We Are All Spaniards

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"

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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?

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

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?

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.

"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?