Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was alive during the Cold War - I remember reading about the predicted casualties of a nuclear exchange of varying sizes between the U.S. and the USSR - it would have ended both nations as viable civilizations - and that is why we never had a war - the stakes were too high. But deterrence doesn't work against suicidal fanatics like Al Queda - and it would be difficult to know who to retaliate against also.
And saying my reasoning is one big emotional argument is absurd and baseless... There are plenty on the counter terrorism and national security side who agree with me and disagree with you - I'll take their opinion over yours any day of the week...
An intelligence report recently predicted an attack with a WMD on US soil within the next 5 years is more likely than not. Here's a source that even you might believe - NPR :Report: WMD Attack Likely By 2013 : NPR.
Once there is a WMD attack on U.S. soil, we can pretty much kiss the level of civil liberties we all enjoy today good-bye... Things will change radically for the worse - and there may even be full-blown nuclear war...
I'm sure the missiles are targeted against those countries that logically would have helped the terrorist groups obtain weapons - and I don't think we'll issue warnings before we fire them...
'Those that prefer security to liberty deserve neither'
The protection of our liberties is of paramount importance over the specter of terrorism.
From the words of Louis D Brandeis:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
As a supporter of the American revolution and the rights to resistance against oppression, I need protection from government, not terrorism.
I leave with this thought.
The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document.
The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet.
The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist.
The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.
Human Rights are inalienable. Regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. Being cautious of a stereotypical profiled muslim at an airport is one thing. Holding and detaining arab-americans without due process and without providing them with a speedy and fair trial jeopardizes EVERYONES civil liberties. Outsourcing torture to Guantanamo Bay in the name of "keeping America safe" greatly diminishes our credibilty as a free nation. It is unfair to pigeon-hole a vast percentage of human beings because they had the audacity to be born into a Muslim family.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?
Your post was flighty and ditzy.
A terrorist apologist/sympathizer is not the same as a terrorist who actually commits terrorists acts.
I know a good remedial reading course I could recommend, yes?
Sanrene, if someone actually did a terrorist act & Lulu agreed w/the act, then yes they would be a terrorist sympthizer. To sympathize w/someone who was PERCEIVED as a terrorist is an entirely different thing. You know when you posted earlier that you said someone's hysteria was typical? I'd say the same of you.
Human Rights are inalienable. Regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. Being cautious of a stereotypical profiled muslim at an airport is one thing. Holding and detaining arab-americans without due process and without providing them with a speedy and fair trial jeopardizes EVERYONES civil liberties. Outsourcing torture to Guantanamo Bay in the name of "keeping America safe" greatly diminishes our credibilty as a free nation. It is unfair to pigeon-hole a vast percentage of human beings because they had the audacity to be born into a Muslim family.
Nobody's 'enjoying this'.....and I agree, ONE person's loss of rights diminishes ALL of us. That being said, I DO think we're doing a fair job of addressing a VERY pernicious problem with the least possible impact upon the innocent.
I'm not sure who you're referring to when you speak of 'holding and detaining Arab-Americans'.....all sorts of people get 'detained' briefly at airports..very few of them get 'held' for any length of time.
I feel very uneasy about the situation @ Guantanamo, as well. I can only suggest we're in a 'new' kind of war, and the old 'gentlemanly rules' do not ALWAYS apply in a war on terrorism. And I do NOT think any of the inmates being held there are there because they 'had the audacity to be born Muslim'. Sorry, I'm not buying that. The VAST majority of Muslims here in the US and elsewhere are not the 'victims' of any American policy....most of the ones who are 'victims' at ALL are the victims of their own contentious politics.
Faced with a very credible threat of on-going, random acts of deadly terrorism, (with constant threats for 'more'), coming almost solely from a certain 'identifiable' group, I'm not sure just HOW we'd address that, without looking at that group. LOTS of people of all KINDS of descriptions get 'looked at' and 'talked to' briefly...very FEW of them lose their freedom, though. Can't see any other solution, in our modern, open society.
I agree that "Human Rights are Inalienable"....and once that notion is accepted by all parties, everywhere, we'll be able to make it a reality.
Most people in the US would characterize hamas, hezbollah, AQ, Islamic jihad as terrorists groups.
I take it you don't.
You're simply not getting it, are you? You're deliberately skirting around the issue to tout your own agenda. As I said, PERCEIVE as terrorists, meaning someone who is mistaken for a terrorist when really they are an innocent bystander. Do you understand the difference here? I don't think you do because I'm sure you'll come right back & post something that totally ignores my point just to rally against actual terrorists, which is not what I was discussing at all.
I would say you are a typical apologist/sympathizer of terrorists. How's that?
For some reason I agree with you on that one...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
