View Single Post
Old 03-05-2013, 02:04 PM   #104
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 57
Posts: 21,592
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

These Guantánamo files undo the al-Qaida myth machine | Jason Burke | Comment is free | The Guardian

The media and our government love using fear as a tool to continue their stupid spending in the military.


Answer this, when has a terrorist ever attacked a highly viewed event? The Super Bowl doesn't need to be covered. Period. End of story. Why? Because it's the highest rated show in the world? Who cares? Why is this deemed a "level 1"? Because a bunch of rich assholes and celebrities are attending? Meanwhile, the same attack can be done at any other venue I suggested.

Spending this type of money is beyond foolish, it's reckless. These people are just playing on the fears and ignorance of its people.
I think we can agree to disagree. You always look for high value targets, why were the twin towers attacked, why were the Olympics targeted in 72, why did we hit Hiroshima, why did Washington cross the Delaware. The answer is always, the target would make a statement and an impact. Hitting a mid level college bowl might cause a stir, but not worth the retaliation it would bring, but pulling off an attack at the US's grandest stage, which the SB surely is, would show a level of sophistication of the enemy attack and question the US' vulnerabilities.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that politicians and media drive law and legislation by fear mongering. We are truly living in the Orwellian state right now, where once our enemy was our friend, and that whether there is a war to left or a war to the right, just don't look to closely at the political machine that continually shuffles the target.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.20072 seconds with 10 queries