The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Rastus on October 30, 2010, 08:52:34 AM
-
The use of the words "credible threat" when actual bombs were intercepted overseas, destination USA, is akin to softshoe pedaling of the truth. Credible threat, with common word usage, is interpreted and has been used by the Administration as something that could happen we are watching for or should be watching for.
Using this verbiage was equating a real attack that was stopped with some previous ethereal concerns. We were attacked, it was stopped...or at least we think it was. Could it be progressives don't want to stir up any more voters prior to the election?
-
I'd say #2 and #5 are eually accurate. No need to run around like our hair is on fire, but folks need to realize that A) this is real, B) there is no need to panic and C) Its not going to stop anytime soon. "Credible threat" would to me, be seeing elements of a conspiracy start to come toghther. This is beyond that. Ashcroft made mountains out of mole hills
(the "dirty bomber" and the Miami Seven" anyone?). BO seems to want to say "There's no cause for alarm". Both are dangerous BS because they have the same effect: causing people to tune out what is a very real and ongoing threat. >:(
FQ13
-
I'm glad they caught these explosives before they did damage. The current intel must be working pretty good.
Here's the problem with all the posturing by bHO and his admin: They feel they HAVE to do SOMETHING. Now I just ordered a couple hundred dollars of explosives via UPS. I'm hoping the knee jerk reactionaries don't confiscate my primers and powder before they are delivered on Tuesday. Because, bet your bottom dollar that Brady, Shumer, Bloomberg and other will pick this issue up and try to use it to restrict the shipment of ammunition and components. They'll try to pass severe restrictions on ANYTHING resembling explosives to the point they'll kill domestic shipments of ammo. Oh wait, DHS can probably just do that be fiat without the need for legislature. "Credible Threat" is probably all DHS needs to pass whatever restrictions they want on anything these days.
Taken to an extreme this won't just effect reloading components but also stocking dealers getting ammo to sell. And it won't be just FedEX, UPS, DHL but all shipments even by private carrier or personal vehicle. Locally Atlanta Arms delivers ammo to ranges when they pickup brass, in their own vans. Imagine what prices will jump through if they have to get licenses and approval for each and every time their truck rolls out of their factory?
-
First thing I thought of was Spain and the electioneering by terrorism that was done there. Then I thought "Why now, I thought Bin Laden was a Democrat?"
-
First thing I thought of was Spain and the electioneering by terrorism that was done there. Then I thought "Why now, I thought Bin Laden was a Democrat?"
Bin Laden wants Cheney's super evil twin, or maybe a Macnamara, someone clueless and reactive (Macnamara, not Cheney). He wants a global jihad, someone who bombs Mecca is his fondest wish, sort of like we wish one of those planes had hit the UN building. The more dead muslims the better as far as he is concerned.
FQ13 :P
-
Bin Laden wants Cheney's super evil twin, or maybe a Macnamara, someone clueless and reactive (Macnamara, not Cheney). He wants a global jihad, someone who bombs Mecca is his fondest wish, sort of like we wish one of those planes had hit the UN building. The more dead muslims the better as far as he is concerned.
FQ13 :P
I'll be darned, Me and Osama do agree on something.
Who'd a thought ?
It has to be a hoax or a conservative plot. They were going to Chicago, No self respecting anti American would attack Chitcago.
-
Were the "bombs" even viable? From what I've been reading there are a lot of questions about whether these things were even put together right and if they had the right recipe for the explosive they were trying to make. This group seems to (fortunately) have a history of incompetence when it comes to making their own explosives and getting them to work. The only success they have had was when using C4 against the USS Cole.
That might have played into Obummer's terminology selection.
-
Were the "bombs" even viable? From what I've been reading there are a lot of questions about whether these things were even put together right and if they had the right recipe for the explosive they were trying to make. This group seems to (fortunately) have a history of incompetence when it comes to making their own explosives and getting them to work. The only success they have had was when using C4 against the USS Cole.
That might have played into Obummer's terminology selection.
One hopes. There are a lot more folks who want to build a bomb than there are those that know what they are doing. OR...it was a test run. See what works, what gets caught, how the media plays it etc. Plus, terrorism doesn't actually need to kill anyone to work. The idea is attention, fear and chaos. They could have mailed hershey bars. If it got everyone at Homeland sliding down firepoles and put Al-Queda on the front page, its a win. :-\
FQ13
-
The law (rightfully ) views letter bombs like presents, it's the thought that counts.
Another ugly tie, you get a thank you card, a pound of C-4 and you get a cell.
Same idea. ;D
-
The law (rightfully ) views letter bombs like presents, it's the thought that counts.
Another ugly tie, you get a thank you card, a pound of C-4 and you get a cellhellfire from a predator.
Same idea. ;D
FIFY :-)
-
The law (rightfully ) views letter bombs like presents, it's the thought that counts.
Another ugly tie, you get a thank you card, a pound of C-4 and you get a cellhellfire from a predator.
Same idea. Grin
FIFY :-)
Works for me.