Probably none.

But why take issue with preparations for a terrorist attack?

If one is prepared for a flood, isn't one prepared for an earthquake? If one is prepared for an earthquake, isn't one prepared for a fire?

We always hear about the importance of being prepared for these things, yet people don't start bitching until it's suggested that we be prepared for a terrorist attack.

Calling it "propoganda" is retarded. It's simply calling for people to be prepared for anything.

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Natural disasters are not the result of government policy.

That's about as retarded a response as I ever could've imagined.

You're saying that people shouldn't prepare for something because that "something" would be "the result of government policy".

Actually, that's not retarded, that's profoundly retarded...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

wow ......i thought katrina was bush's fault?

and so i can get you straight here , you are not against the government in your bunker there in oregon with the generator and the SWEET water running and stuff

but its the governments fault that 9/11 happened? its the governments fault that wackos stretch a religion into a murderous cult and kill people just because ?

People where I live prefer to avoid periodic utility interruption from inclement weather conditions and societal ills of metropolitan residence. In case you've forgotten or never experienced it, that's called real freedom.

Discussion of geopolitical history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Sorry you have to worry about it. Sounds like you live in a potential target area and other than listen to government warnings about what could happen due to their mistakes, there's not much you can do about it.

Stop dodging the point. It makes you look unintelligent.

You've essentially said that that people shouldn't prepare for something because that "something" would be "the result of government policy".

Please explain the "logic" you might have employed to conjur up that little gem...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I stated that due to the unconventional and randomness aspects of a terrorist attack, if natural disaster preparedness is in place there's nothing else they can do to prepare for what's an unknown danger. To me that makes the warnings a waste of money and superfluous. Are you suggesting survivalist bomb shelters popular in the '50s?

looks like not accepting the fact that you are anti government is not your strong suit

Government is a required part of societal structure that I accept and support. How government performs in relation to its cost, effectiveness and service to the citizenry is the only issue for pragmatic discussion.

What's evident is this:

Be prepared for a fire - You're cool with it.

Be prepared for a flood - You're cool with it.

Be prepared for a hurricane - You're cool with it.

Be prepared for a terrorist attack - Oh, well, that's a waste of time and money, because it's the government's fault.

You're a piece of work.

A point, though: If someone doesn't prepare for a natural disaster, but is swayed to heed the warnings about being prepared for a terrorist attack, isn't that a good thing?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I view it as unfortunate that it has to be a threat of armed retaliation due to poor historical government policy to prepare them.

And I view it as unfortunate that I have to have a preparedness kit for wildfires because someone throws a lit cigarette out their car window.

You've not address the point, and I can only conclude that you'll continue to dodge it, simply because you're incapable of takiing issue with the fact that someone heeding a warning for a "terrorist preparedness kit" is a good thing. People would then be prepared for natural disasters, too.

You keep trying to spin this into something political, and it's not...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

so just let the terrorist extract their fill of blood and turn the other cheek

You're missing the point. I'm not personally concerned about being prepared for a potential terrorist attack. If the general citizenry is at risk and feels a need to be prepared for such an event, common sense dictates they should be questioning the government as to why policy has created a circumstance that endangers them to a point where they're unable to defend themselves.

It's not a political circumstance, it's the cumulation of decades of foreign policy serving special interests, not the citizenry, that's been accelerated during the last decade. If the general citizenry can handle living with a siege mentality, fine. If they can't, let them drag themselves out of their apathetic, accepting state of mind and resolve the problem. Warnings against something that can be resolved makes it a government policy problem, not a natural disaster, and this is supposedly a nation governed by the people. It's their call, not mine.