Close USA borders to Arab world? [Archive]

Guv

Jul 25th, 2002, 10:17 PM

Gaffa_Reborn: Perhaps you should reread my previous post more carefully. I do not have to reread it, because I remember and understand what I posted.

You posted the followingCan you prove that because most arab terrorists are in that age range then ALL middle eastern people is that age range are terrorists. Not f***in likely.I never said that all 17-40 year old Arabs I terrorists. I see no reason to attempt to prove something I neither said nor believe. I also see no reason to use implied or actual obscenities, which are the hallmark of those poorly equipped to converse intelligently.

There really is a difference between profiling USA Blacks and foreign Arabs.

First: It is true that neither all 17-40 year old blacks are criminal nor are all 17-40 year old arabs terrorists.

Note however that not all USA criminals are blacks between the ages of 17 and 40. It cannot even be said that most USA criminals are blacks between 17 and 40. In fact, the USA has more Caucasian criminals than black criminals.

Hence, profiling 17-40 year old blacks would not result in finding a majority of the criminals. Furthermore, USA blacks are USA citizens with constitutional rights (A fact often ignored by our law enforcement personnel).

So far our experience has been that almost all terrorist activity against US citizens and property has been committed by foreign arabs between the ages of 17-40. We have good reason to expect more attempts at terrorism by this class of people.

If we did not allow 17-40 year old arabs into this country and deported all non US citizens fitting this profile, we could reasonably expect to prevent a lot of future terrorist activity.

It is true that we would also deport and exclude a large number of harmless people. However, these are not US citizens. Frankly, I do not think that any foreigner who wants to come here has a right to come here. Deporting or excluding them would violate no fundamental rights. Nobody faults Switzerland for exclusionary immigration policies. Nobody should fault any country for exclusionary policies when there is a war or a potential war.

As an atheist, I always viewed religion as an interesting academic subject. I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized. Now I associate modern Islam with the barbaric religions which went in for human sacrifice, the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and other barbarian uncivilized behavior.

Islam was born with a Jihad flavor, and set out about 1400 years ago to conquer the world for Islam. I am grateful for Charles Martel who defeated them soundly in Tours France back in 732. I have recently become aware that it is a common Islamic concept that believers need not treat infidels with honor, and are allowed to lie and deceive them. I see no reason to have more respect for Islamics than they have for me. A culture that breeds suicidal fanatics is a culture I want no part of. It is incredible to me that parents would rejoice over the martyrdom of their children. It is insulting and threatening to me to see Palestinians celebrating over the 9/11 destruction. I never had much sympathy for Palestinians. Now I have none.

BTW: The suicide in the name of Allah mentality is not new. There was an individual who ran a protection racket 800 or so years ago. He brain washed young believers into being suicidal assassins.

SoCalled

Jul 25th, 2002, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Pickler
The stupidest thing I have heard all day...it is still early though;)

Besides...surely the current system of having a checkbox on your immigration cards saying 'Are you a terrorist' works:confused:

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

Spetnik2

Jul 25th, 2002, 11:08 PM

An American Airlines flight enroute from Los Angeles was diverted to Kansas City yesterday when a passenger was noticed attempting to light a fuse protruding from his rectum.

Flight Attendant Bunny Miller said she noticed the man seated in an aisle seat leaning forward and holding a cigarette lighter behind his legs. "I though he was just trying to light a fart," said Miller, "like our pilots are always doing on layovers. Then I saw this string-like thing hanging from his ass, and I got scared." She immediately called for assistance. Several male passengers subdued the man before he was able to light the fuse.

The passenger, Mohammed Bin Ali El Batout Nabeel Sin Abba Rahim Mansour Ali Baba, Age 25, was carrying fourteen passports from various countries throughout the middle east. Asked why he had stuffed himself full of plastic explosives, Ali Baba stated, "I was planning to blow the chit out of the plane. I wanted show that we are a peace loving people."

Airport security agents in Los Angeles remembered seeing Ali Baba as he boarded American flight 90. They were a bit concerned because his name would not fit on the front of the ticket, he was wearing a checkered tablecloth as a hat, looked like he was ready to kill someone, was reading an Al Quaeda
training manual and had on a 'F**k America' teeshirt.

According to Federal Airport Security standards, however, individuals cannot be profiled for additional security simply because they are young, middle-eastern men.

The security supervisor, Leroy Jackson, said he was somewhat concerned with the way Ali Baba walked. "Hell, man, the guy waddled like he had a stick of dynamite up his ass! Had I not been on the phone with my probation officer, I might have checked this guy out some more. But, we want and need complete diversity in our passenger screening," stated Jackson.

Federal officials are now referring to this latest terrorist attempt as a 'butt bomb'. "I'm not sure how were going to check for 'butt bombs'," stated Jackson.

Pickler

Jul 25th, 2002, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by SoCalled

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

Exactly Jello, with such rigorous immigration requirements, its easy to keep terrorists and American rednecks out of the country.;)

SoCalled

Jul 25th, 2002, 11:32 PM

Have noticed the large Irish population in this country, clearly they have been worded up to answer "No wuckers mate"...

This information is of course to be keeped under wraps in case in falls into the hands of extremists and people from missouri..

crptcblade

Jul 25th, 2002, 11:36 PM

We don't hire Irish...they scavange all the potatoes.

;)

rjlohan

Jul 25th, 2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by simonm
What are you going to base it on?

Ban all arab "looking" people from entering or just those who come from arab countries? Because that's the problem. There are many sympathetic arabs who are citizens all round the world. You might have to ban anyone that looks like an arab and that could lead to accusations of racial discrimination.

It's dodgy ground, for sure.

Impossible, plus, as one guy pointed out recently - what happens to people like that guy who had 'bombs' in his shoes on that aeroplane - he was as non-arab as they come. It's just racism, nothing more. And banning all 'arab' people from entering the country would only cause more trouble anyway. You wouldn't get more people helping find 'terrorists' - really, what is some poor IRanian farmer gonna do about massive terrorist organisations, anyway? - just more people out to 'get you back' for being arseholes.

rjlohan

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by gaffa_reborn
Guv,

Re-read that last post of yours and tell be if you can see the logic flaw...

You claim that middle eastern terrorists are between 17-40 years old. Ok, so there's a profile. Can you prove that because most arab terrorists are in that age range then ALL middle eastern people is that age range are terrorists. Not f***in likely.

Grab some stats about the US prison population, and follow your logic through there. Hmmm, suddenly, if you're black and between about 17-40, then you're a criminal....

- gaffa

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see the relative life expectancies of some of those poorer 'arab' nations - chances are, 80%+ of the population don't live past 40 anyway...

rjlohan

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by SoCalled

Well it's work downunder Pickler, at the immigration desk they ask "Are you a flamin mongrel terrorist mate", since no major terrorist attacks in Oz, l give this the big thumbs up...

And when they answer 'Yes', we give them the second chance "Well, OK, but do you drink beer?" option.

SoCalled

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by rjlohan

And when they answer 'Yes', we give them the second chance "Well, OK, but do you drink beer?" option.

Ahhh that'll explain all the Irish getting into the country;)

Dillinger4

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:04 AM

I don't mind Arabs living in this country as long as they are willing to lend a hand in the effort. I think that some are starting to by helping the FBI by bridging the language barrier that exists between "non-arabs" and arabs. The people who i can't stand seem to fall in an age bracket of 18 - 25 who go to college in this country and then feel the need to bash by spurting out their political views. Im a white middle class citizen of this country and i can't even get into college because habib and his buddy hashmal get first dibs.

SoCalled

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by rjlohan

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see the relative life expectancies of some of those poorer 'arab' nations - chances are, 80%+ of the population don't live past 40 anyway...

And 10% of those that do become either Game Show Hosts, or play soccer in France apparently....

crptcblade

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by rjlohan
And banning all 'arab' people from entering the country would only cause more trouble anyway.

Good point. I think we should ban everybody from coming here. However, you could get in by allowing yourself to be subjected to a federally regulated ass-whoopin'.

:)

Dillinger4

Jul 26th, 2002, 12:08 AM

I think that we should ban anyone from this country that drinks $hitty beer. :p

simonm

Jul 26th, 2002, 05:15 AM

Guv
Maybe just ban anybody not willing to say that Mohammed is a piece of s**t and Allah is not the true god.
That's not very helpful. I'm sure that would only discriminate against ordinary law abiding muslims and the dedicated terrorists would say whatever they needed to to complete their objective.
It bothers me that the unjust black profiling is being used as a reason for not profiling potential Arab terrorists.
It's called: "Learning from your mistakes". We learn from our mistakes in the past and set about to avoid them in the future.
So far our experience has been that almost all terrorist activity against US citizens and property has been committed by foreign arabs between the ages of 17-40. We have good reason to expect more attempts at terrorism by this class of people.
Ah, but America hasn't actually caught that many people has it? I heard that, so far, only one guy has been charged for his involvement in the tragedy of Sep 11th.

And let us not forget the Oklahoma bombings that was carried out by a red necked white American.

The problem with all this is that it is a myth that only Arabs are muslims. There are many muslims who are also black or white. Is it any wonder that mainly arab "looking" people have been arrested for terrorist acts in America so far? Is it because the authorities are mainly targeting arab looking people? Will thatt not just continue to perpetuate the myth?
It is true that we would also deport and exclude a large number of harmless people. However, these are not US citizens. Frankly, I do not think that any foreigner who wants to come here has a right to come here. Deporting or excluding them would violate no fundamental rights. Nobody faults Switzerland for exclusionary immigration policies. Nobody should fault any country for exclusionary policies when there is a war or a potential war.
Yes, many countries reject incommers but that is usually based on nationality and not racial characteristics.

When I went to Israel, certain nationalities were banned but even they would not discriminate against a purely arab looking person.

Perhaps it is reasonable to subject suspicious looking people to more rigerous searches but to have an outright ban based on racial characteristics is just down right wrong.
As an atheist, I always viewed religion as an interesting academic subject. I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized. Now I associate modern Islam with the barbaric religions which went in for human sacrifice, the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and other barbarian uncivilized behavior.
Most of that barbaric behaviour you outlined happened in Christianity only a few centuries ago.

Why do you let the actions of a tiny (but vocal) minority of muslims tarnish your whole attitude towards Islam? Do you let the actions of the Klu Klux Klan tarnish your attitude towards Christianity?
Islam was born with a Jihad flavor, and set out about 1400 years ago to conquer the world for Islam.
That simply is incorrect. Islam started in an, albiet expansionist, yet peaceful fashion. Initially, Islam existed quite happilly side by side with other religions and people were not forced to give up worship of other faiths. It was only later that they became more war like.

Jim Brown

Jul 26th, 2002, 05:30 AM

Guy at the immigration counter somewhere in Oz gets asked by the official: "G'Day, Mate. Streuth, Blue. Tie me kangaroo down Sport (...and other Oz type epithets) D'you have a criminal record?"

And so the guy says "No. Didn't know you still needed one"

Alternative ending "Yes- I have a copy of 'Singalonga Max Bygraves' in me bag."

Gaffer

Jul 26th, 2002, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Guv
Perhaps USA should drastically reduce visits and immigration from the Arab world until the threat of terrorism goes away.

Now there's a thing - let's ban all Americans from the UK. The amount of money funded to Noraid justifies it....

Kzin

Jul 26th, 2002, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Jim Brown
Guy at the immigration counter somewhere in Oz gets asked by the official: "G'Day, Mate. Streuth, Blue. Tie me kangaroo down Sport (...and other Oz type epithets) D'you have a criminal record?"

And so the guy says "No. Didn't know you still needed one"

:D

OK guys - so who is going the break it to Guv:

(1) Last time anyone tried the stunt that you were talking about was in Germany in the 1930's.

(2) America is sliding into a depression. Just what everone needs to have all US middle-east holdings seized and the US driven out of the middle east.

(3) Countries like Kazakhstan still have nukes http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/kazakhstan/ . If Islamic countries start to go down one by one to any foriegn power who is betting that these are not going to get handed out to other counties.

Hands up who wants to try to be more irrational in a tit-for-tat with these people?

PS. Guv - as you were asking my screen-name is named after Larry Niven's 'Ratcats'

rjlohan

Jul 28th, 2002, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by simonm

Do you let the actions of the Klu Klux Klan tarnish your attitude towards Christianity?

No, I let it tarnish my impression of seppos though. :)

Jim - that's a pisser joke, surprised I haven't heard it before. :D :D :D

mendhak

Jul 28th, 2002, 11:20 AM

Yes, close off the borders to all the Arabs.

That'll be the first step towards a Hitler-Germany type USA.

Wouldn't it be wonderful? We can then start rounding up all the resident Arabs and confining them to concentration camps. I like the way you think. :)

[non-sarcastic mode]
Easier said than done. Countries today are too intricately involved with each other for this to happen. Especially the US. The effects of the 'cut-off' would be huge, and sudden. And don't forget who has all the oil. (for now)
[/non-sarcastic mode]

Guv

Jul 28th, 2002, 10:39 PM

The bolded comments are my reply to KsinOK guys - so who is going the break it to Guv:

The above is a cheap condescending shot, intended to imply that you are so much smarter than I am that my opinions iare obviously ridiculous. This is a subtle version of the fallacious ad hominem argument, and I resent it.

(1) Last time anyone tried the stunt that you were talking about was in Germany in the 1930's.

Try being a bit more specific about the above. Mentioning Nazi Germany without a semblance of explanation to connect it to the discussion at hand is another fallacious argument. I do not remember Germany in the 1930's being forced to cope with terrorist activity. do you remember such circumstances? I forget the name of this one, but it involves fallaciously associating the other person's point of view with some obviously evil concept.

(2) America is sliding into a depression. Just what everone needs to have all US middle-east holdings seized and the US driven out of the middle east.

Oddly enough, in spite of the current drop in stock prices, the US economy itself is not in bad shape and is still the strongest economy in the world. The Arab world would have a lot to lose if they tried to drive us out of the Middle East and/or tried to start an economic war with us. They know this. They need our technology as much or more than we need their oil. Furthermore, the OPEC nations have never been unified enough to deny oil to the US. The US is a huge market for them, which would result in there being always be defectors from any attempt to embargo us. Just the worry over an advantage to be gained by somebody else defecting make the alliance shakey. Remember that we have reserves and sources other than the Mid East. We could not do without Mid East oil forever, but we could do without it long enough to cause some defectors.

(3) Countries like Kazakhstan still have nukes. If Islamic countries start to go down one by one to any foriegn power who is betting that these are not going to get handed out to other counties.

While some terrorist might try (or even succeed) to deliver a Nuke to the USA, no nation would dare. A nuke would have to be delivered without our being able to identify the source. They would have to be absolutely certain that we could not figure out the source. Otherwise, we would decimate the culprit. Rightly or wrongly, no US president or political party would be willing to stand the heat if we were hit with a Nuke and did not retaliate. They would lose the next election, which (to a politician) is worse than the sun going nova 5 years from now.

BTW: No matter what we do, some terrorist is likely to try (and perhaps succeed) to deliver a nuke, dirty bomb, or biological weapon.

Hands up who wants to try to be more irrational in a tit-for-tat with these people?

Nearly 100,000 people from Arab countries come here every year. Since we have good reason to suspect that some are likely to be terrorists, I do not consider it irrational to want to stop all arab visitors, or at least cut down drastically on arab immigration. Visting the US is not a basic right. As for Tit for tat, I do not think Americans would be hurt if not allowed to visit arab countries.

Mendhak: Another fallacious argument.Wouldn't it be wonderful? We can then start rounding up all the resident Arabs and confining them to concentration camps. I like the way you think.I never suggested putting resident arabs in concentration camps. I suggested not allowing arabs into the country and deporting arabs who are not citizens. You are arguing against what I suggested by claiming that I said something else. I agree, putting people into concentration camps without due process is evil.

For a site frequented by intelligent and well educated people, I am constantly amazed at the number of fallacious arguments presented. The above is a variant on knocking down a strawman. I wonder if those with intact critical judgment capabilities merely read controversial posts and laugh without ever posting.

This sort of subject matter is neither black nor white, but some shade of gray. Perhaps I am wrong, but you folks have yet to provide a convincing argument against my ideas.

rjlohan

Jul 28th, 2002, 10:50 PM

The most obvious argument against your proposal is that it is completely racist, and won't stop the problem. Case in point #1: The Oklahoma bombing (mentioned above). Case in point #2: John Walker (mentioned above). Neither of these two terrorists were in any way Arab, and at least one of them wasn't even a Muslim.

As for the nuke thing, nukes don't necessarily need to be brought into the country to be a workable attack. 1) it's conceivable that a well-prepared group could steal one from the US. You've got enough of the bloody things... 2) Air defense systems against a guided missile attack are hardly 100% accurate anyway, although granted, it would be conceivably difficult to move a strike unit close enough in the first place, but keep in mind, arrogance is the first step to downfall, or some such thingy like that...

Truth is, it will be a retarded bigot 'leader' who ever puts a move like this in place.

:)

gaffa_reborn

Jul 28th, 2002, 11:29 PM

I don't think I've ever seen anybody use "fallacious" so often is a single post...

I don't think the reference to Nazi Germany was made in connection to terrorism. Think more along the lines of mass generalisations about a group of people, and you'll be about there.

I'm not so sure that the Middle Eastern countries need US technology more than the US needs Gulf oil. Most of the middle east is still pretty agrarian/tribal. They don't have the reliance on modern technology that the Western world does. But believe me - to lose the oil that the gulf states provide would cause severe issues in the US (as it would in most developed countries). Probably outcomes would be reduced industry, resulting in job losses, which it turn lead to increased dependence on welfare and on it goes.

Funnily enough, OPEC actually is reasonably unified. Whether it is unified enough to stop delivery is debatable. But then again, it really only has to increase the price per barrel to have an economic impact...

If a nuke is delivered by a terrorist, then it matters not where it came from. I think the point is not that a nation-state will deliver that nuke, but that sufficient material could obtained from some of these countries to stage such an attack. An in terms of decimation of the culprit, it's not that simple. If you know who your opponent is, and they have a country, a la Iraq, no problem. Bit harder to track down groups of people. Hell, almost a year on, you've still got no idea if you've beaten Al Quaeda - simply cos they are very difficult to pin down.

Nuclear retaliation is a step that would (hopefully) not be taken likely by the leader of any goverment. In doing so, it opens up a whole new can of worms.

And as pointed out before, the US probably has more terrorists coming from Ireland every year than it does from the middle east.

We are living in very interesting times... we haven't seen a similar level or terrorism since the mid 70's, and this time they seem a whole lot more organised, and with the introduction of suicide missions, far more dedicated and difficult to stop.

- gaffa

crptcblade

Jul 28th, 2002, 11:36 PM

I, for one, welcome that killer asteroid.

:)

simonm

Jul 29th, 2002, 11:24 AM

Guv
This sort of subject matter is neither black nor white, but some shade of gray. Perhaps I am wrong, but you folks have yet to provide a convincing argument against my ideas.
Well, I noticed in your last post that you completely overlooked my most recent remarks. Either you missed my post or you believe my comments to be unworthy of a response.

However, I believe I have made a perfectly valid critisism to your proposal in that appearance is an unreliable way of determining a muslim faith, let alone terrorist intentions.

My main objection to your ideas are that it would hurt and inconveniance innocent muslims while the one's intent on terrorism will circumvent such a blunt mechanism anyway.

Not that you believe that there is such a thing as an innocent muslim. Judging by your remarks, I would say that you are intrinsically biased against the Islamic faith anyway:
I used to think of Islam as just another major religion. Recent events have encouraged me to do some research into that faith. Now I think of them as being more like barbarians who are not yet civilized.

Merrion

Jul 29th, 2002, 12:28 PM

I'm suprised that, following the conviction of Timothy McVeigh, the US government didn't immediately instigate a policy of rounding up all caucasian males under 30 years old - in the public interest, of course.

chrisjk

Jul 29th, 2002, 12:34 PM

looks to me like we need to open a can of whoop ass

TheVoid

Jul 29th, 2002, 03:46 PM

Rounding up individuals based on race creed or color, closing borders to those individuals is not the answer.

Set aside all the immoral and general bad karma that comes along with sterotyping and justifying that ppl of such religion are more likely yada yada, you miss one aspect.

Such acts would only encourage these activities. we are talking about a small minority who WANTS us to shun their kind, it aids in recruitment. If we start disriminating against individuals for what others have done, you only drive those ppl to join the side of the terrorist, Afterall if one organization shuns you, you only have two choices start your own or join another. So if the US says "STAY OUT" or deports someone of arabic decent to their home country and keeps them from ours. Well what would be easier, for them to start their own government, country, organization, or to just join one that is already functional and also powerful.

Now keep in mind that is very short and very broad, you obviously can't open your borders wide, or give complete freedom to everyone in your country, there is a middle ground that must be reached, but you get the general picture. The more you persecute a race, group, religion, the more members of that group will turn on you in defence. Therefore to maintain law etc.. you are forced to work your arse off to narrow it down to the individuals who have commited the crimes and act upon them and only them to the best of your ability.

Whether we like it or not, the US lives and breaths on trade and economy. We have to keep that in mind when we act also. It would be nice to say "It's not about money" but we would just be lieing, cause its always about money.

OrdinaryGuy

Jul 30th, 2002, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Guv
Maybe just ban anybody not willing to say that Mohammed is a piece of s**t and Allah is not the true god.

There is a history of unjustified racial profiling in the USA. Much of it is based on sterotypes which have more to do with poverty than race. Stopping a black for no reason on the Jersey turnpike is outrageous and has some, but very little, evidence that it is a good idea.

On the other hand, the Islamic terrorists fit a very definite profile. It is true that many who fit this profile are innocent of terrorist activity. However, almost 100% of the terrorists do fit this profile: 17-40 years old, Arab, Islamic.

Note that it cannot be claimed that almost 100% of those fitting the black profile are criminals.

It bothers me that the unjust black profiling is being used as a reason for not profiling potential Arab terrorists.

Ok... firstly, I feel the idea of barring anyone on the basis of race from entering the US totally ridiculous. This comes down to nothing but racial discrimination and I would be against any such law if it ever came up to the senate (which I doubt it ever will). The US has already taken several steps to prevent terrorists elements from entering in. However, if the US are going though a period of considerable threats, I would see a more better alternative in banning any tourist from entering the country rather that selecting or targeting a certain race. I am not a Muslim so do not even ask but I do have strong feeling for the thought of introducing laws framed at targeting a community

TheVoid

Jul 30th, 2002, 09:40 AM

adopting a "mind your own business" policy only encourages terrorism, since it proves to the terrorists that their methods work. "Give them an inch, they will take a mile", is the old saying i believe. That type of policy isn't the answer, no matter what the circumstance. I am not saying that interfering with foreign affairs is right or wrong, its a case by case basis, you can't lay a blanket on all of it; however, adopting that form of policy will only encourage terrorists because you are giving them what they want. A mind your own business policy will encourage terrorism and increase the occurances of it. Does anyone think individuals with this mentality will just stop these acts and go open up a corner drug store, or buy a farm when you give them what they want? I doubt it, instead they will find something else they want and use these tactics to get it. Next they will just want a small state, say california, then maybe a small shipment of arms, say a nuke.

To cover our eyes and mind our own business is impractical, there is a whole world out there and believe me it doesn't want to be shut out :)

OrdinaryGuy

Jul 30th, 2002, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by TheVoid
adopting a "mind your own business" policy only encourages terrorism, since it proves to the terrorists that their methods work. "Give them an inch, they will take a mile", is the old saying i believe. That type of policy isn't the answer, no matter what the circumstance. I am not saying that interfering with foreign affairs is right or wrong, its a case by case basis, you can't lay a blanket on all of it; however, adopting that form of policy will only encourage terrorists because you are giving them what they want. A mind your own business policy will encourage terrorism and increase the occurances of it. Does anyone think individuals with this mentality will just stop these acts and go open up a corner drug store, or buy a farm when you give them what they want? I doubt it, instead they will find something else they want and use these tactics to get it. Next they will just want a small state, say california, then maybe a small shipment of arms, say a nuke.

To cover our eys and mind our own business is impractical, there is a whole world out there and believe me it doesn't want to be shut out :)

so whats your point? The US government should pass a law in favor of racial discrimination

OrdinaryGuy

Jul 30th, 2002, 10:01 AM

TheVoid

Jul 30th, 2002, 10:18 AM

Hmmmm

Well in an earlier thread i actually answered that question :)

As for the quote, if you read a few threads above i am actually replying to a comment regarding a "mind your own business" policy.

Anything else?

Wally Pipp

Jul 30th, 2002, 10:19 AM

We ought to ship the entire US off to Mars.

TheVoid

Jul 30th, 2002, 10:34 AM

I hear mars is nice this time of year.

Aerials

Jul 30th, 2002, 04:31 PM

I wanted to post this a while ago but my internet wouldnt work lol:p

This thread has made me lose all respect for Guv...
As Kzin graciously pointed out what ur doing is fairly similar of some nazi regime back in the 1930's who started a "small" war.

I don't think u studied Islam very well. Islam has actually been one of the most peaceful religions. They never forced anyone to believe in their religion (they took over Spain but let the Christians be) and they actually respected other religions (specially christianity and judaism). All these terrorists lately don't even follow the Quran (Koran) but are just extremist points of view. Besides what u mentioned earlier about the celebrating palestinians... that was prerecorded footage from a muslim holliday. CNN is just BS.

Christianity has actually been more barbaric than pretty much any other religion ever created. So should we just kill off 1 billion people? There's also 700 million Muslims and a large percentage aren't even Arab, so you're argument is flawed.

Also, Guv, I might be wrong but u sound a bit xenophobic...

simonm

Jul 30th, 2002, 04:37 PM

Aerials
This thread has made me lose all respect for Guv...
I know what you mean. Guv is obviously, in many ways, a very intelligent person but sometimes he can be highly insulting and condescending to others who disagree with him.

Dillinger4

Jul 31st, 2002, 01:03 AM

The point is that we are fighting an internal enemy. For instance, when you have a cold and go to the doctor and he gives you antibiotics. When you take the antibiotics all or most of the bacteria in your body is killed off. That is why it is recommended that you take acidolphis to replenish your intestinal flora after taking any type of antibiotics. :p Anyway....... The point is that the
antibiotics that you take don't care wether the bacteria is good or bad. They are just killed. Now the same type of treatment should be used to to treat the virus that the united states is currenty infected with. All i am saying is that all should be treated as a potential enemy and properly checked out.

And as for closing the borders i think that is the right thing to do.
The US or any other country should not be a revolving door for any person or persons wishing to engage in illegal activity. Plus there will be a point in time where enough is enough. China limits the amount of children one can have. The same should be done in the US.

And any brittish people that don't argee with my views that's too bad because the day will come when you will become the minority in your own country.

gaffa_reborn

Jul 31st, 2002, 01:43 AM

Well, how do you intend to close the border? To everyone? What about peope who have families in the US and want to visit them? What about business people who come to buy and sell products in the US?

Or do you close it to a certain ethnic group? But they might have families in the US, or could also be business people... also how do you tell if a person is of a particular ethnic background.....

ie: do you actually have a practical approach for this (or any understanding of the social, civil and economic ramifications of such actions)?

- gaffa

Dillinger4

Jul 31st, 2002, 01:53 AM

So what would you suggest? To have people come in and out as they wish? To move about in the shadows totaly undectected.To hide behind false so called non-profit organizations.

gaffa_reborn

Jul 31st, 2002, 02:43 AM

Well, with regard to the US at least, they could probably do with decent communication between the various intelligence arms, given that a number of the terrorists on the planes were known, it's just that the fibbies didn't pass on the info the the CIA or vice versa...

The short answer is that you simply can't afford to close the borders. You either learn to live with such actions, or work out why a paticular target is a target in the first place (talking about countries here) and fix the problem at the root.

As long as you understand that you will never get rid of all dissent completely, then you have a chance of at least improving the situation.

If closing the borders seems like such a logical solution, why, 10 months later, are the borders still open? Cos it's not a decent solution after all.

- gaffa

mendhak

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:33 AM

I don't see any reason anyone should lose respect for Guv. He or she is merely spewing, and defending, media propaganda, believing it to be the right thing.

Guv, I gave a good enough argument, as have several others. The only reason you may view them to be "fallacious" :rolleyes: is perhaps because they don't agree with yours. Whatever the reason is, the arguments have been provided. Look at them.

Perhaps, you should also step back and take a look at what you're trying to incite. My post had a relevant analogy. It starts off with a small (seemingly innocent to you) idea, and leads to some of the darkest chapters in human history.

Wally Pipp

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:42 AM

Yeah ...

Send 'em all to Mars, that's what I say !

Wally Pipp

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:22 AM

/predicts the appearance of some wellknown US dickheads (we all know who they are) come 4 o' clock ...

Xanith

Jul 31st, 2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by honeybee

I had quite a lot of sympathy for the US citizens till now. But after reading this thread and the remarks by some of your bigshots in the government, Colin Powell and Madaleine Albright being some of them, I have come to think of US as a country run by idiots who know nothing but bullying others into acting to the benefit of US. They want to rule the world and they don't want anyone to oppose them. For e.g. your Mr. Powell doesn't have any asterickasterick business talking about J&K. And the same would go for most other crises.

And the citizens of US are just scared *hit after Sep 11, because they have suddenly found out that being citizens and residents of the world's mightiest might doesn't ensure them a safe life. Ha!

Apologies to those citizens who don't fit the above description.

.

Last I checked Madeleine Albright went away when Clinton did (thank god).

And we of course thank you for your sympathy. But why stop now? The only crime of the people who died on 9/11 was to show up for work just like you and I do. They were innocent victims and had nothing to do with the countries political agenda. I think people forget that we are all human beings and that when any tragedy like this happens anywhere in the world it is a sad and terrible thing that any innocent person dies. To say something like I don’t feel sorry for you now because of what a government says is just plain insensitive and wrong.

And imagine that, the US looking after its own people's interest. Doesn’t your country do the same? And I don’t think the US wants to "rule the world" as you put it. We do have the power both economically and militarily to probably make a go at ruling the world, however I think the primary interest of the US is to look after and keep safe its own citizens. I see our current actions as doing just that.

Also you seem rather pleased that people in the US now have to live with the threat of terrorism hanging over their heads. How nice of you. I’m sure that when the next attack happens and some innocent women and children die you can go dance in the streets and celebrate their deaths, because after all they deserve it for what Mr. Powell might have said.

Your last sentence is just a copout. Say what you mean. If you hate the US and all its citizens just be bold and come out and say it. Don’t post some lame disclaimer to try and cover your ass.

Wally Pipp

Jul 31st, 2002, 09:41 AM

Enter no. 1 ...

rossim

Jul 31st, 2002, 11:25 AM

I live about 15 minutes away from New York City and I believe that the US is a great place to live. Are we perfect, probably not, but I will still stand by the choices our president makes.

Everyone has thier own oppionion and can view the US any way they want to. We should all be happy that we live in societies that will allow us to have our own opinions and basic freedoms compared to some other parts of the world.

Xanith

Jul 31st, 2002, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by honeybee

Yes, it's a sad thing that people lost their lives on 9/11. Shouldn't have happened in the first place. Now could the US government be expected to learn from their mistakes, at least after so many lives had been lost? Nope. Your soldier-turned-politician Powell has to prove to us that he is a dickhead, Wally add one to your list again. Is your government trying to stop a second 9/11 or provoking it by saying it should dethrone Saddam? Who gave your pres the right to annouce it? How does it make him different than rulers such as Ayatullah Khomeni?

You say it’s a sad thing people lost their lives in 9/11 but in a previous statement you said that you lost all sympathy for them. So you’re saying that because you don’t like the foreign policy of the US that now its ok that innocent people died? And if it happens again, good?

There are a lot of complex issues revolving around what is going on and I’m sure that you or I cannot fully understand the intent or reason for everything. However if Saddam is sponsoring terrorism that is killing US citizens than the US has every right to do something about it.

Talking peace between India and Pakistan, and at the same time giving huge military aid to Pakistan seems to be your idea of protecting US interests, isn't it? Ironically US has just been doing that, by trying to intervene into matters not even remotely concerned with itself. Remember 'Nam, if you want a good example. The recent bin Laden fiasco is another eye opener, if you care to open your eyes. After so much hue and cry and virtually wiping out whatever was left of a nation, where's your target? God only knows where. So do we assume you will next take up Pakistan, then maybe India and any other country within the vicinity where bin Laden could've probably gone?

I agree that we should stay out of the India and Pakistan mess as much as possible. Believe it or not a lot of Americans feel that way. However, I do think as the world leader the US should try to do something to foster the peace process between those two nations. As for Bin Laden I think its best left up to the CIA now and other covert forces to deal with him. Last I heard those governments (meaning India and Pakistan) didn’t support him in any way, so I can’t see invading either of those countries to get him. If you remember the Taliban controlled much of Afganistan when we went in and the oppression on the Afgan people by the ruling Taliban government was widespread. Most Afgan people were glad we liberated their country from the Taliban. We are now helping to get the new Afgan government going and trying to foster a more democratic government. Can’t see how that is a fiasco as you put it.

If your government has the right to bombard an entire nation just because some terrorists from that land destroyed the WTC and killed a few thousands of people, how can you preach restraint to India, which has lost more than the WTC victims in the last couple of decades to militants from Pakistan? We should have wiped out Pakistan about 4-5 times, going by your example. Or for that matter, what right do you have to talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict, when you yourself have chosen the path of super-violence to counter terrorism?

We didn’t bombard an entire nation. We went after an oppressive Taliban government who sponsored and backed terrorists that killed thousands of innocent Americans. In the process we liberated thousands of Afgans from a brutal regime and killed or captured people who were responsible for terrorist attacks around the world. And you are angry that we are trying to resolve other conflicts around the world by preaching peace? This I don’t understand. Would you rather India and Pakistan go to war and nuke each other when the US might be able to do something to stop it? I’m sure if we left them alone and did nothing you would be the first to condemn the US for sitting idly by when we could have done something. In other words no matter what the US does your still not going to like it.

Your comments about me or for that matter anyone going and dancing next time some innocent people are killed by terrorists shows that you fit the description I have mentioned. Sorry dude, learn to live in terror, as most people in the other countries are, and you have only you and your government to blame for it.

Wishing another person to “live in terror” just because of what someone’s government does is rather brutal isn’t it? I mean are we not all human beings who have a right to live in this world free of terror no matter what nation we are from? Wishing ill will on anyone no matter what nationality is just wrong and evil.

If you think you are a person who would mind his own business, his own job and family and would like to live a quiet life, without trying to bother about the world affairs, do your duty as a citizen and vote those people to power who think like you.

I always vote. And I do just that.

PS: You really are a dickhead if you think people hate US just because it's rich and powerful. One because US is neither rich nor powerful as most people would like to believe. Second, most people value other things than money and power as more important in life.

The thing is there are some who hate the US for those reasons. I don’t know why you hate me or why you hate the US so much. If you want to tell me it’s the government and our foreign policy I can say probably half the Americans will agree with you, we don’t always agree with what our leaders do. So don’t paint everyone who lives here with your broad brush of bigotry. Try to get to know a few more of us before you lump us in with our leaders whom you despise.

.

MidgetsBro

Jul 31st, 2002, 12:39 PM

... But after reading this thread and the remarks by some of your bigshots in the government, Colin Powell and Madaleine Albright being some of them, I have come to think of US as a country run by idiots who know nothing but bullying others into acting to the benefit of US.

I agree with this, and I am an American.

As for living in fear... If you don't want to live in fear, then move away from large cities. There is no point for a terrorist attack on a small town or city near the middle of the US. Terrorists go for large, easy targets, such as New York City. Move to sunny Arizona or New Mexico. There isn't much there that mindless people would want to destroy, so it is much safer. If you want to continue living in fear, then just move to a large city such as LA or NYC, and get a job in the highest building around... American's have choices, and most of them choose to live in fear, albeit not purposfully. I choose to live right here in California, about 30 minutes east of LA because even this close, there isn't as much of a threat of being attacked by terrorists as in a large city.

I'm gonna quit rambling now because I got off track, I think, and I need to get back to work. :rolleyes:

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 01:54 PM

barrk

Jul 31st, 2002, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by honeybee
I had quite a lot of sympathy for the US citizens till now.

I'm dissappointed in you honeybee.

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 02:06 PM

rossim

Jul 31st, 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by honeybee

And the citizens of US are just scared *hit after Sep 11, because they have suddenly found out that being citizens and residents of the world's mightiest might doesn't ensure them a safe life. Ha!

Originally posted by MidgetsBro

I agree with this, and I am an American.

As for living in fear... If you don't want to live in fear, then move away from large cities. There is no point for a terrorist attack on a small town or city near the middle of the US. Terrorists go for large, easy targets, such as New York City. Move to sunny Arizona or New Mexico. There isn't much there that mindless people would want to destroy, so it is much safer. If you want to continue living in fear, then just move to a large city such as LA or NYC, and get a job in the highest building around... American's have choices, and most of them choose to live in fear, albeit not purposfully. I choose to live right here in California, about 30 minutes east of LA because even this close, there isn't as much of a threat of being attacked by terrorists as in a large city.

I'm gonna quit rambling now because I got off track, I think, and I need to get back to work. :rolleyes:

Like I said earlier, I live about 15 minutes away from NYC and I don't know anyone that is scared or living in fear. The week of Sept. 11 I was living in fear. Not knowing exactly what happened, if it would or could happen again. I saw the towers smoke and tumble to the ground from my roof.

But after that week ended, all the fear turned to partriotism. I love America and would never leave this country or be forced to live in fear in my country. I've been to "Ground Zero", I've gone to the top of the Empire State Building, and the torch of the Statue of Liberty since everything happened. Every weekend I'm in NYC bar hopping.

Are there people living in fear in America now, I'm sure there are. But most of them do not live in or near NYC or Washington.

simonm

Jul 31st, 2002, 03:25 PM

Look everyone, this is not about critisising America. This is about whether America should adopt a racially discriminatory policy with regards to incommers.
MasterBlaster
Scared? Who the F**K are you calling scared? Pissed is more like it man. This is the United States of F**ing America your talking about, not France. The reason we have all of the things we have today did not come to us because were a bunch of scared little pusssies that run and hide when a few pieces of crap step up to the plate and wanna rumble. The worlds mightiest dosn't ensure us a safe life? Bullcrap! So they killed a few thousand of us. There are millions more of us still here ready to eat nails and piess bullets at those Little Ball Less DickLess DonkeyFookin ******s.
You are full of crap.

snakeeyes1000

Jul 31st, 2002, 03:49 PM

the united states has one of the most impressive military records in history, so simonm, he is not full of crap. Racial dsicimination has gotten a bad name. A government has every right to deny rights to some groups, especially in a democracy. let the people vote on it.

crptcblade

Jul 31st, 2002, 04:21 PM

I would just like to say that I am against ingesting nails or any other building materials for that matter.

mendhak

Jul 31st, 2002, 04:23 PM

And the citizens of US are just scared *hit after Sep 11, because they have suddenly found out that being citizens and residents of the world's mightiest might doesn't ensure them a safe life. Ha!

Let me guess, television told you this, and you think it's true. :rolleyes:

abdul

Jul 31st, 2002, 04:57 PM

Another flame war...
Honeybee
You're right about how USA should mind her own business but I don't find any reason to blame all Americans for the policies of USA government. Most of them even admitted here that USA government is run by idiots!
You're right that USA should eliminate this problem from its root instead of (or in addition to) just going after a few groups and that's it. Some Americans died then too bad and tragic for Americans and all of us but the real problem is with USA government. Do you think USA can prevent these kind of attacks by just going after whoever attacked? I don't think so. If Usama is Al-Quaida dies then there might somebody else who stands up against USA only because he has been vicimit of USA policies directly or indirectly. An example would be USA military in colombia (I think there is). What if some colombian rebels had took responsibility for the 9/11 attack? There excuse would have been that USA was helping Colombia against them in military action but then USA lost her civlians, right? So a best solution would be that USA should make her military stay at home and solve the problem some other way because only American civlians will be freely targeted which isn't any good.
Until now, the fight in Afghanistan is going quite well but there are a few (or a lot of) incidents in which civilians have been targeted [accidently]. Now USA military doesn't take responsibility and starts finding excuses like that there were Talibans hiding, etc. I think this will only lead to some of those civlians becoming violent against USA. Helping Afghanistan build from start again is a pretty good thing and I think USA should keep it up.
No wonder USA military has a pretty impressive record from the past. Why is that USA is the only one who has fought tons of wars mostly against poor countries in the past century? I also see that USA is trying to "help other countries build(not Afghanistan here)" but why send 100s of troops with a piece of aid and then mess up everything by turning it into a fight in the country you're aiding to. I don't know if USA is economically strong because of this military spread out all over the world but you can look at countries like Canada, for example: You can help other countries without sending your military there. You can solve problems between two countries politically without sending your military there or providing military support.
USA should also know the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist. If somebody like Usama did kill some innocents then it doesn't mean that every Mull'ah with beard and stuff should be at least gone the jail and there should be restrictions put on him. Same thing goes for Kashmir problem. Powell has visited India and Pakistan like 2 or 3 times but there is no change in the Kashmir issue except that USA has asked Musharaff (another dickhead) to stop militants from going into the occupied Kashmir. Has it solved the problem? Nope! Flow of militants to occupied Kashmir is almost stopped but civilians are still dying, being arrested, tortured, etc. Is there some mysterious desease causing all these deaths or what?:rolleyes:

simonm

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:01 PM

Snakeeyes1000
the united states has one of the most impressive military records in history, so simonm, he is not full of crap.
Have they? That's news to me...:rolleyes:

Let's have a look back shall we? Well, there's vietnam...that didn't go to well, did it? And what about Korea? That ended in a stalemate if I remember correctly. And they've certainly got a habit of turning up in wars late...

Considering they've only been an independant country for two around two hundred years, they haven't really got much of a record attall to be honest.

Racial dsicimination has gotten a bad name. A government has every right to deny rights to some groups, especially in a democracy. let the people vote on it.
No ****. Racial descriminiation has gotten a bad name. Why's that I wonder...? :rolleyes:

And your government, more than any other, has no right to deny the rights of particular minorities. I thought America stood for freedom and the rights of the individual?

Tell you what, mate, you're full of it as well...

barrk

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:02 PM

In regards to abdul's post: You say that the US Military should keep out but then blame the US for the problems in Kashmir and Columbia not being solved......do you think we should help or not?....you can't tell us not to and then blame us because we aren't. :confused:

Aerials

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:06 PM

OK
Let's get one thing straight. Humans are stupid. Things like this will continue happening for a loooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnngg while.
Now that that's out of the way, a few things about the US (government mostly if ur american dont get mad, although if u do, I couldnt care less)

Let's see how much the US cares about the rest of the world... until they had a taste of it, they couldnt care less about terrorrism. The WTC isnt much of a big deal, it was just exaggerated. More people die because of terrorrism every year in other countries but the US doesnt start the so called "War on Terrorrism" until THEY get attacked.

The US military also isn't the best ever and probably never will be either.

By the way patriotism is dumb in my opinion and so is being proud of your country and its greatness. As far as I know, you didn't make the country "great", other people did. No reason to really be proud now is there.

P.S. If anyone says I'm doing this cuz im envious of the US or live in fear they're either a)misguided or b)dumbasses

P.P.S. I agree with you simon, he IS full of crap

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:22 PM

Aerials

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster

Your damn right we should profile people crossing our borders. I'm sorry to the person who is not a terrorist but get's hassled at the border because of his looks but, hey F U buddy, would you rather get hassled at the border or blown the fook up sight-seeing. As far as closing the borders, no we shouldn't, this country was built by imigrants made great by imigrants. Let that be a lesson to the other countrys who hate the US. We are made up of your garbage your poor hungry homless and persecuted. Remember our ancestors at some point in time left your countrys because your country sucked. Now look what we built, a rich powerfull nation. woops. sorrry if we pissed you off. If your country still sucks do something about it. Don't tell me you cant do anything about it because that is BS. Look at Europe. Damn near the whole continent was trashed after 2 world wars and look at them now. Rich and powerfull. The reason they are rich and powerfull is because they didn't sit around feeling sorry for themselvs blaming other countrys when they should have been working on making their nations great again.

Really, I am full of crap? If there Is one thing you can say about America is that we have always been willing to fight when some one fooks with us. I believe the last "big" example of that was a place called Japan. Don't underestimate the American People. If you don't believe me dress u[p oin an Osoma costume and take a stroll through central park yellin New Yourk Sucks and see what happens to you.

ok i like the first part of your message to a certain extent ( but they really CANT do anythin :p)

I don't see whats so grreat about being barbaric and violent though :rolleyes:

mendhak

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster

Your damn right we should profile people crossing our borders. I'm sorry to the person who is not a terrorist but get's hassled at the border because of his looks but, hey F U buddy, would you rather get hassled at the border or blown the fook up sight-seeing. As far as closing the borders, no we shouldn't, this country was built by imigrants made great by imigrants. Let that be a lesson to the other countrys who hate the US. We are made up of your garbage your poor hungry homless and persecuted. Remember our ancestors at some point in time left your countrys because your country sucked. Now look what we built, a rich powerfull nation. woops. sorrry if we pissed you off. If your country still sucks do something about it. Don't tell me you cant do anything about it because that is BS. Look at Europe. Damn near the whole continent was trashed after 2 world wars and look at them now. Rich and powerfull. The reason they are rich and powerfull is because they didn't sit around feeling sorry for themselvs blaming other countrys when they should have been working on making their nations great again.

Really, I am full of crap? If there Is one thing you can say about America is that we have always been willing to fight when some one fooks with us. I believe the last "big" example of that was a place called Japan. Don't underestimate the American People. If you don't believe me dress u[p oin an Osoma costume and take a stroll through central park yellin New Yourk Sucks and see what happens to you.

As blunt as MasterBlaster puts it, I agree.

Also, the US is the most powerful, and the most strategically superior. Ever notice that very few countries dare speak up against it? (Except for the ones under sanction, like Iraq, iran, n.korea and libya. Some more strategy for you.)

The US actually spends its own resources and man power to help and lead helping other nations. It's actually bestowing a favor.

As for the meddling in the affairs of other nations, hey, that may exist too, but you can't ignore the above points, they must be acknowledged.

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:34 PM

simonm

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:35 PM

MasterBlaster

Look, let me just say that I don't hate America, but I still think you're full of it.
Your damn right we should profile people crossing our borders. I'm sorry to the person who is not a terrorist but get's hassled at the border because of his looks but, hey F U buddy, would you rather get hassled at the border or blown the fook up sight-seeing.
Is there supposed to be some sort of logic in there some where? Because I don't see it.

I tell you what you should do. Round up all the convicted terrorists you've got so far and analyse them for common characteristics. If the majority of convicted terrorists have big noses, stop all people with big noses crossing your border. If they tend to have small ears, stop those sort comming in as well.

If you've got to resort to those sort of tactics, you're obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas.

All I'm saying is that restricting people on the basis of physical characteristicss will inconvenience innocents while the crafty ones will get through anyway.
Don't underestimate the American People.
I don't underestimate the American people. I just think you're talking nonsense.

john tindell

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:40 PM

it doesnt matter what the americans try to stop them comming into there country, theres always going to some one somewhere who hates america what they do. even if its the citizens themselves. trying to ban all of a nation from comming into america isntr going to a lot of good if there are people willing to do damage already on the inside?

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:44 PM

simonm

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:49 PM

MasterBlaster
Profiling is a tool law enforcement agencys use to help identify criminals. If this tool helps even if it only catches one terrorist that is one terrorist who wont be killing Americans.
There's no reason to suspect that this "tool" will help prevent a single terrorist attack against America. One thing's for sure though, you'll piss a load of people off and for no (measurable) gain whatsoever.
*** is that supposed to mean. What did I say that was nonsense and why was it nonsense?
Pretty much everything that you've come out with. It's so absurd that it defies explanation.

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 05:56 PM

snakeeyes1000

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:01 PM

a few points I would like to make:

1.Simonm, you are obviously jealous of the United States.
2.I am not an American. They are the most powerful nation on Earth, I have been there, and I give them due respect. No country is perfect.
3.If every muslim caught in the United States was executed, are you telling me that terrorism in the United States would be a problem?
4.The United States' military record isn't spotless. England's is much worse, and Russia's is much better. India and the middle-east is a joke among most of my defense department co-workers.
5.The United states really represents a unique form of government. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I give them credit.

abdul

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by barrk
In regards to abdul's post: You say that the US Military should keep out but then blame the US for the problems in Kashmir and Columbia not being solved......do you think we should help or not?....you can't tell us not to and then blame us because we aren't. :confused:

Yes, US should help solve the problems of Columbia and Kashmir but then there will be a chance of American civlians being targeted in response to that "US help". For Kashmir, I blamed US because of only one-sides help. If US tries to get rid of militants, it won't solve the problem so US should only somehow politically make BOTH sides take steps to solve the problem. For Columbia, I don't know US should help or not but the thing is that those rebels will get after any US civlians. So if US helps Columbia then there will always be a chance of American cvilians being attacked so if US wants to prevent its citizens then I think it should try not to harm those rebels. But if you think those rebels are bad people and US should get rid of them in order to create peace wold-wide, then US should go ahead and bomb the hell out of them. Basically, if you help against them, they'll come after you. If you don't, they'll keep away.

Aerials

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
a few points I would like to make:

1.Simonm, you are obviously jealous of the United States.
2.I am not an American. They are the most powerful nation on Earth, I have been there, and I give them due respect. No country is perfect.
3.If every muslim caught in the United States was executed, are you telling me that terrorism in the United States would be a problem?
4.The United States' military record isn't spotless. England's is much worse, and Russia's is much better. India and the middle-east is a joke among most of my defense department co-workers.
5.The United states really represents a unique form of government. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I give them credit.
Yes he probably is saying that if every muslim was caught in the Us there would still be terrorrism. Theres a lot of terrorrists who are american citizens u know?

barrk

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:27 PM

NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

abdul

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by barrk
NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

Was it a response to my post?:confused:

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:32 PM

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:33 PM

barrk

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Aerials
Theres a lot of terrorrists who are american citizens u know? NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

No, sorry abdul...next time I'll add the quotes!

abdul

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by barrk
NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

No, sorry abdul...next time I'll add the quotes!

No problem:)

Aerials

Jul 31st, 2002, 06:48 PM

u can visit some of them in jail

pgrimes

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:21 PM

rjlohan...

... what happens to people like that guy who had 'bombs' in his shoes on that aeroplane - he was as non-arab as they come.

Uhhh... hate to burst your bubble dude, but this isn't exactly as "non-arab as they come".

http://www.webhippo.com/reid0216.jpg

I might say that he is AS arab as they come.

This on the other hand is pretty non-arab looking:

http://www.abc-kid.com/goat/pictures/tn_005_jpg.jpg

:)

gaffa_reborn

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:42 PM

MasterBlaster,

Don't confuse firepower with military greatness - can you spell "Vietnam"? Military greatness is generally based on strong military leadership, with tact and diplomacy playing a major part. Napoleon was a great military leader and tactician. GW is more of a brute.

Since the end of World War II, the US' military endevours haven't exactly all been raging successes.... Korea and Vietnam already mentioned, don't forget the fact that while Iraq was beaten, it wasn;t actually beaten. From a strategy point of view, the Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, Granada, well, it's hardly a big country... Somalia wasn't exactly a success either.

The US may have the might, but it doesn't necessarily have the leadership to use it correctly.

That said, it IS in a position (although I'm not sure if the US put itself there or whether it sort of got the crown by default) of power - while the rest of the world reduces defence spending, the US ramps it up. It still spends more per capita than anybody else - if you weren't the most powerful by now, there would be something wrong.

- gaffa

gaffa_reborn

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:56 PM

barrk,

not wnating to get too invloved in this particular sub thread, but off the top of my head, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczinsky (sp?) - the Unabomber - spring to mind.

They are two that have actually perpetrated terrorist attacks on US soil in recent times.

- gaffa

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:57 PM

MasterBlaster

Jul 31st, 2002, 07:58 PM

gaffa_reborn

Jul 31st, 2002, 08:01 PM

Aren't the guys who flew the planes dead?

Touche

- gaffa

abdul

Jul 31st, 2002, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster

Weren't those guys executed?

I remember Timothy McVeigh was excuted a few months ago. Not sure about the other guy.

TheVoid

Jul 31st, 2002, 08:31 PM

I will try and remain near the topic, although some ppl here make that very hard.

Disclaimer: None of this is meant as a personal attack on anyone, and not meant to incite a flame war. Flames are meant for the VN boards and less civilized places :) (ok now someone will prove me wrong for sure) Afterall, i might need some code snipets from some of you some day. :)

A "mind your own business" policy is impossible, name one country who has pulled it off succesfully! I think the US tried when it attempted to stay out of WWII. It's the whole catch 22 of freedom of choice. Deciding not to make a choice is still choosing, so might as well make a choice and live with it. We live on the same planet here, there is NO possible way you can sit in your own contry mind your own business and think it doesn't effect others in other countries. It is impossible to think that if you don't interfere with someone else that they won't know you are there. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. so might as well be damned for having the balls to stand up for your morals.

Terrorists missed big time when they think that by bombing a building or making americans feel threatened will get them what they want. As someones said "I will never understand americans" Your right we are a unique type. The harder you push an american, or the more you tell them they can't do something, the more they fight back or try to do it. If you want the US out of a country or to not send aid someplace, don't bomb a building, that just brings more attention your way. American's rely way too much IMHO on second hand information (TV, News, National Geographic ETC..) Get that information to the ppl and believe me ppl can preasure congress to do what they want. Look at somalia. A few pictures of starving children in that country and end result US troops 19 dead and thousands of somalies. Before sep 11th my sister was the kindest IMHO person i knew. She was all for money toward education, aid for those in need, she believed the US should look inward more and less toward other countries. After sep 11th her comments where near the opposite, she believed in nuking afghanistan just to make a point no matter how many civilians lost their lives (I hope she isn't the majority), she believed in doubling our efforts in foriegn countries etc..

I won't go into what i think US actions should be since well I elected someone to make that decision, but truthfully that's another thread.

Americans know the price of freedom, we haven't had to pay that price in a long time till sep 11th rolled around. The price of freedom isn't something you pay once, its an ongoing debt, and if tomorrow someone said more lives where recquired to ensure the freedom of my fellow americans or a stranger in another land, i would cut in line.

Someone said "If you want to feel safe from terrorism move to small cities or towns" well it may not be public knowledge and i won't claim to have any prior briefings to such but: If this would be the presumed mentality of the ppl, and your goal as a terrorist would be to make said ppl feel unsafe and strike fear into them, where would you hit? Not to mention which would be easier to hit? But as i stated before, they don't understand us. Afterall america is small town USA momma's apple pie etc.

As for our military: We are by no means the best trained, the strongest, or the most numerous in the world. There is always someone out there bigger and badder than you. However the resourcefulness and the pure determination of a volunteer (of which our military is derived) will shock you to the core, this has been evident to me on many occasions. The modo in many of our support companies is "We have done so much for so long with so little, pretty soon we will be qualified to do everything with nothing"

All in all there is NO end all be all policy, No cookie cutter or absolute way to handle foreign affairs, afterall if there where everyone would abide by them. Leadership rolls are the hardest positions to be in, if you don't believe me try sometime.

PS: Mentioned above "You aren't doing anyone a favor by letting them in your country" Go to a natruralization ceremony not for just in the US but in ANY country and ask those swearing in that same question. If they thought the same thing then they wouldn't be there, don't go making that assumption for them, that's borderline slavery. A friend of mine in the military is a citizen from a central american country, his family is still there and he is serving time in the US military to earn himself and them citizenship, I would go and retrieve my med kit for anyone saying such words to him. Another ex military friend of mine opted to make his home in panama, He is VERY thankful for the freedom the US provided so that he could make that decision and for the panamanian government for allowing immigrants of which he would be considered. It's not that the country is better, etc. its that you have the ability and the choice to determine how you live your life.

Another quirk that bugs me now and then. why is it always "The US did it!" "The US intervened" It's not the US that invaded Iraq, or the US that was solely involved in somalia or 20 other foriegn aid missions the lettering on the sides of those vehicles are UN. Yes i know its a one letter difference, but its still a difference. You can say US all you want, and i will stand proud for what the UN does as its no easy feat to get that many countries working together, but i think many of the other countries might take some offence when you decide to leave them out of their due recognition.

OK gotta stop now, Damn its hard to remain on topic :) and i don't want to start rambling . . . too much.

rjlohan

Jul 31st, 2002, 09:31 PM

From a comedian last night, and somewhat pertinent:

"Fundamentalists are the problem. On the one hand, we have fundamentalist Muslims blowing up planes because they think they'll go to heaven, and then we have fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they think they'll go to heaven. I say, let's send the fundamentalist Christians to fight the fundamentalist Muslims, and kill two birds with one stone."

:D

simonm

Aug 1st, 2002, 03:35 AM

snakeeyes1000
1.Simonm, you are obviously jealous of the United States.
OK, and how did you work that one out?
2.I am not an American. They are the most powerful nation on Earth, I have been there, and I give them due respect. No country is perfect.
If there ever was a series of unconnected statements, that's a prime example?

America is the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, I will give them that.
3.If every muslim caught in the United States was executed, are you telling me that terrorism in the United States would be a problem?
If that Happenedd, America would no longer be America. It would be more like China. And it would incite more terrorism than it thwarted.
4.The United States' military record isn't spotless. England's is much worse, and Russia's is much better. India and the middle-east is a joke among most of my defense department co-workers.
Why is England's worse? If you look back over the last century, America has made more blunders than England has, despite being a superpower.
5.The United states really represents a unique form of government. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I give them credit.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say that Americ has a greater democracy, or more individual freedom's than anywhere else, you would be wrong. Particularly if they adopted the ehtnic clensing policies that you are advocating above.

rossim

Aug 1st, 2002, 07:48 AM

I love the way everyone says the US should stay out of other nations affairs, but when we do stay out, everyone bitches that we should be doing something.

Like I said before, no nation is perfect and you can't please everyone.

siyan

Aug 1st, 2002, 08:23 AM

My bad for not readin the whole thread...i'm on limited time and sleep.

Originally posted by Guv
Our government was willing to incarcerate American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War two, which was outrageous in the absence of any evidence that they were potential spies or saboteurs. If we did that, why not get rid of Arabs who are not citizens?

Because there is still no evidence that they're potential spies or saboteurs. 99% of them are just ordinary citizens. If there was some tangible evidence that someone entering the country is dangerous, then sure. But just because they're Arab is nearing the Hitler Ghetto Line.

Another note: Hi everyone. :)

-C

FantastichenEin

Aug 1st, 2002, 09:10 AM

I agree with Guv on this.
I also believe Britain should do the same.

Each country has a right to protect itself, and following the terror attacks I think It would be ignorant not to use whatever means possible that may just stop another attack. Even if the means may seem unfair or unjust. I am not saying that Guv's idea will definatly reduce the risk of another terrorist attack, but at present the statistics are there.

Some things aren't fair, for example, Muslims can move to england and build their mosques, with nothing said. However if I was to move to an islamic country and try to build a christian church....I have a feeling I wouldn't be too successful.

TheVoid

Aug 1st, 2002, 09:22 AM

Disclaimer as above :)

Contries are like dogs they ALL running around sniffing the butts of other countries. If one of the dogs growls the other bites.

Honeybee would you mind saying what country you are from? I find it hard to believe that the US and only the US is involved in meddling with your countries affairs. I also find it very hard to believe that your country does not do the same to others. As i stated above I seriously doubt anyone can find a country that doesn't meddle in or affect the affairs of another country. To think that your countries actions and the decisions of any government do not affect the other countries of the world is akin to living in a fantasy, but what a nice one it would be.

Any government that doesn't take actions for its greater good and the good of its population is a government that won't last long. Now whether or not they are the right decisions that is another story. But for a government to sit back and not provide military, economical, aid of any kind to its allies and other countries it supports, when it has the ability to give this aid, is just a government that is waiting to dwindle out of existance. If i see my friend starving, getting beat up, in general need I am going to ask him what if anything he needs. I wasn't raised to turn my head and say "Not my problem, good luck to him" One day I may be in his position and may need his help.

Honeybee I see your point; others may not, but i think you are trying to tac down or say who is right and who is wrong, which side is good and which is bad. This is something that will never happen it all comes down to perspective and majority. There is NO hard line for good and bad, right or wrong if you can find that line then all the world will live in peace and harmony. Instead you have leaders who are recquired to make decisions, they can't sit idly by and just say "Ehhh it'll work out" Whether those decisions are right/wrong good/bad is a matter of personal opinion and if you asked 100 ppl you would probably get 100 different responses on the same subject. I personally don't believe killing 6 thousand civilians is a good way of fighting for whatever cause they had; however, they believed it was.

The US has the same policies and performs the same actions other countries do, we just have some big arse spotlight on us and thousands of critics ready to pick away at every single little word or action anyone from our country says or does. There is one unique feature about americans and the US, we live by freedom and as a result we air our laundry for everyone to see. Other countries, governments may push things under the rug, hide the fact that said leader made a mistake, said the wrong thing or was generally human in nature. We instead show every flaw and every decisions for all to see, it is our belief that the government is there to server the ppl and in that we as ppl need to know every little thing they do. This may not happen all the time, but damned if we don't try.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
Some things aren't fair, for example, Muslims can move to england and build their mosques, with nothing said. However if I was to move to an islamic country and try to build a christian church....I have a feeling I wouldn't be too successful. It probably depends on the country, but it's certainly not universally true. When I lived in Pakistan, I thoroughly enjoyed the Christmas Carol concert that was held in one of the Anglican churches in Islamabad...

Once again, a thread seems to have collapsed into the US-bashing frenzy that pops up quite often on these boards. In this case, though, I think it was invited. Guv's suggestions are obscene, and should be regarded as such by pretty much any thinking individual. Unfortunately, the dissenters were leapt upon by a few brainless rednecks with the "We're all great; you only hate us cuz we're great; we could kick your ass; the rest of the world's full of pussies" bull**** that feeds people's misconceptions of Americans. Frankly, it couldn't avoid going downhill from there. It's a shame, because the rational voices of the American majority got drowned out in the ensuing torrent.

Incidentally, while you're banging on about America's war on terrorism, I should point out that this morning, a man was killed by a bomb planted by the Real IRA at a British Army barracks in Northern Ireland (the home of 152 Ambulance Regiment and 253 Field Ambulance). Who funds the Real IRA? Why, the US, of course.

FantastichenEin

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:17 AM

Guv's suggestions are obscene, and should be regarded as such by pretty much any thinking individual.

Not obscene maybe a little extreme, but no more extreme than laws that say you can be arrested for carrying a bible in some islamic countries (Saudi Arabia for example).

Maybe you are only considering Guv's view extreme/obscene because it is coming from America, a country with relativly benign laws and viewpoints compared with the middle east.

FantastichenEin

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Who funds the Real IRA? Why, the US, of course.

I don't think so. The USA sees the Real Ira as a foreign terrorist group therefore members of the Real IRA are denied visa's and all of the Real Ira's american assets frozen.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
Maybe you are only considering Guv's view extreme/obscene because it is coming from America, a country with relativly benign laws and viewpoints compared with the middle east. No; absolutely not - and the suggestion itself is inflammatory. You're implying that we expect higher standards of you simply because you're American, which in turn implies that you believe that we consider you to be better than others. Personally, I consider you to have the same mix of the great, the abysmal, and the ordinary as the rest of us.

Location makes no difference. Racism is offensive no matter where it originates, whether it be towards Muslims, Arabs, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, whites, blacks...

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
I don't think so. The USA sees the Real Ira as a foreign terrorist group therefore members of the Real IRA are denied visa's and all of the Real Ira's american assets frozen. Not true, I'm afraid. The Real IRA are still allowed to raise funds in the USA - as evidenced by their appearance on a float owned by one of their fund-raising groups in the New York St Patrick's Day parade this year.

FantastichenEin

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:30 AM

You're implying that we expect higher standards of you simply because you're American

No.
I am implying that you expect the USA to have tamer laws.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:33 AM

As a European, I certainly don't believe that your laws are particularly tame. As a matter of fact, I consider the USA to be draconian in many ways.

snakeeyes1000

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:35 AM

After reading this thread I looked up the definition of thw word hypocrite.. my english is somewhat limited and I haven't found a use for it until now. You complain about the US interfering in foreign affairs. You complain because you want their policy changed. Therefore, you want to interfere in their affairs, making you hypocrites.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:42 AM

snakeeyes - who the Hell are you talking to? I certainly don't think America - or any country, for that matter - should get involved in other countries' domestic issues, and I've never said otherwise.

FantastichenEin

Aug 1st, 2002, 10:55 AM

As a European, I certainly don't believe that your laws are particularly tame. As a matter of fact, I consider the USA to be draconian in many ways.

You have incorrectly assumed that I am American - I am British.

Ok maybe tamer wasn't the correct word. I expect you are referring to the death penalty which I also don't support.

What I am trying to say is that the US doesn't have any laws that are unfair to a certain race or religion. Sure, sometimes you may hear news about racial injustice, but that is mostly down to a few individuals in each case not the law system.

Masterbandit666

Aug 1st, 2002, 11:05 AM

I heard yesterday that the US is denying right to trial to two Brits in camp x-ray. What rights do US citizens have over them? None, but they still get a trials.

Also in the news from a few weeks back, 94% of the Arab world and 73% of Brits are against military action against Iraq by the US.

And another few: the US pours over £9bn into Israel each year, compared with the £105m that Palestine gets from the United Nations.

Closing US borders to the Arab world would almost certainly not cause a world war, since most of that population aren't interested in what happens to the US, just that they get left alone by it.

To put it quite frankly, the Bush administration is doing a pretty bollocks job of keeping world peace. To this day American bombs still end up in civilian/public buildings in Afghanistan. The only good thing about Bush having won 18 months back is that he is a LOT more interesting to listen to than Al "I'm a boring old fart" Gore.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 11:05 AM

Oops - my mistake. :o

I wasn't particularly referring to the death penalty laws; I just don't think that American laws are particularly soft and fluffy.

Masterbandit666

Aug 1st, 2002, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by simonm

America is the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, I will give them that.
[/B]

Yeah, actually I believe Japan takes the award for the most technologically advanced nation.

InvisibleDuncan

Aug 1st, 2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Masterbandit666
Yeah, actually I believe Japan takes the award for the most technologically advanced nation. It used to be Afghanistan, but they've slipped down the rankings lately.

snakeeyes1000

Aug 1st, 2002, 11:59 AM

Japan? Japan is a joke. I think you would be surprised at how much steel japan has actually used since the end of world war 2. It's less than Madagascar used. Think about it... The cars them make are plastic and rubber, and the electronics they make are silicon and plastic. They have no real army. The reason is because of the treaty that ended world war 2. It basically said that the US would protect Japan and that they could not produce military weapons. If the United States could scrap military spending, how much money do you think they would have?

pgrimes

Aug 1st, 2002, 12:24 PM

"Fundamentalists are the problem. On the one hand, we have fundamentalist Muslims blowing up planes because they think they'll go to heaven, and then we have fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they think they'll go to heaven. I say, let's send the fundamentalist Christians to fight the fundamentalist Muslims, and kill two birds with one stone."

Hahaha.

I agree

TheVoid

Aug 1st, 2002, 12:52 PM

Masterbandit

How do you know a policy such as suggested above would not lead to an eventual WW. Last time a country adopted some sort of mass race based policy it did. While the policy itself may not lead to a World War it sure increases the chance and lays down the framework. You have to remember everyone percieves everything differently. While you and I may see the policy as just a way of securing or limiting terrorism in said country others won't. Many will see it as a form of discrimination, some will see it as the US saying "We are better than you, so you can't come here" etc... These perceptions build in time, and lead to actions by other contries reflecting those attitudes. From there it can lead to minor economic changes, increased prices, then we counter that etc.... Domino effect as some say.

If the US passed a sanction or law disallowing anyone of arabic decent from entering the country, what do you really think would hapen?

You think those countries will shrug it off and not care. I doubt it. Most will see it as some form of snobery or think it has some other intent behind it. Those countries may then decide that if we have no interest in allowing their citizens in our country, maybe we don't need their business and they won't ship goods to our contry. Then we would decide they don't need ours, or raise tarifs and visa versa. The cause effect would be endless.

Either way you look at it, any policy that discriminates against race, creed, color or religion is against fundamentaly what the US stands for and although some americans will suggest the idea, in the end you will most likely see them realize this point. While our form of freedom and government doesn't create the safest place to live and leaves us very open, I for one would gladly give up some safety to have the freedom i have and the ability to affect and make decisions in my government.

It was mentioned "The bush administration is doing a bullocks job at maintaining world peace" Hmmm i didn't know it was his administrations job to keep world peace, i usually figure that is the entire worlds responsability. But to anyone who shoulders more responsability than they should, my utmost regards go out to them for having the initiative to give it a try, whether they make the right or wrong decisions will remain to be seen as it takes many years to see the effects. It is always easier to wait for the "sheet to hit the fan" and chaos to ensue, then come in afterwards and clean up the mess (ride in on that white horse), than to be in the thick of it from the beggining doing what you can to prevent the sheet from hitting the fan.

As i said before about foriegn policy (interviening in the affairs of other countries). there is no blanket policy such as "no one of arab decent allowed in" that will fix anything, its all a case by case basis.

Guv

Aug 1st, 2002, 03:03 PM

It is incredible to me that there are intelligent people posting here who seem to equate denying entry to certain potential immigrants and visitors with the actions of Nazi Germany, the profiling of black US citizens, ethnic cleansing, et cetera.

There is no basic right to visit or relocate to the USA. Denying some group entry to the USA is not equivalent to putting them in jail, fining them, gassing them, making them wear an identifying label, et cetera.

How can intelligent people equate denying entry to the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany? Initially, Nazi Germany was denying basic rights to citizens of their country, and later they were slaughtering millions. Posts to this thread imply that these policies are somehow equivalent to denying arabs entry to this country. Are there people here who really equate these policies? I have no respect for people with such a lack of critical judgment capabilities. In fact I have contempt for them.

Note that I too can use the fallacious ad hominem argument, which seems to be a popular strategy at this forum.

Stopping a black without probable cause is harassment and a denial of rights to citizens, which would be fundamentally wrong even if it were highly effective. Furthermore, most of the criminals in this country are Caucasian, and if you add to them the small number of Hispanic and Oriental criminals, you readily see that profiling blacks misses a huge majority of criminals. So profiling black citizens is fundamentally wrong as well as being counter productive and probably stupid.

Denying arabs and/or Islamics entry to this country does not threaten any basic right. While such a policy would deny entry to many peaceful people, there is reason to believe that it could be effective. Any peaceful people being denied entry by this policy are not being put in jail, fined, being denied freedom, or being denied property rights.

BTW: I did not advocate the total closure of our borders to all potential visitors and immigrants. There were some here who suggested that I was advocating such a policy. I see no reason to defend an idea I did not advocate, and consider such posts to have little or no merit.

Those who have brought up questions about the practicality and/or effectiveness of the policy have shown intelligence and some valid arguments against the policy. I would not call such arguments stupid or irrational. At least one such person complained that I ignored his post. I am sorry about that, but was more inclined to reply to the stupid irrational posts. Somebody objected to my overusing the word fallacious, so here I am substituting stupid and/or irrational. I still consider my view plausible, but admit to being impressed with those who consider it impractical. I suspect that the best argument against the policy is cost effectiveness, but I am not sure that any worthwhile policy is going to be cheap.

As for several who made ad hominem arguments, You are probably diseducated, nonintelligent, and not couth.

To those who use implied obscenities: May all of your sons be sterile and may all of your daughters give birth to the offspring of syphilitic camels who are both poor and ugly. I refrain from blasphemies and obscenities in favor of Arabic style curses. I consider this art form one of the few great contributions to civilization made by the arab culture.

simonm

Aug 1st, 2002, 03:24 PM

Fair enough Guv. :)

MasterBlaster

Aug 1st, 2002, 03:58 PM

Masterbandit666

Aug 1st, 2002, 06:36 PM

I refer you to my previous post:
I heard yesterday that the US is denying right to trial to two Brits in camp x-ray. What rights do US citizens have over them? None, but they still get a trials.

Also in the news from a few weeks back, 94% of the Arab world and 73% of Brits are against military action against Iraq by the US.

And another few: the US pours over £9bn into Israel each year, compared with the £105m that Palestine gets from the United Nations.

Closing US borders to the Arab world would almost certainly not cause a world war, since most of that population aren't interested in what happens to the US, just that they get left alone by it.

To put it quite frankly, the Bush administration is doing a pretty bollocks job of keeping world peace. To this day American bombs still end up in civilian/public buildings in Afghanistan. The only good thing about Bush having won 18 months back is that he is a LOT more interesting to listen to than Al "I'm a boring old fart" Gore.

All I have to say is that tomorrow I leave for the US on a holiday (that's "vacation" to you), and I am looking forward to spending 3 hours queueing at US Immigration Control alongside hundreds of other people who are scrutinized because the US doesn't trust the words "British Citizen" on a passport. To be frank, the Arab world doesn't get scrutinized much more than we do, and that should be the way it stays.

barrk

Aug 1st, 2002, 06:40 PM

Where in the US are you going?

Xanith

Aug 2nd, 2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by honeybee

If you think the terrorists threatened US by the 9/11 attacks, and if you think it's just to bombard "part of Afghanistan" or the Al Qaeda camps in a foreign country, why does your government advice the Indian government of exercising restraint? It has been proved that the militants operating in J&K and largely responsible for other violent acts are based in Pakistan. Why doesn't the US let India attack and destroy these bases? Or more importantly why doesn't the US back and help India in such attempts? This entire Afghanistan-Al Qaeda thing has convinced me finally that the US government is nothing but the worst kind of selfish people I can ever find. When it's the question of their honour, they don't hesitate in putting their troops in a foreign country, bully the president of the country into helping them, and then bombard another foreign country. As if they own the world. And when it comes to some other country's honour, they talk world peace and exercising restraint. Why, only the US has the right to protect herself. The rest of the nations should turn to US for their own protection, is it?

I think I can answer your first question. The reason they are asking the Indian government to exercise restraint is because both India and Pakistan have been at each other’s throats for a long time now. Any attack by India on Pakistan will only make matter worse and could escalate the conflict into a nuclear exchange. This is turn could destabilize the whole area and could possibly lead to another world war. Something I’m sure no one wants including you. So I highly doubt the US will advocate or back any attack on either side and will continue to push for peace between the two nations.

The US going into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban government for backing terrorists that have killed thousands around the globe is an entirely different matter. People seem to forget that the Taliban also oppressed its own people and were especially brutal to the women of Afganistan. The US has liberated the Afgan people, killed or captured many of the top leaders responsible for terrorist attacks, and has tried to foster a more democratic government while providing aide to help rebuild the country.

You seem to want the US to not defend itself against state sponsored terrorism that kills innocent civilians around the world and to not foster peace between India and Pakistan? And you want the US to let India attack Pakistan? Are you mad? You do realize all the innocent people that would be killed if war broke out between those two countries. I’m trying hard to understand your logic here but it’s making no sense to me. Let me try to envision Honeybee’s perfect world.

1) The US stays out of Afghanistan and Bin Laden continues to operate a full-scale terrorist organization backed by the Taliban government. In turn Bin Laden continues to kill more innocent civilians in the US and in other countries. The Taliban government also continues to oppress its own people much to the dismay of human rights groups around the globe.
2) The US stays out of the India and Pakistan conflict and lets them resolve it on their own. Eventually without a strong supporter for peace the two nations decide to go to war. A small nuclear exchange between both nations results in the deaths of millions of innocent people.
3) Honeybee is happy because the US is not trying to meddle in foreign affairs and not using its military to defend itself.

Sounds like utopia huh? At least you would be happy. To bad it has to come at the cost of many innocent lives.

If the Japanese can produce better cars than the Americans and by using lesser steel, I think I would say Japan is technologically more advanced. Rather than focussing on big flashy and noisy cars, they seem to have concentrated on a more functional car. I don't know much about the US import and export laws, but I am sure we shall find some interesting facts out of them aimed at stopping the Japs taking over the US markets. I heard a few months back that the Japs control most major Hollywood studios.

Wow the US trying to protect its own business and jobs in its own country! Imagine that. And if I think if you look at the Japanese import and export laws I think you will find them much more strict as to what they allow in. Hollywood studios? Talk about coming out of left field. What does that have to do with anything?

Coming to think of it, when the US is trying to disarm and de-nuke "other" countries under the pretext of making the world a safer place to live, I think Japan has actually presented a very good example of what a country can do by actually not spending a dime on military. And forget not, my dear friend, this situation is the US's own doing. If they hadn't nuked Japan, this would never have occured. The US didn't agree to protect Japan out of sympathy or world peace. They have been paying for their heinous act.

The US is the protector of Japan because after they surrendered the agreement stated that they were not allowed to keep a military. Protecting them and not letting them have a military is not done out of sympathy, its so the Japanese do not attempt to attack their neighbors again. As for dropping the two nukes, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the nuclear blasts and that was achieved through conventional means. Historians also believe that dropping the two bombs brought a quick end to what would have been a very long and very bloody invasion of Japan that would have resulted in more loss of life on both sides. And if you want an account of truly heinous acts look into what the Japanese did to the nations they conquered during WWII or to the PoW’s they captured.

Masterbandit666

Aug 2nd, 2002, 10:51 AM

California, Utah, Wyoming.

GlenW

Aug 2nd, 2002, 10:54 AM

War records have proved that Japan surrendered because they did not want to fight Russia, the Russians had just sent 2 armies to their eastern borders.

simonm

Aug 2nd, 2002, 02:16 PM

GlenW
War records have proved that Japan surrendered because they did not want to fight Russia, the Russians had just sent 2 armies to their eastern borders.
Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

MasterBlaster

Aug 2nd, 2002, 02:20 PM

Xanith

Aug 2nd, 2002, 02:32 PM

The US had asked the Russians to enter into the war against the Japanese earlier to put pressure on them. The Russians chose to wait, as they didn’t want to commit their forces on a new front if they didn’t have to. The Russians heard about the American “super weapon” and decided to wait to see what would happen. After the US dropped both bombs on Japan the Russians finally declared war. The Japanese surrendered after the 2nd bomb was dropped. The Russian contribution on the Japanese front was almost nil.

The Russians also didn’t have the naval forces to support an invasion of the Japanese homeland. This would have been left up to the Americans. Most Historians believe it was the destruction of the prized Japanese Navy and the dropping of the 2 Atomic bombs that forced the Japanese to surrender, not the last minute declaration of war by the Russians.

MasterBlaster

Aug 2nd, 2002, 03:14 PM

MasterBlaster

Aug 2nd, 2002, 03:15 PM

Xanith

Aug 2nd, 2002, 03:23 PM

Ahhh thank you for the correction.

Correctly stated would be the Russians finally decared war after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Kzin

Aug 30th, 2002, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Guv
The bolded comments are my reply to Ksin

[The above is a cheap condescending shot, intended to imply that you are so much smarter than I am that my opinions iare obviously ridiculous. This is a subtle version of the fallacious ad hominem argument, and I resent it.

Sorry Guv - I don't want this to be a personal grudge match - my VBForums traffic is a bit sparce at present owing to various things so its taken a little time to get back to this. It was certainly not meant as a personal shot but simply in the spirit of VBF - it was just banter. Actually you almost always benefit from the inverse of the ad hominem argument - i.e. when you say something that seems to be up to Kovan standard I think we still read it carefully and respond even if we would have just scoffed and added the poster to the bocked list if it had been anyone else.

Anyway - I'll try to address your points in the civilized way as soon as I can and keep the 'banter' down if it upsets you (wry but serious grin).

railroadroamer

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:21 AM

the u.s shud actully ban entry for muslims into their country , that wud help considerably and that doesnt count as racial discrimination

crptcblade

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:25 AM

Wudn't it?

OrdinaryGuy

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by railroadroamer

the u.s shud actully ban entry for muslims into their country , that wud help considerably and that doesnt count as racial discrimination

if u ban muslims from the US, wouldn't that essentially be racial discrimination at its worst? I mean we aren't just banning a country, we are banning the entire Muslim population from entering the country. That would certainly turn muslims and muslim countries against the US

venerable bede

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:32 AM

It would be a lot easier and cheaper to shoot them.

OrdinaryGuy

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by venerable bede
It would be a lot easier and cheaper to shoot them.

and then see the empire state building go up in flames

venerable bede

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
and then see the empire state building go up in flames

What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

OrdinaryGuy

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by venerable bede
What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

lol... lets not get into this... too many muslims on the board.

venerable bede

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
lol... lets not get into this... too many muslims on the board.

Im scared.

Will Jamie ban me for being politically incorrect:(

Please no .....no....no.................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I will lick your boots Jamie........you know those latex ones.

;)

OrdinaryGuy

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by venerable bede
Im scared.

Will Jamie ban me for being politically incorrect:(

Please no .....no....no.................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I will lick your boots Jamie........you know those latex ones.

;)

no.. that wasnt my point... i would refrain from bashing any religion except my own :)

ok.. where were we... bingo? i thought they have an international chess tournament there...

venerable bede

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:49 AM

Being a good Catholic thees nothing I like better then a bit of Papist humour.

Wait a minute.........................

Just checking for lightning.;)

venerable bede

Nov 15th, 2002, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I agree with you 99% Gaffa. Iraq was soundly beaten strategically. I compare it to a football game where the score is 120 to 0 and both teams say screw it and walk off of the field. IMHO there is not "one country" in the world that could single handedly take out the US in a war.

The city of Newcastle upon Tyne formally declares war on the United States of America.

Be afraid........be very afraid.

Right lads get the broon ale bottles at the ready.;)

run_GMoney

Nov 15th, 2002, 09:11 AM

An entertaining argument. I particularly enjoy the politcal incorrectness of it all.

abdul

Nov 15th, 2002, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by venerable bede
What do muslims do in mecca..........play bingo?

They "play" sex and do a lot of other things.:rolleyes:

INF3RN0666

Jun 6th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Why don't you all find something better to do than go on a "Chit Chat Forum" and ask stupid questions then post stupid replies to them. It's kinda sad I even passed by this post while searching for Physics VB Code, but you queers need to get a life and stop being racist, skeptical, and cocky. None of you are any better than any of the terrorists from September 11. LOL it's kinda sad but true. BTW, I am an arab, no i'm not muslim, and yes I am a good citizen who contributes to society and thinks that people like you don't deserve to live because you are a waste of space in this country. What makes you think you have the right to say who to "ban" from this country when the country was originally filled with indians. You ain't better than any terrorist if you're all gonna be disrespectful and stereotypical!

klopeks

Jun 7th, 2003, 12:43 AM

Yea not all Arabs are bad, look at the guy in Office Space.
They shouldnt have let a whole $hitload come over though , what the hell was my goverment thinking?

Guv

Jun 7th, 2003, 10:10 AM

INF3RN0666 At least I do not question the right to life or liberty: Only the right to come to the USA.I am an arab, no i'm not muslim, and yes I am a good citizen who contributes to society and thinks that people like you don't deserve to liveYou set a fine example for the Arab world: If you disagree with me, you have no right to live.

How many people think that everybody in the world has the right to come to the USA?

BTW: I believe that the Indians got a raw deal, but they were not the only ones in the history of mankind that lost out to a more powerful (successful?) culture.

evexa

Jun 8th, 2003, 07:47 AM

You will not stop terrorism by stopping arabs from entering the country. Terrorists could be anywhere - since this is largely a terror based on religion you would have to ban all muslims!
Not forgetting that the hijackers were afghani? What about the syrians? shall we ban al immigration from the middle east? Oh and then you have to think of the muslims/arabs that have attained citizenship elsewhere - what if they are flying on a swiss passport for example? As someone else said - you would have to ben all arab 'looking' people and that is racial discrimination.
My dad looks arab!!

Pardon me if this post is a little higgeldy piggeldy - i went to ben at 4 and cant think straight :)

WiKiDJeFF

Jun 20th, 2003, 10:43 PM

post hoc, ergo proctor hoc

NotLKH

Jun 21st, 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by evexa
...Pardon me if this post is a little higgeldy piggeldy - i went to ben at 4 and cant think straight :)
Sounds like you lap danced your brains out for ben!

;)

Kzin

Jun 22nd, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Guv
INF3RN0666 At least I do not question the right to life or liberty: Only the right to come to the USA.

Hello Guv. I see that the debate continues (although I must admit that I haven't followed it closely)!

I still view your original stated position as equivalent to 'banning all Irishmen from Britain' - inflamatory, divisive and falling into the aims of the terrorist - to disrupt the normal procedures and erode the ethical position of the nation under attack.

More recently its emerging that its possible that there may be serious issue that over the next few decades you *may* also have to ban EU citizens, Russians and South Americans as each of these contains a significant subset of hostile 'aliens'.

Currently these do not carry out armed attacks on the US but if the US plays into their propaganda by becoming more isolated and xenophobic this may be one form of response.

Kzin

Jun 22nd, 2003, 02:17 PM

Guv

Jun 22nd, 2003, 04:57 PM

All I see here are politically correct Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions with no critical judgement being applied.

First, I have yet to see any significant Arab or Islamic moderates condemn the actions of the terrorists. I have seen all sorts of Arab/Islamic approval and attempts to justify terrorists acts.

Second, closing our borders to Arabs and Islamics denies no one of any inherent right. It is not equivalent to denying life or liberty.

Third, the Irish in England have engaged in nothing like the type of activity that the Arab/Islamic terrorists do.I still view your original stated position as equivalent to 'banning all Irishmen from Britain' - inflammatory, divisive and falling into the aims of the terrorist - to disrupt the normal procedures and erode the ethical position of the nation under attack.What ethics are being eroded? Do we not have the right to exclude any whom we consider detrimental to our society from entering out country? The Swiss deny entry to almost anybody who is not either affluent or possessing needed technical skills.

Fourth, as stated before, profiling of American Blacks does not even begin to be equivalent to banning Arabs & Islamics. If you look at crime statistics in the USA, Caucasian Americans commit more crimes than any other group, with Hispanics and some other ethic groups doing their share. Profiling blacks would not get a large percentage of the criminals, while denying some fundamental rights to innocent American citizens. Excluding Arabs and Islamics from any country of origin would target a majority of the terrorists without denying any innocent person a fundamental right, unless you believe that every body with the desire to come to the USA has a right to be admitted.

Fifth, many affluent and influential Arabs & Islamics want to come to the USA for jobs and/or education, especially education. The Arab/Islamic world has hardly any decent colleges, universities, or research centers, medical schools, et cetera. Banning entry might cause them to make some attempt to discourage terrorists acts. As of now, there is no downside to their failure to speak out against terrorist activities. The Arab/Islamic world needs our technology and educational facilities far more than we need their oil.

Sixth, the USA could afford to be very exclusive, allowing entry only to those with special skills or financial resources. We would still have many of the best and brightest knocking at our door, and would not have to put up with a large number of undesirable aliens.

There were a few posts mentioning it being impractical or ineffective to close our borders to Islamics and Arabs. Aside from those posts, I have seen no counter arguments with merit.

Kzin

Jun 23rd, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Guv
All I see here are politically correct Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions with no critical judgement being applied.

I see that everyone who does not agree completely with your view is being bundled together under the same slogans. This is getting rather like a discussion with Kovan.

I entered this discussion thinking that Europeans could learn a lot from Dale Carnegie. I see that there are some Americans who might too.

Kzin

Jun 23rd, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Guv

First, I have yet to see any significant Arab or Islamic moderates condemn the actions of the terrorists. I have seen all sorts of Arab/Islamic approval and attempts to justify terrorists acts.

This must reflect the media available to you. I see regular, daily condemnation by Arab leaders of the actions of terrorists on the BBC. Obviously you might say this is selective - they have just interviewed chosen puppets - but that applied both ways in the media.

Kzin

Jun 23rd, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Guv

Second, closing our borders to Arabs and Islamics denies no one of any inherent right. It is not equivalent to denying life or liberty.

I certainly said nothing about *rights* - only about other nations perceptions of the United States. Of course any soveriegn country has the right to block national, companies or organizations from any country. If other nations (perhaps spearheaded by the French led EU) used this as an excuse to block free trade or expel US corporations that would also be their *right*. I don't think that that it is in US interests. This is not a knee jerk reaction - simply an observation of the extent of US international investment and trade and the level of long term investment that the US has put into world trade.

Kzin

Jun 23rd, 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Guv

Third, the Irish in England have engaged in nothing like the type of activity that the Arab/Islamic terrorists do.

I'm a very surprised that you are not better informed about this. Presumably this is something suppressed in the US press and education system. The casualties from the current troubles in Ireland are approximately 3500 - including many civilians - in the UK - a similar level to that the US has suffered from Arab terrorism (WTC Attack 2,792)

However the UK population is about one fifth of the US level.

Note also that they have had their autonomous homeland (which is what they deserved) for over 80 years now - the Palestinians haven't had theirs yet (I know - our fault under Balfour - and the wishy wash UNs fault too;)).

Originally posted by Guv
The Swiss deny entry to almost anybody who is not either affluent or possessing needed technical skills.

Are we talking about closing borders or denying citizenship? You need to get this clear. I've often driven, walked, rode by train into Switzerland many times without even having my passport checked. There are no paranoid Swiss border measures.

Originally posted by Guv
What ethics are being eroded? Do we not have the right to exclude any whom we consider detrimental to our society from entering out country?

Again I'm surprised that you can't see that if you screen, monitor or even restrict movements of people on the basis of intelligence information that consitutes a positive contribution to security.

Conversely if you block on purely racial grounds then it alienates any possible friends and builds up a justifiable hatred where none may previously have existed.

Ex-FB

Jun 24th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Yeah - let's ban all the Arabs because of Sept 11th. Also, while we are at it, can we ban all the Christians, after all, wasn't it a fundamentalist Christian who was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing.....

WiKiDJeFF

Jun 25th, 2003, 01:31 PM

Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.

Algar

Jun 25th, 2003, 01:46 PM

NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

Xanith

Jun 25th, 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.
You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it. My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information and rely less on the obviously slanted and politically motivated BBC.

X

WiKiDJeFF

Jun 25th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Of course I verify everything I read on BBC with the NY Times, C-Span, and sometimes MSNBC. If you have some other sources that you like I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always looking for new news outlets. I just like the BBCs format thats why I go to them first.

The only news agency that I don't use is Fox News for obvious reasons.

Kzin

Jun 26th, 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

A wide based balanced, non-partisan viewpoint designed to hook even your enemies into listening to you is not the sort of thing that is necessarily good for troop moral in a combat situation.

The requirements of the BBC and the Navy in a combat situation are different - barking out clear simple orders that need no reflection or consideration doesn't make good journalism and will convert no neutrals.

So yes - I understand the 'embedded' reporters were getting a hard time in the ward room. If I were a Naval Officer going into action I'd want ban them too :D

Originally posted by Xanith

I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it.

Comfortable? Not me. The reason why the BBC has such a widespread acceptance worldwide (about twice the worldwide viewer levels of CNN - which is number two in viewers worldwide) is that they aim to present a range of views and allow a voice to many different factions - which they then - admittedly use to shape their own conclusions (who wouldn't ;)). Of the mass media they therefore

Originally posted by Xanith
My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information
X
I would agree with that entirely!

Kzin

Jun 26th, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by B-Rabbit
NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

This will leave lots of room for the native americans who will find it a lot more spacious without all these beezers who have crowded them out since 1492 :cool:

WiKiDJeFF

Jun 26th, 2003, 02:43 PM

Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

I'd have to disagree with both parts of this statement. :p

Algar

Jun 26th, 2003, 11:13 PM

Well, I mean, if you're not a citizen of the country you should be deported.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 11th, 2005, 06:13 AM

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

Just think, since the massively increased security on international flights (mostly due to paranoia), not one international terrorist has been caught going through. Interesting ;)

NotLKH

Feb 11th, 2005, 08:49 AM

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?
Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!

Valleysboy1978

Feb 11th, 2005, 09:05 AM

Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!Chill dude! :ehh:
I didn't say anything about STOPPING security. Just implied that security at the moment is getting out of hand.
For example, I am going to Florida this year for a wedding. I am having to apply for a visa just to go on holiday!?! What's that all about!?!
Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.

demotivater

Feb 11th, 2005, 09:53 AM

True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 11th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh:

NotLKH

Feb 11th, 2005, 12:30 PM

Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.
Too bad the supposed warnings weren't so specific as to mention the actual day/time/method/location/perp.

:wave:

Valleysboy1978

Feb 17th, 2005, 09:53 AM

True, but you'd have thought they would have upped security on internal flights :ehh:

yrwyddfa

Feb 22nd, 2005, 03:01 AM

I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh: Indeed we are. But we are not all educated the same way.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 22nd, 2005, 03:36 AM

yrwyddfa

Feb 22nd, 2005, 03:47 AM

That's not quite true.

The majority of religious teaching (being Christian, and Muslim) teach monotheism which is partly what you've said.

However, the major religious groups teach understanding, and tolerance: I'm sure someone more familiar with the Quran (sp?) or the bible will be able to help out here.

Fundamentalism is a hijacked word. Another example of the media twisting knowledge and installing fear into the population at large.

Violende associated with a particular set of beliefs is down to the individual albeit some individuals are manipulated to a very large degree. Such an individual should not be denoted 'fundamental' simply because the actions the individual perpertrate are nowhere close to being inline with the faith the individual claims to believe in.

I object to religious groups. Organisations that hold huge power over large numbers of people. It seems to me that this is structure designed to extract money from the weakest and poorest. Even if it's not about money: it's about power induced through fear over another human being. Which I cannot accept as moral behaviour.

I can only presume that the religious bodies, and NOT the religion per se which are at the centre of all this trouble.

[rant over]

Valleysboy1978

Feb 22nd, 2005, 05:45 AM

Yip, the CoE is very worried at the moment because they are not getting people through the door. Which proves that it's not about the faith, but the money.

I just don't like how religious persons always try and "convert" me or preach to me how they are more holy than I am. It really irritates me because you just get the impression, whether it's right or not, that they believe themselves superior.

The only religious group I respect are the buddhists. A lot of good ideologies there :thumb:

yrwyddfa

Feb 22nd, 2005, 05:49 AM

It depends, I guess, on how you are being 'preached' to.

As far as I am aware Jesus, Mohammed and a whole host of others never overtly forced religion down anyone's throat.

If you didn't want to know; they didn't bother.

So those who try to ram it down your throat do not understand the faith in which they profess to be converting you to.

honeybee

Feb 22nd, 2005, 06:11 AM

...and that's the sad thing.
Most religion's teach that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This breeds misunderstanding and hatred for others, and that is pathetic.

It's all about respect, and not enough people respect others. :(

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.

yrwyddfa

Feb 22nd, 2005, 06:18 AM

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.
I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

honeybee

Feb 23rd, 2005, 03:09 AM

I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 23rd, 2005, 03:51 AM

yrwyddfa

Feb 23rd, 2005, 03:55 AM

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

honeybee

Feb 23rd, 2005, 07:52 AM

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

If you accept that what the American government is doing is wrong, then there's no point in saying the others are doing nothing to stop it. Even if the others are not doing anything, whatever the US government is doing is still wrong and still unjustified.

When you talk of responsibilities, you must also take into account the dominance of the various nations on the international scale. It's evident from the Iraq fiasco that the US and the UK governments don't give a hoot to the UNO which could be viewed as a democratic platform. Since they don't care about this democratic platform, there is no reason to believe their cry of freedom is motivated by noble intentions. Also their nuisance value would exceed any other singular nation. The only way to prevent the US from spreading its own version of freedom is to amass equal or more might, in all fields. Since this conflict is multi-faceted, you will find that those nations who are politically opposed to the Iraq invasion are economically with the US because they can't afford to lose their share of the loot. Those nations who are not going to profit from the Iraq invasion don't have the military and political might to stand up against the US invasion.

You can see from the failures of the Cancun and similar summits that the third world countries are forming a front against the developed nations, at least economically. If that succeeds, they can together throw off the dependency on the developed nations and have the courage to openly and actively oppose their aggressions and other moves which hurt the developing nations.

In the end, it's all merely a power struggle, to create, increase and maintain dominance on the world's resources. The US government cares as much about the well-being of a common Iraqi person as I care about Bush's well-being.

In fact, I don't see how Bush could be different in essence from any other dictator, for e.g. Hitler. As the US president he can manipulate almost anything, at least within the US. He can paint his own picture of events in the media, he can force his own versions of decisions and policies down people's throats, so effectively he doesn't have any opposition. As for slaughtering millions of people, he is doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan and Iraq. With four more years, we can expect him to surpass Hitler in Cyria, Iran and North Korea.

.

honeybee

Feb 23rd, 2005, 08:00 AM

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

Pooh. This is just like saying we don't like the presidency system in the US and want to replace it with a parliamentary system. So we invade the US, scrap the senate, put Bush and the senators behind bars and prosecute them, and then hold elections for the parliament.

First off, the US government has no business deciding how other countries should be run, just like you wouldn't want to listen to me if I told you to stop beating your wife. And if you are going to give me any bulls hit about the UN not doing anything, it's similar to this: I think that my neighbour doesn't treat his son good. (Note: I think so;)). I approach the police, they investigate him and find nothing wrong or worth taking action. Since I am unhappy with their conclusion, I take the law in my own hands, invade my neighbour's house and whack him.

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.

.

honeybee

Feb 23rd, 2005, 08:05 AM

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

That's pretty much what Bush did. Invaded Iraq with the US forces and toppled the Saddam government and then put his own government to power.

How about removing Bush from the US presidency and putting Clinton back there? I suppose you wouldn't object to it, as long as the invading forces were powerful enough to quash all your defences and stick guns your your heads? OK not literally stick their guns to your heads but maybe parade the streets day and night, bomb houses and in general simply create an atmosphere of terror and suppression.

.

yrwyddfa

Feb 23rd, 2005, 12:30 PM

MasterBlaster

Feb 23rd, 2005, 01:50 PM

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

You are right. The US has no right to decide what form of government should rule and where. I dissagree that this should be argued in the UN. The UN is a complete failure. Resolutions are passed based on the size of a countrys pocket book. If Pakistan had .0000001% of the GDP of the US or any other European country, India would have so many goddam sanctions and resolutions against them that they would never make it out of the 3rd world class. The UN is just another unneeded level of NON-Elected politicians trying to steal more of the worlds cash. It should be disbanded. I know the president of my country and the rest of the leaders of the world know how to use a telephone. If something needs resolved that is important enough to require the worlds attention. Pick up the freaking phone and put it on conference call mode.

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.
.

Again, How does an un-elected world body somehow become the world's police force. They have no right to do anything. I don't know about your country but In mine we elect our sherifs/judges and they enforce the law for us. No country should be held accountable by the UN, Including Pre-war Iraq and the US. All the UN has done is hurt relationships between countries that once got along fine by muddying up the waters with another layer of political bullsheit.

And to the topic(old) of course the US borders should not be closed to any one entering the country legally. Contrary to popular belief. The US is not facing a job loss problem. We just have too may jerry springer candidates not willing to work for a living. Reminds me of cousin Eddy on nat'l lampoons. "He's holding out for a management position". Send us some people who are worth a damn. :wave:

davebat

Feb 24th, 2005, 03:04 AM

Honeybee,
If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

I agree, 'It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found.'

Valleysboy1978

Feb 24th, 2005, 04:50 AM

Honeybee,

That's all nice and liberal . . .and some people may even be convinced by this postulating. But not me.

If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Sitting on your hands on the fence pointing fingers is an appalling state to be in. Yes, one that I have been guilty of in the past.I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.
No matter what the reason a man must never hit a woman and if I ever see it I will stop it because it is wrong

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong. And as you hold so dear to the UN, does it not go against human rights to have your life taken from you because your so called "leader" is having a bad day. At least now Iraq is controlled by Iraqis :thumb:

Xcoder

Feb 24th, 2005, 09:56 AM

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong.
Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)

Valleysboy1978

Feb 24th, 2005, 10:46 AM

Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)A lot can change in 20 years. Enemy becomes friend, friend becomes enemy.
It is nothing to do with then, it is what's happening now. Look at Germany as a prime example. Back then the Berlin wall split the company so effectively. Now it is as though it never actually existed, which is nice to see. :thumb:

honeybee

Feb 25th, 2005, 05:02 AM

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car, I would be specially cautious about my own life when I knew the driver of the car intends to continue full speed and run over anything and anyone in his way. Or how about he takes the child to a remote alley and rams him down, where nobody can come help him?

Even if it were an accident, it's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. It's stupid to expect a bystander to risk his life and save the child, as if it's his duty or liability. Excuse me, don't blame me for your stupidity. It's you who is responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

Isn't that precisely why England and France actually tried to legitimize Hitler's early advances in Europe? Becuase it wasn't worth the effort for them to risk a war for what Hitler was doing. That doesn't justify Hitler's actions. That's a pathetic argument, typically American where you can kill yourself by smoking and sue the cigarette manufacturers for it.

How about you speed down a road and are stopped at the next intersection by a traffic cop for a speed violation and you present your case as: "well, nobody stopped me while speeding on this patch of road!"?

.

honeybee

Feb 25th, 2005, 05:14 AM

I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.

Good example, but then again if you had seen a squad car parked a few feet/metres down the road, you would have probably gone to the car and asked the cops inside to handle the situation, rather than doing it yourself. And what if the large bloke is replaced with a few armed mobsters trying to kill someone, who aren't concerned who else gets killed? I doubt you would intervene. And it would be stupid too.

.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 25th, 2005, 05:14 AM

Valleysboy1978

Feb 25th, 2005, 05:18 AM

Good example, but then again if you had seen a squad car parked a few feet/metres down the road, you would have probably gone to the car and asked the cops inside to handle the situation, rather than doing it yourself. And what if the large bloke is replaced with a few armed mobsters trying to kill someone, who aren't concerned who else gets killed? I doubt you would intervene. And it would be stupid too.

.What if? What if?
There was no police around, and if there were he wouldn't have been stupid enough to beat his girlfriend in front of them
This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

You are just trying to justify pacifism and if nobody cared about anyone else there would be no family or friends.
Here is a what if for you

You are in a bar and a friend or family member is getting pummeled...from your previous posts it sounds like you would stand and watch?? :ehh:

Guv

Feb 25th, 2005, 10:54 AM

nemaroller

Feb 25th, 2005, 02:06 PM

This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

No...you're all still using knives... *** ? Stabbing someone so they bleed to death and experience minutes worth of heart palpitations and body shakes is so much more humane that shootin them in the head right?

nemaroller

Feb 25th, 2005, 02:08 PM

What if? What if?
You are in a bar and a friend or family member is getting pummeled...from your previous posts it sounds like you would stand and watch?? :ehh:

He was referring to a stranger ... and nine times out of ten the guy deserved to be pummeled which is why nine times out of ten someone decides to pummel someone.

MasterBlaster

Feb 25th, 2005, 02:40 PM

This isn't America, people don't go into clubs with AK-47's or pistols and such. Weapon crime is extremely rare here.

It's pretty rare in the US if you factor in how many people live here.

I believe If someone is in a life threatening situation and you can help them you should. That's just a personal belief, I don't have the right to judge someone who dosn't share that belief. Neither does the other person. We do however, have the right to think that the other person is a bag of sheit. What comes around goes around, Someday you migh need help in a crappy situation. Wouldn't it suck if everyone around you sat and watched.

NotLKH

Feb 26th, 2005, 07:21 AM

He was referring to a stranger ... and nine times out of ten the guy deserved to be pummeled which is why nine times out of ten someone decides to pummel someone.
It would seem that the only one who deserves to be pummeled is someone who goes around pummeling.
All others are only deserving of being ignored, arrested, or thrown out.

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2005, 08:09 AM

It would seem that the only one who deserves to be pummeled is someone who goes around pummeling.
All others are only deserving of being ignored, arrested, or thrown out.

Obviously if the person had a history of pummeling. But what about the guy that sits at the end of the bar making lewd comments at your wife or girlfriend all night. I think you'll find most bar scenes are full of such source ignition. Those types don't leave voluntarily and they usually are aggressive.

Valleysboy1978

Feb 28th, 2005, 04:30 AM

davebat

Feb 28th, 2005, 05:49 AM

Valleysboy1978

Feb 28th, 2005, 06:52 AM

No...you're all still using knives... *** ? Stabbing someone so they bleed to death and experience minutes worth of heart palpitations and body shakes is so much more humane that shootin them in the head right?Neither are humane, because no person has the right to take another's life.

The problem over here, which your country has sorted out, is our judicial system. All they'd get over here is a £500 fine and 10 hours community service!!
***! Chuck them in jail and throw away the key! :mad:

nemaroller

Feb 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Sorry if I offended anyone in this thread. Wasn't my intention :thumb:

Need to ask you guys from the US a question though. A few friends and I are going to Orlando in July for a holiday (a mate is getting married in Disney :sick: ) but we are a bit concerned about the "nightlife" in the US. What's it like over there?
Where are the best kind of places to go (clubs/bars/pubs.....u even have pubs?)?
Is it relatively safe?

Again, not trying to be nasty or anything, just wanna scope out the best placs to pick up some nice local girls :p

Orlando is safe ... the biggest category of crime there is larceny - crimes against tourists because they are a big target for criminals - just as in any popular tourist destination. You're most likely to get robbed while you leave something unattended - there are few actual muggings in Orlando. Most reported crime is usually drug possession - or intent to sell. To point, there were only 17 murders in Orlando for 2004 for a city of 185,000. I don't believe any of the victims were tourists.

As far as getting shot in a club - that would be the furthest removed crime to worry about - especially in Orlando.

davebat

Feb 28th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Most reported crime is usually drug possession - or intent to sell.

Sounds like a good holiday spot.

yrwyddfa

Feb 28th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car, I would be specially cautious about my own life when I knew the driver of the car intends to continue full speed and run over anything and anyone in his way. Or how about he takes the child to a remote alley and rams him down, where nobody can come help him?

Even if it were an accident, it's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. It's stupid to expect a bystander to risk his life and save the child, as if it's his duty or liability. Excuse me, don't blame me for your stupidity. It's you who is responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

Isn't that precisely why England and France actually tried to legitimize Hitler's early advances in Europe? Becuase it wasn't worth the effort for them to risk a war for what Hitler was doing. That doesn't justify Hitler's actions. That's a pathetic argument, typically American where you can kill yourself by smoking and sue the cigarette manufacturers for it.

How about you speed down a road and are stopped at the next intersection by a traffic cop for a speed violation and you present your case as: "well, nobody stopped me while speeding on this patch of road!"?

.

Oh dear. This might take a bit of time. I'll do it in paragraphs . . .

(i)+(ii) I think it's a good analogy. It might not fit into your sensibilities but I think that it is not good enough just to say 'It's no good' and then ignore it. We can tell, from your post here, that part of your makeup is not to risk your life for someone elses - we'll come to that bit a little later . . .

(iii) I love this stuff. Do you run 'Claims Direct' or something. Assigning liabillity wherever you can. However: I'm sure the law is with you on this. It would not be your fault. You would not be to blame. The fact that a child's parents blinked for that split second that the child bolted boils down to parental responsibility and liability. If you think that it's stupid for a bystander to risk his life for anothers what about all the so called 'Hero' stories when ordinary people have done exactly that? Would you call them stupid? What about people who take careers that commit them to risk their lives for anothers (RNLI, Mountain Rescue) Often there is no blame; it is often a result of freak circumstances that require the services of such organisations. Are they stupid? Is it ridiculous that they should risk their lives? When an off-duty policemen saves your bacon because he feels 'he is doing the right thing' will you call him stupid? He certainly will not be commited to helping you because he is off duty.

(iv) In the war against Hitler normal people stood up and were counted. They wanted to stop this guy. They were risking their lives so you could have yours today. I can't believe you said that.

(v) I have to be honest I don't see how you got to that point - so I will need clarification.

yrwyddfa

Feb 28th, 2005, 12:13 PM

An interesting ethical issue has been raised here. Must you take action to save somebody?

It seems rational to me that a person is required to do no evil, but is not required to do good.

I agree with laws against crime, but would object to any law requiring me to be a good Samaritan. I have the right to choose when I risk my time, effort, money, or life. I also have the right to dispise and have no dealings with somebody who would not save a life at hardly any cost to himself, even though I would vote against any law to punish him for his inaction.

Take the situation of somebody drowning. If it is an infant in three feeet of water in a swimming pool, I would surely attempt to save him/her, and expect that most people would. Some wet clothes are a small price to pay for a life. If the infant was in the raging white water of the Colorado river, I would not attempt a rescue (although in my teens I would have at least thought about helping). If was a 300 pound adult in the white water, I would not think about taking any action other than throwing in a life jacket if I had one. As far as I am concerned, each individual has the right to draw his own line between these two extremes.

Why should I judge the individual who did not try to rescue the child in the pool? Maybe he/she had a phobia about water. Maybe she/he did not notice the child.

If you knew that that person was a fully qualified water life-saver would you judge him then?

Each individual does have to right to choose his own actions. And it is by these actions that the individual chooses to do that the individual will be judged by the rest of society. If it is against the law then you will be forcibly brought before a court. Otherwise, you will be judged by the moral standing of the society in which you live. If you spread non-lethal disease through sex it is not a crime of GBH (in the UK) Does this make it morally right? I don't think so. The test of morality can NEVER be the legal system.

It is not enough, in a social society, to just be 'not-evil' I believe there are social responsibilities on all of us - whether you like it or not.

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

mudfish

Feb 28th, 2005, 12:58 PM

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

:afrog:
Here in the USA, most state has those laws all so. But they do not use them very often, unless a death is involved.

Note for a person here to have a Counseled Weapons Permit, you have to take a class. In that class you learn what it takes to use deadly force. This is where it gets complicated. I can put myself into anyone’s shoe. If I see someone being beating up, I can assume that I am them, if I feel that I am threatened with death then I can save that person by using deadly force against the person beating them! If I feel like my life is threaten or anyone else’s life is threatened, I can use deadly force.
So if I have a CWP or I do not and watch some one beating to death, I can be charge with not helping that person.
:ehh:

honeybee

Mar 1st, 2005, 04:00 AM

If you knew that that person was a fully qualified water life-saver would you judge him then?

Each individual does have to right to choose his own actions. And it is by these actions that the individual chooses to do that the individual will be judged by the rest of society. If it is against the law then you will be forcibly brought before a court. Otherwise, you will be judged by the moral standing of the society in which you live. If you spread non-lethal disease through sex it is not a crime of GBH (in the UK) Does this make it morally right? I don't think so. The test of morality can NEVER be the legal system.

It is not enough, in a social society, to just be 'not-evil' I believe there are social responsibilities on all of us - whether you like it or not.

In the UK you can be tried and convicted of not helping a dying man through inaction. Also, you can be convicted of 'reckless' crimes which are crimes that 'you didn't care if they happened' whether through inaction or negligence on your part.

The laws are already there.

First off, let me thank Guv for presenting a better case of the drowning incident.

Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver.

The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop.

About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon.

About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me.

.

davebat

Mar 1st, 2005, 04:28 AM

excellent point honeybee, I am not responsible for the Iraq situation, sure I could go and protest but why bother its not my fault. Let em burn.

As long as ive got food and shelter who cares about anyone else.

davebat

Mar 1st, 2005, 04:31 AM

Also, this post isn't about the Iraq invasion, stop making every post in world events about Iraq.

yrwyddfa

Mar 1st, 2005, 04:49 AM

First off, let me thank Guv for presenting a better case of the drowning incident.

Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver.

The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop.

About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon.

About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me.

.

"Coming to the argument, if you do want to equte the situation of a drowning person and a bystander to the main issue being discussed i.e. Iraq invasion, you ask if the person would be judged differently if you knew he was a fully qualified water life-saver. Well for a fact, many nations/people doubt if the US has the ability or qualifications to act as the world-saver."

Does this means that you would judge the situation differently then? Under this analogy what you are saying is: there is a child drowning, I know that person x is not qualified and is incompetent at any rescue skills - I will let the person rescue the child because I don't care about the outcome. This is contrary to what you've already said. It will cost you nothing to prevent x from attempting what is likely to kill both the child and x.

"The analogy of a drowning child is more of an accident, while the Iraq war is about a guy being pummelled. If you want to save the guy's ass, you must be ready to be pummelled yourself, because the perpetrator of the crime here is the self-declared global cop".
So you've let arguments of morality and your inaction, now, is based entirely on fear? I'm sure you didn't mean to imply this.

"About being convicted and tried for "inaction", firstly they are the UK laws and not an international phenomenon."
I think Mudfish has pointed out that the US has similar laws.

"About everything else on morality and responsibility, I for myself would choose to think over the situation and decide on the chances of saving somebody. If it's worthwhile only then I shall take action. I did not put anyone in a spot of trouble in the first place, so by no means does it become my duty (moral or otherwise) to bring them out of it. If I do help others, yes, it's a virtue. If I don't help others, if I am not causing them any trouble, I don't think anyone has any right to point a finger at me."
Firstly in the 'saving another's life' analogy you wouldn't have time to think. Help me God if I'm anywhere near you in a crisis. It would be all over before you've reasoned through it. The final part of this paragraph 'it's not my fault' so I'm not going to do anything is what I think is wrong with the world - in particular the West - today. My generation (30ish) did not bring about the effects of Global Warming. It was my father, and his father's generation. They are alive today; so should I let them sort it out? I don't think so! I will probably be dead before major climatic events happen (around 50yrs+) so it won't affect me either. Should I do nothing? I think not.

You reason for selfishness and nothing more. And that's appalling in this modern age.

nemaroller

Mar 1st, 2005, 07:57 AM

Mudfish said:

Here in the USA, most states have those laws.

But I believe Mudfish those laws still only apply to off-duty emeregency personel including law enforcement officers, emergency first-responders, etc. They can be held accountable for not attempting to saving lives. You might have to clarify what laws you're talking about... because that would be a scary law.

yrwyddfa

Mar 1st, 2005, 08:59 AM

Mudfish said:

But I believe Mudfish those laws still only apply to off-duty emeregency personel including law enforcement officers, emergency first-responders, etc. They can be held accountable for not attempting to saving lives. You might have to clarify what laws you're talking about... because that would be a scary law.

Not that scary, really. You would need to have the mind (mens rea) and the act (actus rea) in order to commit the crime,

For instance it would need to be proved that you didn't act because although you have the mind, you were not capable of the act.

In Honeybee's case the argument is 'I will never have the mind' unless it is useful; the act will never happen.

I argue that it is a moral responsibility for ALL to help where and when they can.

mudfish

Mar 1st, 2005, 07:38 PM

:afrog:
Here in the USA, most state has those laws all so. But they do not use them very often, unless a death is involved.

First disclaimer
Second one: should say they hardly ever use the law would be more like it!
I can think of one case I read about in NY! Some one did nothing during a murder, was a few years back and they could have been like nemaroller said!
I do not think my state has those laws, and if they do they sure do not use them! It would be so hard to prove a case like that!

demotivater

Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:08 AM

kulrom - your description of Iraq would have been more accurate a year ago. A lot has changed, including the growing (and effective) Iraqi National Guard. And the US didn't install the government, the Iraqi people voted for it. The only one complaining is the same group that boycotted the election - now they're saying - we still want to be part of the government.(?!?!?)

Cander

Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:03 PM

The only one complaining is the same group that boycotted the election - now they're saying - we still want to be part of the government.(?!?!?)

Are they actually complaining now? Despite the boycott by Shiites, didnt the Shiite party still win?

mudfish

Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:06 PM

Are they actually complaining now? Despite the boycott by Shiites, didnt the Shiite party still win?
I think it was the Sunny(sp?) that boycotted the election!

Cander

Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:08 PM

I think it was the Sunny(sp?) that boycotted the election!

I dont really remember. :blush:

mudfish

Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:09 PM

I dont really remember. :blush:
:blush: :blush:
I know I did not spell it right!
:afrog:
But I can spell "if" right!
:D

demotivater

Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:22 PM

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

MasterBlaster

Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:41 PM

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

They'll get their chance to vote in the next election. Still enough Sunni Muslims were elected to maintain checks and balances on the Shia or Kurds. They'll all have to figure out how to work with each other or end up like the US Congress :D. The same crap happens in the US. There are always people complaining about the government and half of them didn't even make it to the polls. I say "right on" to the Iraqi people. They had a higher percentage turn out at the polls than the US has had in the last 100+ years. The part that gets me is people calling it a US installed government. What a load of BS. Most of the US Backed candidates lost and will not be part of the government.

Congrats to the people in Lebanon as well. It takes a lot of ballz to pull of what they're pulling off.

Cander

Mar 2nd, 2005, 04:59 PM

They had a higher percentage turn out at the polls than the US has had in the last 100+ years.

And under the threat of snipers and car bombs too no less.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 4th, 2005, 10:46 AM

Yes, it was the Sunni. So, they basically allowed the Shia and Kurds to determine the results. After they saw the success of the election, they changed their tune.

What did they change their tune to? I can't hear anything different over the increase in attacks that has occured following the election.

This is still a dicey affair, and the ultimate result is yet uncertain.

demotivater

Mar 4th, 2005, 01:00 PM

What did they change their tune to? I can't hear anything different over the increase in attacks that has occured following the election.

This is still a dicey affair, and the ultimate result is yet uncertain.

I can't remember the exact quote by the Sunni "leader", but it was basically "we didn't mean we wanted to be left out altogether, just to boycott the election". It was pretty comical.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 4th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Or to put it another way:

"We want the power, and we'll get it...one way or another."

VIP3R

Jun 16th, 2005, 11:27 PM

Let's not bring lebanon into this, because quite frankly, americans turn a blind eye to labanon's history. Not that the lebanese remember their own history either, or who helped stop them from killing themselves (syria).

But just for the record, here's a basic recap of the story:
Christians governed lebanon although muslims numbers increased greatly throughout the years. Muslims became pissed off at the present power situation and a civil war began. Obviously, israel has to put its nose in all arab affairs claiming that it's trying to stop terrorist attacks from lebanon by occupying a large area in lebanon and stopping food and water from entering lebanon. The largest christian sect (pro-syrians) seeked military aid from Syria to fight the left muslims. Syria comes in fighting the muslims, but later on fights all sides in order to stop the civil war. Nontheless, where there's israeli forces, americans aren't too far behind, and somehow the french got in there. By the end, israel is occupying a part of lebanon calling it the "Security Zone", while the americans and french leave the land and appoint Syria to maintain the peace. A new government is formed allowing more muslims into power, but with a pro-syrian christian president. Just lately, some rediculous bombing occurs that kills the old pro-syrian president who became anti-syrian a few months ago. Obviously, the lebanese blame Syria for the bombing but it just seems so farfetched that the syrian government would assassinate Harriri at a time like this. The american government is quick to point fingers, without knowing anything as usual, at the syrian government and calls syria to withdraw its troops from lebanon (calling it an occupation). The funny thing is, who appointed syria to stay in lebanon? If you already forgot, it was the US-of-A.

IMO, it's best that syria has no influence in lebanese affairs because I'd love to see lebanon throw itself back into a civil war. Nevertheless, dumb politicians who don't know anything about the arab world need to stay away from that mess. The arabs don't want westerners to "help" them, because quite frankly, westerners haven't helped anyone. Just a reminder that none of these countries have recovered after American invasion: Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Except canada, because Canada helps everyone :)!