Your War on Terror
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Preacher_X
Registered Senior Member
Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil. 
Daddy ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.
So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.
So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.
But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.
So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.
War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...
So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...
So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...
Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
What?
I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.
But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.
I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?[/B]
By: David Campbell
Daddy ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.
So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.
So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.
But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.
So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.
War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...
So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...
So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...
Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
What?
I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.
But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.
I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?[/B]
By: David Campbell
Preacher_X
Registered Senior Member
Eng Grez said:
not a terrorist state
go on http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm
anf look at the THOUSANDS of pictures of Israeli TERRORIST ACTS. and that includes the pictures of the newborn babies with bullet holes in them, the elderly women getting beaten to the ground by Israeli soldiers, the 50 year old man who had his leg shot OFF by Israeli soldiers, the infants that were tied up to milatry vehicles and driven around, the little kids who are being beaten up with sticks by Israeli soldiers.
is that not terrorism. look at the pics and reply back.
and are you forgettiong how Israel was created how in '67 it came in with tanks and planes and burnt down thousands of houses and mosques were suvillians were hiding. currently it is bulldozing thousands of homes on the OCCUPIED west bank, just for more land.
if you were one of the people who's house had just been bulldozed simply of land last week, wouldn't you fell like blowing up some Israeli houses?
in the coty of Hebron in Palestine (not Israel) there are 100,000 Muslims and 700 Jewish "settelers" for the convienience of the 700 jewish "settlers" the 100,000 Muslims ALL have curfews, have to go through border checks daily. and this isn't even in Israel, it is in the West Bank which Israel "says" it gave to the palestinians but is still capturing it since '67
also the Goldstine massacre happened in Hebron.
Preacher_X
Registered Senior Member
http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacre...stine/index.htm
for pictures of Israeli savagery that far surpasses any Nazis!!!!!!!!
for pictures of Israeli savagery that far surpasses any Nazis!!!!!!!!
Preacher_X
Registered Senior Member
Energizer - lighting new frontiers
Lawsuit: Justice Department sued for post-9/11 abuse
Charges include verbal, physical abuse, even sodomy
It just bugs me that people don't want to believe it happens. Oh, well. We'll have to see; innocent until proven otherwise, you know. Unless, of course, you're Muslim.
Your war on terror . . . .
____________________
• Bernstein, Nina. "2 Men Charge Abuse in Arrests After 9/11 Terror Attacks." New York Times, May 3, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html
Lawsuit: Justice Department sued for post-9/11 abuse
Charges include verbal, physical abuse, even sodomy
For those who might have actually believed the line to the contrary, yes, our nation is at war against Islam.
It just bugs me that people don't want to believe it happens. Oh, well. We'll have to see; innocent until proven otherwise, you know. Unless, of course, you're Muslim.
Your war on terror . . . .
____________________
• Bernstein, Nina. "2 Men Charge Abuse in Arrests After 9/11 Terror Attacks." New York Times, May 3, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html
Last edited:
Hesomagari
Registered Senior Member
I love your passion Tiassa and read you whenever I find you, but this disturbs me.
Why? If you are not true to yourself, then what are you?
Why would you even get together with such a type as this? Bad choices?
I disagree with Churchill. Any person with a sense of justice knows what is right, and what is wrong.
Only those who have sold their souls, sail under the flag called "expedience".
Why? If you are not true to yourself, then what are you?
Why would you even get together with such a type as this? Bad choices?
So why is it, then, that all the liberal politians are OLD....
I disagree with Churchill. Any person with a sense of justice knows what is right, and what is wrong.
Only those who have sold their souls, sail under the flag called "expedience".
Overextended liberal compassion; you wake up one day and find you've given away all the stones for the foundation.
Human.
(It's a grim theme, I admit.)
Technically, yes. We all make bad decisions.
(Are there any real liberals left? What is the measure of a modern liberal?)
I tend to agree, but at 30 people tell me this is my overzealous sense of youth ....
(This is America; everything is for sale.)
(Or, Amen!)
(Or ....)
I think I was looking for imagery that didn't involve a bony old fart dressed in a sheet holding a lantern at the market square. Diogenes just doesn't have the same punch he did when I was a kid.
Hesomagari
Registered Senior Member
Tiassa, you are 30. I am 50. I'm not claiming age advantage.
What I do want to say, is that it is possible to retain your convictions right from an early age. I does, of course, assume that you made logical decisions having been given all the facts, and having been in a family that is not simply of the bovine ilk, chews their cud, and makes the milk.....
I disagree with Churchill in another sense. Children are the ultimate conservatives, until they get pissy at 15, half their brains fall out, and they spend at least 10 years trying to be "different" to their parents, until somewhere they find their brains again.
Sometimes they never do.
Chances are, if the parents are liberal, kids will be conservative, and also the other way round. After all, kids always think their parents messed up, no matter whether they did or not.
.......Until they become old enough, or maybe parents themselves to realise that there really are some basic core values, if you really care to look hard enough, beyond the culture of situational ethics.
I agree, some parents don't operate from basic core values, but rather from situational ethics.
You are right. When I look at America, everything is for sale. Or else, politically, its worth the price to take, for the long term benefit that will accrue.
I know what you mean. I was just distressed that you thought that perhaps at 30, you had to become a bony old fart against your better judgement.
That is a choice, not a need.
What I do want to say, is that it is possible to retain your convictions right from an early age. I does, of course, assume that you made logical decisions having been given all the facts, and having been in a family that is not simply of the bovine ilk, chews their cud, and makes the milk.....
I disagree with Churchill in another sense. Children are the ultimate conservatives, until they get pissy at 15, half their brains fall out, and they spend at least 10 years trying to be "different" to their parents, until somewhere they find their brains again.
Sometimes they never do.
Chances are, if the parents are liberal, kids will be conservative, and also the other way round. After all, kids always think their parents messed up, no matter whether they did or not.
.......Until they become old enough, or maybe parents themselves to realise that there really are some basic core values, if you really care to look hard enough, beyond the culture of situational ethics.
I agree, some parents don't operate from basic core values, but rather from situational ethics.
You are right. When I look at America, everything is for sale. Or else, politically, its worth the price to take, for the long term benefit that will accrue.
I know what you mean. I was just distressed that you thought that perhaps at 30, you had to become a bony old fart against your better judgement.
That is a choice, not a need.
(Does a lack of a title make this titless?)
Terror arrests in two U.S. states
I. Oregon attorney material witness to Spanish bombing
II. 3 nabbed in Montana "Project 7" investigation
III. Soapbox - The Almost Obvious
Arrests in two states Thursday signal the latest progress in the War on Terror.
In Oregon the FBI arrested a Portland lawyer as a material witness to the March 11 bombings in Madrid. Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen, was taken into custody after his fingerprints allegedly turned up on materials related to the Madrid bombings.
Additionally, he bears a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban: he represented Jeffrey Leon Battle in a custody issue.
Mayfield is a convert to Islam, with a wife and three children at home. Mona Mayfield insists on her husband's innocence, calling him, "a good man, a good father, a good husband."
Over in Kalispell, Montana, authorities have arrested three men in connection with a group calling itself "Project 7," the members of which allegedly collected weapons and ammunition and plotted political and law enforcement murders.
James R. Day, Steven N. Morey, and John W. Slater have all been charged with weapons crimes. Day with illegal possession of a machine gun and felon-in-possession; Morey and Slater with illegal possession of a machine gun and possessing weapons with serial numbers removed.
Last year, David Burgert, the alleged leader of Project 7, pled guilty to firearms charges.
Despite the allegations, nobody has actually been charged with plotting murder.
Now ... something about this just doesn't seem right. Read the AP links at the Seattle P-I, listed below. Look at how the word "terrorism" is used in the one, and not used at all in the other. I mean, if you flip through Google news looking for the word "terror" in connection with the Mayfield arrest, it's a curious contextual barrier maintained. The American media is being very restrained with their use of "terror."
Three guys from Montana plotting to kill politicians? Not a mention of terror.
And it's true; amid the torrential litany of "terror! terror! terror!" it's always good to get a breather. It's just an odd coincidence that we're getting a bit of a lull when it's Americans being arrested.
Maybe it's all a coincidence. Maybe things are looking up, and now that we get to deal with homegrown issues, we'll stop flogging the terror-dolphin.
____________________
• Associated Press. "U.S. citizen arrested in Spain bomb probe." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=US Spain Bombing Arrest
• Associated Press. "Feds arrest 3 in alleged militia plot." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Militia Plot
Related interest:
• United Press International. "Arrest made in L.A. mall terror threat." May 5, 2004. See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040505-081305-6838r.htm
Terror arrests in two U.S. states
I. Oregon attorney material witness to Spanish bombing
II. 3 nabbed in Montana "Project 7" investigation
III. Soapbox - The Almost Obvious
Arrests in two states Thursday signal the latest progress in the War on Terror.
In Oregon the FBI arrested a Portland lawyer as a material witness to the March 11 bombings in Madrid. Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen, was taken into custody after his fingerprints allegedly turned up on materials related to the Madrid bombings.
Additionally, he bears a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban: he represented Jeffrey Leon Battle in a custody issue.
Mayfield is a convert to Islam, with a wife and three children at home. Mona Mayfield insists on her husband's innocence, calling him, "a good man, a good father, a good husband."
Over in Kalispell, Montana, authorities have arrested three men in connection with a group calling itself "Project 7," the members of which allegedly collected weapons and ammunition and plotted political and law enforcement murders.
James R. Day, Steven N. Morey, and John W. Slater have all been charged with weapons crimes. Day with illegal possession of a machine gun and felon-in-possession; Morey and Slater with illegal possession of a machine gun and possessing weapons with serial numbers removed.
Last year, David Burgert, the alleged leader of Project 7, pled guilty to firearms charges.
Despite the allegations, nobody has actually been charged with plotting murder.
Now ... something about this just doesn't seem right. Read the AP links at the Seattle P-I, listed below. Look at how the word "terrorism" is used in the one, and not used at all in the other. I mean, if you flip through Google news looking for the word "terror" in connection with the Mayfield arrest, it's a curious contextual barrier maintained. The American media is being very restrained with their use of "terror."
Three guys from Montana plotting to kill politicians? Not a mention of terror.
And it's true; amid the torrential litany of "terror! terror! terror!" it's always good to get a breather. It's just an odd coincidence that we're getting a bit of a lull when it's Americans being arrested.
Maybe it's all a coincidence. Maybe things are looking up, and now that we get to deal with homegrown issues, we'll stop flogging the terror-dolphin.
____________________
• Associated Press. "U.S. citizen arrested in Spain bomb probe." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=US Spain Bombing Arrest
• Associated Press. "Feds arrest 3 in alleged militia plot." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Militia Plot
Related interest:
• United Press International. "Arrest made in L.A. mall terror threat." May 5, 2004. See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040505-081305-6838r.htm
Last edited:
"...it's a curious contextual barrier maintained. The American media is being very restrained with their use of "terror."...Not a mention of terror... it's always good to get a breather. It's just an odd coincidence that we're getting a bit of a lull when it's Americans being arrested."
It's incurious, routine, and dangerous. The "War on Terror" has become, for American government and its imbedded media, an extremely useful oversimplification of the issues surrounding organized violence. As this movement reached critical mass, becoming culture war, the mainstream lost dramatically more capability for perception of American violence in the same light as violence perpetrated by foreigners. This national tunnel-vision is progressing, even as our conflict with the Arab and Islamic worlds is escalating. Rhetoric is constricting right along with the national mindset it reflects.
I wish for more than a lull, but also for a way out. This conflict will not end, nor will it de-escalate, until American illusions are demolished concerning war as just and effective response to terrorism. Because so many American lives are sacrificed in the learning (and while foreign ones don't count within this mentality), fundamental American pride is being heaped atop the altar along with all other military, political, and economic stakes. This is trapping the US in a make-or-break crusade on terrorism that could be impossible to escape.
While I wouldn't call it a lull, we are poised right now in a relatively calm moment, when the results of enraging the Mideast- as we have never before enraged the Mideast- have yet to emerge. We are not using this time very wisely. While popular American doubts are surfacing, there are very few voices prominent and courageous enough to reveal an uncomfortable but imperative exit from the disasters ahead.
The Federal government has not ordered troops to Montana to remove the state government, and has not surrounded and shelled Kallispell. Instead, the federal government is seeing to it that local authority not be disturbed, because the political implications of Federal occupation and martial law would not efficiently contribute to the objective of deterring Project 7. This seems laughably obvious, but it is no less obvious from the perspectives of Iraqis or Afghanis, who are watching their countries eviscerated by US intervention that is no less ignorant of basic political realities.
In the present relative quiet, the USA has a fleeting opportunity to ingest a repulsive but relatively modest helping of Humble Pie now- to back away from ill-conceived and duplicitously-launched neoimperialism. If we can't turn away from our counterproductive, self-destructive "War on Terror", there will be immeasurable humiliation ahead, and a horrific toll in lives and livelihoods.
It's incurious, routine, and dangerous. The "War on Terror" has become, for American government and its imbedded media, an extremely useful oversimplification of the issues surrounding organized violence. As this movement reached critical mass, becoming culture war, the mainstream lost dramatically more capability for perception of American violence in the same light as violence perpetrated by foreigners. This national tunnel-vision is progressing, even as our conflict with the Arab and Islamic worlds is escalating. Rhetoric is constricting right along with the national mindset it reflects.
I wish for more than a lull, but also for a way out. This conflict will not end, nor will it de-escalate, until American illusions are demolished concerning war as just and effective response to terrorism. Because so many American lives are sacrificed in the learning (and while foreign ones don't count within this mentality), fundamental American pride is being heaped atop the altar along with all other military, political, and economic stakes. This is trapping the US in a make-or-break crusade on terrorism that could be impossible to escape.
While I wouldn't call it a lull, we are poised right now in a relatively calm moment, when the results of enraging the Mideast- as we have never before enraged the Mideast- have yet to emerge. We are not using this time very wisely. While popular American doubts are surfacing, there are very few voices prominent and courageous enough to reveal an uncomfortable but imperative exit from the disasters ahead.
The Federal government has not ordered troops to Montana to remove the state government, and has not surrounded and shelled Kallispell. Instead, the federal government is seeing to it that local authority not be disturbed, because the political implications of Federal occupation and martial law would not efficiently contribute to the objective of deterring Project 7. This seems laughably obvious, but it is no less obvious from the perspectives of Iraqis or Afghanis, who are watching their countries eviscerated by US intervention that is no less ignorant of basic political realities.
In the present relative quiet, the USA has a fleeting opportunity to ingest a repulsive but relatively modest helping of Humble Pie now- to back away from ill-conceived and duplicitously-launched neoimperialism. If we can't turn away from our counterproductive, self-destructive "War on Terror", there will be immeasurable humiliation ahead, and a horrific toll in lives and livelihoods.
I'll raise a pipe
I don't expect the War on Terror to go any better than the War on Drugs. However, the scale of the War on Terror ....
Was it ethically or morally wrong of me--a couple weeks back, none other than Barry McCaffrey himself I believe it was pointed out that the war on drugs and the war against organized crime laid the precursors for the USA-PATRIOT Act .... I do on some level that may be sublimated schadenfreude take pleasure in hearing the government finally admit it.
The War on Terror is already a disaster; it's going to kill so many people and destroy so many lives ... I admit I feel guilty as well for taking such a small, petty pleasure.
Here's to the terror-dolphin.
(Can you imagine that tattoo? A mean-looking dolphin saying, "Flog me!" Maybe I ought to design a mascot. The Easter Bunny will thank me. Er ... sorry. But I was actually aiming a little more toward the weary center than usual; I don't argue against a line of your post, and was looking for a subtle way of referring to back the terror-dolphin line. So much for subtlety ...)
:m: :m:
I don't expect the War on Terror to go any better than the War on Drugs. However, the scale of the War on Terror ....
Was it ethically or morally wrong of me--a couple weeks back, none other than Barry McCaffrey himself I believe it was pointed out that the war on drugs and the war against organized crime laid the precursors for the USA-PATRIOT Act .... I do on some level that may be sublimated schadenfreude take pleasure in hearing the government finally admit it.
The War on Terror is already a disaster; it's going to kill so many people and destroy so many lives ... I admit I feel guilty as well for taking such a small, petty pleasure.
Here's to the terror-dolphin.
(Can you imagine that tattoo? A mean-looking dolphin saying, "Flog me!" Maybe I ought to design a mascot. The Easter Bunny will thank me. Er ... sorry. But I was actually aiming a little more toward the weary center than usual; I don't argue against a line of your post, and was looking for a subtle way of referring to back the terror-dolphin line. So much for subtlety ...)
:m:
:m:
Last edited:
Eng Grez said:1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.
Hum, first your made a poor start with that absured statement and then my bladder begged for relief and when I finally came back, I decided I should have stayed for a s*!t and when that was over, I forgot what I was going to say!
BTW: Zionist Israel represents all the worst elements of "evil" and the decent Jews of Israel find themselves in the same shoe as the decent people here in the US who see the fascist Neo-Con(men) in control and can't seem to do anything to shake them.
Carefull America, The German people had this kind of an experience and the rest is history.
Whirlwind....
Spanish doubts ignored in U.S. arrest
Court documents suggest FBI errors
Major newspapers will hit the streets today carrying the latest round in the arrest of Portland, Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield. The Muslim convert and former Army lieutenant was arrested May 6 as a material witness to the Madrid train bombings in March, 2004.
Mayfield was arrested largely because the FBI believed that his fingerprint was on a bag containing materials suspected to be used in the manufacture of the Madrid bombs. He was released two weeks later after evidence emerged that the partial fingerprint was that of a known terrorist.
As the New York Times describes:
Tuesday brought the unsealing of certain court records, including doubts by Spanish authorities that the fingerprint match was Mayfield.
While the FBI described the match as "100 per cent," the unsealed court documents indicate that the Bureau never saw the original print and worked from a digital image, only viewing the original print after Spanish authorities suggested a known Algerian terrorist.
Prosecutors had filed a nine-page affidavit in order to get an arrest warrant; according to the Los Angeles Times,
The Bureau has apologized; special agent in charge Robert Jordan said he plans to meet with Mayfield in order to apologize on behalf of the Portland office. Additionally, a policy review is beginning, and the Bureau intends to call for outside experts to help review the situation. Meanwhile, the implications of the case are echoing:
The New York Times offers more insight into the FBI's case:
You know ... Hooper might get the prize for sound bite of the week.
Comment:
Yes, we have gone too far. I won't go so far as to say that Mayfield ought to consider himself lucky to be a white Muslim, but there's no harm in tossing it out there in order to defuse it.
Drugs, at one time, were called a threat to American life and to national security. I mention that because it serves well as an analogy. Aptly, perhaps, as the Drug War is part of the legal framework underpinning the veneer of acceptability glossing the frenzied shredding of the Constitution by an overly-ambitious U.S. government.
But think very carefully for a moment: There are nearly ten-thousand registered members at Sciforums. I, on the other hand, as a visible and prolific poster, have never made any apologies whatsoever for my primary violations of the law--e.g. smoking pot.
Now ... there's ten-thousand people who could go on a watch-list as possible drug dealers. We might even extrapolate to the ridiculous for a moment just to note that if we combine the propaganda that illicit drugs necessarily support terrorism with the number of posts I've written which are either critical of U.S. policy, sympathetic to human beings who happen to be Muslim, or lack this that or the other specific condemnation of some action somewhere in the world: You're all terror suspects!
Welcome to America. Yes, we've been bushwhacked.
____________________
Notes:
• Kershaw, Sarah and Eric Lichtblau. "Spain Had Doubts Before U.S. Held Lawyer in Madrid Blasts." May 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/26/national/26OREG.html
• Tizon, Alex and Richard B. Schmitt. "FBI Ignored Spain's Doubt on Fingerprint." May 26, 2004. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mayfield26may26,1,6584975.story
Court documents suggest FBI errors
Major newspapers will hit the streets today carrying the latest round in the arrest of Portland, Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield. The Muslim convert and former Army lieutenant was arrested May 6 as a material witness to the Madrid train bombings in March, 2004.
Mayfield was arrested largely because the FBI believed that his fingerprint was on a bag containing materials suspected to be used in the manufacture of the Madrid bombs. He was released two weeks later after evidence emerged that the partial fingerprint was that of a known terrorist.
As the New York Times describes:
Tuesday brought the unsealing of certain court records, including doubts by Spanish authorities that the fingerprint match was Mayfield.
While the FBI described the match as "100 per cent," the unsealed court documents indicate that the Bureau never saw the original print and worked from a digital image, only viewing the original print after Spanish authorities suggested a known Algerian terrorist.
Prosecutors had filed a nine-page affidavit in order to get an arrest warrant; according to the Los Angeles Times,
The Bureau has apologized; special agent in charge Robert Jordan said he plans to meet with Mayfield in order to apologize on behalf of the Portland office. Additionally, a policy review is beginning, and the Bureau intends to call for outside experts to help review the situation. Meanwhile, the implications of the case are echoing:
The New York Times offers more insight into the FBI's case:
You know ... Hooper might get the prize for sound bite of the week.
Comment:
Yes, we have gone too far. I won't go so far as to say that Mayfield ought to consider himself lucky to be a white Muslim, but there's no harm in tossing it out there in order to defuse it.
Drugs, at one time, were called a threat to American life and to national security. I mention that because it serves well as an analogy. Aptly, perhaps, as the Drug War is part of the legal framework underpinning the veneer of acceptability glossing the frenzied shredding of the Constitution by an overly-ambitious U.S. government.
But think very carefully for a moment: There are nearly ten-thousand registered members at Sciforums. I, on the other hand, as a visible and prolific poster, have never made any apologies whatsoever for my primary violations of the law--e.g. smoking pot.
Now ... there's ten-thousand people who could go on a watch-list as possible drug dealers. We might even extrapolate to the ridiculous for a moment just to note that if we combine the propaganda that illicit drugs necessarily support terrorism with the number of posts I've written which are either critical of U.S. policy, sympathetic to human beings who happen to be Muslim, or lack this that or the other specific condemnation of some action somewhere in the world: You're all terror suspects!
Welcome to America. Yes, we've been bushwhacked.
____________________
Notes:
• Kershaw, Sarah and Eric Lichtblau. "Spain Had Doubts Before U.S. Held Lawyer in Madrid Blasts." May 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/26/national/26OREG.html
• Tizon, Alex and Richard B. Schmitt. "FBI Ignored Spain's Doubt on Fingerprint." May 26, 2004. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mayfield26may26,1,6584975.story
(Free registration required for both websites.)
kmguru
Staff member
Some disjointed thoughts:
Towards the end of Greek and Roman civilization, the civil and military servants raped, tortured and pillaged to the societies destruction. Are we imploding ourselves that way?
Consider this:
I just learned that in a ceratin state, 40,000 common prison inmates are released and 20,000 go back. They are looking to reduce the recidivism but have no clue and blame the society.
The K-12 students have no clue nor any parental involvement and are not prepared to join the society in a productive way.
The disadvantage kids fall through the cracks.
A batch of religious fanatics may be growing and they may not be Muslims. We have no news - is that good news?
Jobs are still leaving our country
Our torture methods are basically same as it was 2000 years ago.
To please the king, everyone wants a confession even if no crime was commited.
What would happen if those relatives of tortured people blow up all the refineries simultaneously?
Would it be more of the same towards a civil war?
Towards the end of Greek and Roman civilization, the civil and military servants raped, tortured and pillaged to the societies destruction. Are we imploding ourselves that way?
Consider this:
I just learned that in a ceratin state, 40,000 common prison inmates are released and 20,000 go back. They are looking to reduce the recidivism but have no clue and blame the society.
The K-12 students have no clue nor any parental involvement and are not prepared to join the society in a productive way.
The disadvantage kids fall through the cracks.
A batch of religious fanatics may be growing and they may not be Muslims. We have no news - is that good news?
Jobs are still leaving our country
Our torture methods are basically same as it was 2000 years ago.
To please the king, everyone wants a confession even if no crime was commited.
What would happen if those relatives of tortured people blow up all the refineries simultaneously?
Would it be more of the same towards a civil war?
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
The 'War on Drugs' is a Joke. Blame Nixon for that continual waste of resources and propaganda.
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
Kmguru,
Well the 'War on Drugs' is nothing but a business. I dont see how the War on Terror is. While it may be profitbable for the US businesses its not profitable for the terrorists.
Well the 'War on Drugs' is nothing but a business. I dont see how the War on Terror is. While it may be profitbable for the US businesses its not profitable for the terrorists.
The War on Drugs laid the "constitutional" foundation for the questionable persecutions and prosecutions of the domestic War on Terror. For years, judicial oddities surrounded the drug war that occurred nowhere else in law and justice. It is when these ideas were carried outside the drug war that they got shaken up (cf Apprendi v. New Jersey) and no decision outside the Drug War was willingly allowed back into the Drug War. The aforementioned Apprendi case, for instance. Out in the western US, the Ninth Court jumped on the Apprendi decision while the rest of the country hemmed and hawed. Apparently, compound sentencing for crimes the defendant isn't allowed to defend against and the jury is not aware they are convicting you of is unacceptable if you're convicted at threatening a person with a gun because of their skin color, but is very acceptable if you happen to be a pot smoker whose girlfriend put her prescription in your jacket pocket to hold.
As terror-prevention becomes a cottage industry, as law enforcement faces the choice of remilitarizing (see Weber, "Warrior Cops" for a discussion of the prior militarization), as Halliburton and other cronies continue to carpetbag in wars prosecuted in the name of fighting terror ... I don't see how the War on Terror isn't a business.
And while the profits of the terrorists seem minute to nonexistent, such is the difficulty of measuring another's profit empirically.