Korean Job Discussion Forums

[wannago]

According to this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7685017/

The U.S. is receiving less threats from terrorist groups. Some think this is another lull before a storm but others think that the new security measures are starting to pay off and terrorists are lookinig for softer targets.

I think this may actually be a lone benefit from the questionable, at best, war in Iraq.

What say you?

[Ya-ta Boy]

Isn't this a bit like firmly making up your mind that the butler did it on page 3 of the detective story?

[Wangja]

Well, now that cigarette lighters have been banned on US flights I can sleep safely at night.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

no one is forcing anyone to fly to the US.

I am glad about the ban on cigarette lighters.

[R. S. Refugee]

Ok, wannago, I haven't read your article yet, but I will. In the meantime, here is one that I posted several days ago by a columnist at the SF Chronicle on this topic.

I guess the question for both of us is, "Is one report lying and the other one telling the truth?" or are both of them telling the truth, but one or both of them are spinning so furiously that they are successfully practicing the propagandist's art of creating whatever impression they want regardless of the basic truths.

I am not so naive that I think only rightwingers spin furiously. So why don't we both spend a little effort critiquing and studying these contrasting POVs to try to get at the truth on this issue? It'd probably a good exercise for both of us. And by both of us, I mean anyone who's interested in trying to find some basic truth about this issue.

Cheers.
----------------------------------------------

Here's something funny, in a rip-your-patriotic-heart-out-and-spit-on-it sort of way: Just last week, BushCo's State Department decided to kill the publication of an annual report on international terrorism. Why? Well, because the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985. Isn't that hilarious? Isn't that heartwarming? Your tax dollars at work, sweetheart.

Lest you forget, this is what they do. They trim. They edit. They censor. BushCo kills what they do not like and fudges negative data where they see fit and completely rewrites whatever the hell they want, and that includes bogus WMD reports and CIA investigations and dire environmental studies and scientific proofs about everything from evolution to abortion and pollution and clean air, right along with miserable unemployment data and all manner of research pointing up the ill health of the nation, the spirit, the world.

Bush Lies, America Cries
This just in: Global terrorism rates are higher
than any time since 1985. Thanks, Dubya!

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, April 22, 2005

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farchive%2F2005%2F04%2F22%2Fnotes042205.DTL

[Kuros]

R.S., do I have to point out the distinctions between overall domestic security and the number of individual global terrorist attacks? One does not equal the other.

With all due respect, R.S., the article you presented us with is trash. The writer is so undisciplined with his adolescent rhetoric that I can't even truly begin to explain how unprofessional I think he is.

[Blind Willie]

It's true, R.S.

We wont get anywhere by copying the right's god-given gift of filling the public discourse up with garbage.

[Nowhere Man]

I appreciate your honesty in assessing the war, so I'll try to be civil here.

I honestly don't see a connection between invading Iraq and domestic security, and I don't think there ever was one. 9/11 wasn't carried out by Iraqis, nor was it Saddam's idea. Invading Iraq was, officially, about WMD. Supposedly they found a terrorist trainig camp during the invasion , and Saddam did give money to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. But here I see little but speculation that Iraqi terrorists were a significant threat to the US.

So, I think it's wrong to say invading Iraq has made America safer. As people across the aisle have stated in Guantanamo discussions, terrorism is generally stateless.

On the other hand, we do have all matter of other security measures now in place, particularly in regard to air travel. I think we're safer than we've ever been when it comes to flying. I have no worries that my flight will be used to hit a skyscraper.

On the other other hand, this safety has been accompanied by a great trampling of human rights and civil liberties, especially when it comes to people with "arabesque" names or appearances as well as people who have outspokenly opposed Bush foreign policy.

Such groups have found themselves harrassed and, at times, incarcerated. Often without explanation. If you, supposing you're an American citizen, find yourself denied airplane flights or arrested without explanation, would you call that a safer America?

Perhaps it is, but at what cost?

[R. S. Refugee]

[Kuros]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[R. S. Refugee]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Part of it. I am all in favor of an investigation. although I don't the election was fixed.

[R. S. Refugee]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

By all means investigate Ohio - but also investigate Penn. Where Bush lost by less votes than he won Ohio with,.