Simple statement..

[tony]

Do you agree or disagree?


"The United States must do whatever is necessary to stop terrorist attacks on the people and facilities of the country. The removal of civil rights and legal protections that impede security forces from identifying and neutralizing terrorists and those who support them is a major portion of this response."

[Total_Blender]

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree, theres a point at which Homeland Security becomes a worse problem than terrorism (and this point, specifically, is called the USA Patriot Act). Also, the torture events at Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo, which completely undermined America's commitment to the Geneva convention.

The response to 9/11 was to treat an Al Qaeda attack as if terrorism were a completely new unprecedented thing that had never been perpetrated on American soil before, which is a falsehood. There was the 1993 attack on the WTC, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and the bombing of the 1996 Olympic games, all events that preceded 9/11 by half a decade or more.

Furthermore, war is probably the worst response to terrorism as terror networks can't be effectively fought by regular armies in land wars. Regular armies are only good for two things: taking and holding territory, and taking and holding collateral/capital. This does nothing to stop terror networks with power structures and finance that exist separately from those of the nation states.

Perhaps a more effective way to fight terror would be to have special ops units that infiltrate terror networks for assassinations and sabotage. Meanwhile improving security measures at airports and harbors, in ways that are not as intrusive to citizens and their privacy. Also, training local police in counterterrorism (which is starting to happen now).

And perhaps the most important part of the fight against terrorism would be going after the money. If we shake down the big-wigs that back terror networks and cut off their capital, that would be more effective than sending 10 divisions worth of surge. But this is unlikely to happen, we're talking about oil money, and the oil industry is probably the most powerful lobby in politics.

[BanginJimmy]

Now put the quote in context. Any idot can take a single statement and turn it into something else, just as is the case here. Just like Rush saying he wants Obama to fail. Just like the bible.

Here's a quote from your messiah.


We need to spread the wealth around

[bdydrpdmazda]

agree, terrorists must be caught and brought to justice no matter the cost, they need to know that america is a country not to be fucked with.

[Total_Blender]

agree, terrorists must be caught and brought to justice no matter the cost, they need to know that america is a country not to be fucked with.

So thats worth your right to habeas corpus? All Righty then :rolleyes:

Its not worth mine. America may not be a country to "be fucked with," but it shouldn't fuck itself from the inside either. You hang on to hollow ideologies and jingoism, I'll stand up for my freedom :goodjob:

[bdydrpdmazda]

So thats worth your right to habeas corpus? All Righty then :rolleyes:

Its not worth mine. America may not be a country to "be fucked with," but it shouldn't fuck itself from the inside either. You hang on to hollow ideologies and jingoism, I'll stand up for my freedom :goodjob:
:thinking: are you putting these sentences into a "Total Blender" before you type them? In English please...

[BanginJimmy]

I know you are an idiot, but this is too easy.



I disagree, theres a point at which Homeland Security becomes a worse problem than terrorism (and this point, specifically, is called the USA Patriot Act).

Patriot act is a joke and can , read will, lead to massive internal spying. As written now though, its not an issue anyone but those that do business with suspected terroists need to worry about.


Also, the torture events at Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo, which completely undermined America's commitment to the Geneva convention.

Name a single "torture event" that happened at either place that falls under the protections of the Geneva Accords.

Now, if you want to treat these fucksticks like enemy combatants under the Geneva Accords, military personnel were completely within their rights to summarily execute them for not being in a distinguishable uniform while engaged in combat operations.


The response to 9/11 was to treat an Al Qaeda attack as if terrorism were a completely new unprecedented thing that had never been perpetrated on American soil before, which is a falsehood.

I dont know where you get this little tidbit from. The response to 9/11 was one that says we arent putting up with their shit anymore. We played nice with them for the last 20+ years and it got us no where other than increasingly deadly attacks. We fight back and guess what, no more attacks on our soil. Sounds like a resounding success to me.



There was the 1993 attack on the WTC, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and the bombing of the 1996 Olympic games, all events that preceded 9/11 by half a decade or more.

2 domestic terrorism cases that were dealt with more strongly than the international one. You forgot quite a few major cases though. Dont forget the Cole, the embassies in Africa,and the Khobar Towers You should also note that the US was directly attacked more times under Clinton that all other presidents combined.


Furthermore, war is probably the worst response to terrorism as terror networks can't be effectively fought by regular armies in land wars. Regular armies are only good for two things: taking and holding territory, and taking and holding collateral/capital. This does nothing to stop terror networks with power structures and finance that exist separately from those of the nation states.

I actually agree that the current vision of fighting terrorism isnt working. The problem is, no one has any better ideas to keep areas stabilized without regular military units.


Perhaps a more effective way to fight terror would be to have special ops units that infiltrate terror networks for assassinations and sabotage. Meanwhile improving security measures at airports and harbors, in ways that are not as intrusive to citizens and their privacy. Also, training local police in counterterrorism (which is starting to happen now). [/quote]

The Mossad cant even do this with any real success. What makes you think Americans can?


And perhaps the most important part of the fight against terrorism would be going after the money. If we shake down the big-wigs that back terror networks and cut off their capital, that would be more effective than sending 10 divisions worth of surge. But this is unlikely to happen, we're talking about oil money, and the oil industry is probably the most powerful lobby in politics.

So how do you propose we find these big wigs if we dont use any interrogation methods any stricter than asking nicely if they want their lawyer?

[BanginJimmy]

I'll stand up for my freedom :goodjob:

Considering the fact that you bow at the alter of the holy Obama, I know this is a lie. Then again you believe in "choice and competition" also.

[Total_Blender]

If we're calling our efforts against these terror networks a "war" and prosecuting it with out regular army, then I don't see how it couldn't fall under the Geneva convention. Our whole basis for detaining prisoners in the first place is that they are "enemy combatants".

As far as there being more terror attacks under Clinton... maybe. But thats only because Ronald "second billed to Bonzo the chimp" Reagan pacified them by sending them arms and capital. Russia v/s Afghanistan, Iran Contra, Saddam's rise to power, etc etc.

The whole idea of a "rogue nation" in the current sense of the concept is bunk. We support plenty of regimes that are both brutally oppressive to their own people and threatening to their neighbors and regional stability. The difference is the nations that roll over for us and serve our need for exploitative trade practices, cheap fossil fuels, and cheap labor are considered "allies in the fight against terror" and the nations that don't, or don't have any resources we need are considered "rogue".

Since you counted embassies and ships at foreign ports as attacks on our soil, you're wrong. Our embassies in Yemen and Quatar get attacked in some fashion about once a month... gunmen, car bombs, suicide bombers, even mortars. It happens so often its not even news anymore.

I am unaware that following a money trail requires torture. Subpeona up some records, tap the right phones, etc. I know that some domestic spying is to be expected as a response to terrorism, so if we have to live with such a breach of our privacy we should at least use it to hit terrorists in the pocketbook.

[MachNU]

For Total Bender...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7806/obamacarek.jpg (http://img6.imageshack.us/i/obamacarek.jpg/)

[MachNU]

P.S.

Yes I agree. Freedom is not free.

[Total_Blender]

I try not to accept the ideology of patriotism blindly. America fucks it up sometimes. If we compromise our essential freedoms like habeas corpus and protection from search and seizure, we're no better of a place than anywhere else in the world.


http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/america.jpg

[The Creeper]

All I'm going to say is BanginJimmy is the fucking Masta.

[tony]

So we as a country should set aside our values in the name of fighting terrorism? I choose my words wisely here but when a country no longer operates under the rules of engagement set forth are they no better than the forces they claim to be terrorists? Just a hypothetical and food for thought.

[bdydrpdmazda]

So we as a country should set aside our values in the name of fighting terrorism? I choose my words wisely here but when a country no longer operates under the rules of engagement set forth are they no better than the forces they claim to be terrorists? Just a hypothetical and food for thought.
Im not sure I understand what you meant by this statement. The rules of engagement change almost monthly in favor of terrorist. its getting to the point now where we almost have to allow them to actually hit us with a shot rather than shoot at us before we can return fire.

[tony]

But even still one side has to stay true to their standards, otherwise the situation spirals out of control and the lines between humane and inhumane are blurred.

[bdydrpdmazda]

I think the US is doing all it can maintain order in a country that hasnt had it in 1,000s of years and we are doing it in the most humane way possible.

[PatrickH]

This is one of those times where I believe it to be wholly unamerican to agree with the OP's quote. Sure, we should do what we can to protect our nation and our assetts. However, that ends with the violation of our rights. If you disagree, would you have liked to lived under the 3rd Reich's Germany? That is precisely what they believed: country above all else, including the individual. I, for one, believe that the nation can't survive without the individual.

[MachNU]

But even still one side has to stay true to their standards, otherwise the situation spirals out of control and the lines between humane and inhumane are blurred.

Lets compare...

US RoE - Do Not Fire Unless Fired Upon.

Terrorist RoE - Get as close as possible, with as many people around before you blow yourself up.

Yep seems to be we are doing pretty well on restrant with the rules of engagement.

[bu villain]

I disagree with the quote. I believe our rights and freedoms are worth dying for. If I have to choose between liberty and security, I choose liberty.

[PatrickH]

^ Those who choose security over liberty usually end up with neither.

[Danny]

Do you agree or disagree?


The United States must do whatever is necessary to stop terrorist attacks on the people and facilities of the country. The removal of civil rights and legal protections that impede security forces from identifying and neutralizing terrorists and those who support them is a major portion of this response.

Taking the quote for simply what is says, and completely out of whatever context it was originally said in: As much as I would like to agree, I simply can not agree with such blanket statements. I do not care what the cause is, "whatever it takes" statements rarely are an efficient use of resources. With this in mind, I can not agree. Freedom is worth a certain level of danger/absence of security. Me personally, i lean to the side of more freedom. But its very difficult to quantify how much freedom I desire vs how much security I desire.

Similar statement is "if we can save just one person with these changes it will all be worth it".

[bu villain]

^ Those who choose security over liberty usually end up with neither.

Very true Mr. Franklin. It confuses me that so many people are so distrustful of the government and yet they don't bat an eye at them surveilling their phone calls, bank records, etc.