.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Monday, January 09, 2006
Device Defused at San Francisco Starbucks

UPDATE: Never mind.
"This was a good device. If it had exploded, it would have caused injuries or damage," said Gittens, who would not describe its size.

Holy mackerel! I've frequently wondered if the anti-war crowd would understand what we're fighting against if a mall or a bus in the US started blowing up once a week. I was hoping not to find out....
The article implies that the bomb may have been set by anti-Starbucks activists (anti-multinational corp types) and not Islamoterrorists. This is supported by the fact that this occurred in San Francisco, where there has been a great deal of resistance (often violent) to "chains" coming in and displacing the mom-and-pop stores. We'll see how this unfolds. Bottom line is that this incident probably has little to do with THAT kind of terrorism or the war in Iraq. Probably an isolated event, though of course your fears are legitimate.

Are you afraid this here Coffeehouse will be the next target?!?
I say we invade San Francisco.

Here's why I think that any sort of future terror attack in the U.S. won't persuade the anti-war types:

A.) Now they say the current security measures, Patriot Act, etc., aren't necessary because we haven't been attacked again. If we are attacked again, they'll say those measures aren't necessary because they didn't work!

B.) The hardcore leaders of the movement are anti-American Marxists and stuff in the first place.

C.) 9/11 didn't do it for them, why should a bomb in a bathroom?
We should definitely invade San Francisco if only because their resistance would be so funny. Wanderer is probably right that these guys may have not been Islamofascists but anti-global-capitalism types -- the miscreants with marginal hygene who go to world bank conferences to chant "more world, less bank". They're mostly pathetic, but if they're playing with bombs now, I'd like them shot.
I consider them to be the leftist equivalents of the Tim McVeighs out there.

I think the more reactionary "anti-war types" would argue that any future terrorist attacks were in fact CAUSED by the war in Iraq. For the most part, this is probably nonsense (9-11 obviously happened before we invaded Iraq), but Iraq has certainly fanned the flames of Anti-Americanism.

The Patriot Act is only legal to the extent it is Constitutional. It is interesting that this seems to be the current focus of the Alito hearings and not other issues. It is not that cut and dry and certainly meets the definition of a slippery slope. We must be vigilant of how much we allow government to spy on American citizens, even during "wartime".
Hmmm. I wonder what "type" I am...
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger