Does this really stop terrorists?

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Does this really stop terrorists?

Post by aristide1 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:18 am

It sounds like a great idea, but is there any proof it works? Snopes left me hanging.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:34 am

Stopping terrorism cannot be achieved until the root cause is accepted.

Occupation, Nationalism, oppression, religious posturing, greed, these are the causes of terrorism. Pressure builds like an overfilled dam until finally extreme, radical behavior is the result.

Terrorism/guerrilla warfare is one main reason a certain rag tag group of rebels were able to send the King packing in 1776. I seem to remember the french doing a similar thing to their aristocracy.

Oppressing people costs. When it goes too far, terrorism is the result.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:18 pm

I agree with you philosophically and generally, but my question really had more to do with this one particular technique.

Generally anyone who is more than willing to die for their cause removes many options the other party can use effectively. The question is simply, can we stop suicide bombers this way?

Maybe we should have bombs that splatter pigs blood everywhere? We have enough pig farms for a huge supply.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:19 pm

Then no.

The more injustice you dish out the more people get inline to fill the empty boots and the more renewed their battle cry becomes.

And on and on and on...Each side feeding off the other.

What would piss me off so much, that id be willing to blow myself up ?

If I ask it while taking the POV of someone raised in say, Palestine, the segregated south (USA or Africa), China, Nazi Germany, or in the colonies in the mid 1700's ect. the answer is clear to me. I would not need the lure of 100 virgins and everlasting bliss to volunteer to try and defeat my oppressors "By any means necessary".

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:34 pm

But if you need the lure and then suddenly no virgins, no heaven, what then?

They may not think like you, true?
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:11 pm

aristide1 wrote:But if you need the lure and then suddenly no virgins, no heaven, what then?

They may not think like you, true?
I look at "Apple pie and living the American dream" as the equivalent lure.

different language same message.

Fight the wicked infidel or terrorists so you can achieve true happiness.

Understanding all the different points of view is crucial to any conflict resolution.

Without understating there is to much room for hate, prejudice and war, left to fill the void.

Aanea
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:25 am

Post by Aanea » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:08 pm

Indeed, what most Americans fail to realize is that the "terrorist" have good historical rational reasons to hate American foreign policy. Using evermore repressive tactics to subjugate "them" will most likely not work.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I don't condone the actions of terrorist in any way, shape or form, but given the American history in the middle east its hardly a surprise that some people resort to terrorism.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:04 pm

Hey, all of you hold just on one minute, who said anything about this having to involve America at all? There's no reason this couldn't just as easily be done to, say, the killer of the next Theo van Gogh, is there?

mr. poopyhead
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: Mississauga, ON
Contact:

Post by mr. poopyhead » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:01 pm

i'm pretty sure that under those circumstances, allah would not fault someone for coming into contact with pigs... i'm pretty sure the same would go for a jew breaking kosher rules under duress... it's an extenuating circumstance....

i have a muslim friend who accidentally ate a piece of bacon once... he says you're ok as long as there is no intent to defile one's self...
..::AMD Opteron 165 2.25GHz 1.25V:.:Scythe Ninja 2:.:ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe S939:.:2GB Corsair XMS PC3200 RAM:.:eVGA GeForce 460GTX 1GB GDDR3::..
..::200GB Seagate 7200.8 HDD:.:Plextor PX-755SA DVD±R/RW-DL:.:Seasonic S12II-380 PSU:.:Yate Loon D12SL-12:.:Antec P180 Case::..

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:53 am

How does insulting someone help anything?
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

edh
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: UK

Post by edh » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:01 am

I'm sure those involved in terrorist groups see certain portions of western civilisation as being the extremists. Just think about some of the religious beliefs held by some groups in the west. So who's really the extremists?

I was in Saudi Arabia recently which is known for being strictly Muslim and while not a rogue state, has certain nationals which are known terrorists. What surprised me is how much some of the more extreme bible-bashers in the US would have found it quite to their liking:
- Strict rules on alcohol
- Religious interference in government
- Religious interference in education
- Lots of horridly inefficient American cars
- A lot of the hard jobs are done by poorly paid migrant workers who will work harder than the locals and are considered expendable by some of their employers
- Very illiberal views on sexuality
- Hard to get into
- Use of capital punishment
- Respect the Sabbath (but on a different day)

If everyone became irreligious would it solve the problem?
http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/busphotos/DSC_0034.JPG
Raijintek Metis: i5-6400, Scythe Ninja 4, Asus Z170i Pro Gaming, 8Gb RAM, GTX 950, Crucial 250Gb M.2, Seasonic X-400

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:38 am

edh wrote:If everyone became irreligious would it solve the problem?
http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/busphotos/DSC_0034.JPG
Without a moral authority, there is nothing but chaos. You end up in the situation Germany found itself in, where Hitler took advantage of a large, value-less group of people and convinced them he was the new moral authority. Even though not everyone agreed with him, it was enough to control the whole country and ultimately set in motion the events that led to the deaths of some 50,000,000 people world-wide. You take away God and suddenly all you have is moral relativism, where "right" is whatever the government says it is. Like I said, you put another Hitler in office and trusting the government to do what's right is what leads to your destruction.
[size=67]Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600[/size]

edh
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: UK

Post by edh » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:00 am

AZBrandon wrote:Without a moral authority, there is nothing but chaos.
Being irreligious does not mean you are without morals.
AZBrandon wrote:You end up in the situation Germany found itself in, where Hitler took advantage of a large, value-less group of people and convinced them he was the new moral authority.
I'm not quite sure how you're linking fascism to being irreligious. The people of Germany did not flock around the Nazi's for religious reasons at all. The Swastika is actually a Christian symbol and the Nazi's only started banning many religious groups when they started disagreeing with them.

There is no reason to believe that Germany during the 1920's and 1930's was any more irreligious than it, or many other western countries are today and we've not voted in dictatorships have we? Actually we've not voted in our Prime Minister at all and we ended up with a one-eyed Scottish idiot anyway. If you look at the Economist democracy index many of the countries near the top are also less religious countries so there's no way that being irreligious links a country with becoming an oppressive regime.
Raijintek Metis: i5-6400, Scythe Ninja 4, Asus Z170i Pro Gaming, 8Gb RAM, GTX 950, Crucial 250Gb M.2, Seasonic X-400

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:11 am

AZBrandon wrote:Without a moral authority, there is nothing but chaos. You end up in the situation Germany found itself in, where Hitler took advantage of a large, value-less group of people and convinced them he was the new moral authority. Even though not everyone agreed with him, it was enough to control the whole country and ultimately set in motion the events that led to the deaths of some 50,000,000 people world-wide. You take away God and suddenly all you have is moral relativism, where "right" is whatever the government says it is. Like I said, you put another Hitler in office and trusting the government to do what's right is what leads to your destruction.
This seems all mixed up.

First off I'll warrant that religion, specifically the Christian faith, has been the source of the current moral compass in Western society, however I fail to see how it's a given that religion is the only possible source of such a compass. It's also not at all obvious that if you did take away religion that The Government would suddenly take it's place as the source of moral authority. To pick a random example the Green/eco movement over the past few decades seems to have persuaded a significant fraction of people to worry about the environment and take moral responsibility for their impact on it. This has happened without, indeed often against the general wishes of, the governments of the day.

Second what do you mean by "take away God?", do you mean "if God didn't exist", or "if there was no belief in a God"? The Christian moral compass is a product of man - it is not handed down from God. The book that is sold as the word of God is in reality the work of man - current Western values are built on human interpretations of words imagined and written by other humans. If you believe Western values are worthwhile then it's clearly the case that humans can devise worthwhile value systems without external input. Having a mechanism through which people are cajoled into adhering to that value system is useful, but then there are many ways of achieving that.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:16 pm

nutball wrote:First off I'll warrant that religion, specifically the Christian faith, has been the source of the current moral compass in Western society
That's preposterous. Religion is not the source of any of the things it claims to be. Religion is all about taking credit. For anything it can. "You owe me for living, bitch", that's monotheism in a nutshell.

For morality, for your life, for science(as outrageously backwards as that is) for our willingness to protect ourselves from other religions...

Religion does everything it can to take credit for such things.
edh wrote:The Swastika is actually a Christian symbol and the Nazi's only started banning many religious groups when they started disagreeing with them.
No, they did have a problem with christianity from the start:

"Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity"

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:59 am

mathias wrote:
nutball wrote:First off I'll warrant that religion, specifically the Christian faith, has been the source of the current moral compass in Western society
That's preposterous. Religion is not the source of any of the things it claims to be. Religion is all about taking credit. For anything it can. "You owe me for living, bitch", that's monotheism in a nutshell.
If you say so. My comment was meant purely along the lines of "I'm not making a point about how Christianity is or isn't a great thing because it begat Western values".

My point was that even if you accept that it did, it's not at all clear that religion is the only possible source of such values given that they are in reality the product of human imagination.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:13 pm

Ughh, sorry about that, you have a good point about how even if you were to make that concession, that still wouldn't do much in defense of religion; I just felt that, especially with certain angles from which you can look at the issue in mind, that would be a very generous concession to make.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:38 pm

AZBrandon wrote:Without a moral authority, there is nothing but chaos.....
That's fine, however, I find too many religious leaders morality to be too compromised, regardless of reason. And frankly absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is why I really don't sit around and have a priest tell me how to vote, unless he's interested in all the legitimate counterpoints to his narrow minded view. Of course the mere thought of questioning anything sends me to hell, regardless of which religion we start with. Boy that's a convenient way to win an argument.

Unconnected thoughts:

In the US it seems the religious right (direction, certainly not correctness) have lead us in a direction that's all but Christian-like.

I prefer not to be considered part of flock, another indication of sheeple like posture. I will stop for directions once in a while, that's different from being lead around by the nose and have someone else do all the thinking for you. I wonder if that's yet another form of laziness.

I'm not certain this topic has to do with any religion. Extremists aren't truly religious, religion becomes just the tool for the means to an end. So if the idea of being buried with some hot dogs gives them reason to pause......
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:08 am

One thing is for certain, current backboneless government in western world cannot answer the threat of terrorism. In any other time, Somali priates would have been cracked down without mercy.

Now you pat them on head and say bad boy and let them go to plunder another vessel. Same is in terrorism. You cannot fight against terrorism with weapons, if you're concerned with human life. If you're concerned with human life you should not fight violence with violence.
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:03 am

edh wrote:The Swastika is actually a Christian symbol and the Nazi's only started banning many religious groups when they started disagreeing with them.
The modern usage is actually of Buddhist origin. I did a quick search and found the following link that claims it actually dates back even further - some 3000 years or so, which was even further than I thought it dated back. Either way, it's a very old symbol and the only religions really tied to it seem to be east-Asian, totally unrelated to the general western society of western Europe and America.

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swasti ... istory.htm
[size=67]Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600[/size]

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm

The only true resolution to terroism is education. These fanatics get their followers the same way the church does, through deception of the truth and prying on peoples fears.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:35 am

Aris, western governments are good also to prying peoples fears. How much civil rights have been burried since 9/11? All in the name of national security...
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:43 am

thejamppa wrote:How much civil rights have been burried since 9/11? All in the name of national security...
Its our country, we allowed ourselves to lose civil liberties in return for more national security.

And personally, im good for giving up a bit more civil liberty for more security. I'd like to see a video camera on every street corner in america with facial recognition software. The only people that have anything to hide are those that are doing things they shouldnt be doing in the first place.

Total transparency is the key to peace. Secrets are what start conflicts.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:25 am

Aris wrote: I'd like to see a video camera on every street corner in america with facial recognition software.
You'd just love England then...more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world I believe.

Having said that, I do actually agree with you, what have you got to worry about if you're doing nothing illegal? Many criminals have been identified by CCTV footage, who otherwise would have got away. Trouble is that in this country the thieves/muggers/whatever often get no jail sentence and go back on the street to mug someone else.
And, if another 9/11 or 7/7 might be prevented with the help of CCTV, I'm up for that.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:44 am

xan_user wrote: Oppressing people costs. When it goes too far, terrorism is the result.
As far as I know, Saddam was quite a dab hand at oppressing people in his day, but any attempts at terrorism by the oppressed were ruthlessly dealt with, and his methods achieved his desired results. On the other hand, the Americans got rid of Saddam (for whatever reasons) and have tried to introduce democracy to Iraq. They are, and have been, suffering numerous attacks from terrorists whose aim is to get them out of Iraq and instead bring in an extreme Theocracy which intends to deny half the population (i.e. the women) any kind of rights, remove freedom of speech for everybody and return the country to a medieval state.
A liberal democracy has both hands tied behind it's back when trying to fight terrorism, unlike autocracies such as China and Russia. Any means that it can use, such as data collection and CCTV surveillance must be used instead.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:14 pm

judge56988 wrote:
xan_user wrote: Oppressing people costs. When it goes too far, terrorism is the result.
As far as I know, Saddam was quite a dab hand at oppressing people in his day, but any attempts at terrorism by the oppressed were ruthlessly dealt with, and his methods achieved his desired results. ....
How did Saddam get the tools for that oppression?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/th ... _we_create

White hats need black hats to battle with, even if you have to create them yourselves.

Saddam was a bad man ,but looking back on history we did way more as a nation to support and nurture him than we ever did to discourage him.

It took years of US support to build him up to be the powerful enemy we needed to fill the void left by the collapse of the USSR.

Id like to think if we hadn't given the tyrannical dictator all the toxic gas and other tools of oppression, there's a damn good chance the oppressed might have defeated him long ago.

Meanwhile back at home the NSA , CIA, and FBI wont tell each other known terrorists are learning to fly planes and planning an attack while renting a safe house 2 miles from the center of US intelligence.?

Im way more worried about what some crazy paranoid government agent is holding back or fabricating so that he can get a promotion or push forward his boss' agenda.

Or what could happen if the warrant-less copy of EVERY DATA and PHONE TRANSMISSION crossing US wires gets into the wrong(er) hands...

Some cultures take longer to realize the value of equal rights. I know it took us way to long to end segregation after the civil war. Would a foreign nation be justified to invade the USA a hundred years ago givne our earlier treatment of women and non whites?

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:40 am

xan_user wrote: It took years of US support to build him up to be the powerful enemy we needed to fill the void left by the collapse of the USSR.
Not really correct - Firstly, Iraq was armed to help them fight Iran, which was seen to be a greater threat to Western interests and had embarrassed the Carter administration with the hostage affair. Secondly, when the cold war ended and USSR was no longer seen as a threat, Bush senior declared the beginning of a "New World Order" where the danger of war between great powers was substantially reduced and a new era of global co-operation could begin.
xan_user wrote: Or what could happen if the warrant-less copy of EVERY DATA and PHONE TRANSMISSION crossing US wires gets into the wrong(er) hands...
This is of course everyones concern and there is no doubt that this would make life much easier for a would be police state to control the populace; however, there have been many totalitarian regimes in the past that have managed very well without this electronic eavesdropping. The Nazis, Argentina, Chile and many others have controlled their respective countries through fear, torture, murder and by encouraging informers.
Agreed, this information must be looked after more responsibly; in the UK for instance, there have been several instances recently of CD's/hard drives being left on trains or lost in the post. The concern has usually been that peoples bank details get into the wrong hands and this is quite different to the kind of surveillance carried out by the intelligence agencies.
xan_user wrote: Some cultures take longer to realize the value of equal rights. I know it took us way to long to end segregation after the civil war. Would a foreign nation be justified to invade the USA a hundred years ago givne our earlier treatment of women and non whites?
Didn't the North invade the South for just that reason? After the secession of the South, were they not effectively two different nations? Abraham Lincoln stated that "slavery, somehow, was the cause of the war"

Bush argued that the desire for freedom and democracy were universal and not culture-bound, and that America would be dedicated to the support of democratic movements, "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Is that so wrong or is it not the business of any country to interfere in the affairs of another no matter what that country is doing? If for instance the US had invaded Nazi Germany in 1938 would that (with the benefit of hindsight) have been a good thing?

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:03 am

Aris wrote:And personally, im good for giving up a bit more civil liberty for more security.
If you're one of those who fought and died to give you those liberties you maybe have a right to change your mind and throw them away. If you're not, you're pissing on the graves of those who did give their lives.
The only people that have anything to hide are those that are doing things they shouldnt be doing in the first place.
Sure. How far down the long list of things folks shouldn't be doing should we go in using pervasive surveillance? Murder? Mugging? Speeding? Parking in the wrong place? Jay-walking? Letting your dog shit on the sidewalk? Dropping litter? Walking on the grass past the sign that says "Do not walk on the grass"? Standing on the corner of the street for twenty minutes watching people go by (classic hallmark of a terrorist on hostile recconnaisance)?

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:57 am

nutball wrote:
Aris wrote:And personally, im good for giving up a bit more civil liberty for more security.
If you're one of those who fought and died to give you those liberties you maybe have a right to change your mind and throw them away. If you're not, you're pissing on the graves of those who did give their lives.
Come on, surely you can see a difference between fighting a Nazi regime and using surveillance to enforce the laws in a democratic country such as the UK? Breaking the law is NOT a civil right so how is it eroding our civil liberties to enforce the law?
Surveillance is an extension in policing and law enforcement so where do you draw the line on that? Is it an infringement of our civil liberties to in fact have a police force at all, to investigate crime? After all, they have to watch people, tap phones, question suspects... where would YOU draw the line?

Personally I think everybodies DNA and fingerprints should be on record - it would make solving crimes easier in many cases, it would also help to prevent the wrong person being convicted of a crime and it would in the past have reduced the number of victims of several serial killers that would have been identified after their first murder.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:23 am

I knew i would reget posting in this thread again....
judge56988 wrote:
Not really correct - Firstly, Iraq was armed to help them fight Iran, which was seen to be a greater threat to Western interests and had embarrassed the Carter administration with the hostage affair. Secondly, when the cold war ended and USSR was no longer seen as a threat, Bush senior declared the beginning of a "New World Order" where the danger of war between great powers was substantially reduced and a new era of global co-operation could begin.
What ever the lie was, we gave a dictator wmd and chemical technology, its wrong and it made us a good bad guy later. We have gotten very good at.

The CIA helicopters carter sent to get the hostages ran out of gas because bush sr. didn't put in enough in to make it. This was an insurance policy to get him and bonzo in.

"New world order" ? please dont get me started. Cooperation? Maybe like cooperating with the mob. NWO was a bullistic threat by those with different ideals than the US. It created more terroism just by inception that it ever stopped through action.
judge56988 wrote: This is of course everyone concern and there is no doubt that this would make life much easier for a would be police state to control the populace; however, there have been many totalitarian regimes in the past that have managed very well without this electronic eavesdropping. The Nazis, Argentina, Chile and many others have controlled their respective countries through fear, torture, murder and by encouraging informers.
....
What is your point? That is OK for government spy on every man woman and child cause other 'worse' countries did it less?

Some cultures take longer to realize the value of equal rights. I know it took us way to long to end segregation after the civil war. Would a foreign nation be justified to invade the USA a hundred years ago givne our earlier treatment of women and non whites?[/quote]
judge56988 wrote: Didn't the North invade the South for just that reason? After the secession of the South, were they not effectively two different nations? Abraham Lincoln stated that "slavery, somehow, was the cause of the war"
not seeing your analogy here, who plays the part of the all mighty, bulling foreign nation hellbent on destroying both the north and south, only to replace with it s own government.?
What your analogy needs a Muslim world power with 100x+ the military power of the north and south to invade America to 'save us', and steal our rum and sugar. Also the same Muslim world power needs to train and arm both north and south for years leading up to it based on the guise of battling those nasty redskins.
judge56988 wrote:.."with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." .
Sounds an awful lot like what Hitler was saying on his rise to power. We enabled him to gain power in much the same way we did Saddam.

Violence and hate only breeds more of the same. Compassion and undersatnding breaks that cycle.

Im scared of how well fear is being used for control.

Okbye/dwt

Post Reply