# Terrorism Museum



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

> *Welcome to the Terrordome*
> Inside America's newest terrorism museum.
> 
> Here's a scenario likely to terrify visitors-including Democratic National Convention delegates-in Denver. You are walking down the 16th Street pedestrian mall on a bright summer day. Children are riding bicycles. Families are picnicking. Suddenly a huge fireball explodes, shaking the earth and scorching everyone in its path. Sirens wail. Ambulances rush to the scene. America's worst nightmare-a domestic terrorist attack-has once again come to pass.
> ...


Source Link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/155641?GT1=43002


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

The election is coming up quick. Cue the republican fear mongering! :numbchuck:




:watching:


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> The election is coming up quick. Cue the republican fear mongering! :numbchuck:
> 
> :watching:


compared to the Democrat (the sky is falling...aka Al Gore) fear mongering...? you're right... the election is right around the corner.

Who's more of a threat to my personal freedoms....? Democrat or Al Quaida...?

Hands down... A Democrat.

Remember... Joe Biden (D) wrote the 1994 AWB and Bill Clinton (D) signed it into law. Just wait until Joe Biden is VP.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> Who's more of a threat to my personal freedoms....? Democrat or Al Quaida...?


The republicans haven't been doing us any favors in terms of personal freedoms. We've got the patriot acts I & II, the phone companies are listening to our calls, if we don't like the establishment we can voice our displeasure in special "free speech zones" far removed form the action, and we're barring the press form acknowledging that dead soldiers are coming home.

So the dems want our guns and the republicans want us to live in a police state where we're perpetually on high alert. Neither alternative is good, but another 4 years of what we've got isn't very appetizing. :smt022


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> The republicans haven't been doing us any favors in terms of personal freedoms. We've got the patriot acts I & II, the phone companies are listening to our calls, if we don't like the establishment we can voice our displeasure in special "free speech zones" far removed form the action, and we're barring the press form acknowledging that dead soldiers are coming home.
> 
> So the dems want our guns and the republicans want us to live in a police state where we're perpetually on high alert. Neither alternative is good, but another 4 years of what we've got isn't very appetizing. :smt022


Don't worry, the patriot act will be replaced by the Nancy Pelosi sponsored "Fairness Doctrine". Which she has stated she's going to get passed. So, we'll all be silenced. Shitbag liberals will do everything in their power to take away our guns...paying the way for a real "police state". So there goes the 1st and 2nd amendments out the window. As for the patriot act, you must be suffering from memory loss... Democrats helped get that passed as well.. and right after 9/11 they actually had a major role in it's birth.



> we're barring the press form acknowledging that dead soldiers are coming home.


you're kidding right...? The f*cking press is keeping score of the deaths better than we're fighting the wars.

Sorry, but 4 or god forbid 8 years of Obama/Biden and Nancy Pelosi will be a nightmare. While Democrats have full control of congress, then give me a Republican president anyday. The goal is the keep the governemt in gridlock... unable to pass anything.

But then again.... I always love being the one to say "I told you so". It's almost like a high... :smt023


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> Who's more of a threat to my personal freedoms....? Democrat or Al Quaida...?
> 
> Hands down... A Democrat.
> 
> Remember... Joe Biden (D) wrote the 1994 AWB and Bill Clinton (D) signed it into law. Just wait until Joe Biden is VP.


I'll just point out that the presumptive Republican nominee sponsored the most vicious attack on the First Amendment in at least a generation: McCain-Feingold. I'll further point out that this destruction of personal liberty was signed into law by a Republican president, and deemed "constitutional" by a Supreme Court composed of a majority of justices appointed by Republicans.

Republicans as defenders of liberty? Gimme a break. Between some of the subsections of the Patriot Act, the wiretapping stuff, the creation of agencies like TSA, paranoia about radical Islam being an "existential threat" to Western civilization, flag-burning amendments, religiously-motivated bans on gay marriage, and eager involvement in a war with no recognizable end that requires back-door drafts ("stop loss"), I don't think anyone can make the case that Republicans are reliably in favor of individual liberty.

_"It's not about guns. It's about freedom."_ - Wayne LaPierre


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I'll just point out that the presumptive Republican nominee sponsored the most vicious attack on the First Amendment in at least a generation: McCain-Feingold. I'll further point out that this destruction of personal liberty was signed into law by a Republican president, and deemed "constitutional" by a Supreme Court composed of a majority of justices appointed by Republicans.
> 
> Republicans as defenders of liberty? Gimme a break. Between some of the subsections of the Patriot Act, the wiretapping stuff, the creation of agencies like TSA, paranoia about radical Islam being an "existential threat" to Western civilization, flag-burning amendments, religiously-motivated bans on gay marriage, and eager involvement in a war with no recognizable end that requires back-door drafts ("stop loss"), I don't think anyone can make the case the Republicans are reliably in favor of individual liberty.
> 
> _"It's not about guns. It's about freedom."_ - Wayne LaPierre


I have no love for either party or candidate at the moment. As for a defender of liberty... Well, that surely isn't any of us.

As for an Islamic threat... I'll just pretend that radical Islam didn't slaughter 3,000 Americans a few years ago. You're right, they're not a threat. I'm just imagining things.



> Patriot Act, the wiretapping stuff, the creation of agencies like TSA


again, all with the full backing of the Democrats... that was my point before. Laws are signed by a president, after it has the full backing of both parties. That's how it works. It seems that the democrat/liberal sheep forget that small little detail and instantly blame just one party.

But anyway, don't worry... Obama will save the day from the evil freedom grabbing anti-flag burning republicans. :smt023

McCain-Feingold will be considered a walk in the park after Obama/Biden & Pelosi are finished with us. Also, when the Fairness Doctrine is re-instated... censorship will have a new meaning.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> As for an Islamic threat... I'll just pretend that radical Islam didn't slaughter 3,000 Americans a few years ago. You're right, they're not a threat. I'm just imagining things.


Read what I wrote. I even put quotation marks around it. Radical Islam is clearly a threat. It is simply not an "existential threat" to the western world, like so many conservatives like to claim as they rationalize a perpetual war and restrictions on the liberty of Americans.

I've seen the Taliban and such. They are mainly a bunch of unsophisticated savages with minimal fighting ability. Yes, they might be able to get lucky and hurt us with some scattered explosions and such, but their sporadic hits will not end our civilization. Imagining firefights with al-Qaeda in the streets of Boston is akin to imagining a bunch of Appalachian hillbillies mounting an invasion of Zimbabwe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existential



> again, all with the full backing of the Democrats... that was my point before. Laws are signed by a president, after it has the full backing of both parties. That's how it works. It seems that the democrat/liberal sheep forget that small little detail and instantly blame just one party.


I concur, but that doesn't really give me a reason to prefer the RINO party to the Jackass Party. Both will stomp on my liberty. They just sometimes stomp on different liberties.



> But anyway, don't worry... Obama will save the day from the evil freedom grabbing anti-flag burning republicans.


Sarcasm noted. Flag burning is a form of free speech. Why should I prefer a Republican party that wants to remove my First Amendment rights to a Democrat party that wants to remove my Second Amendment rights?


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Sarcasm noted. Flag burning is a form of free speech. Why should I prefer a Republican party that wants to remove my First Amendment rights to a Democrat party that wants to remove my Second Amendment rights?


I agree to a point. It's kinda like that whole discussion about gay marriage. In the case of the Flag, it may very well be a First Amendment right, but I still retain the right to be flabbergasted and pissed off. I also reserve the right to walk up and punch that yahoo in the nose, along with the right to pay the consequenses for such act. It may very well be that you are changing my mind a little Mike... thank you for reminding me that I'm not a rock, I'm better for it.

I was discussing this with a guy at work, and he equated this terrorism museum to that of the Holocaust Museum in Wash, DC. I seriously about fell out of my shoes because I was in the presense of someone who does not have the ability to tell the difference of scope and scale between the two events. Both were tragic events, but there's no comparison.

My point is, I think this was much more of a political stunt to disrupt or distract attention from the DNC than it was a solid and true dedication to the memory of the event. This coming from a person with a big (R) after his name.... I hope I'm not catching that sickness going around... you know... change.

Regardless of the political motivations of the museum, or that Rudy showed up to take a photo op, I still can't bring myself to vote for a Obama bin Biden ticket.

Keep your eyes peeled for stunts similar to this as we approach the RNC. STAY TUNED.

After these messages, we'll be right back.... (cut to Coco Puffs commercial)

Zhur


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

zhurdan said:


> I also reserve the right to walk up and punch that yahoo in the nose, along with the right to pay the consequenses for such act.


I realize this is somewhat in jest, but obviously no one has any such right. But of course you can get as pissed as you want. :mrgreen:



> It may very well be that you are changing my mind a little Mike... thank you for reminding me that I'm not a rock, I'm better for it.


Nice!

_If you never change your mind, why have one?_ - Edward de Bono


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Here's a little more "fear mongering" for you... as I said before, it goes both ways.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26460555/


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> Here's a little more "fear mongering" for you... as I said before, it goes both ways.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26460555/


I don't think pointing out candidates positions on an issue is fear mongering.

Opening a museum for the sole purpose of pointing out what the scary brown, non Judeo-Christians have done to us (and might do to us again!!!)- to me smells of fear mongering.


----------



## f00lish1 (Jul 29, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Opening a museum for the sole purpose of pointing out what the scary brown, non Judeo-Christians have done to us (and might do to us again!!!)- to me smells of fear mongering.


I won't give my opinion on this musuem since I haven't been there and experienced it. As long as it's done in a way that educates the public and isn't "in your face" then why not? There are people still in denial that there is a real terrorist threat out there and they should be educated.

As for the "scary brown, non-Judeo-Christian" generalization, the article says there's content of the Oklahoma City bombings at the musuem as well. Remember, we also have our own wackos to deal with.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

f00lish1 said:


> I won't give my opinion on this musuem since I haven't been there and experienced it. As long as it's done in a way that educates the public and isn't "in your face" then why not? There are people still in denial that there is a real terrorist threat out there and they should be educated.
> 
> As for the "scary brown, non-Judeo-Christian" generalization, the article says there's content of the Oklahoma City bombings at the musuem as well. Remember, we also have our own wackos to deal with.


I haven't been there either, but I did read through their web site. The web site and the trailer they have posted seem to fit the bill for "in your face" if not outright sensationalism, to me anyway.

The CELL

While Oklahoma City is mentioned, I didn't see anything on there about the unibomber, anthrax, or even the ATFE's assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco and Elian Gonzalez's family in Miami, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or our occupation of Iraq - all of which are viewed as terrorism by a large chunk of the world.

From the perspective of the East India Tea Company, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism committed by Insurgents. I wonder if our Founding Fathers will be so mentioned....


----------



## sticks (Aug 24, 2008)

I'd just like to point out that while living in the USA and Canada (15+yrs total), I've yet to meet a radical islamist 'terrorist' that has infringed upon my rights or terrorized me in any way. I am still waiting to encounter one. I promise, I will be afraid 

All the while my own government (both Canada and USA) has regularly passed regulation that strips me of my liberties/rights, is constantly infringing upon them, and meddling into my affairs uninvited. Not to mention the decades of government sponsored terrorism that have claimed lives of thousands of innocent civillians on our soil and foreign.

Who's the real terrorist? It is crystal clear to me.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

sticks said:


> I'd just like to point out that while living in the USA and Canada (15+yrs total), I've yet to meet a radical islamist 'terrorist' that has infringed upon my rights or terrorized me in any way. I am still waiting to encounter one. I promise, I will be afraid
> 
> All the while my own government (both Canada and USA) has regularly passed regulation that strips me of my liberties/rights, is constantly infringing upon them, and meddling into my affairs uninvited. Not to mention the decades of government sponsored terrorism that have claimed lives of thousands of innocent civillians on our soil and foreign.
> 
> Who's the real terrorist? It is crystal clear to me.


Then why are you here...? Maybe you should think about moving to a country that gives you more rights... Maybe a country with a beach or something....? :smt023

Here's a video clip of "other" Americans who had the chance to meet some radical islamist 'terrorist'...


----------



## sticks (Aug 24, 2008)

That is if you believe that a bunch of sheep herders from Afghanistan orchestrated and pulled it off.

My take on that issue is much different than yours.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

sticks said:


> That is if you believe that a bunch of sheep herders from Afghanistan orchestrated and pulled it off.
> 
> My take on that issue is much different than yours.


This is at the point of the conversation where you watch what you say... understand? :smt023


----------



## sticks (Aug 24, 2008)

Or what? Are you going to ban me from your forums if I express my opinions? Are you a dictator? Is that why you like to refer to Stalin?

C'mon man. I know these are your boards. But I never signed up to be told what to do. My understanding was, I needed to play nice and not be blatantly disrespectful.

Maybe I forgot to read the fine print.


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)




----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

So long sticks, may Allah be with you.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Boy, a little dissenting opinion really seems to raise the tension in here. 

I like to see alternate points of view expressed - even if I don't agree with them. I makes me think I'm a free thinker and not just another mindless sheep. :smt023


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

I've noticed that most liberals only believe in free speech if you agree with them. If you don't, then you are classified as a facist......or "mindless sheep".:smt023


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Boy, a little dissenting opinion really seems to raise the tension in here.
> 
> I like to see alternate points of view expressed - even if I don't agree with them. I makes me think I'm a free thinker and not just another mindless sheep. :smt023


We certainly welcome discussion, but let's conduct it in a civil manner. As I've mentioned, *js* and I have disagreed many times and will very likely do so in the future. A difference of opinion is one thing, but expressing it in an intentionally insulting manner is another.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> As I've mentioned, *js* and I have disagreed many times and will very likely do so in the future. A difference of opinion is one thing, but expressing it in an intentionally insulting manner is another.


:smt023

It's all fun and games until someone puts an eye out...


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

sticks said:


> Maybe I forgot to read the fine print.


No fine print... but I'm thinking about adding some. :smt023


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I was referring to myself with the mindless sheep comment - it should have read "It makes..." I just saw the typo.


----------



## f00lish1 (Jul 29, 2008)

kev74 said:


> I haven't been there either, but I did read through their web site. The web site and the trailer they have posted seem to fit the bill for "in your face" if not outright sensationalism, to me anyway.
> 
> The CELL ....


Thanks for the link. As a whole, imho, I don't think the site is that bad and to me it seems as though the intent of the center is noble. I do have to agree that the video has some 'in your face' footage and the motto itself, "Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere," does sound like the opening lines to a B rated action movie trailer chock full o' explosions and gun toting dudes with cigars. :smt033


----------

