russia is using George W.'s actions and words to return to soviet style government and we are increasingly hard pressed to draw a line of distinction.

Iran and N Korea are flaunting their nuclear power citing defense against...us? yes! They are playing YOUR cards!

By the way, if we were so intent on rooting out the terrorists and their sponsors, whats up with Iran? They sponsor, and support terrorists AND have nuclear weapons which they continue to produce right under our noses.
Gee...how'd that happen - oh yeah, we were busy in Iraq chasing stuff we have yet to find and terrorists who seem to be thriving in their new habitat there.

[Shapley]

RC,

RE:Shap,
I'm going to start a new thread and be really honest about where I'm coming from.

I think you're great - seriously!

I'm looking for the [blush] icon. Thanks.

I've not had time to read through your new thread opener as thoroughly as it deserves. I've printed it out and will read it as soon as I have the time, and will respond then.

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

” There is deterrence now?
If we employed the logic that we were going after the bad guys with nukes, how come we didn't go afte North Korea(who still hasn't backed off of their nuclear program), better yet, why not Iran? We know of Iran's nuclear program, and we know they harbored not just al Qaeda members, but some of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks.”

I think you might be confusing deterrence with action. The deterrence is the direct threat Bush made against the countries that harbor terrorists. The action was the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

If a Iranian supplied nuke is detonated in Baltimore by terrorists, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Bush will treat it as an act of war and will attack Iran, probably with nukes. The same holds true with NK and Pakistan.

With Kerry’s stated policy of treating terrorist attacks as law enforcement issues there’s some doubt that he would be willing to reciprocate.

And don’t think that policy misinterpreted leads to mistakes. The Argentines invaded the Falklands after someone in the State Department inadvertently conveyed the impression that the U.S. wouldn’t help the Brits in the event of an invasion. Likewise with the first Gulf War, on July 25 1990, 9 days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein "we (the Bush administration) have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait’

Those slips lead to miscalculations and two invasions that might not have happened if the position of the U.S. had been clearly stated.

I have to admit to some perplexity when I hear people complain about Bush’s aggressiveness on one hand and then point to the fact that he hasn’t invaded North Korea and Iran as a sign of weakness.

I think you are mistaking current inaction as current policy vis-a-vis Iran and NK. I’ve commented before that NK is more of a problem for China, Russia, Japan and S. Korea, although armed with a multistage rocket that can reach the U.S. moves the threat closer to home.

I think you are going to get your “wish” concerning Iran. The U.S. will have to do something before Israel does, and I think Israel might attack Iran before the end of the year, so our horizon for action is narrowing.


” You've read the 9/11 report, right? If this is in fact the Bush administration's goal, how come we haven't landed World Enemy #1?”

He’s dead. Considering his enormous ego for recognition (i.e. the video he made after 9/11 claiming credit) and the fact that we haven’t had any conclusive proof that he is still alive leads me to the conclusion that he’s dead. Unfortunately, like Hitler, we’re going to hear reports of UBL sightings for most of the remainder of our lives. Some people are harder to kill than others. Look at Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, even after showing their corpses on TV, some Iraqis still thought they were still alive.

“As much as I don't care for Michael Moore, what do you make of the ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens, and what of the entire US Bin Laden contingent being whisked out of the country right after the 9/11 attacks?”

I wasn’t aware of any “ties” between Bush and the Bin Ladens other than the rumors about some connections between Bush 41 and UBL’s father. Bush critic Richard Clark has confirmed that it was he who authorized the family members of Bin Laden to leave the country. The FBI tried to keep them in the country but was over-ruled. I think that was a mistake.

I am concerned about the relationship between Bush and the House of Saud and hope that he gets tougher with them in the next four years.

” What do you make of the Duelfer Report?”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a report so taken out of context. Read David Brooks’ Op Ed in the NYT.


RC

” First, the word "terrorist" is obviously subjective - we used it to attack Iraq. If you agree that Iraq was a terrorist threat, then you agree that nuclear weapons were an option there as it would be against any "rogue state", "axis of evil" etc...”

Possibly it is subjective, I tend to refer to people who want you and me dead to further their religious aims as “terrorists.” In the future I’ll refer to them as what they are, my enemies.

” Second, when you talk of using nuclear weapons in resonse to terrorism, just who do you think you're killing? Terrorists, who think nothing of flying themselves into a building or exploding themselves, really could care less about what method is employed in martyrdom.”

Read my earlier post about the citizens of Japan. We held them accountable for the actions of their leaders. And we’ll hold the governments of Syria and/or Iran accountable if they harbors or supports someone who eventually detonates a nuke in Baltimore.

” By the way, if we were so intent on rooting out the terrorists and their sponsors, whats up with Iran? They sponsor, and support terrorists AND have nuclear weapons which they continue to produce right under our noses.
Gee...how'd that happen - oh yeah, we were busy in Iraq chasing stuff we have yet to find and terrorists who seem to be thriving in their new habitat there. “

Once again, I think you are confusing inaction as policy. We currently have a sizable military force on three of Iran’s borders including the most sophisticated armored division in the history of warfare, the 4th ID. I mentioned above that something will happen in Iran by the end of the year, either by the U.S. or Israel.

From your comments I take it you would support military action in Iran?

<small>[ 10-11-2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>