Sitting in a pro-terrorist state

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Saint_Cadian, Feb 16, 2005.

  1. Saint_Cadian

    Saint_Cadian First time out of the vault

    Feb 11, 2005

    okay, y'know what, this is giving me a headache. I'm going to rant.

    What. the. fuck. is. wrong. with. people. (not you guys, i don't think.)

    This isn't vietnam, we're having pretty small casualties than compared to the enemy and most wars we've been in. We even took down the country we were aiming at.

    and for those of you anti-war/antibush protesters that say that we're doing horrible treatment to the Iraqis and terroists, I say why don't you be a terrorist hostage and say that at the sharp end of a blade. even better, go to the middleeast and see how long your "freedom fighters" won't end up capping ya for simply being american or non-muslim infadel.

    I am glad to know i'm not the only person in this country that supports our troops. :)

    Does anyone got a link to the dolphi report?
  2. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant

    Jan 29, 2004
    Ah yes, 'What if you were a terrorist hostage'?
    It's easy how quickly you can de-humanise humans if you want to get what you want.

    Torturing humans? They're not humans! They're terrorists!

    They're like the new jews.

    We'll see how history will judge people like you, Saint_Cadian.
    It probably won't be overly positive.
  3. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    I've always despised the Income Tax anyways.
  4. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Except that they're a wonderfully non-distinct group. Right now anyone with a beard might be an extremist muslim terrorist, anyone without might be a different kind of terrorist. Makes life easy, doesn't it?

    So the fact that less people die makes it an alright war?

    And you didn't take down shit, sporty, you might as well claim Afghanistan is under UN control

    How about this: I'm not going to them and I'm not going to bother them or enforce my opinion on them. Hence they won't torture me.

    Also I'm sorry but we're not responsible for what terrorists do; they're not under our control. The troops, however, are technically under the people's control, that means the people is responsible for what the troops do. Simple as that. If you can live with having your representatives torture people, a la, I sure can't.
  5. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    Agreed with Kharn.

    Interesting- the poll suggests while 47% find the picture offensive, that same group believes in the right of free speech to express that opinion. 19% is not offended at all. 34% who want it pulled down is not that surprising- it is Sacramento and California does have it's conservative side.

    Your justification that "hey look at the terrorists" does hold up. Americans should not be comparing themselves morally to terrorists. Rules against acts of torture, false imprisonment, the rights to due process- have a long history in the US. Justifying those actions as a response to 9-11 suggests one things only, the terrorists have won in disrupting our lifestyle and our culture.

    If american soldiers torture, do illegal searches, make false arrests- who is responsible? The soldiers or the taxpayers that pay those soldiers.

    Frankly, I am not sure if the critical press overplays this or the conservative press underplays it. But I am glad that people are willing to voice their opinions and raise the discourse to a public level.
  6. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    So the difference, then, is not so much that we're torturing people, but that we're justifying it with the threat of terrorism.

    Makes sense, I suppose.
  7. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    The difference is we justify our hostility towards terrorism by the dogma "we're better than they are".

    But we aren't if we torture people to gain that goal, now are we?
  8. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    Actually we have some pretty strong laws against torture, and generally our soldiers have been told that such actions are a violation of international law.

    We shouldn't be doing it.

    But no, it's broader than that. We have people accussing each other of being terrorist sympathizers and a government that has endorsed people to accuse each other. We have more government oversight into private conversations. We are throwing people into prisons only because they are seeking asylum in the US. We've got detentions of people for years without trials. And we have a war which has brought back some nasty images that we haven't seen since Vietnam. And there is more to it.

    There has been a lot of discussion about the motives of the 9-11 terrorists, but if their goal was to disrupt our society and our social norms. Those norms have been challenged by our government which has relaxed the standards of civil liberties that have helped frame our notions of law and justice.

    But that's normal terrorist strategy. Perpetuate a chain of events by an act of violence that creates pollarization so that extremes become more powerful. This is why the Arab- Israeli problem is so volatile- each side is quickly willing to jump to violence in counter-response.

    What is the threat of terrorism to a democratic society? To overthrow the very norms and values that are basis of democracy.
  9. MrMarcus

    MrMarcus Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Apr 3, 2003
    Usually the justification I hear locally is "They're terrorists, they don't deserve anything," said with the same uncaring tone one discusses brands of peanut oil with.

    Any discussion typically leads into "They don't care about our rights, why should we care about theirs? They're terrorists."
  10. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    What's funny is that this often comes from conservatives, who are supposed to be more religious- that whole "Do on to others as you would have them do onto you" idea is suddenly not important anymore.

    The other problem here is that a lot of the folks that might be suffering have little to do with terrorism, but by repressing them or denying civil rights we may be pushing large parts of a population against us.
  11. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    You'll have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical on the Terrorists succeeding in disrupting our Democratic society.

    Not necessarily because they've caused no change, but because the government has essentially raped the Constitution since the Progressive Movement got too big for its britches.

    The income tax itself was an unconstitutional measure approved for purely emergency means. Technically, we've been under emergency powers since World War 1.

    Yet people don't recognize the problem. Why is that? Because its so appealing. Its so appealing to let the government provide the social services they do. The concept of Social Security is so appealing.

    But at what cost? We were perfectly capable of performing these government functions without them. There was no need for it. There never was.

    We've allowed the government to dictate so many aspects of our lives that we've grown accustomed to it. We accept it, because they're always in the pursuit of noble ideals.

    So what have these noble ideals come to?

    We justify torture to protect freedom. We've turned a blind eye to the blatantly unconstitutional imprisonment of American citizens because we fear our own safety.

    Its no wonder High School students don't value their Constitutional rights, they're no longer guaranteed. They never have for nearly a century.

    "So, like, I walk down the street, right? I bump into this guy, let's call him "Joe." I'm like, "Hey, Joe, how're you today?" as I pull out a baseball bat neatly conceiled in my totally inconspicuous trenchcoat I'm wearing in the middle of a California summer. I proceed to break both of his legs, continuing on with, "I've got great news for you today!" Joe writhes in pain and manages to cry out, "WHAT'RE YOU DOING, YOU SADISTIC FUCK?!?" I drop the baseball bat and pull out a pair of crutches. As I help Joe up and hand him the crutches, I say, "Now, Joe, is that any way to talk to your good friend, afterall, I gave you these crutches. Without me, you wouldn't be able to walk."

    Joe and I have what you would call a special relationship. What I'd like for you, junior rangers, to do at home is try to think of who you might have this kind of relationship with."
  12. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    Bradylama- Is this the spin of a libertarian/conservative trying to recast the past three four years?

    You're saying that all the political changes we've had since 9-11 are because of the over-expansion of progressivism since the Great Depression? Not because it's a knee jerk reaction to terrorism by a Presidential administration that isn't a bit too happy to reign back on civil rights?

    You seem to be a little enthralled with your own spin.
  13. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Hah, no shit, the whole insistence of some Americans that the pre-WW II nationstate-sans-wellfare-state is still a viable stateform always amuses me, in fact.

    That said, I suppose it is viable, for the people that don't need help. We don't exactly live in a society where that is true. Heck, the American welfare state is a mess as it is, with a massive budget for a very ineffective care system, for instance
  14. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    I'm not blaming everything on Progressivism, but simply that this can be traced back to it. The Progressives had the right ideas, but the result was a massive expansion of government to encompass them.

    This wasn't a problem for a long while, because the men at the reigns were fairly benevolent, but now look at the result of our blind faith. Government support has led to government reliance. We've come to the point where many of us trust an institution that never deserved it. Why? Because so many of us are reliant upon it.

    We no longer question it because we are subserviant to it, and we're in a position where we can be thrown in jail for evading a tax that violates the Constitution. Yet nobody sees the problem.

    Call it a Libertarian Spin if you like, because it is like it. This is honestly what I believe, however.

    I'm not blaming anybody, I'm merely saying that this is part of a larger issue. If we want to claim defense of the Constitution, we have to defend all aspects of it.

    To clarify, I am a bit of a Traditionalist. =/
  15. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    A massive deficit while the country has been gutting the welfare system since Clinton. Or that the country has generally been moving towards a more conservative state since the Reagan era, despite the fact that overall Americans are doing worse today than 30 years ago.

    Bradylama- perhaps you might want to do a few more comparisons- for example, the fact that the country often goes on a conservative spin during times of crisis- WW2, Korea, World War1- with executives willing to use the concept of "national emergency" to expand the executive powers.
  16. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    That really depends on one's classification of a conservative state. Reagan's vision of a conservative state was a removal of government involvement in social and economic affairs.

    The concept of privatizing social security isn't exactly Reagan's vision of a conservative state. The government is still handling your money.

    The declaration of emergency powers isn't so much the problem, as it is how easy to never end those powers. As serious as the threat of International Terrorism is, we are not in a state of emergency.

    Security may be needed to increase, but the government has no right to detain American citizens without due process.

    The expansion of executive powers don't take place only during times of national emergency, either. Rather, they can take place at any time. Whenever one's constituents think they know best for the sake of the nation.
  17. Saint_Cadian

    Saint_Cadian First time out of the vault

    Feb 11, 2005
    oy Jebus, that's not what i'm saying. Infact, i support humane terrorism if the country isn't being democratic and is unjust. before you go asking what i mean by humane terrorism, let me lay it down for ya. no-civie hostage takeovers, this only proves that your group has no morality and will only make more people turn against you. If you're a terrorist group and want to go against an oppressor, stick to military targets. It's war, people understand shit happens(atleast i do).

    It's just what frustrates me the most is that our own people are fighting to keep the freedoms they have and you may not think so but 9/11 showed us we aren't invunerable. there is still threat to our free society, but people such as the one that made that euphogy(dunno how to spell it) still spit at our men and women.

    I'm not all for bush either. the only reason i support him at this time is because i lost people in 9/11 and we need to show the world that we aren't going to take crap from anybody. especially not some extremeist muslims who think they have the divine right to kill people.

    *sigh* i dunno, i just see what that family is doing as just wrong.

    as for the devaited subject :shock: *head explodes* Economics and it's history was never my cup of tea.
  18. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    But then they wouldn't be terrorists, they'd be rebels.

    If you could call it that.
  19. Saint_Cadian

    Saint_Cadian First time out of the vault

    Feb 11, 2005
    The media already calls them "insurgents" which is just a brainy word meaning rebels.

    Which one? that we have a threat? I would call three planes colliding with skyscrapers and the pentagon as a threat. or do you mean about a free soceity? ...hmm..okay, i'll bite. Show me a country that has more freedom across the board than compared to USA. I'm really interested if there is one.
  20. John Uskglass

    John Uskglass Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Aug 29, 2003
    That's absolutley absurd and you know it. 2,000 Americansare not dead because of the International Jewish Conspiracy; 2,000 Americans are dead because of Islamic terrorists.

    They don't deserve to be treated with the full respect of regular human beings? Why? They don't function as 'regular' human beings. They are fundementalists; to the best of them, thier lives mean nothing. Because they would'nt treat you as such. Nobility can cost one a war; see France.

    History rarley judges the isolationist as anything other then a hedonist or a blind man.

    No. But this is a pretty humane war by any standard, in that it removed a genocidal dictator and is setting up the first non-Jewish Mid-Eastern democracy.

    This is why I fear for civlization. This is NOT how fundementalists think. To the fundementalist, there is Dar-el-Islam and there is the land of the Infidel, and Dar-el-Islam must overtake the land of the infidel. To the Fundementalist, all people must submit to Islamic law.

    I'm not a fan of Guantanamo or tortue in most circumstances, but it's still occasionally a nessicary tool.

    Arbitrary. By that defenition the Allies where as bad as the Axis for Dresden.