Terrorism (39 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
fit the description of innocent?

how do you intend on justifying their abuse mistreatment and suffering experienced by the communities to make the us safer?

will their suffering ever be publicly acknowledged?
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
++ [ originally posted by Petrovich ] ++
But you must admit that the Patriot Act does make the U.S. safer. Although it comes by the expense of people that might be innocent, most of those detainees do not fit that description.
Excuse me? Did I just hear the word "description"? :wth:
 

Asma

Doctor Asma
Oct 21, 2003
3,658
++ [ originally posted by baggio ] ++




:confused:
++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++

Mark my words, if Kerry wins, he'll make cuts to our homeland security budget

and u replied:
I would strongly doubt that Vin.

MISS DUBAI- i was like,what do u mean?could u please explain?:)
 

Loppan

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2002
2,528
You can't control what people think. When the republican convention in NY was going on, they had a really tight security. What happend? A couple of young democrats that had managed to get in started to shout out "Kerry, Kerry".

The problem is that the public doesn't know what a terrorist look like. So how are they gonna call in and report something strange going on.

How many have seen "The Siege" or "Enemy Of The State"? Yeah, I know it's hollywood movies but it reminds me what is going on now with the patriot act.
 

baggio

Senior Member
Jun 3, 2003
19,250
++ [ originally posted by MISS DUBAI ] ++


++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++

Mark my words, if Kerry wins, he'll make cuts to our homeland security budget

and u replied:
I would strongly doubt that Vin.

MISS DUBAI- i was like,what do u mean?could u please explain?:)

I would strongly doubt Kerry making cuts to the US homeland security, if he wins. :)
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,789
++ [ originally posted by baggio ] ++



I would strongly doubt Kerry making cuts to the US homeland security, if he wins. :)
Democrats, in general, are far more likely to make cuts to anything security or military wise than republicans.


Senator Kerry would be bucking a trend here if he actually increases military strength or security measures.

Whoever is elected president, take care of our own country first. USA, first and foremost, needs to be on the mindof whomever is President. Sorry if it seems selfish, but as an American, this country needs some serious fixing, and its not something that just happened during Bush's watch, and it won't be something that is fixed in the next 4 years, either. However, I need to start seeing some positive steps being made during this next term, not so much for myself, but for my future children.
 

Petrovich

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
42
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
fit the description of innocent?

how do you intend on justifying their abuse mistreatment and suffering experienced by the communities to make the us safer?

will their suffering ever be publicly acknowledged?
I'm not trying to justify it, all that I'm saying is that the logic behind does make the U.S. safer, altough it is at the expense of some innocent people.

And Martin, what are you on about?
 

Petrovich

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
42
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++


Please explain what you meant saying "most of those detainees do not fit that description". What's the description?
I assume that most of the detainees are not innocent, and have been involved with Al-Qaeda practices. Its rather difficult to say thats true, but hopefully our government isn't screwing up in this aspect of the War on Terror.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
 

Petrovich

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
42
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
Guilty by association Martin. Probably a lot of them were detained when they were defending their terrorist outposts.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,749
++ [ originally posted by Petrovich ] ++
I'm not trying to justify it, all that I'm saying is that the logic behind does make the U.S. safer, altough it is at the expense of some innocent people.
Any domestic "war on terrorism" in the U.S. is a lot like fighting cancer. The key in any cancer treatment is killing off the cancerous cells while leaving the healthy cells as untouched as possible. One one end, too lax a treatment can allow it to metastasize further -- threatening more of the body. Too strong a treatment, and it's like chemotherapy -- sure you poison out most of the bad stuff, but the rest of you is vomiting all the time with your hair all fallen out. The treatment can become worse than the illness.

Beyond improving our accuracy in our intelligence at identifying dangerous terrorists in the country, Americans have to decide at what level do they want to condemn the innocent in order to improve their chances at catching the guilty. The real test is that they have to be willing to accept that those odds of condemning the innocent have to include themselves in that lot.
 

Petrovich

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
42
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++


Any domestic "war on terrorism" in the U.S. is a lot like fighting cancer. The key in any cancer treatment is killing off the cancerous cells while leaving the healthy cells as untouched as possible. One one end, too lax a treatment can allow it to metastasize further -- threatening more of the body. Too strong a treatment, and it's like chemotherapy -- sure you poison out most of the bad stuff, but the rest of you is vomiting all the time with your hair all fallen out. The treatment can become worse than the illness.

Beyond improving our accuracy in our intelligence at identifying dangerous terrorists in the country, Americans have to decide at what level do they want to condemn the innocent in order to improve their chances at catching the guilty. The real test is that they have to be willing to accept that those odds of condemning the innocent have to include themselves in that lot.
I love the simile used there, well done. That is a tough question about which extreme the citizens want the methods to be taken. If they have the chance of condemning themselves in an effort to protect the country, is it that worth it to follow through? The opinions probably differ greatly from Washington DC out 100 miles into Mid-State Pennsylvania for instance. Most citizens in New York for instance probably have no qualms about the Patriot Act.
 

The Pado

Filthy Gobbo
Jul 12, 2002
9,939
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
This, my friend, is the million dollar question that so many of us asking of our government. So far, the only answer has been, "I don't have to answer to you, I'm the President of the United States, you answer to me.":down:
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 39)