well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
It's currently loooking like a vigilante group marching through a town with baseball bats, searching for 'terrorism'

I don't believe that it is looking that way and I don't believe that it will happen.

It's pretty much impossible to define terrorism. (I think the definition of terrorism as "a war crime during peace time" is probably the closest.) Every possible definition of terrorism is going to be overly broad.

Right now, I believe that the checks and balances are working (and not just the checks and balances set forth by the founding fathers, but also those of public opinion, elections, etc.). Yes, in the past the U.S. has done some shady things (especially those damn Republicans like the 1st Bush and Reagan). But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

Blah. I need some sleep. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
In the USA Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 9/11), the U.S. does offer a definition of terrorism.

That act is scary - I mean it's called the PATRIOT act so it must be for the good of the American people, right? If you threaten to hurt someone on a bus, you could be convicted of terrorism. How long did that act take to be passed, anyway? It's huge. There's an assessment of it here http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla..._analysis.html

It basically restricts civil liberties by giving authorities carte blanche in a large number of situations, which may help the fight against terrorism, who knows.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

I disagree, and I hope that comes out in the near future.

Originally posted by kypper:
Stop repeating yourself; if we don't agree with the USA's definition, we don't, no matter how much you repeat it.
It is VERY broad.

Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.

technicalities.
it was implied http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

Originally posted by BlueStar:
I don't believe that it is looking that way and I don't believe that it will happen.

It's pretty much impossible to define terrorism. (I think the definition of terrorism as "a war crime during peace time" is probably the closest.) Every possible definition of terrorism is going to be overly broad.

Right now, I believe that the checks and balances are working (and not just the checks and balances set forth by the founding fathers, but also those of public opinion, elections, etc.). Yes, in the past the U.S. has done some shady things (especially those damn Republicans like the 1st Bush and Reagan). But, for right now I believe that the U.S. is operating on an up-front, non-extreme level.

Blah. I need some sleep. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Sleep? At this time? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

My point is, the US (and indeed, many countries) is hypocritical. How can you condemn terrorism when you sponsor it yourself? How can you attack people for breaking the rules, when you flagrantly ignore them yourself whenever it suits you? You cannot try to be the bastion of democracy while at the same time bending people to your will by force. You can't combat private terrorism by fighting it - you just force it further underground, making it less visible and therefore more dangerous. How surprised was the world when 9/11 happened? Now, were they surprised because of America's geographical and military defenses, or because they had no idea people could have reason to hate the US so much?

EDIT: I mean MORE dangerous http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by DeviousJ (edited 06-11-2002).]

Originally posted by So very sad about me:
Damn, my thread has gotten out of hand.

There, that's my contribution

No, come back! You could draw an analogy between the use of a radioactive bomb, and the depleted uranium shells used in Yugoslavia and Iraq!

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Uh...all I did there was state that the U.S. had in fact attempted to define terrorism. I never previously stated that they had done that. And I did not indicate any agreement with the definition of terrorism the U.S. set forth in the USA Patriot Act.

See this is the problem - you sound like a spokesperson for the US, because of the way you keep quoting government stances. We want to know what YOU think!

Let's sum up...

I believe that we are currently at war, in every sense of the word "war". I believe that the U.S. was correct in going to war. I do not agree with everything the U.S. has done thus far in this war. And I know that I will not agree with everything the U.S. will do. I despise Bush. In times of war, certain civil liberties are trespassed upon and sacraficed. It sucks, it's not a good thing, but it is a necessary thing. Again, I do not agree with everything that has happened...things have gotten out of hand at times. However, some things were/are necessary. For the U.S., this is uncharted territory. No one in the U.S. government knows what the right answer is. It's all about trial and error...the Bush administration has gone back and forth on many things since 9/11. Thus far (and for pretty much the first time in my life), I basically support the U.S. and the actions it has taken in this war.

And...holy fuck, this topic is loooooong. And it just goes in circles. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
See this is the problem - you sound like a spokesperson for the US, because of the way you keep quoting government stances. We want to know what YOU think!

That's why I am in politics.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
My point is, the US is hypocritical. How can you condemn terrorism when you sponsor it yourself? How can you attack people for breaking the rules, when you flagrantly ignore them yourself whenever it suits you? -

If you go through the history of pretty much every country, you'll find that they're hypocritical then too. WE don't live in Utopia. That's the way fucking governments work.

How exactly did YOU want the U.S. to react after 9/11?



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

True true... but it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on. When people start throwing the word 'patriotism' around (ie mindless acquiescence) you know you have to pay attention.

Please have a look at that Chomsky article I posted, it brings up some good points about the whole thing, and it's good to hear both sides... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

Now this thread might burn out, and it had so much promise... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif especially for a non-'1000 posts and I post nude pics' thread

Devious J: the captured taliban soldiers had the option to defect out of taliban rule and fall into rule of thew new afghanistan government unless they played a pivotal role or had direct interactions with al qaeda therefor making them al qarda operateives. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the number of taliban soldiers vs the number of soldiers in US custody and the roles they played. They didn't take into custody the equivelant of a private or lower ranking "soldier" they took more into captive higeher ups (ie officers or NCOS) who were blatantly taking orders from al qaeda. Thus, they wave their rights for protection under geneva. If you are an american soldier working with another organization you wave your right to claim as an american soldier as you take upon more actions than the basic US soldier falling under the geneva convention articles.

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Slunk: YOU are exactly what ALL governments want. People thinking they know the answer and doing absolutely nothing about it. Despite your views, you're always the easiest type of person to manipulate.

You don't have a fucking clue about what I do. You don't know who I vote for, what my political stance is recorded as on polling day. The associations I'm a member of and the money I donate.

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
I love it when people try and think outside their social status.

So what's a white middle class guy supposed to be thinking ?

Originally posted by DeviousJ:

Please have a look at that Chomsky article I posted, it brings up some good points about the whole thing, and it's good to hear both sides... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

I did. And I disagree. Practically every country has done bad, under-handed things. Every country has a past. And I don't agree with those things. But, I do not now (or will I probably ever) believe that this war is unjust.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:
Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.

Recent memory exactly. No one took any notice of the Talban until Sep 11.
The Taliban were doing their thing long before Sep 11. You did the world a favour when you did yourselves a favour, not before.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on.

"Think for yourself. Question authority."



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
Recent memory exactly. No one took any notice of the Talban until Sep 11.
The Taliban were doing their thing long before Sep 11. You did the world a favour when you did yourselves a favour, not before.

Go back and read this thread. The Taliban didn't even come into power until around 1995. And the U.S. and other countries did take notice of the Taliban and were taking action.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
If you go through the history of pretty much every country, you'll find that they're hypocritical then too. WE don't live in Utopia. That's the way fucking governments work.

How exactly did YOU want the U.S. to react after 9/11?

But the US would like people to believe they're at least pursuing Utopian goals - democracy, human rights, equality... The US isn't any old country, not only is it a superpower, but also a self-appointed protector of the world. But it just isn't true, except people aren't told this, and it's just wrong.

How would I have liked to see the US handle matters? Aside from massive changes to social policy, I'd have liked to see a clear, measured approach to tracking down those responsible, and bringing them to justice in an international tribunal. None of this 'DEAD OR ALIVE! LET'S ROLL!' idiocy. If the US had worked with the governments involved, key memebers of Al-Qaida could have been handed over - didn't the Taliban say they would hand over Bin Laden, if they were shown the evidence linking him to the attacks? And weren't they turned down? And now the leaders have disappeared, with the US military shrugging their shoulders, firing missiles into caves and saying 'yeah, he's probably dead'. This kind of activity is only going to strengthen support for the terrorists. Going in, guns (or vacuum bombs) blazing is not going to solve the problem

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
True true... but it's in these situations that you have to be *more* vigilant, and question what's going on. When people start throwing the word 'patriotism' around (ie mindless acquiescence) you know you have to pay attention.

At the on-set of war, there is always a strong rally-around-the-flag effect...where people spout patriotic things and perhaps blindly follow their leaders. But, as the war drags on, that fades. The rally-around-the-flag effect after 9/11 was IMMENSE. However, the public, the politicians, etc. are beginning to speak out in dissention on varous issues...Bush's approval ratings are dropping...things are being questioned.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

"War"

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Devious J: the captured taliban soldiers had the option to defect out of taliban rule and fall into rule of thew new afghanistan government unless they played a pivotal role or had direct interactions with al qaeda therefor making them al qarda operateives. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the number of taliban soldiers vs the number of soldiers in US custody and the roles they played. They didn't take into custody the equivelant of a private or lower ranking "soldier" they took more into captive higeher ups (ie officers or NCOS) who were blatantly taking orders from al qaeda. Thus, they wave their rights for protection under geneva. If you are an american soldier working with another organization you wave your right to claim as an american soldier as you take upon more actions than the basic US soldier falling under the geneva convention articles.

Would you like to point me in the direction of somewhere that gives the number of Taliban and the number of Al-Qaeda prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay?

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
If the US had worked with the governments involved, key memebers of Al-Qaida could have been handed over - didn't the Taliban say they would hand over Bin Laden, if they were shown the evidence linking him to the attacks? And weren't they turned down?

No. The Taliban never had any intention of turning over Bin Laden. They claimed that they had no idea where he was. And no evidence ever would have been sufficient for them.

And even if they turned over Bin Laden and there was a trial and all that shit...the terrorist threats would keep on coming and keep on happening. Getting Bin Laden is not the answer to putting a stop to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and ensuring that something like 9/11 never happens again. You must go after the entire network. And you must go after the governments that harbor and support those networks so as to ensure that the networks cannot be built up again.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
I did. And I disagree. Practically every country has done bad, under-handed things. Every country has a past. And I don't agree with those things. But, I do not now (or will I probably ever) believe that this war is unjust.

So you're saying what the US has done (many times) is ok? You don't think the US' position in the world affords a certain responsibility? How can a war on terrorism be just if America is not a target of this war?

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Go back and read this thread. The Taliban didn't even come into power until around 1995. And the U.S. and other countries did take notice of the Taliban and were taking action.

Six years is plenty of time to rid the world of them if they were so evil. Slapping them with a wet bus ticket isn't doing anyone any favours. The US and allies still had oil opportunities under the Taliban. As bad as the were, if they could be established to be pro-US or pro-oil the Taliban would have lasted a lot longer.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
You don't think the US' position in the world affords a certain responsibility?

The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
At the on-set of war, there is always a strong rally-around-the-flag effect...where people spout patriotic things and perhaps blindly follow their leaders. But, as the war drags on, that fades. The rally-around-the-flag effect after 9/11 was IMMENSE. However, the public, the politicians, etc. are beginning to speak out in dissention on varous issues...Bush's approval ratings are dropping...things are being questioned.

Good. I hope it keeps up. Because there are a lot off things that need to be questioned. This *will* happen again if nothing changes, and it can only get worse http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

bull

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

Then maybe we should all be concerned with pre-Sep 11 events.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. The Taliban never had any intention of turning over Bin Laden. They claimed that they had no idea where he was. And no evidence ever would have been sufficient for them.

And even if they turned over Bin Laden and there was a trial and all that shit...the terrorist threats would keep on coming and keep on happening. Getting Bin Laden is not the answer to putting a stop to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and ensuring that something like 9/11 never happens again. You must go after the entire network. And you must go after the governments that harbor and support those networks so as to ensure that the networks cannot be built up again.

No no no. Even if you could control all the governments in the world, the terrorists would still exist. They would still conspire, and commit acts - things would be more difficult, but like I said - they would just go underground, making the threat even greater. Anyway, it wouldn't be all the governments in the world which sponsor terrorism - just a select few. Would the US be "gone after"? Of course not. And the US has trained and supported terrorists in the past, such as... oh I don't know... Osama Bin Laden for one. And look what happened there. This war is *not* going to work.


As for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden, they were never shown the evidence. Maybe the US never had any intention of giving them a way out? The US were certainly in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, amongst other things.