If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
We don't, actually. We fight criminals.
There's no expectation that crime will cease. Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was meant to be a deterrent. In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:45:54 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote: Truth hurts, doesn't it, Martin? with a little brain left on your side you rather haven't had posted that. well, I guess it is only ignorance. it can be cured. I used to think that ignorance could be cured. We have been trying to cure you of ignorance for a long time now. Perhaps you are the exception that proves the rule. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote: They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and Germans. to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT. stick a finger up your ass and whistle. §$%&§$/&$&$§"%$!!!!! Truly, sir, I would be willing to meet you at any place of your choosing, except that I would be afraid to soil myself with the blood of the likes of you, while you would simply soil yourself. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
We don't, actually. We fight criminals. There's no expectation that crime will cease. Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was meant to be a deterrent. In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment. There's no word such as "incorrigible" in your dictionary grin? However, you're mixing two related but different concepts. We do hope that increasing the cost of crime will dissuade some [potential] criminals. But laws falling under the "three strikes" concept acknowledge that some people will commit crimes forever. If we'd a way to identify these people at birth, then perhaps...but we don't. So we fight criminals with the goal of keeping crime as infrequent as we can manage. - Andrew |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Jay,
Some people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already. That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay? The above statement is greatly exaggerated as of today, I will agree on that. That's why I choose not to adopt it by myself but to attribute it to other people :-) The warning it holds is however valid in my point of view. Trying to extinguish terrorism by a constant increase in security measures WILL affect our freedom long before it will achieve to make terrorist attacks virtually impossible. Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to root out Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing could be further from the truth. see above. Greatly exaggerated as of today, but not unthinkable to come true if certain people have their way. Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what has really changed in our day-to-day lives: 1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.) 2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels. 3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else? You might be surprised to know how precisely security forces are able to track your whereabouts already today. To me, this causes uneasy feelings, although, of course, I have "nothing to hide". Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two items impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans don't notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because there ARE no meaningful changes. Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has* changed -- but these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way. And most of THAT impact is philosophical. Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society. I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese in World War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society in the history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them. Hell, if *that* can happen, anything can. Willingness to suicidal combat manouvres is only a small part of the problem with fighting terrorism. After all, the Japanese still had a country where you could hit them. As was already pointed out, the terrorists are just about everywhere. In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing -- fight terrorists where *they* live. That is exactly where the problem lies. Where DO the terrorosts live?? See above. As the Madrid attack sadly proves, neither the war in afghanistan nor in Irak did the "trick". If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until the *******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school kids in Des Moines. That is not the alternative in question. No one says we should just wait. I just question whether military action in the middle east or elsewhere is going to stop the *******s (who, to be sure, already are resident in the US and Europe) from putting bombs on trains and buses. It also has been proven time and again, that it is still possible to place weapons or explosives on airplanes in spite of the security measures put in place since 9/11. On the other hand, as far as my knowledge goes, even the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by more solid intelligence work, for example. The information was there, only noone took notice because the amount of data aquired was just to much to be thoroughly evaluated. How is aquiring even more data (taking fingerprints from every tourist, e.g.) going to help that? Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't just kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest. I have no problem with that, as long as you know where it is. But I don't think it is wise to nuke your neighbours house, because you suspect the roaches nest in his basement. regards, Friedrich -- for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists. Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were terrorists in 1948. Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists... Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence. When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or a failed coup-de-tat... The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American Independence took place in America. So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a genocidal assault on the native Americans. Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace. Maybe that does not count? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung, unrelated locales. like how those American rebels went on to destroy Indian reservations through slaughter and starvation |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
I suppose you could list the ban on partial-birth abortion as happening under his watch, but this procedure is so barbaric that most people -- Democrat or Republican -- shudder at this type of abortion. I see that law as being outside of partisan politics -- but that's just me, I suppose. We call the terrorists barbaric for killing innocents? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If
the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans, their own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered. If we sit back and wait for it to happen, we will be written off in history as the once great, but now fallen American Imperialist Empire. "C J Campbell" wrote in : "Judah" wrote in message ... Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of their own countries... Or, worse yet, perhaps the AGENDA is pretty clear, but the coutries they are fighting for control of are not... It has always struck me as the ultimate in obnoxiousness to claim that fighting for democracy and the rule of law is somehow morally equivalent to deliberately attacking non-combatants in an attempt to impose totalitarian rule. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"S Green" wrote in message ... The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American Independence took place in America. So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a genocidal assault on the native Americans. Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace. Maybe that does not count? I know of no Americans who excuse what was done to the Indians. However, your description of what happened is extremely simplistic, ignoring efforts by European powers to arm the Indians and foment uprising by them. Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting for the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States, Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|