Google search of my sites and the web


Sunday, July 08, 2007

Is there something you are not telling us, Mr Santorum?

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view," said the former senator from Pennsylvania.

Is Santorum expressing foreknowledge of some coming atrocity or is he merely using a tactic familiar to the leadership of his party - exploiting the fear of terror for the purposes of political rhetoric?

Santorum Suggests New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War, Prison Planet, July 7, 2007

I don't know about you but I for one am quite curious as to where Mr Santorum draws his prophetic powers from. While expectation of terrorism as a general possibility is fairly mundane it must be noted that Mr Santorum predicts terrorist events with a rather high degree of specificity, at least as far as their timeframe.

A good cop should get suspicious here. Are our counter-terrorism officials good cops? Well, if they are they ought to call Mr Santorum in for a little chat and ask him a few questions. Espeically so if those events he is talking about start becoming reality.


Little David said...


There are a number of "experts" who have claimed that Al Qaeda has a goal of a spectacular terror attack, something along the lines of the 9-11 attack, sometime this summer.

Boris Epstein said...


It is possible that Al Qaeda are planning something - though clearly even if they did 9/11 they didn't doit the way we were told, and likely didn't do it at all, and likely they only exist thanks to the Western itelligence services' support... But we won't get into all this. Yes, it is possible they are planning something. But whoever states that - I would like to ask them for some proof.

Also don't forget that watign something and having the means to accomplish it are two different things...

Little David said...


I doubt any evidence provided would convince you since you seem to think Al Qaeda is a figment of the imagination or something.

Boris Epstein said...

No, David, I don't think Al Qaeda is all fictional - some organization, headed by Mr Bin Laden does - or at least did - exist at some point. Yet to think of it as being a standalone organization would be a mistake. For instance, the Saturn (the auto manufacturer) does exists yet it would be a mistake to fail to acknowledge that it is part of GM.

Little David said...

So Al Qaeda is part of an American conspiracy or something?

Gee, Osama Ben Laden is actually a CIA implant and under the payment of the American government!

OK, OK, I am willing to be a realist. You did not state anything like that.

However. As much as "we" might not like it, evidence is that our opponents are not some great angels.

"We" can point out how the invasion of Iraq was a mistake however "we" can not then point out how the world would have been perfect if we had not done so.

I will agree the world would have been better absent the invasion of Iraq. But I can point to examples of how the world would not have been perfect if the invasion had not happened.

Are you a realist or are you an anarchist?

A realist will point to the invasion and point out the obvious problems. An anarchist would not be happy with anything we had done even though living with the "status quo" was unacceptable.

I am unwilling to sign on with anarchists who only seem to be motivated to achieve anarchy.

I love America. I love Democracy. I stand against anyone who seeks to spread that justice can not be achieved in this manner.

Boris Epstein said...


The world would hardly be perfect no matter what.

And if you love America then I think you must agree that having US military home and doing what they are constitutionally tasked with - such as guarding the US borders for a change - would be a lot more proper and would also boost America's national security - something against which I don't expect you to protest.

Little David said...

Actually, I voiced strong opposition to the invasion of Iraq prior to the invasion happening.

However we invaded anyway (thanks to Democratic as much as Republican support for the invasion) and now wonder if perhaps we need to stick around to clean up the mess we have made by invading.

I now stand in favor of trying to extricate ourselves from Iraq. I realize that anyone who serves as our President or in our legislature is going to have to bow to the court of public opinion and be in favor of some type of plan that will get us out of there.

So... I am in favor of withdrawing our troops from within the borders of Iraq to neutral grounds such as within the borders of Kuwait. With our troops in Kuwait they would be ideally located so as to be used if the civil war that springs up after the withdrawal does not result in genocidal actions or the involvement of foreign powers (such as Iran) in the conflict that results from the withdrawal.

I would not be completely opposed to some minor number of troops remaining behind in some areas, such as Kurdish dominated territory, to spare them (the Kurds) from some of the greater horrors that are sure to unfold after the withdrawal.

I am in favor of slow, wise and reasoned withdrawal, I am not in favor of "cut and run". We are going to have to get out eventually, and I understand that withdrawal is probably going to have to start sooner rather then later. However I do not agree that we are required to completely abandon the responsibilities we shouldered when invaded.

Perhaps you disagreed with the invasion like I did. However we as a nation did invade despite our objections. Along with the invasion came responsibilities that we as a nation shouldered by our actions. Abrupt withdrawal would be a mistake and a failure to live up to our obligations.

Digg This!!!