From the "It's So Stupid It's Got To Be Real" File

[Spence]

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

"All I can tell you is if you look at their worksheets, and it says that New York City doesn't have any high visibility national icons ... I mean, I don't have to list the Brooklyn Bridge, the United Nations, Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building and the Stock Exchange," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in response to ABC News' questions.

The formula did not consider as landmarks or icons: The Empire State Building, The United Nations, The Statue of Liberty and others found on several terror target hit lists. It also left off notable landmarks, such as the New York Public Library, Times Square, City Hall and at least three of the nation's most renowned museums: The Guggenheim, The Metropolitan and The Museum of Natural History.
...
The form ignored that New York City is the capital of the world financial markets and merely stated the city had four significant bank assets.

New York City is home to Chase, JP Morgan, Citi Group, The New York Stock Exchange, The Commodities Exchange, American Express, George Soros funds, Michael Gabelli's funds, Lazard Frere and Salomon Brothers, to name just a few of the more prominent banking interests located there.Source (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/no_icons_no_mon.html)

So why would the Bush admin do something so obviously ridiculous? Well, start by considering the likelihood that New York [and Washington, D.C., which is also going to lose about 40% of its DHS anti-terror money] will vote for Republicans in 2006 and 2008. The next time someone tells you the Bush admin hasn't totally politicized the War on Terror, remember this.

[CNYSkinFan]

Source (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/no_icons_no_mon.html)

So why would the Bush admin do something so obviously ridiculous? Well, start by considering the likelihood that New York [and Washington, D.C., which is also going to lose about 40% of its DHS anti-terror money] will vote for Republicans in 2006 and 2008. The next time someone tells you the Bush admin hasn't totally politicized the War on Terror, remember this.
And the only foreign terror attack on us soil was where? DC and NYC.

Great move by an administration full of great moves. This is borderline treasonous, and yes I did say treasonous. They are playing with anti-terror money which goes to protect US Citizens to bolster the state budgets of red states. Congress better do something about it.

[RedskinsDave]

Come on, we all know these guys never strike the same place twice. Look at the World Trade Center.....oops!

I would like to know what moron made these checklists. Washington has more potential targets in a square mile than most states. The first time they started giving these out, they shorted Virginia until they were reminded that the Pentagon and many other federal offices are in Virginia.

[SkinsKY]

The fact that someone thought about this and decided it was a good idea is terrible. The fact that at least 10 other peopl saw this and agreed with it is atrocious.

[dukeuch]

Come on, we all know these guys never strike the same place twice. Look at the World Trade Center.....oops!

I would like to know what moron made these checklists. Washington has more potential targets in a square mile than most states. The first time they started giving these out, they shorted Virginia until they were reminded that the Pentagon and many other federal offices are in Virginia.

And NYC probably has more people per square foot than any other US city.

[smoak]

And NYC probably has more people per square foot than any other US city.

The American people matter to this administration?? Or any administration for that matter...

[CNYSkinFan]

And NYC probably has more people per square foot than any other US city.
Not to mention the extreme density of population allowing for maximum effectiveness of an airborne chemical attack durting say lunch hour any weekday in downtown manhattan.

[RedskinsDave]

Not to mention the extreme density of population allowing for maximum effectiveness of an airborne chemical attack durting say lunch hour any weekday in downtown manhattan.

Not to go off topic but that just isn't plausible.

[tommahawk]

The tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy have to be paid for some how...

[RedskinsDave]

The tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy have to be paid for some how...

It isn't less money in total but you get an A for effort.

[CNYSkinFan]

Not to go off topic but that just isn't plausible.
Maybe not...but subway attacks are (look at Japan). A morning commute attack in the Times Square station could at the very least cause massive sickness and alot of deaths if a nerve agent of some kind. I am not a real expert in this (despite right wing radio's attempts at labelling all Democrats terrorist sympathizers) but I would imagine if you had a plausible plan for mass acasualties you would want a densly packed region like Downtown Manhattan at lunch hour or during commutes

[RedskinsDave]

Maybe not...but subway attacks are (look at Japan). A morning commute attack in the Times Square station could at the very least cause massive sickness and alot of deaths if a nerve agent of some kind. I am not a real expert in this (despite right wing radio's attempts at labelling all Democrats terrorist sympathizers) but I would imagine if you had a plausible plan for mass acasualties you would want a densly packed region like Downtown Manhattan at lunch hour or during commutes

Yes, for a regular bomb. Most chemical agents are ruined when they are disseminated. In Japan, they released sarin gas on five subway trains and only killed 12 people.

Regardless, the point is still that New York and Washington are prime targets and always will be.

[Ibleedburgundy]

It isn't less money in total but you get an A for effort.

I hope you're not trying to say that cutting taxes raises tax revenue for the federal treasury overall because that tired Bush administration talking point has been debunked a thousand times.

[CNYSkinFan]

I hope you're not trying to say that cutting taxes raises tax revenue for the federal treasury overall because that tired Bush administration talking point has been debunked a thousand times.

No he is saying that the overall revenue for homeland security did not decrease, they just decreased it in NY and DC to give it to hot beds for terrorism lik Wyoming and Nebraska.

[lakewinola]

Most chemical agents are ruined when they are disseminated.


I think you got it there "Most", terrorists aren't dumb.

[RedskinsDave]

I think you got it there "Most", terrorists aren't dumb.

The point is they are not something terrorists are all that likely to use. They want mass deaths. Chemical weapons will not achieve that.

[lakewinola]

The point is they are not something terrorists are all that likely to use. They want mass deaths. Chemical weapons will not achieve that.

I think you are understating the effectiveness of a chemical weapon.

[akhhorus]

Maybe not...but subway attacks are (look at Japan). A morning commute attack in the Times Square station could at the very least cause massive sickness and alot of deaths if a nerve agent of some kind. I am not a real expert in this (despite right wing radio's attempts at labelling all Democrats terrorist sympathizers) but I would imagine if you had a plausible plan for mass acasualties you would want a densly packed region like Downtown Manhattan at lunch hour or during commutes

Those subway attacks were the 4th attempt by that group(Aum Shinriko) to release chemical/bio weapons in Tokyo, the first three met with comical results. And the really didn't kill that many, considering how packed Tokyo and their subway is.

[akhhorus]

I think you are understating the effectiveness of a chemical weapon.

Even the deadliest chem weapon will be disspated fairly quicky in a city setting. The Tokyo subways are jammed packed full of people and the Aum's release of Sarin only killed 12, which is tiny considering the numbers of people in the subway at the time.

[lakewinola]

Even the deadliest chem weapon will be disspated fairly quicky in a city setting. The Tokyo subways are jammed packed full of people and the Aum's release of Sarin only killed 12, which is tiny considering the numbers of people in the subway at the time.

If chemical weapons are soooooo not capable of mass causulties, why did we go to war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's so-called weapons of mass destruction programs?

[lakewinola]

I think the point here is that you cannot dismiss any method terrorits may use to attack us. And that NY and DC are probably their favorite targets.

[RedskinsDave]

If chemical weapons are soooooo not capable of mass causulties, why did we go to war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's so-called weapons of mass destruction programs?

Excellent way to run from your lack of knowledge on the subject. Kudos to you!

[Ibleedburgundy]

If chemical weapons are soooooo not capable of mass causulties, why did we go to war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's so-called weapons of mass destruction programs?

Because Saddam had Nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

If Chertoff can show that these cuts to DC and NY are not going to have an impact on security, I have no problem. But when I look at their classifications of monuments it makes me question their logic.

[lakewinola]

Excellent way to run from your lack of knowledge on the subject. Kudos to you!

Trillions of dollars have been spent worldwide on chemical weapons programs because the weapons themselves are ineffective?

[akhhorus]

If chemical weapons are soooooo not capable of mass causulties, why did we go to war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's so-called weapons of mass destruction programs?

Because there's a big difference between a terrorist group with 1 potential chem/bio weapon that can potentially kill 100 people, and a nation-state with a potential WMD program that can kill millions.

[lakewinola]

Because there's a big difference between a terrorist group with 1 potential chem/bio weapon that can potentially kill 100 people, and a nation-state with a potential WMD program that can kill millions.

I thought there were nation-states who are sponsors of terrorism?

[RedskinsDave]

Trillions of dollars have been spent worldwide on chemical weapons programs because the weapons themselves are ineffective?

Do you know the difference between a backpack and a cruise missile?

[akhhorus]

I think the point here is that you cannot dismiss any method terrorits may use to attack us. And that NY and DC are probably their favorite targets.

According to all governmental and independant research, the only WMD attack to worry about is a nuclear device that is triggered in a major city. Which would be extremely hard for even Al Queda to pull off. Chem, bio and radioactive materials(dirty bombs) pose a much smaller threat than is blustered about because of the delivery methods.

[lakewinola]

Do you know the difference between a backpack and a cruise missile?

Do you not think it possible at all for a terrorist organization to be in cahots with an unfriendly government to obtain such weapons?

[akhhorus]

I thought there were nation-states who are sponsors of terrorism?

There's a big difference between giving a terrorist group money and giving them a nuke. If Cleveland was nuked by Al Queda and Finland was responsible for giving them that device, you would have to kiss Helsinki good bye. Any country behind an attack like that would pay the ultimate price.

[RedskinsDave]

Do you not think it possible at all for a terrorist organization to be in cahots with an unfriendly government to obtain such weapons?

Well if they are, they aren't carrying the missiles onto the subway.

[akhhorus]

Do you not think it possible at all for a terrorist organization to be in cahots with an unfriendly government to obtain such weapons?

Because that would be an act of war. And its hard to nuke a shadowy terrorist group, but easy to retaliate against a nation.

[lakewinola]

Btw, the Japanese attack was done by idiots who had no training, and virtually no detailed planning of how to carry the attack out. First the Sarin itself was not made at its most leathal form, it was a very weak form of sarin. Second, they used bags of liguid Sarin that they simply punctured. It was not an aerosol based attack. The method of delivery was defective because it limited the attack to certain areas of the subway that were easily sealed off.

[akhhorus]

Btw, the Japanese attack was done by idiots who had no training, and virtually no detailed planning of how to carry the attack out. First the Sarin itself was not made at its most leathal form, it was a very weak form of sarin. Second, they used bags of liguid Sarin that they simply punctured. It was not an aerosol based attack. The method of delivery was defective because it limited the attack to certain areas of the subway that were easily sealed off.

And Sarin is one of the most deadly gases out there. For attacking a subway at rush hours with hundreds of thousands of people crammed into subway cars, they should have killed much more than 12. They were incomptetant, but at handling Anthrax, which was their first attempts. They had people who knew how to handle Sarin working for them, which is why they chose it.

[Spence]

I'm always amazed by the tendency of almost every thread in this forum to spin off on a tangent and then careen wildly out of control.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm always amazed by the tendency of almost every thread in this forum to spin off on a tangent and then careen wildly out of control.

Back on topic: New Yorkers woke today with the fresh knowledge that their city is no longer a terror threat. Thank God!!! Omaha's been sitting too easy for way to long. It's time for them to start worrying.

[dukeuch]

Even the deadliest chem weapon will be disspated fairly quicky in a city setting. The Tokyo subways are jammed packed full of people and the Aum's release of Sarin only killed 12, which is tiny considering the numbers of people in the subway at the time.

Didn't i read somewhere that there are dozens of chlorine storage tanks which are relatively unsecured that, if blown up, would release chlorine gas that would likely kill many more nearby residents than were lost in the 9/11 attacks?

[CNYSkinFan]

Do you know the difference between a backpack and a cruise missile?

One you pack your lunch in the other you pack a punch with?