Thoughts on Keith Ellison

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Of course it matters, but it isn't an isolated incident or particularly extraordinary. Ever wonder why our response to it is so much bigger than any other terrorist attack? For that matter, more than any other threat? This country needs to stop treating this like it happened last month.
Tragedies, is that what it is all about? Anyone could name dozens of tragedies, but not many that have altered our fundamental thought processes. Is the CEO of Peanut Corp. going to Guantanamo? He intentionally put tainted product into the food supply resulting in American deaths. Is that not a tragedy? The KKK just killed a woman in Louisiana. A defined but loose and faceless organization that profiles a particular group and threatens their security. They have killed more people than Al-Qaeda in the time since Reconstruction. Ever been to New Orleans? There was an act of terror perpetrated by our very own government. If we would have put money from Iraq into the London Avenue Canal that would have been averted. Sept. 11th was horrible, and should be dealt with so that the threat mitigated. That end can be achieved without wars on faceless enemies and without checking the soles of my shoes at the airport. We can prevent further attacks with a strong CIA (one within the limits of law, mind you) and a little mutual understanding. If we continue to make Sept. 11 a defining moment in our history, the terrorists will have won.
I'm sick of the "They hate us for our freedom" line. They hate us for having stationed American soldiers in their holy land for decades. They don't attack Argentina
I hope that America will be able to talk rationally about this some day. When you can say something in response that is more insightful or thoughtful than "crazies", "people like you make me cringe" or "fringe radicals" I would be more than willing to have a civil debate. I may not be PC, the idea may not be popular...but seriously, tell me where I am substantively wrong.

With all due respect, you are reaching pretty far to make your point.

The fact that many people died in 911 attach was a tradgedy. The act itself was terroristic by any definition. It was also an unprecidented in terms of being an attack by outside forces on American soil. If we need to move past it, then perhaps we need to move past the reconstruction days too.

You are not that far off on why we are a target. We have been trying to mediate peace between Israel and Muslem countries for a very long time. Middle ground is difficult to find and if we continue that role, we will be viewed as favoring one side or the other.

If Ellision wants to speak on civil liberties, the patriot act, etc. That is fine. I believe there was a better way to make the point than using an extreme example though. Just my opinion.

The way to talk rationally about this is with respect. As long as we have extreme left and extreme right perspectives willing to attach each others position relentlessly, true progress will be hard to come by.

I find your comments on Katrina to be flat out disturbing. Acts of terror are with purpose and intent. Ineptitude was a factor in Katrina, but suggesting the government comitted a terorsitic in New Orleans is radical.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

With all due respect, you are reaching pretty far to make your point.

The fact that many people died in 911 attach was a tradgedy. The act itself was terroristic by any definition. It was also an unprecidented in terms of being an attack by outside forces on American soil. If we need to move past it, then perhaps we need to move past the reconstruction days too.

You are not that far off on why we are a target. We have been trying to mediate peace between Israel and Muslem countries for a very long time. Middle ground is difficult to find and if we continue that role, we will be viewed as favoring one side or the other.

If Ellision wants to speak on civil liberties, the patriot act, etc. That is fine. I believe there was a better way to make the point than using an extreme example though. Just my opinion.

The way to talk rationally about this is with respect. As long as we have extreme left and extreme right perspectives willing to attach each others position relentlessly, true progress will be hard to come by.

I find your comments on Katrina to be flat out disturbing. Acts of terror are with purpose and intent. Ineptitude was a factor in Katrina, but suggesting the government comitted a terorsitic in New Orleans is radical.

So Sheriff Lee on the Bridge to Gretna threatening to shoot New Orleanians who crossed into Jefferson Parish was.....
I'm not saying that Sept. 11 and Katrina are terror attacks in the same sense of the word. Sept. 11th was a level above anything else, but we have given it 8 years worth of our attention now, but have absolutely ignored the myriad other threats to our security and safety.
There are many better ways to make this same point, but people don't listen to it. Weak, impotent, intellectual statements don't do much to shift perception of an issue that is so overencompassing.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

So Sheriff Lee on the Bridge to Gretna threatening to shoot New Orleanians who crossed into Jefferson Parish was.....
I'm not saying that Sept. 11 and Katrina are terror attacks in the same sense of the word. Sept. 11th was a level above anything else, but we have given it 8 years worth of our attention now, but have absolutely ignored the myriad other threats to our security and safety.
There are many better ways to make this same point, but people don't listen to it. Weak, impotent, intellectual statements don't do much to shift perception of an issue that is so overencompassing.

Mr. Lee is not equal to "the government". He was man in a government role. If that truth is too weak and impotant and you feel the need to say the government terrorized the people, then your point is overstated. Same with Ellison.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Call it what you will. The government, in the interest of the economic activity created by the ports of New Orleans and South Louisiana, dug a series of channels and canals that undermined the safety and stability of a major American city. It may not fall under the definition of terrorism in the way that we like to define it, but it had the same result -- widespread damage and the loss of American lives. The United States government knowingly punctured the membrane of wetlands that protected the City. Had that not occurred, Katrina would have caused nothing more than wind damage in New Orleans. What word would one use to describe that situation?

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Call it what you will. The government, in the interest of the economic activity created by the ports of New Orleans and South Louisiana, dug a series of channels and canals that undermined the safety and stability of a major American city. It may not fall under the definition of terrorism in the way that we like to define it, but it had the same result -- widespread damage and the loss of American lives. The United States government knowingly punctured the membrane of wetlands that protected the City. Had that not occurred, Katrina would have caused nothing more than wind damage in New Orleans. What word would one use to describe that situation?

Wow...you have outdone yourself buddy. The U.S. Government purposely caused the destruction of New Orleans that came from Katrina? You're insane

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Call it what you will. The government, in the interest of the economic activity created by the ports of New Orleans and South Louisiana, dug a series of channels and canals that undermined the safety and stability of a major American city. It may not fall under the definition of terrorism in the way that we like to define it, but it had the same result -- widespread damage and the loss of American lives. The United States government knowingly punctured the membrane of wetlands that protected the City. Had that not occurred, Katrina would have caused nothing more than wind damage in New Orleans. What word would one use to describe that situation?

terrorism (uncountable)

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

Wow...you have outdone yourself buddy. The U.S. Government purposely caused the destruction of New Orleans that came from Katrina? You're insane

I never said there was some intentional, directed breach. Stop putting words in my mouth so that my statements fit your image of me. The government did make a policy decision that valued port activities over the city of New Orleans and then built sub-par levies to protect the vulnerable city. It was not a natural disaster. The river used to deposit sediments that created marshes. Those marshes absorbed storm surge before it reached New Orleans. Its loss is a direct result of ecological damage brought about by the construction of channels and the dredging of waterways. This has been a problem since the Depression. Instead of remedying the problem, they continued to compound it. The government didn't go blast the levies, but they caused it none the less.
Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate: August 2008
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(MRGO alone exacerbated the surge by up to 20%. It directly flooded St. Bernard Parish and eastern New Orleans. Never mind the fact that its effects were predicted.)

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

terrorism (uncountable)

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

So what term would describe what happened on the Gulf?

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

Wow...you have outdone yourself buddy. The U.S. Government purposely caused the destruction of New Orleans that came from Katrina? You're insane

In fact, don't take my word for it. Why don't you go on over to the New Orleans forum and ask them for yourself? That way, you can tell all of South Louisiana how insane they all are when they tell you the exact same thing.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

So what term would describe what happened on the Gulf?

shortsightedness, greed, unrealistic risk assement, ineptidude. A number of things along those lines might fit. To use word terrorism, it would imply that the intent was clearly to make people suffer for political gain. What was the objective if this was terrorism? Never heard of a terrosit plot with a 75+ year fuse.