Wiretaps: the last laugh

[lennie]

We spent how much time on this tripe?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.fisa/


The House late Saturday night approved the Republican version of a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 227-183, with most Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting the bill.

President Bush demanded Congress expand his surveillance authority before leaving for vacation.

The White-House backed legislation closes what the Bush administration has called critical gaps in U.S. intelligence capability by expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States


Pelosi can KMA.

Pelosi - Nay

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

[General Apathy]

Pelosi has not been the contrarian I thought she would be

[lennie]

You thought she'd vote for wiretaps? That's crazy talk. She tried to prevent voting altogether. It failed though.

[2pac Shakur]

So Bush does something illegal, and the :qunq: other :qunq: party legalizes it after the fact.

Vote Republicrat!

[lennie]

Ah yes, the "we know we can never prove it, but we'll keep using this excuse for the next 50 years" UFO approach.

[Ronald Reagan]

And the morans cheer.

[notreallyme]

We spent how much time on this tripe?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.fisa/



Pelosi can KMA.

Pelosi - Nay

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

You are proud of this law? The right to privacy sucks huh?

Or when your own Gov't takes away your privacy thats OK?

[lennie]

You are proud of this law? The right to privacy sucks huh?

Are you really afraid of the government intercepting foreign transmissions? Don't make any.

[lennie]

And the morans cheer.

RR, do you solemnly swear to never post another ass slapping, high-fiving "D's poop don't stink" thread? If not, be prepared for a year of being called a hypocrite.

[notreallyme]

Are you really afraid of the government intercepting foreign transmissions? Don't make any.

Interesting (lack of) logic you got there.

So when I am in England I should not call any family members or friends?

[lennie]

Interesting (lack of) logic you got there.

So when I am in England I should not call any family members or friends?

And talk about your intentions to start Jihad on American soil? Yes.

[notreallyme]

And talk about your intentions to start Jihad on American soil? Yes.

Huh :-? How can they tell what I am talking about BEFORE invading my privacy?

Should there be any laws stopping the police from having the right to search you or your property at any time?

--- Nevermind we have tried to go down this discussion path before and this is the part where you turn into a moran. Your next post is going to call me some sort of Terrorist loving liberal I would guess.

[lennie]

Huh :-? How can they tell what I am talking about BEFORE invading my privacy?

Second question is a tangent that I will not accept from dodge-ever-proving-anything-boy.

Answer: Are you a criminal or terrorist, and are you also stupid? I don't care about your privacy when you are sending anonymous signals across the ocean. I also wouldn't care if every package you mail were x-rayed.

[notreallyme]

Second question is a tangent that I will not accept from dodge-ever-proving-anything-boy.

Answer: Are you a criminal or terrorist, and are you also stupid?
I knew this was coming.

I don't care about your privacy when you are sending anonymous signals across the ocean. I also wouldn't care if every package you mail were x-rayed.

So you don't care about people having rights to privacy. That was my original question. You could have just answered it right away.

So in previous times how has it worked out when the Gov't can randomly question and search anyone?

[notreallyme]

I also wouldn't care if every package you mail were x-rayed.

Anything else you wouldn't care about?

How about if your house was randomly searched? Just trying to figure out where (if) you draw the line.

[notreallyme]

You pretend to care about America then at the same time you applaud when the very things America stands for are taken away.

[lennie]

You pretend to care about America then at the same time you applaud when the very things America stands for are taken away.
Nothing has been taken away from me. I have no expectations that the US protect my phone calls from phone booths in Europe. You are EXTREMELY paranoid or a terrorist if you think your life will change at all. I'm willing to accept either option.

[2pac Shakur]

Nothing has been taken away from me. I have no expectations that the US protect my phone calls from phone booths in Europe. You are EXTREMELY paranoid or a terrorist if you think your life will change at all. I'm willing to accept either option.

You are extremely paranoid if you think this is gonna make you safer.

[ShebaPoe]

And talk about your intentions to start Jihad on American soil? Yes.

Intentions, no matter how vile, and conversation, no matter how fraught with evil thoughts, are just intentions and conversations. If I want to call you up and talk jihad, who cares? Jihad Jihad Jihad.

Neither intentions nor conversation ever hurt anyone. This is one of the fundamental flaws of this law; it turns the government into thought police.

That is ungood in theory, and in practice will result in further misappropriation of government resources, and consequent bungling, the one thing our government delivers without fail.

[lennie]

Neither intentions nor conversation ever hurt anyone.

No conversations occurred before any of the times people DID get hurt?

[SirVLCIV]

Intentions, no matter how vile, and conversation, no matter how fraught with evil thoughts, are just intentions and conversations. If I want to call you up and talk jihad, who cares? Jihad Jihad Jihad.

Neither intentions nor conversation ever hurt anyone. This is one of the fundamental flaws of this law; it turns the government into thought police.

That is double plus ungood in theory, and in practice will result in further misappropriation of government resources, and consequent bungling, the one thing our government delivers without fail.

IFYP (and ITA).

[lennie]

You are extremely paranoid if you think this is gonna make you safer.

Got a way around it already?

[SirVLCIV]

No conversations occurred before any of the times people DID get hurt?

People DID get hurt every time a conversation occurred?

If every time B occurs, A occurred first, but sometimes A occurs and B doesn't, A might not be a viable precursor for B.

[2pac Shakur]

No conversations occurred before any of the times people DID get hurt?

Has the USA gummint ever abused this type of power before?

[SirVLCIV]

I'm not saying ban surveillance, but I can see where some logical curbs on surveillance are necessary for a free society.

[lennie]

Has the USA gummint ever abused this type of power before?

Warrantless wire tapping of foreign nationals? Should I care?

[lennie]

I'm not saying ban surveillance, but I can see where some logical curbs on surveillance are necessary for a free society.
Do we offer freedom to signals coming from France?

[SirVLCIV]

Do we offer freedom to signals coming from France?

I'll assume you think your question has anything to do with my statement.

I don't think so, however.

[lennie]

I'll assume you think your question has anything to do with my statement.

I don't think so, however.
Let's try it this way.

There is a phone signal coming into the US from France. There is no way in the world to know who, what, how this signal is being transmitted. Is it a violation of anyone's freedom to have anyone listen in on this signal or to figure out if it is hostile?

Toss in any number of assumptions to improve the intelligence on any incoming signal and answer the question again. If the signal is coming from Saudi Arabia from a cell phone owned by an Iranian, should it be intercepted?

[2pac Shakur]

Warrantless wire tapping of foreign nationals? Should I care?

Yea. NO WAY they'll use this power in a way not spelled out. That's NEVER happened. Right?

[lennie]

Yea. NO WAY they'll use this power in a way not spelled out. That's NEVER happened. Right?

Yes, because all powers are spelled out. I forgot my 2dumb logic for a second there.

:roll:

[lennie]

To answer your question, no WAY has the US government been involved in investigations of administration policies. That's never happened. Right?

[pete6982]

Intentions, no matter how vile, and conversation, no matter how fraught with evil thoughts, are just intentions and conversations. If I want to call you up and talk jihad, who cares? Jihad Jihad Jihad.

Neither intentions nor conversation ever hurt anyone. This is one of the fundamental flaws of this law; it turns the government into thought police.
...

whether you are for or against these measures, I can't see how you can think along these lines. The whole point of this would be to stop attacks before they happen. Maybe "thought police" could have stopped 911. Did those hijackers intend to do that? Did they have conversations about it? The answer is of course yes. "Thought police" did stop the plots to blow up transatlantic flights in August of last year. The point is not to jail terrorists after they have killed, but rather before they strike. Can this power be abused? Yes, I sure it might, but opponents could propose a version that doesn't allow such abuse.

That is ungood in theory, and in practice will result in further misappropriation of government resources, and consequent bungling, the one thing our government delivers without fail

Wasn't the bungling of 911 because the agencies didn't share information or act on clues that pointed to a plot? So how does not making it legal to collect potentially useful anti-terror information prevent further failure?

I think the real debate is whether or not the information collected is worth the cost of privacy infringement to those affected. I would say yes, it is, and I think most americans, dem/rep would agree (at least with what's involved in this bill).

[SirVLCIV]

whether you are for or against these measures, I can't see how you can think along these lines. The whole point of this would be to stop attacks before they happen. Maybe "thought police" could have stopped 911. Did those hijackers intend to do that? Did they have conversations about it? The answer is of course yes. "Thought police" did stop the plots to blow up transatlantic flights in August of last year. The point is not to jail terrorists after they have killed, but rather before they strike. Can this power be abused? Yes, I sure it might, but opponents could propose a version that doesn't allow such abuse.



Wasn't the bungling of 911 because the agencies didn't share information or act on clues that pointed to a plot? So how does not making it legal to collect potentially useful anti-terror information prevent further failure?

I think the real debate is whether or not the information collected is worth the cost of privacy infringement to those affected. I would say yes, it is, and I think most americans, dem/rep would agree (at least with what's involved in this bill).

I can see your argument, but the one flaw I can see is that the conversations about actual attacks are in the midst of a lot of noise of attacks that never occurred. You don't have confirmation that you're investigating an actual attack when you're listening to phone calls.

Whether this affects the validity of the wiretap policy is another argument.

[2pac Shakur]

Yes, because all powers are spelled out. I forgot my 2dumb logic for a second there.

:roll:

WASHINGTON -- The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031000324.html

Well, as long as they promised, I guess we should trust them.
That's what America is all about. Trusting big brother to protect us.

[lennie]

If someone gets charged with a crime, your argument dies. I hope you are prepared to blame Gonzales for crushing your dreams.

[2pac Shakur]

If someone gets charged with a crime, your argument dies. I hope you are prepared to blame Gonzales for crushing your dreams.

Some low ranking underling getting blamed for this is nothing more than lip service. Maybe a retired FBI agent will get his pension cut to only 102k/year over this. That'll learn him.

[pete6982]

I can see your argument, but the one flaw I can see is that the conversations about actual attacks are in the midst of a lot of noise of attacks that never occurred. You don't have confirmation that you're investigating an actual attack when you're listening to phone calls.

Whether this affects the validity of the wiretap policy is another argument.

I agree that there's a lot of noise. Consider these hypothetical situations:
1) someone wants to go to egypt to learn arabic but they are not a terrorist.
2) someone else is in contact with a foreign number affiliated with al-qaeda, and they discuss making bombs to blow up an airplane.

As I said, there is a cost involved. An NSA agent somewhere might make a report on the guy going to egypt to study arabic and he may get put on a watch list. But that's the price we pay for saving the lives of the people that would have been blown up by #2. Maybe #2 never would have gone through with it. Maybe he hates america, but decides killing innocents is wrong. If he is prepared to act, do we give him the chance? Since plotting to commit terrorist acts is unlawful, I'd say no, but that's another debate.

[ShebaPoe]

whether you are for or against these measures, I can't see how you can think along these lines. The whole point of this would be to stop attacks before they happen. Maybe "thought police" could have stopped 911. Did those hijackers intend to do that? Did they have conversations about it? The answer is of course yes. "Thought police" did stop the plots to blow up transatlantic flights in August of last year. The point is not to jail terrorists after they have killed, but rather before they strike. Can this power be abused? Yes, I sure it might, but opponents could propose a version that doesn't allow such abuse.


9/11 occurred because educated Saudis with no means of addressing their grievances with an authoritarian king decided to lash out at the puppet-master. We insist on taking their oil and selling them weapons they don't need. Saudis know what is going on - they watch their oil and money flow out of the country, and they recognize why it happens.

Powerless at the ballot box, they turn to terror. Kind of like the American revolutionaries. Funny how history repeats itself.


Wasn't the bungling of 911 because the agencies didn't share information or act on clues that pointed to a plot? So how does not making it legal to collect potentially useful anti-terror information prevent further failure?

Irrelevant. There will be terror against us if our policies continue to include supporting authoritarian rulers. There is no terrorism against Switzerland.


I think the real debate is whether or not the information collected is worth the cost of privacy infringement to those affected. I would say yes, it is, and I think most americans, dem/rep would agree (at least with what's involved in this bill).

That is how your leaders want to frame the debate. That way, they can keep on pursuing policies that are good the leaders, and not so good for you and me. We get mired in debate about this or that non-issue, and the same idiots keep doing the same things in power.

There is little discussion in the media about US support for the Saudi royals and their taliban style religious police and rejection of democracy. Saddam was oppressive, Saudi's are always labeled "moderate". Funny, that.

[pete6982]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031000324.html

Well, as long as they promised, I guess we should trust them.
That's what America is all about. Trusting big brother to protect us.

if you believe fbi agents act illegally and will def break laws, then how would defeating this bill prevent them from doing so? wouldn't they just illegally wiretap anyway?

[lennie]

Some low ranking underling getting blamed for this is nothing more than lip service. Maybe a retired FBI agent will get his pension cut to only 102k/year over this. That'll learn him.
It's the accusations that Dems like. I know, I have seen your threads.

[2pac Shakur]

It's the accusations that Dems like. I know, I have seen your threads.

You do realize your heroes in the White House admitted to breaking the law, right?

[2pac Shakur]

if you believe fbi agents act illegally and will def break laws, then how would defeating this bill prevent them from doing so? wouldn't they just illegally wiretap anyway?

Nope. Now they can claim they honestly thought it was a call from another country and gosh, they just wanted to get Bin Laden not knowing it was a call from one Dem Senator to another about an upcoming defense spending bill. Then there will be no investigation because it was just an honest mistake after all. Finally the FBI will get more power.

[2pac Shakur]

You guys familiar with Cointelpro?

[lennie]

You do realize your heroes in the White House admitted to breaking the law, right?
The FBI resides in the White House? Learn something new every day.

[notreallyme]

lennie you are either an extremely good :troll: or a very dumb non-:troll:

I'm not completely sure which yet, but I know which way I am leaning.

[lennie]

9/11 occurred because educated Saudis with no means of addressing their grievances with an authoritarian king decided to lash out at the puppet-master. We insist on taking their oil and selling them weapons they don't need. Saudis know what is going on - they watch their oil and money flow out of the country, and they recognize why it happens.
Matt has all the inside information on terrorist thoughts. Forget everything you know about Osama Bin Laden admitting to this being the act of an organized terrorist network, the hijackers were just disenfranchised liberals.

While I fully believe liberals are capable of mass murder to support their causes, I don't think they have either the backbone or organizational skills to blow up a balloon.

[lennie]

if you believe fbi agents act illegally and will def break laws, then how would defeating this bill prevent them from doing so? wouldn't they just illegally wiretap anyway?

Funny how 2pac wants legal potsmoking even though he smokes all he wants already, but he's unwilling to support the FBI in the same fashion.

[pete6982]

9/11 occurred because educated Saudis with no means of addressing their grievances with an authoritarian king decided to lash out at the puppet-master. We insist on taking their oil and selling them weapons they don't need. Saudis know what is going on - they watch their oil and money flow out of the country, and they recognize why it happens.

Powerless at the ballot box, they turn to terror. Kind of like the American revolutionaries. Funny how history repeats itself.



Irrelevant. There will be terror against us if our policies continue to include supporting authoritarian rulers. There is no terrorism against Switzerland.




That is how your leaders want to frame the debate. That way, they can keep on pursuing policies that are good the leaders, and not so good for you and me. We get mired in debate about this or that non-issue, and the same idiots keep doing the same things in power.

There is little discussion in the media about US support for the Saudi royals and their taliban style religious police and rejection of democracy. Saddam was oppressive, Saudi's are always labeled "moderate". Funny, that.

I wasn't saying I love the Saudi government. But I do take issue to the "chickens coming home to roost" theory. Even if I somehow blamed Americans for indirectly causing 9/11, I would support counter-terror measures.

But that's beside the point. I was saying I thought intentions and conversations lead to actions. Actions that are preventable if we spy on certain calls, etc. Do I think areas of US foreign policy could be changed for the better? yeah, but that doesn't make this bill irrelevant.

[pete6982]

...
While I fully believe liberals are capable of mass murder to support their causes, I don't think they have either the backbone or organizational skills to blow up a balloon.

that's funny, because somehow liberal democrats won the majority of congressional seats last november. balloons must be real hard to blow up, I guess I've never done it quite right. They do seem to lose air eventually. hmm...

[ShebaPoe]

Matt has all the inside information on terrorist thoughts. Forget everything you know about Osama Bin Laden admitting to this being the act of an organized terrorist network, the hijackers were just disenfranchised liberals.

While I fully believe liberals are capable of mass murder to support their causes, I don't think they have either the backbone or organizational skills to blow up a balloon.

Even you are not dull enough to think bin Laden materialized in 2001. :tup: Or 1995. So where, O where, did he come from? Where did he learn to train fighters? Jeddah? I don't think so. And terrorism? It's not new.

Please note that I did admit 9/11 was the work of terrorists. However, rather than the myopic, superficial "analysis" that you offer, I tend to think that even organized terrorists do things for a reason, not some sort of irrational hatred. I think their hatred is perfectly focused, and perfectly focused hatred has a root cause.

US assistance to the Saudi royals in the suppression and looting of the kingdom is the reason., the root cause. Remember when we did the same thing in Iran? We supported an authoritarian ruler until the people had enough. In that case, we got hostages and an Islamic government. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we got 9/11. If we keep it up, a mushroom will grow on US soil, no matter what wires we tap. They are rich, angry and armed to the teeth. We have sold more weapons to KSA than any other country since Gulf War 1. What do you think will happen?

[ShebaPoe]

I wasn't saying I love the Saudi government. But I do take issue to the "chickens coming home to roost" theory. Even if I somehow blamed Americans for indirectly causing 9/11, I would support counter-terror measures.

Sure, it is hard to accept that the government you were educated to believe was mostly benevolent since the time we shared Thanksgiving with the Indians is actually controlled by very narrow interests to which you are irrelevant except for tax dollars? Yeah, it's a tough pill to swallow, but Vietnam, Iraq, repeated support of unsavory dictators from Haiti to Indonesia, training the mujahedeen...these things were not done for you and me. Did YOU benefit from the removal of Noriega? I sure didn't. Someone did. Someone more "important" than us, I guess. I think you get the idea.



If 9/11 was a one-off event, I would say that yeah, the blowback theory is sketchy. But we did this in Iran, too: we supported the Shah. We had hostage taking and a revolution. That was terrorism too, but they kept it at home, mostly. The message was clear: go home!

Many in Saudi Arabia feel the same way. So they have a 9/11. And many of the fighters we are facing in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Today they fight us in Iraq on the ground. But we will leave Iraq, and many Saudis will be dead. They have families, who will not forget. And they have money; Saudi Arabia is rich. And they have a support system in the mosques. And they have a willing audience for hatred. And theyhave no recourse at the ballot box. What do you think will happen??

Chickens coming home to roost is not a theory. When you impose your will on people who do not want it imposed, terrorism is the sure result. If it helps, think of 9/11 as the Riyadh Tea Party.


But that's beside the point. I was saying I thought intentions and conversations lead to actions. Actions that are preventable if we spy on certain calls, etc. Do I think areas of US foreign policy could be changed for the better? yeah, but that doesn't make this bill irrelevant.

The bill is relevant, because our elected morans are foisting it upon us. But it is all for naught, and the discussion is irrelevant, if our foreign policy is not changed. Islamic countries don't want us around.

[2pac Shakur]

The Bush administration plans to leave oversight of its expanded foreign eavesdropping program to the same government officials who supervise the surveillance activities, and to the intelligence personnel who carry them out, senior government officials said yesterday.

The law, which permits intercepting Americans' calls and e-mails without a warrant if the communications involve overseas transmission, gives Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales responsibility for creating the broad procedures determining whose telephone calls and e-mails are collected. It also gives McConnell and Gonzales the role of assessing compliance with those procedures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601303.html

Who will police the police?
(not the coast guard like Homer Simpson thinks)
It will be the police of course!

[ShebaPoe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601303.html

Who will police the police?
(not the coast guard like Homer Simpson thinks)
It will be the police of course!

I trust Gonzalez to run a fair, impartial DoJ. He seems like he would be above political considerations.

Also, ignorance is strength.

[IAm@Work.com]

:blah: ...Many in Saudi Arabia feel the same way. So they have a 9/11. And many of the fighters we are facing in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Today they fight us in Iraq on the ground. But we will leave Iraq, and many Saudis will be dead. They have families, who will not forget. And they have money; Saudi Arabia is rich. And they have a support system in the mosques. And they have a willing audience for hatred. And theyhave no recourse at the ballot box. What do you think will happen??...:blah:Are you sure you want to go here?

Seems like the only possible outcome from this line of reasoning is that the Islamist types eventually take over the world and impose Sharia everywhere while we stay home and apologize for our every action. After all, your line of reasoning appears to be that we should cave to their demands and/or never get in their way in the first place.

Is that really the course of action you advocate?

[ShebaPoe]

Are you sure you want to go here?

Seems like the only possible outcome from this line of reasoning is that the Islamist types eventually take over the world and impose Sharia everywhere while we stay home and apologize for our every action. After all, your line of reasoning appears to be that we should cave to their demands and/or never get in their way in the first place.

Is that really the course of action you advocate?

No, that is not what I said at all, and your argument rests on numerous incorrect assumptions.

(1) You assume Islamist types want to "take over the world". Really? When have Islamist types ever radiated out of the Middle East? Not since Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours has this been an issue. Of course, Islam was very young then, and it expanded a lot like a very young Christianity: aggressively. In the last 1,000 years, have we seen a lot of colonization by Islamic peoples? Am I missing something? It seems like they have been in utter disarray since the Mongols killed the last caliph.

(2) We stay home and don't apologize for anything. We vigorously defend our borders and permit legal immigration. But we stop interfering in the activities of Iran and Saudi Arabia. And Israel.

(3) The only "demands" we should cave to are those which involve them demanding that we leave them alone.

I hope that was helpful. Don't make the mistake of thinking I am a terrorism sympathizer or that I am anti-American. I want to try and understand where you are coming from, but your views are merely the recitiation of media-propaganda. You don't think bin Laden arose from the sandy desert, do you? You don't think that American intervention in Saudi Arabia has been pro-average Saudi, do you? You don't think that benevolent America was supporting the shah and those crazy Muslims just didn't understand what we were trying to teach them, do you?

It's not as one-sided as you portray it.

[Lee Mellon]

Funny how 2pac wants legal potsmoking even though he smokes all he wants already, but he's unwilling to support the FBI in the same fashion.

Hunh, missed 2pac in yer quote. I doubt very much that he'd be opposed to the agents smoking dope.

Oh, and yeah, I dig Uncle Ho and chairman Mao, and their friends are comin' over for dinner.

[General Apathy]

You guys familiar with Cointelpro?

Is that the coin counting thingy they have down at Albertson's?

[Griffin 6]

Is that the coin counting thingy they have down at Albertson's?That thing's a rip-off.

[Griffin 6]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll at one time which showed 29% of all Americans believed the government had listened to their telephone conversations, followed by a second poll which showed 28.99% of all Americans think they are more important than they really are?

[lennie]

I think their hatred is perfectly focused, and perfectly focused hatred has a root cause.
Everyone has a hero. And you wonder why I use the phrase "pro-terrorist."

[lennie]

but your views are merely the recitiation of media-propaganda.
And you are just spewing terrorist propaganda. I want to know who you think you are that you should want me to CARE why murderers are murderers. You go talk to the bits of human flesh that used to be a suicide bomber, if you want, just don't bother sharing it with Western civilization.

[ShebaPoe]

And you are just spewing terrorist propaganda. I want to know who you think you are that you should want me to CARE why murderers are murderers. You go talk to the bits of human flesh that used to be a suicide bomber, if you want, just don't bother sharing it with Western civilization.

Terrorist propaganda? Really?

With regard to the bold parts, Iraqis say the same thing about the US invasion. I suppose they are right, if you are right. Mostly I care because I want to stop it.

Anyway, you're either a troll or incapable of abstract thought. So this will be my last reply to you. I believe it will reward a series of readings.

[ShebaPoe]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll at one time which showed 29% of all Americans believed the government had listened to their telephone conversations, followed by a second poll which showed 28.99% of all Americans think they are more important than they really are?

Polls are suspect, unless they are conducted on the AO. You knew that, though.

[2pac Shakur]

So wait.

If you think it is a good thing for the gummint to have all this extra power - you are liberal, right?

[Griffin 6]

Polls are suspect, unless they are conducted on the AO. You knew that, though.Insert two smiley things, one doing the talking, and the other being MTS with words going right over his head.

[SirVLCIV]

And you are just spewing terrorist propaganda. I want to know who you think you are that you should want me to CARE why murderers are murderers. You go talk to the bits of human flesh that used to be a suicide bomber, if you want, just don't bother sharing it with Western civilization.

Well, you've already proven you'd rather be ignorant, but some people want to learn and understand how things come to pass so they can prevent future bad things.

[2pac Shakur]

Insert two smiley things, one doing the talking, and the other being MTS with words going right over his head.

:lol: :oyh:

[tesla_styx]

Insert two smiley things, one doing the talking, and the other being MTS with words going right over his head.

Did you see the poll where 25% of Americans admit to often talking about their words going over someone's head? Same poll also showed that 24.99% of Americans think they are more sophisticated than they really are.

[IAm@Work.com]

Don't make the mistake of thinking I am a terrorism sympathizer or that I am anti-American.I think neither. I also think we disagree on some of the rest. I, for one, do not believe that if the US backs down to their demands, that their demands will stop. They will just come up with some other way to blame us for their poverty. No, that is not what I said at all, and your argument rests on numerous incorrect assumptions.

(1) You assume Islamist types want to "take over the world". Really? When have Islamist types ever radiated out of the Middle East?I think if you asked some of your European friends, they would disagree that Islam has remained only in the middle east. They have not "taken over" any of Europe, but there is a small, very vocal, and growing group that thinks they should.

[ShebaPoe]

I think neither. I also think we disagree on some of the rest. I, for one, do not believe that if the US backs down to their demands, that their demands will stop. They will just come up with some other way to blame us for their poverty.


Well, Middle Eastern Islamic countries are ruled by authoritarians. So they need a story - propaganda - to stay in power. The US seems to give it to them over and over. I wonder why we provide such an easy propaganda source for them??

Now, this is contradictory to what we are told by the TV man, who says the US wants to spread democracy to the dark skinned death lovers. But the bottom line is, regardless of what Bush & Co say, that the US wants harsh rulers in control of countries with which we do business. They control the population, and we only have to make deals with one person, rather than a government that might change places in the political spectrum, or vote not to partner with us.

Let me repeat this: the US wants dictators. We control them with threats or bribes, and they control their people. Look at the track record since WW2. From Haiti to Indonesia, from Iran to Panama, the US has supported and continues to support dictators.

There are obvious benefits to very narrow interests of implementing this pro-dictator policy. People who head corporations that need super cheap labor, or unimpeded access to oil, can get it without risk of a foreign democracy voting against them. When Iran had the temerity to nationalize its oil resources, did you feel the pain? Of course not; Joe Sixpack didn't feel a thing. Does Chavez's socialist nonsense affect your life? Not even one iota. But for important interests, which, by the way are defined as those interests which make large political contributions and lobbying efforts, Chavez matters. The head of Iran matters. The King of Saudi Arabia matters. None of that crap matters to you. Or me.

Now that we have the correct frame for this discussion, we can continue.


As long as the US supports dictators, there will be terrorism. This thing in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy. If we cared about that, we would have followed the recommendations of the Chief of Staff of the Army and used 500,000 troops.

General Shinseki was famously criticized by by Paul Wolfowitz, a career academic and bureaucrat. Does it strike you as odd that a career nerd (who has since failed at yet another gig, btw) is given more consideration for planning a war than the Chief of Staff of the Army? Why do you think that is???? Might it be because the goal of the Iraq war was to replace one Iraqi dictator with another Iraqi dictator who is US friendly? (Oh no, couldn't be that...the US never does that.)

With regard to the Middle East, it so happens that oil money + disenfranchised population + radical Islam + no access to the ballots provides a perfect combination for a terrorist explosion. And as long as we perpetuate those conditions, there will be terrorist explosions. This is as easy as 1-2-3.

I took the effort of typing above to show you that US foreign policy has been consistently pro-dictator, especially in the oil-rich middle east. We like to pretend that Muslims go crazy because a book tells them to. Are they genetically different from us? Do their brains have different receptors? Of course not. Incitement to riot, or terrorism, only works on an angry population. The US provides that to them with a destructive foreign policy.


I think if you asked some of your European friends, they would disagree that Islam has remained only in the middle east. They have not "taken over" any of Europe, but there is a small, very vocal, and growing group that thinks they should.

Isn't this analogous to the reconquista movement in the USA? Does that worry you?

[lennie]

Well, you've already proven you'd rather be ignorant, but some people want to learn and understand how things come to pass so they can prevent future bad things.


What is there to learn? They like death, we like life. They actually said that. There are thousands of things more important in this world than catering to murderers. As I said, go cheer your murderers on if you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. Meanwhile, I'll just hope that the murderers keep dying.

[2pac Shakur]

What is there to learn? They like death, we like life. They actually said that. There are thousands of things more important in this world than catering to murderers. As I said, go cheer your murderers on if you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. Meanwhile, I'll just hope that the murderers keep dying.

Who is they?

[2pac Shakur]

I think neither. I also think we disagree on some of the rest. I, for one, do not believe that if the US backs down to their demands, that their demands will stop. They will just come up with some other way to blame us for their poverty. I think if you asked some of your European friends, they would disagree that Islam has remained only in the middle east. They have not "taken over" any of Europe, but there is a small, very vocal, and growing group that thinks they should.

Just like communism was gonna take over the world before that.
Booga.