I don't think we've had a good adminstration in about 20 years, so get over it. This administration is Horrible I belive way worse then the clinton adminstration.. But none of them have been good.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
THIS administration HAHAHAHAcpt.fass1 wrote:
With the way our administration has been failing us pretty much ever step of the way? Who are we hunting down half way across the world that is a real threat it's 5 years later we still haven't found Bin Ladden the "mastermind" behind the attack
How about blame the previous admin, ummm Clinton is the one who failed to pull the trigger on Bin Laden and also RELEASED the very same hijacker that flew one of the planes into the building, he also purposedly hushed info of a hijack plan when he learned the info from intelligence group on Bin Laden about the plan in 98. HAHAHA Wow and you blame THIS administration. The current has done the complete opposite, to go on the offensive than to just sit and twiddle thumbs while the terrorists plan.
I don't wish to speak for Fass but I believe you've misinterpreted what he's saying. The 'war on drugs' obviously doesn't equate precisely to the so-called 'war on terror' but both concepts are analogous to each other in certain ways. Drug dealing will never be stamped out completely and neither will the threat of terrorism. The two phenomena require a similar approach - 'policing' if you will, or threat containment, threat prevention, dealing with disasters if and when they occur. The 'war on terror' as witnessed in Iraq was a debacle and only served to increase the threat of terrorism. It's about how the problem of 'terror' is approached.M1-Lightning wrote:
Eh, you're telling me that my local police are dealing with the same thing as the US Marine Corp in Fallujah?cpt.fass1 wrote:
That's not my problem.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Is the definition of war but only one side of this conflict is at war the other is use tactics that are more related to drug cartels and illegal immigrants.
WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, even the First Iraq war was more of a war then this one. We are "policing" Iraq right now.
So this is what the war on drugs is like? - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-16 14:34:34)
Worse...well that depends on your opinion, and I respect that. But releasing a known terrorist back to his own country....CMON.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't think we've had a good adminstration in about 20 years, so get over it. This administration is Horrible I belive way worse then the clinton adminstration.. But none of them have been good.
Edit: And Cam, whats with Che man, oy yoy yoy, my spanish professor thinks hes the greatest man of all history....I don't know about that.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-16 14:25:48)
Look up the 'Ernesto Guevara' thread - I post comments on the pros and cons of Che.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Worse...well that depends on your opinion, and I respect that. But releasing a known terrorist back to his own country....CMON.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't think we've had a good adminstration in about 20 years, so get over it. This administration is Horrible I belive way worse then the clinton adminstration.. But none of them have been good.
Edit: And Cam, whats with Che man, oy yoy yoy, my spanish professor thinks hes the greatest man of all history....I don't know about that.
I think I read most of it....I agree with some of his stuff, but not a lot. Just making sure you don't think he's the BEST person in the history of mankind (like my Spanish professor).CameronPoe wrote:
Look up the 'Ernesto Guevara' thread - I post comments on the pros and cons of Che.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Worse...well that depends on your opinion, and I respect that. But releasing a known terrorist back to his own country....CMON.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't think we've had a good adminstration in about 20 years, so get over it. This administration is Horrible I belive way worse then the clinton adminstration.. But none of them have been good.
Edit: And Cam, whats with Che man, oy yoy yoy, my spanish professor thinks hes the greatest man of all history....I don't know about that.
Rather, would it be worth spending money we don't have with a failing economy to fight for oil? When it's life or death or the control of our society, we will go to war on loans. But since Al Queda sees us in the Middle East as nothing more than economic imperialism, then they believe they can wave us off by making it a costly enough effort that we will give up on the venture.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Depends do you live in a bad neighborhood?
If our government collapsed tomorrow and a real threat from China was to happen do you think that we wouldn't be able to conduct an attack?
Even so, the destruction of Al Queda being neverending or ending soon, is merely a matter of opinion. We never stamped out Nazism and never will, but we took out the core of it and removed the power that originally brought us into the war.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't wish to speak for Fass but I believe you've misinterpreted what he's saying. The 'war on drugs' obviously doesn't equate precisely to the so-called 'war on terror' but both concepts are analogous to each other in certain ways. Drug dealing will never be stamped out completely and neither will the threat of terrorism. The two phenomena require a similar approach - 'policing' if you will, or threat containment, threat prevention, dealing with disasters if and when they occur. The 'war on terror' as witnessed in Iraq was a debacle and only served to increase the threat of terrorism. It's about how the problem of 'terror' is approached.M1-Lightning wrote:
Eh, you're telling me that my local police are dealing with the same thing as the US Marine Corp in Fallujah?cpt.fass1 wrote:
That's not my problem.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Is the definition of war but only one side of this conflict is at war the other is use tactics that are more related to drug cartels and illegal immigrants.
WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, even the First Iraq war was more of a war then this one. We are "policing" Iraq right now.
So this is what the war on drugs is like? - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en
Yes but nazism was A LOT easier to target. It flew under the banner of nationhood. Break the nation and its figurehead - break the ethos. Radical islam has no figurehead - it's akin to an open source doctrine anyone can pick up to go and attack anything vaguely anti-islamic. Even if Osama was captured it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Killing Zarqawi certainly didn't. Terrorist cells operate independently, are near impossible to pinpoint, they work off their own agendas and do not rely on any real leadership per se. The only way you could possibly eradicate the threat of radical islam would be to kill absolutely each and every single last muslim on earth. Not an option I'm afraid. Fighting fascism was WAY easier but also WAY different to fighting radical islam.M1-Lightning wrote:
Even so, the destruction of Al Queda being neverending or ending soon, is merely a matter of opinion. We never stamped out Nazism and never will, but we took out the core of it and removed the power that originally brought us into the war.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't wish to speak for Fass but I believe you've misinterpreted what he's saying. The 'war on drugs' obviously doesn't equate precisely to the so-called 'war on terror' but both concepts are analogous to each other in certain ways. Drug dealing will never be stamped out completely and neither will the threat of terrorism. The two phenomena require a similar approach - 'policing' if you will, or threat containment, threat prevention, dealing with disasters if and when they occur. The 'war on terror' as witnessed in Iraq was a debacle and only served to increase the threat of terrorism. It's about how the problem of 'terror' is approached.M1-Lightning wrote:
Eh, you're telling me that my local police are dealing with the same thing as the US Marine Corp in Fallujah?
So this is what the war on drugs is like? - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-16 15:12:06)
Keep this in mind also. While I enjoy my freedoms as much as the next person some organizations such as the ACLU are trying to prevent the people who protect us from doing their job. An example, people are afraid of monitored phone conversations. I don't care if the government knows what kind of pizza toppings I like if it helps prevent ppl from dying. This is why the Brits were successful recently. Not having to deal with the ACL ppl.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well the better of us, means starts getting into our heads and making us afraid of our own shadows. If this starts happening we will start seeing lots of laws passed removing our "freedoms".
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Please let me know how the ACLU is trying to prevent the "people who protect us" from "doing their job." And please explain the two items I have in quotes so I have a better understanding of what you are trying to say.Kmarion wrote:
Keep this in mind also. While I enjoy my freedoms as much as the next person some organizations such as the ACLU are trying to prevent the people who protect us from doing their job. An example, people are afraid of monitored phone conversations. I don't care if the government knows what kind of pizza toppings I like if it helps prevent ppl from dying. This is why the Brits were successful recently. Not having to deal with the ACL ppl.
So one of the main reasons the Brits were able to stop the terrorist attack was because they don't have the ACLU? There are many civil liberties advocate groups in the UK, just none as prominent as the ACLU here in the U.S. The ACLU impedes the progress of national security in regards to terrorism much less than the administrations (military and/or foreign) policy does.
As for the wiretapping issue, I agree, talking about mundane bs is of no concern. What if I was a presidential candidate talking about how I am gay (which I'm not), and the administration in power somehow uses this information against me in my campaign? Highly unlikely, but still a concern. Why does the government need to monitor everything we say and/or do? Does that benefit the U.S. citizens or the U.S. government/people in power? Further, why do government agencies list peace groups as terrorist threats?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-16 15:58:08)
Umm they don't monitor everything, that is just ridicolous, they monitor calls/communication between certain geographic areas, or flagged calls within the US. They aren't just fishing random number and listening in. Good grief.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why does the government need to monitor everything we say and/or do? Does that benefit the U.S. citizens or the U.S. government/people in power?
Unless it's a National Security threat it can not be used against you. If you said you were going to steal a computer, that phone "tap" could not be used against you or even be used to obtain a search. It's funny how when you don't understand the way a law works people assume the worst. Now that is truely playing on Fear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As for the wiretapping issue, I agree, talking about mundane bs is of no concern. What if I was a presidential candidate talking about how I am gay (which I'm not), and the administration in power somehow uses this information against me in my campaign? Highly unlikely, but still a concern.?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
+100 God thank you.Kmarion wrote:
Unless it's a National Security threat it can not be used against you. If you said you were going to steal a computer, that phone "tap" could not be used against you or even be used to obtain a search. It's funny how when you don't understand the way a law works people assume the worst. Now that is truely playing on Fear.
So they decide based on where you call or who is calling what to tap? Why are they listening/taping peace protests and rallies? What does that have to do with national security and/or terrorism? My point is that they pass these laws in the name of protecting people, but use them in different ways than stated. Look at how many people have been arrested for terrorism through library searches, or wire taps, or any other type of domestic spying program. Why not tell us they are revoking our civil liberties to make the U.S. safer from bad people, instead of saying they need the PATRIOT ACT to combat terrorism? This is the same beef I have with the reasons for invading Iraq. Why doesn't the administration tell the public their true motives, instead of hiding behind a "fighting terrorism" facade?AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Umm they don't monitor everything, that is just ridicolous, they monitor calls/communication between certain geographic areas, or flagged calls within the US. They aren't just fishing random number and listening in. Good grief.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why does the government need to monitor everything we say and/or do? Does that benefit the U.S. citizens or the U.S. government/people in power?
1) Because some of those groups have been directly linked to certain cells within the US.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
1)Why are they listening/taping peace protests and rallies? What does that have to do with national security and/or terrorism?
2)My point is that they pass these laws in the name of protecting people, but use them in different ways than stated.
3)Look at how many people have been arrested for terrorism through library searches, or wire taps, or any other type of domestic spying program. Why not tell us they are revoking our civil liberties to make the U.S. safer from bad people, instead of saying they need the PATRIOT ACT to combat terrorism?
4)This is the same beef I have with the reasons for invading Iraq. Why doesn't the administration tell the public their true motives, instead of hiding behind a "fighting terrorism" facade?
2)Ok laws have been interpreted differently for YEARS and YEARS. Thats the point, so that LE can effectively combat crime/terrorism/etc.
3)Ok, Look at how many people that could have possibly either aided/or contributed in some way to a terrorist group/cell, you think those people were arrested just for reading books?? Hah. Read some more.
4)Umm, well this point differs upon your opinion and lack of understanding of certain facts. Zarqawi link with Al Qaeda implying Husseins direct funding and aide of Al Qaeda. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Third Terrorist connection that set up 9/11 basically because key people did not listen to information (Clinton, Bush, and others) just did not connect the dots.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-16 16:20:42)
How many, share your source please.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
on where you call or who is calling what to tap? Why are they listening/taping peace protests and rallies? What does that have to do with national security and/or terrorism? My point is that they pass these laws in the name of protecting people, but use them in different ways than stated. Look at how many people have been arrested for terrorism through library searches, or wire taps, or any other type of domestic spying program.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
cpt.fass1 wins at topic starting.
As a side note I'm willing to bet that half the people who expect the next plane they board to explode also buy lottery tickets. That gives me an idea for a poll:
A) I buy lottery tickets and I'm afraid of dying in a terror attack.
B) I never buy lottery tickets and I'm afraid of dying in a terror attack.
C) I buy lottery tickets and I'm not afraid of dying in a terror attack.
D) I never buy lottery tickets and I'm not afraid of dying in a terror attack.
I reckon that A and D would come out on top by a clear margin...
As a side note I'm willing to bet that half the people who expect the next plane they board to explode also buy lottery tickets. That gives me an idea for a poll:
A) I buy lottery tickets and I'm afraid of dying in a terror attack.
B) I never buy lottery tickets and I'm afraid of dying in a terror attack.
C) I buy lottery tickets and I'm not afraid of dying in a terror attack.
D) I never buy lottery tickets and I'm not afraid of dying in a terror attack.
I reckon that A and D would come out on top by a clear margin...
That's funny, because Tommy Chong was arrested and sucessfully jailed for interstate sales of marijuana smoking devices. Much of the evidence used against him was obtained through procedures legalized by the PATRIOT ACT. There is no clause in the PATRIOT ACT that says that evidence obtained can only be used in a court when it is a threat to national security. Go look it up before you tell me I don't understand (by the way, I am awaiting entry into Law School, don't tell me I don't know the law).Kmarion wrote:
Unless it's a National Security threat it can not be used against you. If you said you were going to steal a computer, that phone "tap" could not be used against you or even be used to obtain a search. It's funny how when you don't understand the way a law works people assume the worst. Now that is truely playing on Fear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As for the wiretapping issue, I agree, talking about mundane bs is of no concern. What if I was a presidential candidate talking about how I am gay (which I'm not), and the administration in power somehow uses this information against me in my campaign? Highly unlikely, but still a concern.?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-16 16:44:25)
Terrorists are winning, you're all scared shitless for fuck sakes look at yourself. You're up to the point where you think Arabs are going to take over the world and you're gonna have to live under Islamic law. Why think like that? Why why why? That's what they want....it's what they fucking want you pussies.
Ok so more tools for LE. Did this person willfully commit those crimes, glad he got jailed. Last time I checked, its illegal to do what he did.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's funny, because Tommy Chong was arrested and sucessfully jailed for interstate sales of marijuana smoking devices. Much of the evidence used against him was obtained through procedures legalized by the PATRIOT ACT.
You do realize you need a court order to do any of those things right? Do you know what FISA is? These things have been around for years.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's funny, because Tommy Chong was arrested and sucessfully jailed for interstate sales of marijuana smoking devices. Much of the evidence used against him was obtained through procedures legalized by the PATRIOT ACT. There is no clause in the PATRIOT ACT that says that evidence obtained can only be used in a court when it is a threat to national security. Go look it up before you tell me I don't understand (by the way, I am awaiting entry into Law School, don't tell me I don't know the law).Kmarion wrote:
Unless it's a National Security threat it can not be used against you. If you said you were going to steal a computer, that phone "tap" could not be used against you or even be used to obtain a search. It's funny how when you don't understand the way a law works people assume the worst. Now that is truely playing on Fear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As for the wiretapping issue, I agree, talking about mundane bs is of no concern. What if I was a presidential candidate talking about how I am gay (which I'm not), and the administration in power somehow uses this information against me in my campaign? Highly unlikely, but still a concern.?
I love it when people bring up stuff like, "I am waiting to go to Law school". No offence but honestly who cares. I'm waiting to buy some lottery tickets, that doesn't mean I'm a millionare.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There are many loopholes in FISA law, most unknown to the public due to secrecy issues. There have been cases that have set precedents where illegally obtained information has been used in a trial. I am all for the government tracing illegal money transfers to terrorist cells, but I am not for them using retooled federal laws to go after civilian criminals.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-16 22:34:08)
I respect your opinion and ideas. I can see it as a possibility but without concrete proof it's hard to accept.(I know we don't see it because the government wont allow us). That doesn't mean you assume the worst. I have to error on the side of caution when comparing human life to privacy. We do live in a different world than what we are accustomed to 5 years ago. It will take more than Chong and his marijuana pipe for me to let up on the pursuit of managing terrorism.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There are many loopholes in FISA law, most unknown to the public due to secrecy issues. There have been cases that have set precedents where illegally obtained information has been used in a trial. I am all for the government tracing illegal money transfers to terrorist cells, but I am not for them using retooled federal laws to go after civilian criminals.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mekstizzle wrote:
Terrorists are winning, you're all scared shitless for fuck sakes look at yourself. You're up to the point where you think Arabs are going to take over the world and you're gonna have to live under Islamic law. Why think like that? Why why why? That's what they want....it's what they fucking want you pussies.
Europe has been dealing with these problems longer than the US, and has well-tested systems to decrease the risk of terrorist attacks. The US doesn't. Newspapers publish stories about the failures of the Dept of Homeland Security frequently. In addition, the US people resist these changes because of giving up "certain freedoms", so the systems are designed with a rider - "we don't want to offend anyone" - so there's possibilities of built-in flaws.
So give me a break Europe - you guys are at least 15 years ahead of us in this department!
So give me a break Europe - you guys are at least 15 years ahead of us in this department!