Free State Project Forum

FSP Community => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: MouseBorg on November 04, 2002, 09:16:29 pm

Title: Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: MouseBorg on November 04, 2002, 09:16:29 pm
_
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: heyerstandards on November 05, 2002, 05:08:52 pm
Endless war for endless peace.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 05, 2002, 05:51:43 pm
The media describes them as suspected, but these are the same people that the US has been watching for 2 years.  They are, as members of al-qaeda, hostile forces in a foreign land, and thus entirely within the jurisdiction of military assault.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 05:59:50 pm
Go! US military.  Hello, we are at war with these (ahem)people...

For the rebuttal to all those who will jump on me for being the war-monger that I am, just click on and read someone with whom I disagree vehemently on many issues, but not this one:

http://www.anncoulter.org - that's my answer.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 06:38:33 pm
Wasn't she the one that said:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too,"

Wouldn't that be terrorism in itself?

And as such wouldn't the War on Some Terror be applicable to her?

But then I forget, the government doesn't mind being friends with terrorists when it suits them.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 06:45:22 pm
Wasn't she the one that said:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too,"

Wouldn't that be terrorism in itself?

And as such wouldn't the War on Some Terror be applicable to her?

But then I forget, the government doesn't mind being friends with terrorists when it suits them.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.  John Walker was fighting in Afghanistan with the forces that were enemies of this country.  And I think whether one agrees that the death penalty is a good thing is a topic for another thread.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 06:54:20 pm
"... in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too,"

(my bold)

ter·ror·ize   Pronunciation Key  (tr-rz)
tr.v. ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing, ter·ror·iz·es

   1. To fill or overpower with terror; terrify.
   2. To coerce by intimidation or fear.

ter·ror·ism   Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
n.

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

ter·ror·ist   Pronunciation Key  (trr-st)
n.

    One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

I put to you that Ann Coulter is a terrorist. Maybe not in the American governments use of the word to mean "those bad men who aren't on our side". Everyone seems to be getting carried away with the word terrorist nowadays. Although you hardly ever hear it apply to a government despite the amount of them that engage in terrorism.

A conspiracy? :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 06:56:35 pm
from what I'm seen, shes often just this side of foaming at the mouth. Perhaps if she presented herself a bit more rationally?
Well then no one would listen to her, would they?  She'd be just another female voice on the breeze.  And what's wrong with "foaming at the mouth" when you feel strongly about something that you see being distorted, misrepresented, etc. all around you?  I'm not sure we don't need a little more "foaming at the mouth" when for example, the tax and spend demos start taxing and spending, or when the religious right wing try to foist on us and legislate their morality!  Sorry - to call strong opinions "foaming at the mouth" does not adequately respond to the argument. :(   :P
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:05:16 pm
You guys are too fast - by the time I prepare a response to one of the you, the other has posted something else! :o   Or I type too fast and make all kinds of typos! ::)

Apples and Oranges - The difference between speech and action is huge!  

If I say you should be executed because you are a terrorist, and I say you are a terrorist because you deliberately target innocent bystanders (as opposed to accidentally hitting them in a battle going on around them), or if I say you should be executed for treason for going to war against your own country, it is not even close to the same thing as actually gunning you down because you are the wrong religion, or flying airplanes into buildings full of non-combatants with the purpose of doing so and killing as many Americans as possible.

And, if you don't get that difference, head over to almost any country in the middle east to see it for yourself - oh, and be sure to pretend you are a woman to get the full effect.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:12:29 pm
   The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

P.S. You highlighted the wrong part of the above definition - you should have highlighted THE UNLAWFUL USE
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:15:59 pm
No Mr. Mouse, I think she's called rabid because she is a woman with strong opinions who is not afraid to voice them in public.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:19:43 pm
Quote
author=blnelson
If I say you should be executed because you are a terrorist, and I say you are a terrorist because you deliberately target innocent bystanders (as opposed to accidentally hitting them in a battle going on around them), ...

Umm... As we are supposedly a society that uses an elective system, where we appoint those who carry out our wishes, we are not innocent bystanders. Every single one of us who supports such a terrorist state is a valid target.

Umm...I think when I referred to actual Americans who were actually killed, I termed them non-combatants.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:23:34 pm
Every single one of us who supports such a terrorist state is a valid target.
I wholeheartedly agree that anyone who supports a terrorist state is a valid target.  I disagree that the U.S. is such a state.  Self-defense is not terrorism; it is the proper role of government (and one of the only ones), and protects your and my right to have this argument (ahem, I mean discussion ;))
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 07:26:22 pm
P.S. You highlighted the wrong part of the above definition - you should have highlighted THE UNLAWFUL USE

au contraire...

it says: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence.

I would call it a threatened use of force.

Was John Walker a terrorist (deliberately targetting innocent bystanders) or a soldier/guerilla/combatant/traitor fighting against the US invasion of Afghanistan?

Is Israel a terrorist state for deliberately targetting non-combatants and using collective punishment?

I would be interested to know your opinion on the reasons behind terrorism.

I'm sure all the dead civilian non-combatants are able to rest in peace knowing that they were shot/bombed accidentally.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:27:17 pm
Sorry - the operative term is unlawful
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:31:29 pm
Was John Walker a terrorist (deliberately targetting innocent bystanders) or a soldier/guerilla/combatant/traitor fighting against the US invasion of Afghanistan?
He was a traitor
Quote
Is Israel a terrorist state for deliberately targetting non-combatants and using collective punishment?
They do not deliberately target non-combatants.  
Quote
I would be interested to know your opinion on the reasons behind terrorism.
Tribalism
Quote
I'm sure all the dead civilian non-combatants are able to rest in peace knowing that they were shot/bombed accidentally.
The dead are dead.  It is the living I am worried about now.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 05, 2002, 07:33:55 pm
Don't know what you two will come up with next, but I gotta go now.  Bye
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 07:36:05 pm
 \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

A less ambiguous definition.

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone who supports a terrorist state is a valid target.  I disagree that the U.S. is such a state.  Self-defense is not terrorism; it is the proper role of government (and one of the only ones), and protects your and my right to have this argument (ahem, I mean discussion)

No, the US prefers to hire other people to do their terrorism for them.

I'd hardly call most of the US wars (official and otherwise) in this last century 'self-defence'.

and protects your and my right to have this argument (ahem, I mean discussion)

While it uses your taxes to support terror and war.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 08:49:40 pm
He was a traitor

Fair enough. Not a terrorist then?

They do not deliberately target non-combatants..

Yes they do. The illegal occupation is unjustified, inhumane and an affront to any kind of moral values.

http://www.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca/users/amer/kufrqassem/washngton_post_on_KQm.html (http://www.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca/users/amer/kufrqassem/washngton_post_on_KQm.html)
http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html (http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html)
http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp (http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp)

Straight from the horses mouth. The testimonials by israeli soldiers are particularly potent.

For a comprehensive list see

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_israel.html (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_israel.html)

(good information but remember to check all links, quotes).

Tribalism

You couldn't be more wrong. Have you talked to any arabs/muslims about it? Or are you just guessing?

When Osama bin Laden speaks about his reasons he has the support of very few muslims. Western media often portrays the views of a few extremists as the views of an entire population.

It isn't your liberal values or your culture that they hate it isn't even jealousy. Of the overwhelming number of muslims I have spoken to that have spoken out against the US it is because of their foreign policy. Particularly regarding the middle east.

The dead are dead.  It is the living I am worried about now.

Indeed and the best way you can help them is to not support the US governments foreign policy. Try comparing it against George Washingtons (http://www.ronholland.com/supportwashington.htm (http://www.ronholland.com/supportwashington.htm))

Regarding western media...

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_media.html (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_media.html)

He gets a bit lefty in some places but his advice to check all sources is commendable. If you skip over some of the body, read the conclusion.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 05, 2002, 10:15:31 pm
Yup, no doubt hes a fruitloop, but all the same, I prefer not to have my info sources so heavily censored. Any time info is that heavily censored I tend to get rather ticked off. I prefer to make my own decisions, and not be told how I am supposed to think about any given issue.

Indeed, over here the media tends to portray most americans as insular and unknowing of their governments policies. You seem to be pretty knowledgable. Would you say this is the case for most americans?

Heres a bit that didn't quite make it past the US censors

Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. thanks :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 01:31:55 am
I read your media quite frequently, as well as that of many different regions. Your media is much less censored than that here in the US. Naturally, all regions have their own spin - I haven't seen an exception yet - but some are seriously worse than others.

Yeah, my particular favourite for propaganda at the moment is http://english.peopledaily.com.cn (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn). Every article leaves you guessing as to what is *actually* going on in there :)

British media is normally pretty good so long as you can identify their angle and you keep away from the tabloids (Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror etc.). The Guardian is usually a safe bet although some people may find it a bit lefty. Also best to give the Times a miss (a murdoch enterprise). The BBC is either evenhanded and reasonable or really good at propaganda. Sometimes there is a bit of both. Usually with enough news sources you can work out a reasonable approximation of what is going on.

For more on this, some was covered in an excessively large thread concerning the Iraqi Oil War.

I'm just reading that now, wow, 11 pages.

Your comment is one I've heard way too many times from friends I have in other countries for it to be easily discounted. Frankly, and for good reason, much of the world think we are idiots who are spoon fed everything we know about the rest of the world.

Most of the world thinks we are puppy dogs being led along by your 'Great Leader'. I went to the anti-war march in london (http://www.stmh.org.uk/gallery/ (http://www.stmh.org.uk/gallery/)) and was amazed at the amount of public support against the war. Note: The SWP flag
belongs to a greek/american friend of mine and is not representative of my political beliefs. As an aside I was in greece this summer when they caught the greek 'terrorists' (november 17). It all seemed to happen very quickly did you get much news of it?

In fact, almost without exception, most were wairy of actually becoming very sociable, as Americans have a very lousy international track record in that area - not only our gov, but as individuals as well.

Nearly all of the americans I have come into contact with have had *some* idea of what is going on. But then... most of them I have met on the internet where they have access to a wide range of news sources. Also, most of the people I have met have been left leaning. I have rarely seen any libertarians with an in depth knowledge of their countries foreign policy (just an observation)

One of the more amusing things I've noticed is that a large number of folks in other countries are fluent in a fair number of languages, while most Americans can barely handle english (and often rather badly at that.)

Same here :) Everyone in this country seems to assume that the rest of the world speaks english (a leftover from imperialism i suppose). I have been learning french from an early age but despite taking an 'A-level' in it i am probably no better than a french kid is at english at age 14. I'm convinced that this is because in france they start them on english earlier.

As for our foreign policies... thats where the big 5 comes in. Remember, we're fighting terrorists, sigh. Patriotism here in the US has come to mean gluing one of those little flags on your window, being PC, and never raising the carpet to see what may have been swept under it.

Indeed, of course anyone criticising new 'anti-terrorist' policies gets shouted down for being un-patriotic and siding with the terrorists. There was a short piece on channel4 here asking people in the street the names of famous people (prime minister, saddam hussein, some random 'celebrities'). One old lady they interviewed said (of saddam hussein), "I don't know what his name is, but he's the bad man". Astonishing.

And thanks for those links you dropped previously. I took a brief look, but will have to check them closer when time allows.

np. there is some interesting stuff there. it seems pretty fair handed to me although he occasionally sides on the left.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 02:28:49 pm
\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

A less ambiguous definition.
and a better one - notice the term "government by" and again the operative phrase will come down to one of lawfulness.

Quote
No, the US prefers to hire other people to do their terrorism for them.
Well, they may subcontract defensive measures, that is: defense of the modicum of freedom we have left (which comparatively speaking is a lot, though not optimal by any means).  That you can call it terrorism shows only that you do not understand the principles involved.  If you can't see the difference between terrorism and self-defense, once again I invite you to go live in the middle east for a time (a long one ;D).  Terrorism has as its core hatred of the living; self-defense has as its core 1) a self, and 2) love of life, and the desire to continue to do what is necessary to support and continue it.

Quote
I'd hardly call most of the US wars (official and otherwise) in this last century 'self-defence'.
While I was not in favor of the Viet Nam war because it is true we were not threatened directly, and though I can't speak for the soldiers of that war or their families, I prefer to believe they gave their service and their lives in the pursuit of the protection of freedom, however wrong I thought it was for our government to send them to do it (same for Bosnia, etc.).  I'd like however to see you stand in front of those at Pearl Harbor and the soldiers of WWII and their families, and tell them that was not a war in self-defense.  WWI - and others, again arguably, though possibly incorrect, I believe the soldiers and most in the country thought they were acting to protect freedom.  We may not disagree on the propriety, but do apparently on the motives.

All that said, I am no Pollyanna - I do believe there were viciously callous government officials and others who pursued or supported these "wars" for reasons other than defense of freedom - mostly political power - it still is not terrorism.  Now, the IRS? the FCC? the FDA? the SEC? the FAA? the ATF? the DEA? - that's different!  ;)  Presumably that is why we are here talking at all - we want a limited, open government that protects our freedom and that we are willing to pay for and do so voluntarily.

Quote
While it uses your taxes to support terror and war.

I disagree with your continued misuse of the term "terror" when you apparently have no idea of what it consists of.  There is really no point in my continuing this discussion with you if we can't agree on definitions of terms - although it has been very interesting.  :)

And as a final note, although I'd prefer a voluntary system of payment, I am glad to pay for my defense and the defense of any freedom we do have left in this country, while I work to make things better; and I simply have to believe any intelligent, rational person does as well.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 02:59:17 pm
and a better one - notice the term "government by" and again the operative phrase will come down to one of lawfulness.

so terrorism isn't the act of terrorising then?

Well, they may subcontract defensive measures, that is: defense of the modicum of freedom we have left (which comparatively speaking is a lot, though not optimal by any means).

nicely put 'subcontract defensive measures'. what that means is hire, train and supply terrorists and thugs. the kind of people that kill nuns.


If you can't see the difference between terrorism and self-defense,

Oh but I can :) You seem to be saying that if the US or its allies does something then it is in self defense. But if any of our 'enemies' do it then it is terrorism. It is a very hypocritical stance and like the US stance on so called 'free trade' causes worldwide resentment.

once again I invite you to go live in the middle east for a time (a long one ).

No thanks, I wouldn't want to get shot by a 'stray' Israeli bullet/shell/grenade/missile thanks.

Terrorism has as its core hatred of the living

Terrorism has at its core a hatred of the target. A hatred inspired by the hatred that that target has inflicted upon them. In the case of afghanistan, the russian occupation. in the case of checnya the russian occupation. in the case of palestine the israeli occupation. the list goes on...

Vietnam, WW2, WW1 all had conscription. How can conscription be compatible with liberty? Yeah they protected freedom by going to some south east asian country at the whim of their government and killing the locals. A small piece on the South Vietnamese government:

Ngo Dinh Diem oppressed the Vietnamese people so badly that many of them turned to the communists for protection from his ruthless rule. Even President Eisenhower admitted that "had elections been held, possibly 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh [the communist leader]." Yet Diem, who had once lived in the U.S., had connections in Washington who liked his anti-communism. He founded the Can Lao Party (CLP), a secret police force overseen by his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Nhu's wife, Madame Nhu. The three (whom one U.S. official called "three victims of blank wall irrationality") were notorious for their ineptitude and cruelty, and, according to Brigadier General Edward Lansdale, the CLP was not their idea; it "was originally promoted by the U.S. Stale Department" to rid the country of communists.
Diem alienated urban professionals by suppressing all opposition to his regime. He alienated peasants by cancelling their age old local elections, forcing them off their land, and moving them into "agrovilles" surrounded by barbed wire. which even U.S. officials conceded bore a striking resemblance to "concentration camps." Ultimately, he angered his own military officers because he promoted on the basis of loyalty - not merit. In an effort to keep Diem in power, the U.S. tried to persuade him to make political reforms. He refused, so they persuaded him to make "military reforms." But when Diem was finally overthrown and assassinated in 1963, none of his generals rose to defend him. Nor did the U.S., which, after 8 years, had finally realized that Diem wasn't popular.


Wasn't there some kind of international ruling that said the south vietnamese had a right to self-determination?

As a matter of interest did you read any of those links I gave you? Are you still convinced that your government hasn't been supporting world wide terror for most of the last century at your expense?

I disagree with your continued misuse of the term "terror" when you apparently have no idea of what it consists of.

My definition is: Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

The violence going on in Israel is terror. On both the side of the muslim extremists and on the side of the Israeli government. The Palestinian people aren't terrorists. The Israeli people aren't terrorists (well, those who support the occupation are) and yet they are both victims of terror.

And as a final note, although I'd prefer a voluntary system of payment, I am glad to pay for my defense and the defense of any freedom we do have left in this country,

Happy paying to support Israeli terror aswell then? And do you think it takes $379billion dollars just for self defense?

while I work to make things better; and I simply have to believe any intelligent, rational person does as well.

Unfortunate that none of these intelligent rational people work in government.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 03:32:07 pm
5pectre - If I had only known you were European, we could have saved all this typing.  While you may find America haters among the FSP, I am not one.  I believe you and all your Euro brethren owe your freedom to us (whatever modicum of it you may have), and that you dare to call my government terrorist shows not only the lack of understanding that I previously mentioned, but the most profound ignorance and ingratitude.  Call me any name you like; I love this country and what it stands for - and you apparently will never understand what that is.  I'm sure however that you will enjoy continuing this discussion with mouseborg who seems to have fallen hook line and sinker for your Euro-BS.  
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 06, 2002, 03:44:51 pm
We have very little reason to be humble.  For the US to be humble would be tantamount to lying :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 03:45:11 pm
Yes, we Americans are a humble lot, aren't we. Thats why we are loved the world over. ;D

Isn't it interesting being written off due to being European? Can you imagine how it would have went if you had been black, gay, female, and European? :o

There is so much anti-American bias in Europe today that it is not surprising to hear it spewed.  

Being European involves a choice.  The other categories do not.  I would have thought you would have known that.  You and I have had some good discussions Mouse; I hope they can continue - but in this case, I think you are playing into this America hater's game.  I attribute it to innocence.  But if you too are an America hater/basher, then we can't discuss any related issue either, because - although this country has serious flaws that I am working to correct (and I thought you were too) - it is still the best country to live in anywhere, and I can't -won't - let America haters bash it with impunity.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 03:52:43 pm
By the way - Americans are not humble - we don't have anything to be humble about.  We feed and protect the world.  But lack of humility is not the only reason we are hated.  We are hated because we are happy, love life and are good at living it.  We are also hated because we are not humble - we do not beg the world's forgiveness for being good, for protecting them and sending them aid and food; we are proud of our accomplishments and they are many. One of them was the World Trade Center which I can only hope will be rebuilt.  And I am ashamed that some of the very countrymen who benefit from living here would play into the hands of those who wish us destroyed, including European America haters.  I am going to stop now and go somewhere to discuss more pleasant things.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 05:59:16 pm
Do you imagine that true patriotism requires bending over for ones government?
Of course not silly man - else, why would I be here having these discussions at all.  
Quote
As for basher/hater, or whatever, you clearly skipped through my previous posts (as well as quite a number of others I've made in this forum) without actually reading them.

I haven't read them all (all those on the site that is), but the ones I had read until the recent ones on this thread indicated to me that you care about this country or you would not be here trying to correct some of the problems we have; but IMO when you try to appease America haters, you give them the moral ammunition to do harm to the rest of us.  :)  And you'd know that if you carefully read my post - go back and re read it.  :P

BTW there is nothing wrong with emotion - emotion is nothing more nor less than one's reaction in a given situation; one's reaction depends upon one's epistemology, moral code, etc.  It's just that its primary function is not appropriately decision-making.
Quote
 I have to presume here that, as myself, you have earned the right to criticize your country, even in the amount you have already done, by having first served your country in a military capacity?
 How absurd.  Do you imagine that true patriotism reuires serving in the military?  No, of course it does not - but it does require being grateful to them for serving and protecting my rights, and I am.  Having served in the military should have taught you though that there are people out there who want to harm us, and to play along with them only helps that.  And I guess I am confused, wasn't it your Euro pal who was doing the bashing; shouldn't you be asking him/her that question?

I have the right to and will stand up to anyone who tries to harm me or my country in any legal way I can however, and I have this right by virtue of having been born an American citizen.  Which is more than I can say for the European America bashers (or any other non - U.S. citizens).  So don't give me that **** about not having served in the military.  

Also - to answer another post of yours, I have not inhaled my values from the media as you intimate; and my mind is not amenable to the type of brainwashing that is contained therein - or I likely wouldn't be supporting this group, now would I? ;)
Quote
Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state.
Nonsense.  Of course they do.  However, I prefer anyone who benefits from living here support and defend this country, at least not play into the hands of those who would wish us destroyed (although that does not mean no criticism of things that need corrected - I'll say again for the umpteenth time - but I prefer constructive critism along with action to implement solutions, as this group is doing).

And, (can we leave this topic now and go on to something useful and interesting) I am neither a pacifist nor an anarchist - you apparently haven't carefully read my posts here on this board either.   So, go read them, and let's continue having good heated discussions - I just don't want to have any truck with anyone who hates us (that's U.S.) and has no intention of helping at all.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 06:32:52 pm
*laugh*

Good show guys.

How does it feel to know the Truth [tm] 1984 style?

Keep bringing your emotions to the table in place of real arguments and you won't get very far. I find it amazing that in such a liberty loving forum that there could be people who support the government.

A further request, did you read those links? Did you even take a cursory glance? When you come back with facts and references to counter the information presented in those links then I will declare the argument yours. Until then i'm afraid you are merely re-inforcing a stereotype.

Regarding the assumption that you 'saved' us from the nazis. It is my opinion that it was partially our failure to deal with the outcome of the first world war that lead to the second. Are you aware of the casualty figures for the second world war? americans dead: 400,000. soviets dead: 10,000,000. The soviets had as much to do with winning the war as you did.

Wow, three comments with blanket generalisations about what 'europeans' think. I wonder could you name all the countries in europe off the top of your head? In case you weren't aware Europe is a continent not a country (the same goes for africa (to save you consulting a map)).

mouse: indeed :)

By the way - Americans are not humble - we don't have anything to be humble about.  We feed and protect the world.  But lack of humility is not the only reason we are hated.  We are hated because we are happy, love life and are good at living it.  We are also hated because we are not humble - we do not beg the world's forgiveness for being good, for protecting them and sending them aid and food; we are proud of our accomplishments and they are many. One of them was the World Trade Center which I can only hope will be rebuilt.  And I am ashamed that some of the very countrymen who benefit from living here would play into the hands of those who wish us destroyed, including European America haters.  I am going to stop now and go somewhere to discuss more pleasant things.

Excuse me while I laugh and puke at the same time. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

America hater's

This is the most worrying part. You assume that because I don't support your government (which i'm sure is doing its best to keep your interests safeguarded) that I hate america and you are instantly on the defensive. I haven't said once that I hate america or even that I hate the american government and yet you immediately take it on yourself to presume. This is social conditioning at its best. I wonder if you could answer this question: In which european country did the US support a military junta between 1967 and 1973 in the overthrow of a democratic government? and do you think the people of that country a) thank the US for it, b) despise the US for it?

I'm amazed that someone who is considering joining a free state movement has no idea about american foreign policy or world feeling about americans. Is this just denial or do you really not know?

Please go and read the links. I could spell it out to you but it would take weeks.

I am going to stop now and go somewhere to discuss more pleasant things.

Yes, when things trouble you it is best to get your mind off them and whatever you do DON'T SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, it'll only disappoint you.

which is more along the lines of, when we screw around with other people, usually due to snagging their resources, they tend to get annoyed.

yup and screwing around with people is pretty much against the whole libertarian ideal.


Being European involves a choice.

What can I say I was born here and can't afford to leave yet.

it is still the best country to live in anywhere,

I thought that was a toss up between Canada and Sweden.

and I can't -won't - let America haters bash it with impunity.

I don't hate america any more than I hate china or russia or japan (i.e. not at all). What I have a strong dislike of is your foreign policy.

and one more time to drill the point home:

I DON'T HATE AMERICA IF I HATED AMERICA DO YOU THINK I WOULD HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THE FSP, DO YOU THINK I WOULD BE PLAYING ALONG WITH AN AMERICAN GUITAR AND AN AMERICAN AMP TO AN AMERICAN BAND? I DISLIKE YOUR GOVERNMENT FULL STOP (or period as you would say)

blnelson: you are the epitamy of the type of american i was describing. you fit the stereotype surprisingly well. for this i don't blame you. i don't resent you and i don't hate you. if you choose to live in ignorance and follow what your government has to tell you with baited breath then you might as well be in china. they don't have to think about government policy there because what the government says goes and i'm sure they are very patriotic about it. much like the north koreans and the cubans.

mouse: spell checker? (if you are referring to the difference between american english and british english then you are touching on a subject that is the source of a lot of humour between me and my american friends) :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 06:35:56 pm
if that works for you? :)
works for me ;D
Quote
Oh and yes, I actually do feel military service (or equivalent) should be required for certain "rights". Voting would be one.
What do you do with all the people too old to serve in the military when you implement this rule?
Quote
I also support the idea put forth in another thread that some sort of minimal comprehension test be required for same (along with all its attendant problems mentioned elsewhere.) TANSTAAFL.
I like the minimal comprehension test as well.  It should be anonymous however and not given at the time of voting.  It could be a form that you pick up anywhere, take the test before a notary, have it certified, send it back; if you pass, you receive a card that you can take in to register (which should be done in person)...but this all is a topic for another thread, no?  What's TANSTAAFL?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 06:37:32 pm
to make it clear, guys refers to maestro and blnelson, not you mouse :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 06:43:25 pm
Get over yourself - 5pectre
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 06:44:11 pm
from: http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html (http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html)

TANSTAAFL /tan'stah-fl/

[acronym, from Robert Heinlein's classic SF novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".] "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", often invoked when someone is balking at the prospect of using an unpleasantly heavyweight technique, or at the poor quality of some piece of software, or at the signal-to-noise ratio of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups. "What? Don't tell me I have to implement a database back end to get my address book program to work!" "Well, TANSTAAFL you know." This phrase owes some of its popularity to the high concentration of science-fiction fans and political libertarians in hackerdom (see Appendix B for discussion).

Outside hacker circles the variant TINSTAAFL ("There is No Such Thing...") is apparently more common, and can be traced back to 1952 in the writings of ethicist Alvin Hansen. TANSTAAFL may well have arisen from it by
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 06:45:48 pm
Get over yourself

sorry, i've already done it twice today :P

nice to see an intelligent and reasonable response. just as i expected.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 06:48:16 pm
from: http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html (http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html)

TANSTAAFL /tan'stah-fl/

Thanks for the elucidation

Why do you think that the only way to support this country is to serve in the military?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 06:51:52 pm

nice to see an intelligent and reasonable response. just as i expected.
Nothing more than you deserve.  And I said get over yourself, not get off on yourself :P
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 07:00:45 pm
Thanks for the clarification. :)

I don't understand, I don't think anything I have said has been anything against the american people.

I have criticised the american government (as much as i would criticise any government).

Don't I deserve an rational explanation of why you would pigeonhole me?

Why do you suggest that I get over myself? Do I seem rude to you? Have I offended you in any way? Do I appear arrogant or unreasonable?

I am trying to present a reasoned argument and you are coming back with emotions. Why won't you refute what I have said with facts and references?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 07:23:32 pm

blnelson: The military aspect pertaining to those physically or mentally unable - see "or equivalent". There are many suport roles which need to be manned (or womaned, as the case may be.)
Like?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 06, 2002, 07:50:04 pm
Spectre, I think you'll find the _vast_ majority of my posts are non-emotional, and when they are, they are accompanied by argument, flawed though the arguments might be.  

I have delayed making a decent argument right now because I am formulating an argument to attempt to split the issues.  I was busy last night watching the elections  (I'm happy that the democrats have lost drastic power but I'm a bit worried with what the republicans will do while untethered).

With regard to being humble, I was being comparative.  I was also somewhat kidding since we obviously do have some problems.  However, being humble in the face of our immensely higher efficiency compared to Europe seems almost like lying.  It would be a false humility, and would play along to some of the silly European idealists ideas of how poorly structured we are.  I'm not naming you 5pecter, but I tend to agree with bnelson that the european intelligentsia (at least the ones we see on tv) take great pleasure in attempting to tear down the good things we do as well as the bad.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 06, 2002, 08:21:24 pm

I don't understand, I don't think anything I have said has been anything against the american people.
oh really:
Quote
they don't have to think about government policy there because what the government says goes and i'm sure they are very patriotic about it. much like the north koreans and the cubans...

Everyone in this country seems to assume that the rest of the world speaks english (a leftover from imperialism i suppose)...

I have rarely seen any libertarians with an in depth knowledge of their countries foreign policy...

anyone criticising new 'anti-terrorist' policies gets shouted down for being un-patriotic and siding with the terrorists...

It is a very hypocritical stance and like the US stance on so called 'free trade' causes worldwide resentment...

No, the US prefers to hire other people to do their terrorism for them
nope,nothing about Americans here.
Quote
Why won't you refute what I have said with facts and references?
You have presented no facts to be refuted.  You have provided your opinions and those of anti-American media, your spin on the definiton of terrorism, opinion on for the most part anti-Israeli and muslim produced websites.  

In fact, I feel very strongly that most government - democrat/republican/independent/libertarian - will be despotic.  Most governments are peopled with power-lusting autocrats.  The U.S. government is far from perfect.   And I intend to change that to the best of my ability.  But I am an American.  I love the principles of freedom this country was founded on - and I believe in those principles (just feel some errors were made that now need to be corrected).

Sort of like a mother bear I guess - I might knock around my cubs, but you'd better leave them alone.

I guess we can't discuss foreign policy, 5pectre, because it sounds like we disagree on fundamentals, and the purpose of this group is to work on domestic issues anyway - at least at first - maybe someday foreign policy, but not yet.

Mouse -
I am not an isolationist either.  I believe when we are threatened, we have to eliminate the threat (that is where this topic started).  We can disagree on how to do that or whether that is in fact what we are doing, but I don't think you would disagree that if someone is coming at you with a gun, and shouting to the world they are going to kill you, that you have to wait until they shoot to eliminate the threat.  And as to who shot first, well we can go back to the 14th century, but it just doesn't seem a productive use of time.  The most recent shot I care about was three airplanes full of Americans plowing into two buildings, and killing thousands of people, and the continued threat to do it again.

Mouse quote:
Quote
I'm an American, and the fact is, I do love my country. Not its government, but its people (even as screwed up as most seem to be), its lands, and its founding concepts
Me too.
Quote
I will in fact kill to defend those... as well as risk my life for same... but not to support a government which has gone insane. That is not patriotism, that is a shameful travesty of patriotism.
I agree.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 09:34:27 pm
Everyone in this country seems to assume that the rest of the world speaks english (a leftover from imperialism i suppose)...

Heh, if you read the comment you'll see that the country I refer to is MY home country, Britain.

No, the US prefers to hire other people to do their terrorism for them

That is anti-US govt. I wouldn't presume that individual american people would hire terrorists.

I have rarely seen any libertarians with an in depth knowledge of their countries foreign policy...

Statement of fact. I have not come into contact with many libertarians that have an in depth knowledge of US policy.

It is a very hypocritical stance and like the US stance on so called 'free trade' causes worldwide resentment...

Again, referring to the US government.

anyone criticising new 'anti-terrorist' policies gets shouted down for being un-patriotic and siding with the terrorists...

Mainly the government, but also the media and some american individuals

My apologies if you misunderstood, other americans on this board seemed to get the message. MouseBorg: I didn't see anything that way myself (against the American people that is.)

anti-Israeli

My comments have been anti-israeli government. Not against the Israeli people. Which websites that I posted have been created by muslims. I don't think I did post any.

A summary of the links I have posted:

http://www.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca/users/amer/kufrqassem/washngton_post_on_KQm.html (http://www.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca/users/amer/kufrqassem/washngton_post_on_KQm.html) (Canadian)
http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html (http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html) (Israeli)
http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp (http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp) (Israeli)
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_israel.html (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_israel.html) (Greek / American)
http://www.ronholland.com/supportwashington.htm (http://www.ronholland.com/supportwashington.htm) (American)
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_media.html (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_media.html) (Greek / American)
http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html (http://tuxedo.org/jargon/index.html) (American)

Your continual evasion of my questions is what is making it impossible to discuss foreign policy. I don't suppose you've ever worked for the government have you? :)

The most recent shot I care about was three airplanes full of Americans plowing into two buildings, and killing thousands of people, and the continued threat to do it again.

Perhaps that is your problem, you care when something bad happens to your country, but when your government does something bad to another country and they get angry you don't care.

5pectre: Spelling ref was in relation to my having to correct my own spelling after posting... was terrible. Oh, and as for saving you from the Nazis? Check Prescott Bush (George's grandad) & Hitler as per Union Bank and why the gov snagged it (traiding with the enemy). Try Google search. No shortage of info on this.

Thanks, will do

I have delayed making a decent argument right now because I am formulating an argument to attempt to split the issues

Cool, i'd like to see it :)

I'm not naming you 5pecter, but I tend to agree with bnelson that the european intelligentsia (at least the ones we see on tv) take great pleasure in attempting to tear down the good things we do as well as the bad.

Precisely the problem. Making assumptions about an entire continent of people based on what you see in your media isn't a good idea. Have you met many people from europe? There are media stereotypes everywhere, it is important to see past them.

Apologies if i went off on one but sometimes it feels like i'm talking to a brick wall :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 06, 2002, 11:31:05 pm
Actually I've met a lot of europeans.  I haven't met many who act the way I described, but I see them often enough on TV and news.  BTW, I don't much like the american intelligentsia either.  When I refer to the "intelligentsia" I'm referring to a particular class of people whose traits include the assumption of intellectual and moral superiority, and who espouse socialism and liberalism.  yeah I know that's a narrow definition, but I don't find intelligent conservatives and libertarians calling themselves intelligentsia very often :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 11:38:40 pm
Actually I've met a lot of europeans.  I haven't met many who act the way I described,

Funny that :)

but I see them often enough on TV and news.

How convienient, see mouseborgs comment on media conditioning.

BTW, I don't much like the american intelligentsia either.  When I refer to the "intelligentsia" I'm referring to a particular class of people whose traits include the assumption of intellectual and moral superiority, and who espouse socialism and liberalism.

I would espouse some of the theories of socialism and liberalism but i certainly wouldn't call myself 'intelligentsia' or automatically assume that i was morally or intellectually superior to anyone. I don't think many of my friends would call themselves intelligentsia. It sounds like a name that the media has invented.

yeah I know that's a narrow definition, but I don't find intelligent conservatives and libertarians calling themselves intelligentsia very often

I don't think i've ever heard anyone i've talked to call themselves intelligentsia (and i've talked to all kinds of different people).

I found that (on average) the conservatives (at least in this country) automatically assume that they are morally right and all liberals/libertarians/socialists are morally bankrupt.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 06, 2002, 11:41:36 pm
Maestro & I rarely agree on these subjects, but I assure you he will give you a well thought out, yet quite polite debate. We've enjoyed many such discussions, which for many folks would have ended in harsh words, but such has not occured, and he has certainly earned my respect in that area.

Good. I am always willing to take on new ideas. I don't subscribe to the 'an open mind is an empty mind' rhetoric. :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 07, 2002, 12:16:10 am
Actually I've met a lot of europeans.  I haven't met many who act the way I described,

Funny that :)

but I see them often enough on TV and news.

How convienient, see mouseborgs comment on media conditioning.

BTW, I don't much like the american intelligentsia either.  When I refer to the "intelligentsia" I'm referring to a particular class of people whose traits include the assumption of intellectual and moral superiority, and who espouse socialism and liberalism.

I would espouse some of the theories of socialism and liberalism but i certainly wouldn't call myself 'intelligentsia' or automatically assume that i was morally or intellectually superior to anyone. I don't think many of my friends would call themselves intelligentsia. It sounds like a name that the media has invented.

yeah I know that's a narrow definition, but I don't find intelligent conservatives and libertarians calling themselves intelligentsia very often

I don't think i've ever heard anyone i've talked to call themselves intelligentsia (and i've talked to all kinds of different people).

I found that (on average) the conservatives (at least in this country) automatically assume that they are morally right and all liberals/libertarians/socialists are morally bankrupt.

I have met at least one guy who would have called himself intelligentsia.  It _seems_ to be a positive term in the media, but one that _I_ have determined to be negative when measured against my philosophies.  Also they wouldn't admit to believing themselves to be intellectually superior etc, but that's my assessment (although I'll admit I am guilty of this assertion myself when faced with the idiocy of the general public)  They used to be bleeding heart liberal, but are now nearly libertarian after lots of arguments, etc.

BTW, I'm libertarian locally and anarchistic (in the traditional sense, not the NAP form) globally.  I don't think liberals and socialists are morally bankrupt, just short-sighted or stupid.  Socialist politicians are evil, since they _know_ the long-term damage that socialism causes but they'll use it for short-term power gain.  

It is my belief, however, that globally, we must have either anarchy or global goverment.  I am very much against global government, as it will by necessity destroy the protection of the rights of US citizens (since freedom of speech isn't a popular position among governments).  As such, the most powerful is fully capable of exerting whatever effect upon the rest of the world that it desires.  It is inhibited by the ire and power of the rest of the world.  The US's power is far superior to the rest of the world, but that is due to a highly effective culture and society, and as such is earned power.  I don't find this to be a hypocritical position to take, but I can understand it if you feel differently.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 07, 2002, 12:53:27 am
Do you realize how _big_ the pentagon is?  I don't think it would be all that difficult to hit the pentagon.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 12:53:38 am
Your continual evasion of my questions is what is making it impossible to discuss foreign policy. I don't suppose you've ever worked for the government have you? :)
I don't recall any questions I haven't answered.
Quote
Perhaps that is your problem,
or perhaps not

Quote
Precisely the problem. Making assumptions about an entire continent of people based on what you see in your media isn't a good idea.
Then stop doing so.
Quote
Have you met many people from europe? There are media stereotypes everywhere, it is important to see past them.
Then by all means try to do so.
Quote
Apologies if i went off on one but sometimes it feels like i'm talking to a brick wall :)
I know this apology wasn't for me, but, I accept it anyway, and understand exactly how you feel. ;)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 12:56:39 am
BTW, I don't much like the american intelligentsia either.  When I refer to the "intelligentsia"  :)

I very much agree, and I react similarly to both - I call them "intellectuals"
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 01:05:28 am
Do you realize how _big_ the pentagon is?  I don't think it would be all that difficult to hit the pentagon.
That was my first reaction; my second is that it was an unhappy accident - it was just a big thing to destroy because the guy couldn't find the White House.  But I've come to respect MouseBorg on this board and will  consider and research his assertions.

See Mr. Mouse - I can be unemotional too :P
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 07, 2002, 10:16:47 am
I don't recall any questions I haven't answered.

Here are the questions that I have asked that you have not answered:

A further request, did you read those links?
Did you even take a cursory glance?
In which european country did the US support a military junta between 1967 and 1973 in the overthrow of a democratic government?
Do you think the people of that country a) thank the US for it, b) despise the US for it?
Happy paying to support Israeli terror aswell then?
And do you think it takes $379billion dollars just for self defense?
I wonder could you name all the countries in europe off the top of your head? (this was partly rhetorical but i would be interested to know)

Then stop doing so.

heh, the USA isn't a continent and i'm not making assumptions about all americans as i have clarified many times before.

Then by all means try to do so.

i do. :)

I know this apology wasn't for me, but, I accept it anyway, and understand exactly how you feel.

The apology is for anyone who wants to take it. I hope you realise that I'm not trying to offend you or your countrymen but I am merely trying to point out where your government is going wrong foreign policy wise and what implications that has for you, a US citizen. The attacks on 11/09 were as a direct result of the foreign policy of the american government. surely you don't think your people deserve that?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 07, 2002, 10:50:51 am
... it would appear you have made our cause your own, so I see no issue here. It would seem, at least to some degree, that you are in fact already one of our countrymen as well.

thanks, i may have some 'funny' ideas but i am definitely serious about the fsp. for someone who holds their country in high esteem thanks for the complement mouse :).
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 12:20:06 pm
OK OK This is me backing off.

I don't recall any questions I haven't answered.

Here are the questions that I have asked that you have not answered:

A further request, did you read those links?
Did you even take a cursory glance?
In which european country did the US support a military junta between 1967 and 1973 in the overthrow of a democratic government?
Do you think the people of that country a) thank the US for it, b) despise the US for it?
Happy paying to support Israeli terror aswell then?
And do you think it takes $379billion dollars just for self defense?
I wonder could you name all the countries in europe off the top of your head? (this was partly rhetorical but i would be interested to know)
yes; yes; don't recall at this moment; don't care at this moment; don't consider Israeli military action to defend itself terror; no, it takes $379 billion dollars to pay for $500 hammers made to specifications in a 100 page document produced by bureaucrats with nothing else to do but make it difficult to do business with the government; I retain some trivia in my long-term memory - try to keep short-term memory clear for info that matters to me and therefore dump most trivia from that compartment.
Quote
I hope you realise that I'm not trying to offend you or your countrymen but I am merely trying to point out where your government is going wrong foreign policy wise and what implications that has for you, a US citizen.
Well see this is what I bristle at - if you couched it in terms of your opinion about where the government is going wrong, we might disagree, but we could at least discuss it.  When you couch the issue in terms that indicate that you 1) have all the info required to know what is really wrong, 2) are unbiased and not yourself the victim of media hype, and 3) are the be all end all expert in the subject and know more than any US citizen ever can, it leaves very little open for discussion.  

BTW, as an aside, I am not a conservative (in case you thought I might be) - it would be hard to label me and be correct.

Quote
The attacks on 11/09 were as a direct result of the foreign policy of the american government.
 Your opinion.  I disagree.

OK. As I said, this is me backing off.  I apologize for the generalization about Europeans.  :-[   Many do however hate the US and make no bones about it. :-\
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 07, 2002, 12:52:31 pm
OK OK This is me backing off.

Ok

yes; yes;

don't recall at this moment

Greece. Perhaps if your government hadn't supported it then some more of your citizens would be alive today. It was as a direct result of the US support for Papadopolous that the November 17 'terrorist' group was formed. The same terrorist group that has killed numerous US and UK citizens to date.

don't care at this moment

Well, i'll give you a clue then, it is B.

don't consider Israeli military action to defend itself terror

Oh, defend itself on land that it stole. That makes sense. That's like the germans saying that they were defending germans in Poland from the Polish.

no, it takes $379 billion dollars to pay for $500 hammers made to specifications in a 100 page document produced by bureaucrats with nothing else to do but make it difficult to do business with the government

I'm sure the businesses are happy with this arrangement. It means that they can charge more for their products and make more profit. Whilst you are paying for it. This happens all over the world, here in Britain there was a story about how there were nuts and bolts valued at 80GBP each. It is big business and the government conspiring to take your money away from you and unlike some social programs, this isn't even for a good cause.

I retain some trivia in my long-term memory - try to keep short-term memory clear for info that matters to me and therefore dump most trivia from that compartment

Ok so no then. Take a look on a map, there are quite a few of them. Each with their own national identity.

1) have all the info required to know what is really wrong

I don't have all the information. I don't pretend to. I do however have information from reasonably trustworthy sources. Hence the Israeli military link and the Israeli peace site link.

2) are unbiased and not yourself the victim of media hype

I am somewhat biased, we all are. I try to be as impartial as possible. I wouldn't say I was a victim of media hype. I take care to research anything before I speak about it.

3) are the be all end all expert in the subject and know more than any US citizen ever can

I wouldn't presume that, MouseBorg seems to know more than me.

BTW, as an aside, I am not a conservative (in case you thought I might be) - it would be hard to label me and be correct.

Good for you. I'll label you as an American :)

OK. As I said, this is me backing off.

Ok, if you think that is best. I would encourage you to come back with responses to some of the links I posted but if you don't have the time/effort then nevermind.

I apologize for the generalization about Europeans.

Thanks.

Many do however hate the US and make no bones about it.

Some of them have reason to hate the US government. Many have difficulties in differentiating between american individuals and the american government. But then we all have difficulty in differentiating between governments and people as has been demonstrated earlier in the thread.

Your opinion.  I disagree.

Osama bin Laden:

This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child's father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt.

America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power.

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed ? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him.

The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress.

I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 01:23:15 pm
I'm sure the businesses are happy with this arrangement.It means that they can charge more for their products and make more profit.
Actually most businesses aren't - you may have missed the point - the hammer costs $500 because of the bureaucracy, not because businesses are making more profit (honest businesses that is - I recognize some are not, but most really are - but don't lets get started on this in this thread)  Most honest business people would prefer to make more product more profitably - and appropriately so, but the wasted time and resources trying to comply with the bureaucracy does not allow for this.  It is dishonest business and government power abuse, not "big" business and government - size in and of itself is irrelevant (look at Microsoft which has been persecuted although in fact because of being the largest - dollar wise business i, the US several years ago) - that is the problem in thsi and most countries.

Quote
I do however have information from reasonably trustworthy sources. Hence the Israeli military link and the Israeli peace site link.
Those sites did not appear to me to be any more unbiased or trustworthy than any other.  Just because you think they are doesn't make them so - all groups are rife with disgruntled former members telling stories of the alleged abuse of those groups (I am not saying that your sources are not accurate just that there is no reason to think they might be more accurate than any other.  Period).  I can say I trust any source I want - that doesn't make it trustworthy.  I don't trust your sources.

Quote
Good for you. I'll label you as an American :)
but not an ugly american now... :P

Quote
but if you don't have the time
it will be more limited as of next week.
Quote
Osama bin Laden
I read this the last time you cited it.  Still don't buy anything he's selling - and that you grant him even an iota of credibillity makes me mistrust your judgment completely.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 07, 2002, 04:28:04 pm
I don't trust your sources.

Ok, do you have any sources that you do trust? Would you like to share them with me?

I read this the last time you cited it.

I believe it was MouseBorg that cited it.

Still don't buy anything he's selling

He's not selling anything (at least not in the interview).

and that you grant him even an iota of credibillity makes me mistrust your judgment completely

I don't grant him credibility. I think he was wrong for killing those people. I do however think that the US government was partly to blame. You keep kicking a dog and eventually it is going to try and try and bite you. What do you think his reason was?

I don't trust your sources.

Please give me some that you do trust. You say that I am wrong, but at least I provide references. You have made no attempt to back up any of your claims.

look at Microsoft which has been persecuted although in fact because of being the largest

Their persecution despite being covered well in the media has won nothing for the US citizens. The government has basically given up.

Actually most businesses aren't

Businesses are in it to make money. They aren't in business for your benefit. If they can get more money by bribing or making special deals with government officials then they will. Just look at the RIAA and the DMCA and all the 'special' agreements between big business and government. Big business gives kickbacks to politicians to get contracts at inflated prices. It then uses the profits to buy out more politicians. Government and big business are in a pact to make as much money out of you as possible.

I'm sure some of the safety standards are over engineered. But most of the $500 goes on corporate greed and not on conforming with safety standards.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 07:10:01 pm
Quote
author=5pectre
What do you think his reason was?

The terrorists hate our liberty, least thats what we were told... you know, the liberty we here in the US no longer have, since we happily surrendered it with the (Anti) Patriot Act (and all the other crap which followed.)
- well to that extent they succeeded didn't they?
Quote
Oddly enough, nobody seems to have thought to ask the terrorists what they thought the issue was. Since we no longer have that vanished liberty, one does have to wonder why these terrorists persist... Odd...
Not odd at all.  It is right in front of anyone who wants to see it.  In addition to hating freedom and happiness (note everything pleasurable is against their law), militant muslims believe that it is necessary to wipe out non-believers (that's most of us), and are told from a very young age that heaven (and all the pleasure they are denied on earth) lies in wait for any of them who die doing so (helps that their families are paid bonuses after they do).

Quote
Its amazing how many Americans actually believe that those people (loopy though they may be) were so enraged at our now extinct liberty that they were more than willing to die to protest itWell, if that was their reasoning (somewhat absurd, to put it mildly), now that our liberty is history, why do they persist, as we are told they are doing?
Not amazing at all - see above

Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 07, 2002, 07:27:25 pm
Ok, do you have any sources that you do trust? Would you like to share them with me?
well I trust any Objectivist source, the Drudge report; the Onion; and much of Fox news.

Quote
He's not selling anything (at least not in the interview).
don't be naive - he's selling with every word out of his mouth - whether you know it or not

Quote
You keep kicking a dog and eventually it is going to try and try and bite you. What do you think his reason was?
sometimes it is necessray to kick a mad dog to keep it from biting you he is a mad dog (and to MouseBorg - that's why you don't ask terrorists why they do anything - just as you don't try to reason with or ask mad dogs why they are attacking you.

Quote
Businesses are in it to make money. They aren't in business for your benefit. If they can get more money by bribing or making special deals with government officials then they will. Just look at the RIAA and the DMCA and all the 'special' agreements between big business and government. Big business gives kickbacks to politicians to get contracts at inflated prices. It then uses the profits to buy out more politicians. Government and big business are in a pact to make as much money out of you as possible.
How many big businesses have you owned?

Quote
But most of the $500 goes on corporate greed and not on conforming with safety standards.
You are wrong.  I know how much money, time and other valuable resources my husband's business spends on government intrusion - none of it adds to his profits or safety (in fact some OSHA/WISHA regs actually result in less safety.  I know how much my client businesses spend first-hand and how much many others do too (don't ask - I am ethics bound not to reveal client info).  So all I hear you doing now is repeating the anti-business party line relating to something about which you obviously know little or nothing.  And I really think if you want to discuss business issues, we should move to a different thread.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 07, 2002, 10:59:05 pm
well I trust any Objectivist source

like...

the Drudge report;

is this (http://www.drudgereport.com/ (http://www.drudgereport.com/)) what you mean by the drudge report?

the Onion

You do realise that the onion is satire... ?

and much of Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69432,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69432,00.html) *smirk*

don't be naive - he's selling with every word out of his mouth - whether you know it or not

i suppose you could say he was selling his was of thinking. but then most of us do that anyway.

sometimes it is necessray to kick a mad dog to keep it from biting you he is a mad dog (and to MouseBorg - that's why you don't ask terrorists why they do anything

The dog wouldn't have got so mad if you hadn't have kept on kicking it.

just as you don't try to reason with or ask mad dogs why they are attacking you.

You could reason with yourself. You could ask yourself... "now what did i do to piss this dog off?"

How many big businesses have you owned?

Zero. But then how many governments have you run? Your assertion that in order to know what a business does you have to have run a business is flawed.

I know how much money, time and other valuable resources my husband's business spends on government intrusion - none of it adds to his profits or safety (in fact some OSHA/WISHA regs actually result in less safety.  I know how much my client businesses spend first-hand and how much many others do too (don't ask - I am ethics bound not to reveal client info).

So you are saying that if a business had the opportunity to influence the government and introduce new laws to break its competitors then it wouldn't? I suggest you look at the DMCA and how Adobe got the FBI to arrest a Russian programmer (who wrote a program in russia to decrypt e-books) who was giving a lecture in the US. Are you saying that your husbands business has all of our best interests at heart? Any business given the chance would cheat. If the risk assesment paid off.

So all I hear you doing now is repeating the anti-business party line relating to something about which you obviously know little or nothing.

And all i see you doing is giving the pro-american government pro-business party line relating to something that you have no proven knowledge  of.

And I really think if you want to discuss business issues, we should move to a different thread.

I don't really want to discuss business issues. I was interested in foreign policy
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 08, 2002, 11:50:20 am
Thats fairly typical of Fox, though usually the pro war spin is much more intense. Fox is about as one sided, pro police state, as one can get.

Usually *more* pro-war, i can see why you have problems :)

But it is still fun to monitor however, just to observe the repetitious mental / emotional programming taking place. Its always a good idea to know what one is supposed to think about any given issue.

Yeah, kind of the same reason i read the peoples daily. i'll keep an eye on fox. btw. i couldn't seem to find any foreign affairs section when i looked. does it have one?

The results are rather impressive IMO... Nearly a textbook example straight from Mein Kampf.

You keep telling people the same lies over and over again and eventually they will believe it. I haven't read Mein Kampf, What is it about (I know Hitler wrote it, but what is the content)?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 08, 2002, 01:06:21 pm
In your mention in another post in this thread of trusting most of Fox News, I now understand completely. Thank you.
Right, no emotional generalizations or disrespectful blanket dismissal going on here.
Quote
Addition:

Umm... question... if those were the actual reasons, wouldn't they prefer attacking Switzerland? Or is that too obvious? Just curious. ???
Sorry I don't know what you're referencing here.
 
To 5pectre (what does that mean by the way?) - Sorry capital D drudge, yes I know the Onion is satire - all but the Objectivists (and Drudge is not one of them) were in jest...
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: Barbara on November 08, 2002, 01:13:14 pm
I haven't read Mein Kampf, What is it about (I know Hitler wrote it, but what is the content)?
This'll be my last post here - I know when to quit and you two obviously just want to kiss up to each other and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, so I'll leave you to it.  

Mein Kampf was Hitler's manifesto - his tactics and his prejudices sound alot like yours - so you really should read it.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 08, 2002, 01:35:04 pm
Sorry I don't know what you're referencing here.

I think he is referring to the 11/09 attacks. If they hated liberty then why did they attack the US instead of Switzerland?

To 5pectre (what does that mean by the way?)

spectre (i believe that in american english it is 'specter')

n 1: an unusual appearing ghostly figure; "we were unprepared for the apparition that confronted us" [syn: apparition, phantom, specter] 2: a mental representation of some haunting experience; "he looked like he had seen a ghost"; "it aroused specters from his past" [syn: ghost, shade, spook, wraith, specter]

I picked the nick about six years ago. I just went through the dictionary looking for words that look cool.

Sorry capital D drudge, yes I know the Onion is satire - all but the Objectivists (and Drudge is not one of them) were in jest...

ok, what are some objectivist news sources? was fox news in jest?

I know when to quit and you two obviously just want to kiss up to each other and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you

Kiss up? And I thought that we were just having a civilised conversation. I'm not trying to ridicule you, i'm trying to have a discussion with you.

Mein Kampf was Hitler's manifesto - his tactics and his prejudices sound alot like yours - so you really should read it.

Prejudices? Who am I prejudiced against (apart from government employees)? I'd like to read it, As some guy said: "Know your enemy".
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 08, 2002, 02:17:04 pm
Mouse, check this one out... :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm)

I think i'm probably safe in Ceredigion (very low population centre), but still it might be worth investing in a gas mask.

This'll be my last post here

A shame, it was an enjoyable conversation. If you have any objectivist news sources and don't want to give them here, could you IM them to me. It would be interesting to see what they have to say.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: RidleyReport on November 10, 2002, 01:23:18 pm
<< So we've graduated from indefinite incarceration, to death penalty on suspicion ... fascinating. To stamp "Okay" to this sort of thing is to be as guilty as our gov, .>>

Consider me guilty.   Provided there was a legit target on that vehicle the Yemen raid is not near as bad as Churchill mining the neutral Norweigan leeds in 1940.  But he was right to do that then, and I bet we were right to do this now.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 10, 2002, 10:48:28 pm
But he was right to do that then, and I bet we were right to do this now.

This is one of the problems.

Was it right for the Palestinian activists to assasinate Rehavam Ze'evi?
Was it right for the Greek activists to assasinate Stephen Saunders?
Was it right for the Irish activists to assasinate Lord Mountbatten?
Was it right for the Basque activists to assasinate Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco?

Why is it any different who does the assasination? You can't say "When we kill someone it is legitimate but when you kill someone it isn't", that is the height of hypocrisy and part of the reason there is so much trouble with terrorism.

Remember next time you lambast a terrorist group that your government is no better than them.

Good quote mouse :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 12:06:09 am
Am I alone in thinking that assassination is a highly effective and direct way to wage war?  And that it is not morally wrong, given that the person or group to which they belong has been either declared war against, or found to be guilty in court already(for bounty hunters etc).  Why has state-sponsored assassination been deemed in violation of the rules of war?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 11, 2002, 12:41:54 am
Am I alone in thinking that assassination is a highly effective and direct way to wage war?

Nope, if the killing of one leader will save thousands of soldiers then you might think why not? However what if the killing of one leader fuels a leadership contest in which tens of thousands die? You can never be sure.

And that it is not morally wrong, given that the person or group to which they belong has been either declared war against, or found to be guilty in court already(for bounty hunters etc).

The problem is that those two things aren't always there. Was the US at WAR with Cuba? Had Fidel Castro been convicted in a court of law? Assasination attempts are often outside the rule of law and so are illegal.

With respect to the War on Some Terror, you aren't at WAR *and* the 'guilty' parties have not been convicted in a court of law.

Assasination attempts when one state is at WAR with another are sometimes ok. Assasination attempts when there is no WAR are always bad.

Who decides if you are at WAR Afaik with the current defintion it has to be two sovereign states, but this doesn't translate well to guerilla warfare, separatism and terrorism.

Sorry if the post appears a bit disjointed, but it is early where i am :)
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 05:12:50 am
We are currently at war with all terrorist groups that identify as groups and that threaten the US.  The President asked for this declaration and it was granted in the only form it could be.  However the authority to declare war on iraq should probably not have been delegated.  It would be legally better to call an emergency session to vote for a declaration just before starting the war.  On the other hand it is tactically better to obtain the authority and then use the authority as an axe to hang over Saddam's head in an attempt to _avoid_ war, and then use surprise to do a quick assault if he refuses to deal)

Personally, I think we should officially declare war upon all terrorist groups, whether or not they threaten the US.  The only way to eliminate terror as a tactic is to make the cost-benefit analysis come out poorly for the potential terrorists.  The only nation that can do this without fear of drastic repercussion is the US.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 11, 2002, 05:37:25 am
We are currently at war with all terrorist groups that identify as groups and that threaten the US.

How can you be at war with a non-country? Why aren't the prisoners being treated as prisoners of WAR?

Personally, I think we should officially declare war upon all terrorist groups, whether or not they threaten the US.

It would be difficult for your government to declare war on itself.

The only nation that can do this without fear of drastic repercussion is the US.

How many 11/09s will it take before you realise that 'kill the naughty people' isn't an effective foreign policy?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 06:54:33 am
First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement:  Terror is the use of assault upon civilians in an attempt to alter the policies of the nation to which they belong.  As such, the attack upon the WTC was terrorism, the attack upon the Pentagon was not.  However the attack upon the Pentagon was an act of war.

We are at war with a group.  They do not follow the Geneva conventions as a group, and thus the Geneva conventions do not apply to them.  We _still_ treat them (at least most of them) under the same principles as the geneva convention because we are generous (and because it looks good).

Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.  But getting serious, Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations.  This is because early on, they made sure that it was obvious that such a tactic wouldn't work.  If you took hostages, they'd attack you, even if it meant losing the hostages.  Since they could get no valid use of the hostages, they ceased to take them.  Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: 5pectre on November 11, 2002, 07:28:03 am
First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement

Ok, it might work if you change the definition. But I could change the definition to 'Kissing babies'.

Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations...

Now instead of taking live hostages they just kill people outright. Nice improvement.

Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

The US supports the use of terror against the palestinians. In greece during the US sponsered dictatorship the junta used terror on the greek population. By your alternative definition of terror this probably doesn't count as the US isn't the ones actually *doing* the terror, they are paying for others to do it for them. But by my definition of terror anyone who supports the terrorists is also guilty.

Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.

People have been advocating taking a hardline since time immemorial. Mostly it doesn't work. Largely because you are tackling the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem itself. If you have a broken leg you don't just keep taking more painkillers until it stops hurting because the problems will just recur when you stop. You get the leg fixed. That is the current problem. The US is dosing up on painkillers to fight this War on Some Terror but eventually they are going to have to solve the underlying problem which is the broken leg. No matter how much resources you pour into it it won't solve it unless you cure the underlying cause.

You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.

You'll never get them all, sorry to break it to you.

Regarding the Geneva convention, if they break the rules that makes it ok for you to break the rules?
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 06:41:12 pm
First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement

Ok, it might work if you change the definition. But I could change the definition to 'Kissing babies'.

I "change" the definition, because I am trying to describe the _tactic_ part of terrorism, and not the more general phenomenon which can apply to a police
Quote
Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations...

Now instead of taking live hostages they just kill people outright. Nice improvement.

The strategy involved in killing groups is entirely different than the hostage strategy.  They've removed any form of hostage strategy.  They are not capable of removing terrorism as a strategy.

Quote
Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

The US supports the use of terror against the palestinians. In greece during the US sponsered dictatorship the junta used terror on the greek population. By your alternative definition of terror this probably doesn't count as the US isn't the ones actually *doing* the terror, they are paying for others to do it for them. But by my definition of terror anyone who supports the terrorists is also guilty.

First you'd have to prove that the palestinians are terror victims.  The palestinians have no inherent right to that land, and in fact lost any possible right to the land when they lost an offensive war against Israel.  The palestinian territory is by all rights spoils of war.  The Israeli tolerance of palestinians is pure charity, since they could simply evict them back to the various middle-eastern states from which they were first evicted.

As to the Greek situation, I don't know much about it, but support of a particular force _before_ it has started to use terroristic means, is not equal to providing moral and financial support intended to advance the use of terorrism.

Quote
Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.

People have been advocating taking a hardline since time immemorial. Mostly it doesn't work. Largely because you are tackling the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem itself. If you have a broken leg you don't just keep taking more painkillers until it stops hurting because the problems will just recur when you stop. You get the leg fixed. That is the current problem. The US is dosing up on painkillers to fight this War on Some Terror but eventually they are going to have to solve the underlying problem which is the broken leg. No matter how much resources you pour into it it won't solve it unless you cure the underlying cause.

while the painkillers won't heal the leg, even while the leg is healing, you continue to use painkillers to stop the pain.  I don't entirely agree with the interventionist policies (although I haven't rejected it entirely yet either), but that doesn't mean that terrorism is a tolerable action.  As such, it should be fought against at all costs.  In the meantime, we should be trying to lessen our intervention.  However, bin-Laden's complaints are about military bases that have at one time been welcomed in the area.  We are not subject to his opinion on anything.

Quote
You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.

You'll never get them all, sorry to break it to you.

We don't need to.  we just have to make it so expensive that it doesn't happen _often_.  Right now it is considered an effective tactic by most, and is considered morally permissable by a decent number of countries.  _That_ is what we need to get rid of.  Individual terrorism will always exist, but institutional terrorism is a vulnerable enemy, if we're willing to go after it.

Quote
Regarding the Geneva convention, if they break the rules that makes it ok for you to break the rules?

If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole point of the Geneval convention.  The signatories bind themselves to the convention in order to protect them from other signatories.  If you aren't signed, then all's fair.  Most countries find the Geneval convention rather useful in protecting themselves, so they'll bind themselves to it to take part in its protection, which also limits their action upon those signatories.  It _is_ after all a mere treaty and not the word of god from upon high.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 07:14:42 pm
One quick note, Mouseborg.  You may want to be careful about whose quotes you use.  The Julius Caesar quote below was made up.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm

I was also fooled by this quote, until it was brought to my attention.  It _is_ a rather nice quote, and describes a particularly effective machiavellian scheme.

However, you will note that I have _never_ advocated the giving up of a citizen's freedom in order to gain any degree of security.  The governments actions locally should be tightly bound.  the government's actions globally, are not tightly bound.  The only binding is that war and treaties must go through congress.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 08:42:09 pm
Quote
author=maestro
Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

Hmm... I think we left off a while back around in this area. ;)

Targeting civilians? Waco immediately comes to mind. Kent State also rings a bell. As does Ruby Ridge. And those are just the domestic fairly well documented cases. The foreign incidents are a bit harder to document convincingly because, as you already know, press coverage in many places wasn't allowed, or was severely restricted - for good reason. The best example I can suggest here is Nicaragua. But its best if you do the research yourself, as what you come up with will be much less suspect than anything I can offer.

However, as for terrorists, if Osama didn't exist, I suggest to you that we would have created him. Oopers, ignore that, since we in fact did create him...

Okay, lets try this from a slightly different angle. Financially, and for proper growth of government (at least in the government's eyes) we have to have a Goldstein. For why this is so, check through the War For Iraqi Oil thread as it was well covered there in ref to massive war industry profits (very little if any of which we ourselves will actually see.)

This concept was not simply an invention by Orwell for his 1984 book... its an ancient thing. Nothing at all new about it 'cept the numbers involved, along with the technology now available to pull it off. We simply see history repeating itself once more, though of course on a rather larger scale.

After our past discussions, I know you are already more than passingly suspicious of current events, and I do respect you holding the line in spite of that... but I'm somewhat puzzled as to why.

it seems to me that the Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc incidents are despicable acts of an internal police investiagations gone astray.  They are not terroristic acts, but rather criminal acts by the administrators, investigators, and possibly even the individual police officers.  They should be punished severely and any policy causing that action should be expunged along with the policy-makers who put it together.  However, none of these are policies of the united states per se, and they have little to do with terroristic activities of non-governmental groups upon civilians.  If a governmental group is using terrorism, then they're an easy target.  The assaulted should be able to call for immediate and drastic measures, which should include the destruction of the regime.  The US is an exception to this primarily because it is too powerful for any nation or group of nations to attack.  Only a unified world would stand a chance.  However, we've _yet_ to establish that the US is an honest-to-goodness terrorist state.  Rather you've shown that it is a pushy one, and a sometimes hypocritical one.  Neither of which is worthy of total condemnation.
Title: Re:Execution on Suspicion.
Post by: maestro on November 11, 2002, 09:47:17 pm
terrorism is a unconventional military tactic undertaken by a non-governmental group.  Waco was military-style direct assaults undertaken against civilians counter to constitution.  Both are evil.  One is policy of the entire group, the other is policy of a few machiavellian individuals within the government, who can and should be removed.