"There are an estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the USA from Mexico. If the data mining can't find them, how will it find the 100 that may be up to terrorist mischief?"
During the Vietnam War, Pyle revealed the Defense Department monitored and infiltrated antiwar and civil rights protests in an article he published in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.
Stroop coursework war on terror essay topics
Another key point: many political leaders have used fear to gain and retain power. The current administration is an amazingly blunt example, I'm surprised that its taking America so long to figure out what's going on and what sorts of countermeasures are more sensible. I don't think Senator McCarthy's run lasted 5 years, but there are a lot of 20th century examples of leaders in other countries who used terror to stay in control for many years. I wonder what new plots will be uncovered and when the threat level will be raised between now and November.
"The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself."
I understand what you mean, and there is also something to say for your ideas. It is true that despite all threaths there has happened little in the past 5 years.
Even road deaths in the US for 2002 was over 40 000.
Interesting to note that Ryanair, easyJet and British Airways appears about to sue or claim compensation from the British Govt for causing excessive delays, unless they immediately scale back these new onerous airport procedures.
Tank had a good point and I think Jonathan hinted at one.
I think that they could do much more damage, by attacking oilrigs, refineries, and water supplies etc which is easier because they are often remotely located, what would be the impact on those ones?
I reckon it'll be a long slog though
>> We're all a little jumpy after the recent arrest of 23 terror suspects in Great Britain.
>I'm not more jumpy, and I live here.
I hope it's not a rigged example; I tried not to make it such.
A nice piece of confusion, Mr. Ottenheimer, constructed by entangling two different meanings of "take seriously", two different types of "extreme fringe", and using "ideas" as a placeholder for two very different things. But I strongly suspect you know exactly what I meant, and arguing semantics has no attractions to me, so I won't try to spell it out. What I am not so sure about is what you were trying to achieve; perhaps you could state it more plainly?
That's a really good point. Thank you.
> Maybe you didn't mean it the way it came out, but on the one hand you tell us to take ideas by the extreme fringe (e.g. liquid bombs on aircraft) seriously, and then the next minute you are telling Bruce not to take them seriously. Which is it?