Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Barak--Dang It!!

Maybe I just don't know enough.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I agree that it is a dangerous package of powers granted to few.
Here is why I generally approve: It seems to me that the executive branch cannot properly protect the citizens from the kind of terrorism that occured 9/11/01. It is time to kick some muslim terrorist ass, and if that means broader leeway in phone tapping, searches, etc. so be it. I can live with that. Do I think this is an ideal solution? Far from it. The ideal situation is to not let terrorsts into this country. Far stricter immigration, armed borders. I am not an idealist, I am a realist. You have to deal with the problem on hand. I believe it would have been better to limit the Patriot Act to only 2 to 4 years, and give more restrictions. I believe it will be abused. Like I said, far from ideal. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Your answer might be "What liberty?"

That's fascinating. I agree with you that the executive branch in particular and the government in general can absolutely not protect us from terrorism; yet I would use that as an argument against the USA PATRIOT Act rather than for it. If the government can't protect us anyway, then what's the rationale for giving it such a stunning array of sweeping tyrannical power? Instead, why not get it out of the way so that we individual citizens can protect ourselves against terrorism?


Shudder. I can't help but wonder what the likes of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Patrick Henry would have had to say about such sentiments.


I don't think it'll work. I spend a lot of time in prison, so I understand a little about smuggling. Even with the burgeoning security and expense of a close-security prison, with razor wire, searchlights, electric eyes, guard towers, strip and cavity searches, random shakedowns, and so on, it's impossible to keep drugs out. And I don't think we could keep terrorists out of this country even with a Berlin Wall around the entire country and every airport of entry.

I think the ideal situation is to fix things so that the US government is too weak to go around the world pissing off millions of foreigners badly enough that they're willing to come over here and blow themselves up just for the privilege of killing a few Americans.


Yep, it sounds like you have me well pegged. Secret searches, indefinite imprisonment without charges, interception of telephone calls and e-mails, federal tracking of all financial activity, etc.--that's extremism in elimination of liberty, not extremism in defense of liberty.

First off, to get the government out of the way means anarchy, the absence of government. Now, I believe in reducing government, have as little of it as practically possible. But I don't quite follow you how individual citizens can do something about the terrorism.

How does the US of A go around pissing people off?
I believe people naturally get pissed at No. 1, no matter what the circumstance.
I don't for one minute believe muslim extremists are attacking this country because of something we have done.
There is envy and greed there, because this country has achieved far greater things than Muslim Nations, who have been in the dark ages for Millenia. (There are exceptions) They believe that the great satan, the infidels, must be killed in the name of religion. This does not have anything to do with what we did. It is what they believe. I also believe that Muslims (This kind, anyway) and the rest of the world CANNOT coexist peacefully. It will never happen.
People need to quit wondering just why it is the terrorists hate us. It does not matter. They do, they always have, they always will. Appeasement is a sign of weakness. My solution? Kill them all and bury them in pig skins. Crude? Why, certainly. But effective. Kill them all and they will cease to come.

Thank you. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see somebody say correctly that anarchy means "the absence of government" rather than the presence of chaos.

And yes, as you may have read elsewhere on this site, I'm an anarchist. For a long time I thought government was a necessary evil; then during an argument with The_Real_Hawkeye here, it became evident to me that it's merely evil, not necessary at all.


Surely you can't be serious! The only thing that was done at all about the 9/11 terrorism was done not by a government, but by individual citizens, on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. The government, on the other hand, made sure that A) there was a plentiful supply of murderously hacked-off Muslims, B) they could easily get into the country, C) the flight schools and airlines could not legally decide not to do business with them, and D) the passengers on the hijacked airplanes would, to the best of the government's ability, be completely disarmed and helpless against the terrorists.

[/quote]How does the US of A go around pissing people off?
I believe people naturally get pissed at No. 1, no matter what the circumstance.
I don't for one minute believe muslim extremists are attacking this country because of something we have done.[/quote]
Why not?

Terrorism is intended to be an act of persuasion, not of annihilation. The bargain is, "Give us what we want and we'll stop killing people," not "We're going to keep killing you until you're all dead." Hence it would be pointless, expensive, and wasteful if the terrorists did not make clear exactly what it is that they want. And they have done so.

For example, do you remember Osama bin Laden's three reasons for 9/11? I do. They were 1) US military occupation of sacred Saudi soil, 2) US support of Israel, and 3) US sanctions against Iraq. All of those are examples of the US government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, and none of them have anything to do with the US being "No. 1," except that that's what enables its government to meddle in international affairs with such impunity.


You need to actually talk to some Muslims.


You also need to read some history. This is absolutely untrue.


Which is why it's such a bad thing when we shoulder our way in somewhere that we don't belong and start shoving other countries around. Even if we come to understand that it's a dumb idea, it's hard to stop, because they might get the idea we just got weak, instead of just getting smart.


So why are you here posting to the Internet instead of out killing Muslims?

Barak...it is certainly nice to have this discussion with you.

I simply cannot agree with Anarchism, as Presence of Chaos will surely follow.

Exactly what is it that ordinary citizens could have done to prevent 9/11? And how much of that would be realistic? A proper intelligence service 1980s style might have worked.

Support of Israeal...Sanctions against Iraq...and just why is it okay for Terrorists to strong arm the US into changing Foreign Policy? What I mean is this: The policy is what it is. There will always be parties that don't agree with a certain policy. Certainly not grounds to go killing 3000 people. It is none of OBL g-damn business. I don't want to get into the Israel discussion, I really don't. I don't have that much writing time available. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Sanctions against Iraq? What's wrong with that? Saddam could have done something about that. Even if he hadn't, the argument of not being able to get medical supplies does not hold water. He had money to spend on his luxurious needs, he coulda spent it on medical facilities. But he has never demonstrated the desire to look out for his people anyways.
I cannot comment on the Saudi Arabia issue, other than we probably shouldn't be there.

What I said about Muslims refers ONLY to extremists.

Unless you are a Muslim, the extremists do, have, and always will hate you. There is no changing that fact. Please try to convince me otherwise.

I see the appeasement deal a little differently: Don't back out. Finish the job.

My last comment on killing them all also referred to extremists. Do you really believe that there is ANYTHING we could possibly do to take the extremism out of them? I don't.
That's why I believe we should kill them. Bury them in pig skin to discourage further extremism by showing strength.
Russia used to do this quite frequently. Not so much anymore, hence the resurgence of Muslim terrorism.

It all boils down to a general incompatibility of Muslim Culture and Western culture. This breeds extremism.

Why is it so hard to understand that all they want to do is kill us? Don't try to understand them, fight back! What did the jews do to the Germans? Surely there was something the Jews did to upset them? The presence of evil in this world is a fact. Go and fight it.

By the way, I hold an isolationist point of view. Ideally, that is. I don't believe the US should have a foreign policy at all. We should not give foreign aid of any kind. No money, no troops, no UN. Just stay out of everything. Stay out of Yugoslavia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Unfortunately, that's not how the cookie crumbles. You have to be a realist. And that's why I say finish what you've started. Wipe out the extremists. Wipe them out any way you can.

The paranoia of David Koresh was the cause of his cult's retreating to a compound and arming itself for a possible confrontation. The paranoia of the Feds caused them to drastically overreact to what possibly was never a threat. The Feds could have picked up Koresh outside the compound numerous times and averted the problem. I am of the opinion, too, that a couple of nicely dressed Federal agents could have knocked on the door and entered peacefully and talked with these people to determine if further action was needed. You had paranoia on both sides. Koresh perverted the Bible for his own ends, mesmerized his gullible followers, and engaged in activities that caused the Feds in their paranoia to go Gestapo on his cult.

Thank you. So far, you too.


Too simplistic. This thread isn't about libertarianism or anarchism, so I won't go any further here, but anarchism is a philosophy that deserves at the very least a bit of serious consideration before you dismiss it. A number of very smart people have thought about it at great length, and written some very wise things about it that are enlightening to read. You still may not think it's a good idea, but there's more to it than at first meets the eye.


Simply throw out all the complicated metal detectors and bomb detectors and dogs and latex gloves and let everyone carry onto the plane whatever will make him feel safe and secure, as long as he doesn't blow the weight-and-balance limits. You get maybe one or two messily-dead would-be hijackers in high-profile incidents, and then presto--no more hijackings, ever. Neither the government nor the airline would have had to do a thing but step out of the way, and ordinary citizens acting in their own self-interest would have taken care of the situation almost before it started.

(Please don't bring up the whole explosive-decompression red herring. I'm a pilot, and I know enough to recognize that for complete Hollywood movie horsepuckey.)


It's not okay for anybody to strongarm anybody into doing anything preemptively. As I'm sure you recognize, the US has just about the most meddlesome strongarm foreign policy in the world. No, it's not okay for terrorists to kill Americans; but it's not okay for us to be pushing Arabs (or Israelis) around the Middle East either, and we started it.


What's wrong with it is the same thing that's wrong with most of our other foreign policy: it's none of our business. It was merely Papa Bush's bid for historical immortality. Did you hear about the April Glaspie story, about how she was sent to promise Saddam that if he wanted to settle affairs with Kuwait, we'd stay out of it? So he invaded, and Papa Bush had his war. (Do a web search on "April Glaspie" if you don't believe me; it's pretty much all she's famous for these days.)


I don't want to convince you. I'd rather you convince yourself; you're much more likely to stay convinced that way. Try answering these questions: Where were the Muslim suicide bombers (or terrorists of other kinds) in the Korean War era? WWII? WWI? Civil War? War of 1812? Revolutionary War? Are you sure Muslims have always hated Jews and Christians enough to commit suicide killing them? Did you know that there was a period of history when Muslims and Jews got on very well together? Do a little research and see if you can find out just when the first Muslim terrorist killed the first American. If you do, see if you can find out why.

The line that Muslims will always hate you no matter what you do, and they are simply vermin that have to be eradicated like cockroaches or rats, is a very convenient line for the US government, because it means the government hasn't done anything wrong--and, in fact, can't do anything wrong with respect to Muslims, except fail to kill enough of them. Always be suspicious of lines like that.


Suppose you discover in the middle of doing the job that it's immoral. Do you still finish it anyway, just because it might be a sign of weakness not to?


Then why aren't Islamic terrorists killing British and German and French civilians? Compared to theocratic Islamic culture, the Europeans are just as Western as we are. It's true that theocratic Islam and Western culture are largely incompatible, but if that was the end of the story, each culture would be perfectly happy leaving the other alone. It's US government interference that breeds the extremism. (Again: do a little research on just when the extremism started, and check what the US government was doing at the time. You'll see what I mean.)


It's not too hard to understand that, it's too easy to understand that. It's too simplistic a solution, and it appeals to too base an animal instinct. Therefore, the chances are good that it's propaganda. And--guess what!--when you investigate it, that's exactly what it turns out to be.

When I meet a Muslim (or anyone else) who makes evident a desire to kill me, I will deal with him appropriately. Until then, I refuse to be stampeded by amateurish popular alarmism.


We're in agreement there--unless we're talking about a real honest-to-goodness clear and present threat to the United States itself. But our military is too big and too strong and too tempting for Presidents to use to enforce their idea of what's proper across the world. I'd like to see it just strong enough that it could pretty much defend the continental US, and maybe Hawaii or Alaska at a stretch.


You didn't answer my question. Why are you posting to the Internet instead of killing Muslims?

Barak...thank you for your lengthy reply. I appreciate you taking time for this. I will need some time to reply to you, and right now I have a car and a fence to fix. It will probably be tomorrow morning, back at the job....government job, gotta love it....sigh.

Hope you don't take that with the government job the wrong way....I am just a sub contractor to the DOE. I write technical procedures.

Don't worry about it. My best friend works at the state public utilities commission.

Barak,



The terrorist bargaining terms are the annihilation of the non-Muslim world. Are we supposed to accept those conditions? Not me. Do you really believe Terrorism is an act of �persuasion�? Should we change the name to �Persuasionism�?



Huh? Why would they stop? Anything �high profile� in the terrorist view is Perfection. If a terrorist boards a plane with a bomb, the bomb is gonna go off. Dozens of bombings in Israel have proven that armed citizens have little chance of intervening. Look at the fear generated in the US by 9/11 � a few runway shootouts would quickly accomplish the same thing and it would become the new fad.

Barak...I now have the time to answer.

Let's see...I will go through your reply line by line.

Anarchism: What I know about it boils down to an absence of Government. Which in my opinion inevitably leads to chaos.For examples, look no further than Russia (or for that matter, most Warsaw pact countries) post 1991. Absence of real government, total chaos and crime. Crimelords running cities. I admit I know no more about anarchy, so please elaborate and educate me, if you would. If you want to and have the time, that is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

About guns and airlines and ordinary citizens: I agree that the decompression scenario is bullshit. However, a guy with a gun (or 100 for that matter) will not stop a single bomb strapped to a raghead idiot.
Key here is to prevent any dangerous objects coming onto the flight in the first place. I would feel much more comfortable if the crew, and an air marshall had guns and were properly TRAINED on the usage, than I would with 150 passengers with guns. Maybe half of them would know how to properly use those guns. Barak, the more I think about this armed passenger thing, the more I believe it is absolute bullshit. Think of liability issues for the airline. Would it really solve more problems than it would create? I do not believe so. Plus, like another poster said, why would high-profile incidents stop this from happening? The objective of terrorism is not to persuade, it is to create terror and fear, hence the name terrorism.

About the strongarming: How do we push Arabs around? Please elaborate. Would you feel different about the Israel situation if we'd be supporting the Palestinians. Personally, I don't have a problem with supporting Israel. You said "We started it". That's interesting. You are saying that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, that really, we are at fault. Excuse me, but that is bullshit as well. Blame America first. I am sick of that attitude. Just what could ever justify the MURDER of 3000 innocent civilians? By the way, here we go again about the clash of Muslims vs. the western world. There is a general disregard for human life in the muslim world. Have you ever noticed that the palestinians purposely target civilians, women, children on g-damn school buses?
The Israelis, on the other hand, target terrorists, the perpetrators (spelling?). Sure they take out civilians ACCIDENTALLY, but they target the guilty, not the innocent. A people that targets women and children has no place on this earth, in my humble opinion.

I don't know about April Glaspie and have not had the time to research the topic, but will do so at a later time.
About the trade sanctions in Iraq. Saddam could have prevented/ended the sanctions by cooperating with the UN/US. Just why is anything our fault? The sanctions were a direct consequence of his disregard for the no-fly zone, and his disregard for terms agreed to after Desert Storm. How is the US at fault here? Again, you seem to blame America first.

Now, about muslim extremism: The advent of practical international travel (I mean airline travel) rang in the advent of muslim terrorism. So, 1812, WW1 and WW2 do not apply. Please, please consider that I am talking about Muslim EXTREMISTS. I do not mean to generalize.
Barak, you did not answer my question: Do you think there is ANYTHING that can be done to turn current Extremists into people that do not make it their mission in life to kill Americans? I don't think so. What does that leave you with? The only solution is to kill them, or isolate them. It is you or them. You cannot convince them, no matter what you do now. Better them than me.

About finishing an imoral job: I'll admit this is a tough one. Well, here is a cautious answer: Pull out, but defeat the enemies you have.

Why aren't terrorist killing Germans, French, British? Check your facts. Those incidents do not get a lot of media coverage. After 9/11 (I do not recall the exact date) there was a terrorist attack on a French oil tanker. What about the plot in London to poison thousands with Ricin? The mosques in London that breed hate? The tourists from Europe that get abducted/killed in Muslim countries EVERY year? The bali night club bombings? The UN troops (From every nation imaginable) killed all over the place? Lockerbie? Munich Olympics? (I'll admit that was about Israel) Russia and their Opera, recently?
If you still think that European countries don't quite get enough terrorist attention, consider that the US is the only nation with BALLS to stand up to the vermin.
It does not stop there. Muslim nations fight and kill amongst each other. Moral equivalency, my ass.

About them wanting to kill us: Again, please understand I am talking about Extremists, not muslims in general. So, my statements still stands: All they want is us dead. You can't change that.

I am glad we are in agreement of ideal foreign policy. I am thinking along the lines of US policy before WW1 (with a few exceptions, like Havanna)

Your very last statement: Once again, I am talking about EXTREMISTS, not muslims in general.
Plus, I am realistic. Since I don't think anarchy is a good solution, I rely heavily on the US military to kill em.

Jog- I absolutely agree with you on the Persuanism.
The palestinians had the opportunity to accept their land on a silverplatter a few years back, get 95% of what they had wanted. Still, Arafat refused. Here's what that tells me: He is not interested in a solution of the conflict. The goal is not to gain land, not freedom of his people. The goal is the erradication of the Jewish Race.

Barak??? BARAK??? Still out there?

Barak...see the article below. EXACTLY the kind of attitude I am talking about.

Stickers Produce Unique Battle in Egypt
2 hours, 45 minutes ago

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt - First came the fish bumper stickers, imported from the United States and pasted on cars by members of Egypt's Coptic minority as a symbol of their Christianity. Before long, some Muslims responded with their own bumper stickers: fish-hungry sharks.



It's not exactly war at sea, but the competing symbols that have cropped up on Cairo streets are a tiny reminder of the tensions between Egypt's Copts and majority Muslims. Some Christians are annoyed at the Muslim response.


"All I wanted to say is that I am a Christian, kind of expressing my Coptic identity," said 25-year-old Miriam Greiss, who has a fish sticker on her car. "I think choosing a shark doesn't make sense, as if someone is saying, `I am a violent, bloody creature, look at me.'"


Emad, a Muslim, laughed when asked about the competing symbols but was unapologetic about the two shark stickers on his car.


"The Christians had the fish so we responded with the shark. If they want to portray themselves as weak fishes, OK. We are the strongest," said Emad, who would give only his first name.


Sociologist and rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a Muslim who has studied discrimination against Copts, called the sticker symbols "superstitions" but said that in Egypt's climate of religious fundamentalism, people with bad intentions could use them to ignite tensions between Muslims and Christians.


"There are people who want to make use of the decay we live in," he said.


Relations are generally calm between Copts, an estimated 10 percent of Egypt's more than 70 million people, and the Muslims who make up virtually all the rest. But tensions do occasionally erupt into violence, and Copts complain of job discrimination and being shut out of a share of political power.


The complaints, though, are spoken softly. Copts � who trace their history to St. Mark's bringing Christianity to Egypt soon after the death of Christ � didn't survive Roman persecution and Arab conquest by being overly assertive.


Copts often wear gold cross pendants or have tiny crosses tattooed on the inside of their wrists, but the stickers seem a more public step. Karl Innemee, a specialist in Coptic studies at the American University in Cairo, said the arrival of the fish could reflect a new desire by Egyptian Christians "to express themselves openly."


Still, the Coptic businessman who began importing the fish stickers two years ago refused to give his name when contacted by The Associated Press at the Maria Group � the company name on the stickers. He said discussing religion could be asking for trouble.


The fish stickers are sold in churches or Christian bookstores for about 8 cents. The Maria Group owner said sales of the fish, which come plain or with the word "Jesus" inside, have picked up in recent months � soon after the shark stickers first appeared in August.


Muslims apparently copied or adopted the symbol of an Egyptian sporting goods company to create their shark symbol. The stickers are sold in Islamic bookshops and also come plain or fancy � some with the Arabic phrase "No god but Allah" printed in the shark's body.


While the fish stickers came from America, the symbol has roots in Egypt. In their earliest days, Copts used the fish � perhaps the emblem is from the biblical story of the loaves and fishes � as a way to identify themselves to each other without letting their Roman rulers know.


Medhat Mahrous, a Coptic scholar, noted that the Coptic church still uses the fish symbol today on altar curtains and religious objects.


The fish vs. sharks on Cairo streets are reminiscent of how proponents of the theory of evolution responded to fish stickers in the United States with depictions of fish with tiny legs, sometimes with the word "evolve" or the name "Darwin" printed inside the fish.

I'm the guy Barak credits for his conversion to anarchy. All I did was to argue that there are certain legitimate roles for government. He disagreed. I am, however, a lot closer to Barak's views than to anyone else's who has posted on this thread. I have spoken to Muslims, and they are sympathetic to the terrorists because they see the U.S. government as an interloper in the Muslim world. They see us also as supporting their enemy, which in their minds is the state of Israel. Most Islamics would not even know there was a country called the U.S.A. if we operated within our Constitutional bounds, and if our military was used only to defend our nation in time of war.

Again, Barak is right that the government just tends to make things like this worse with the measures they take. Their answer is to crack down on civil liberties more and more, as the crisis gets worse, when the opposite is what needs to be done. Americans, unhindered by government, would have very little difficulty dealing with terrorists (look at how Americans responded during the Rodny King riots, when the police were too frightened to come to anyone's aid). It is government that wishes to make us progressively more helpless against terrorists, not less so.

Central governments are good at forming armies and going to war, but terrorists don't operate as an army in the conventional sense. They live among us and strike when and where government least expects it. That is why each and every American needs to be prepared to deal with each individual case as he sees fit, and we cannot do that if our liberties are reduced or eliminated. Liberty has a price tag, and one aspect of it is there are risks to living as free people. You deal with those risks by using your head, but government is turning us into mindless sheep, and mindless sheep just follow a shepherd. If the wolves outsmart the shepherds, the sheep become easy prey. We need to be lions, not sheep. Wolves don't bother lions.

I agree with that. Yes, I think we should stay at home unless attacked. We should do as little exporting/importing as possible. No foreign aid, no UN. Would that piss people off, too? You bet. You can't make everyone happy. I think we should stay home not because I don't want us make anybody upset. No, we should not be using our resources on foreign soil.
But, we gotta finish what we started, and respond to the terrorist threat on foreign soil.
And I am still asking myself how you and me could have prevented 9/11. Surely not on the plane, but maybe on the ground. We live in frustrating times.

Well, think about it. What prevented the passengers from stopping the hijackers? They were unarmed. Who was it that made them get on board unarmed? The government made it illegal to be armed on board. So, after the government makes something illegal, who are the only ones who are going to have them? Answer, those who disregard the law, in this case the terrorists.

Hawkeye....I really don't think that's a valid point. I tried explaining that to Barak earlier. I am all for the armed citizen, but in this case, it just does not make sense. Let me quote myself here...
About guns and airlines and ordinary citizens: I agree that the decompression scenario is bullshit. However, a guy with a gun (or 100 for that matter) will not stop a single bomb strapped to a raghead idiot.
Key here is to prevent any dangerous objects coming onto the flight in the first place. I would feel much more comfortable if the crew, and an air marshall had guns and were properly TRAINED on the usage, than I would with 150 passengers with guns. Maybe half of them would know how to properly use those guns. Barak, the more I think about this armed passenger thing, the more I believe it is absolute bullshit. Think of liability issues for the airline. Would it really solve more problems than it would create? I do not believe so. Plus, like another poster said, why would high-profile incidents stop this from happening? The objective of terrorism is not to persuade, it is to create terror and fear, hence the name terrorism.

Their purpose for creating the terror and fear is to persuade the U.S. to get out of their business. Their message is clear, i.e., "We are so dedicated to getting you guys out of our business that we are willing to blow ourselves up to do it."



As for your other point, it has been well established that where there are more guns there is less crime. This even applies to the kind of crime where the perpetrator is willing to sacrifice himself for his cause. The reason for this is that this type of perpetrator is looking to make a huge impact. If he is convinced that the likelihood of making a huge impact is significantly reduced by the presence of armed good guys, he will be less willing to sacrifice his own life. Yes, of course try to keep exposives off the planes. Explosives do not have a legitimate defensive use on an airplane. Use the bomb sniffing dogs, etc, to keep that stuff off, but a pocket knife? Come on! You are asking for terrorists if you guarantee that all regular folks are unarmed. Regular folks do not have the resources to sneak defensive weapons on planes. Nor are we willing to take the risk of legal troubles necessary to do so, but a terrorist is not bothered by any of that. He WILL get weapons on the plane, and now you have a plane full of sheep at the mercy of a couple of rogue wolves. Recipe for disaster.