Why isnt this stickied? NSA caught red handed eavesdropping on, well, everyone.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not willing to see you or your family destroyed by terrorists in the name of liberty.

I would much rather find means, consistent with our laws, rights, and traditions which would either kill the terrorists or render their organizations impotent.

Altogether, I think I like my scenario better than yours. I'm not quite sure how to do it but I'm not prepared to endure terrorism for freedom. I think this is fallacious thinking just as much as I think the people who are willing to give up essential liberties for ephemeral security are guilty of fallacious thinking.

One more thing, I agree that the right to keep and bear arms-if it was enforced-would have prevented even the attempt of hijacking airplanes. However, that does not preclude a major terrorist attack. It simply necessitates changing the means... to say,"How can we lethally poison every American on an airliner before we reveal our mujahadeen?" Or go with the radiological weapon. Or the biological.
 
Victory isn't a vague concept to me, in the current conflict in Iraq. And the results of a victory there are pretty concrete too, the way I see it.

A win means an Iraq governed by Iraqis that isn't a theocracy. It'll take a long time, but it will be worth it for the stability it can create.

No, we're never going to "kill all the terrorists." That was never the goal, because that would mean we're just out for blood, an idea that I vehemently disagree with.

I think too many people don't understand that stability in other countries is directly and permanently linked to security in our own. And not the grudging stability of a dictatorship, mind you.

I think if you want a more secure homeland without infringing on the people's rights, the best way to do it is to prosecute for stability overseas. That means putting our reputation and for some of us, our lives on the line for not only our good, but the good of another nation as well.

There will always be a price for freedom. Someone on this forum has a signature that reads something like "The tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." So it seems to me, lets let those patriots head out into the world and hunt themselves down some tyrants.
 
Victory isn't a vague concept to me, in the current conflict in Iraq. And the results of a victory there are pretty concrete too, the way I see it.

A win means an Iraq governed by Iraqis that isn't a theocracy. It'll take a long time, but it will be worth it for the stability it can create.
Click to expand...

It wont create any long term stability. They view our ways of democracy the same as we would view living under a religious rule or communism. Its not in their own culture to live the way we do.

If we install a democratic gov there, we will have to keep a hand in it or it will fail. By keeping our hand in, it apears that we have installed a puppet gov, and the other Arab countries don't like us, nor will the religious sects inside Iraq.

If we pull out, some religious sect will worm its way into power, and by their very nature, they won't like us because we are infidels, and we invaded their coutry.

Its the same in Afghansistan. There are already signs that some religious leaders are taking back control in the outer areas. While they are not as strict as the taliban, give em time. They understand they need to start slow, and then gain control.

unfortunatly, we are stuck there for a long time thanks to our short sighted so called "leaders".


I think too many people don't understand that stability in other countries is directly and permanently linked to security in our own. And not the grudging stability of a dictatorship, mind you.
Click to expand...

The simple fact that we keep butting our nose into the Arab world's business is what has gotten us into trouble. In fact, I think the US needs to have a very simple Foriegn Policy called "Friend or Foe"

If you allow democtatic elections, treat your people well, allow freedom of religion, allow your population freedom to travel, educate your population (including the girls) and generally have what we in the west call a "democratic" type gov, then you will be on the friend list.

If your country is run by a monarch (a King or Queen), but you are like the above in all otherways, then you will still be a friend to us.

Friends get help if they need it, monetary aid, military aid, etc. We trade with friends and do business with them.

If your country is run by a dictator, does not allow elections, does not treat its citizens well, is ruled by a religious sect, run as a religious state, does not allow travel, etc then you will be considered a Foe.

We don't trade with foes. we don't allow our FRIENDS to trade with them either (or they are not our friends anymore) We don't give ANY AID to foes. We don't allow our friends to either.

If you want the US to be your trading partner, and military ally, then by all means, feel free to remove your dictator or start treating your citizens better. If not, you can get by on your own.

The we can simply guard our own borders and help out our friends. Thats how we can be secure, not by meddling in everybody's affairs.
 
When's the last time the US murdered approximately 3,000 of its citizens? I missed that one.
Click to expand...

Well, there was that one incident with those religious kooks in Texas, the one where the ATF and the Feds, at an absolute bare minimum, handled a situation with such a ham-fist that they should all be charged with multiple counts of manslaughter... and perhaps premeditated murder. Waco was the name of the closest town.

Then there was that unsavory business on Ruby Ridge...

Then there are the individuals who end up getting shot in the back by the local law enforcement (the retarded man in N.O., the handcuffed 17 y/o in L.V., etc.).

Evil is everywhere, it seems.
 
I'm just waiting for the first time there's a raid based on an overheard snippet of conversation about someone playing a video game, talking about blowing up buildings or playing Grand Theft Auto and that they "just found the RPG and are going to hit the police with it." or something.

And:

Well, I guess the fact that you can dig into and share YOUR fear is what makes the USA great.

Personally, I fear me or a member of my family blown up or trapped in burning buildings.
Click to expand...

When did we become a nation of such quisling FEAR? The chances of you winning the lottery or being struck by lightning are far higher.

In WWII, during the Blitz, even when buildings were blown apart on every block, people in London continued on as usual. I've seen a photo of a barber shop right next to a bomb-destroyed building, with a sign out front saying "We've had a close shave. Come in for one of your own!"

Humor. Resolve. Instead of FEAR.

Can't we do better? Or were they just stronger people, then?
 
I'm more worried about people trying to kill me...

Than the NSA or the CIA or the DIA or the BSA listening to me chit chat. Maybe because I personally know many people that work at these spy agencies, and know they are dedicated to finding bad guys and don't give a rat's rear about your Aunt Betty's phone calls. I trust them more than I do a sneaky, lying, soulless enemy, bent on massive destruction.
 
Let's see ... most of the 9-11 hijackers were already on govt watch lists, the FBI boldly ignored reports from flight schools about suspicious students, but now the govt needs to listen to the phone calls of 300 million people to find terrorists ...? :rolleyes: :barf:
 
Wow. Then you must not be paying attention. Just a tip: They want to kill us. Not a few of us, not some of us, ALL of us.
Click to expand...

Living with this level of fear must be unending hell. I pity you, and thank God I wasn't born a coward.
 
Before the name-calling gets too out-of-hand, here's my $.02:
Yet the GOP will hand over the BILL of Rights for govt "security"
Click to expand...
Which of the first ten amendments would that be, xd9fan?

I never have assumed that something I say over the telephone, or in an unclassified email, is immune from intercept. I always conduct myself accordingly. If I don't want something to be public knowledge, I don't communicate it openly. Simple. I don't believe my first amendments right to free speech is compromised by having to use face-to-face means to communicate private information. Inconvenient, perhaps. Illegal, not.

Look: you guys, I assume, have nothing against my putting up a battlefield (e.g., Iraq during Desert Storm) surveillance system to eavesdrop on enemy communications, right? That's a tactical operation that enhances my ability to defeat the enemy.

NEWS: The "battlefield" now is the whole world and surrounding ether. Welcome to 21st century warfare against America's enemies. And yeah, they would kill us all if allowed. In a New Yawk minute. Not on my watch.

TC
 
If a word is an accurate description, it is not an insult. Take fore example, the definition of the word "coward": One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

What could be more "ignoble" than to sacrifice liberty for safety?

Describing one who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger a coward is no more insulting than calling a person from Sweden a Swede.
 
Stability over-rated?

People seem to take it for granted that increasing "stability" (e.g., in Iraq) is important in defending against terrorism.
Has anyone noticed that virtually ALL terrorist attacks use stability in society as part of the attack? :uhoh:

The 9-11 hijackers originated in stable Saudi Arabia, plotted in nice stable European countries, learned to fly in the good ol' stable USA, travelled here through stable countries - they could never have hurt us directly from Afghanistan, or the mountains of Pakistan.

The Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel would have nothing to attack if there were not enough stability to allow regular bus service, people dining in restaurants, shopping in markets, etc. Not to mention the degree of stability needed to have large numbers of people crossing the borders every day.

I'm not suggesting stability is a negative; just that it may not be a positive, either, in this respect. A "stable" Iraq might be just another place for terorists to blend in with the population while they plot. :uhoh:

For that matter, most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are apparently coming from other, more "stable" countries. :banghead:
 
You people are forgetting how electronic taps work.

You run the ENTIRE FEED the net through computers. It looks AT EVERY PACKET, scans, sorts and catagorizes it, then keeps what it deems it needs (we hope).

But that means that it has to look at your e-mail to grammy to see if it mentions any key words, so yes, EVERY one of your e-mails, even this post, is scanned by the federal sniffer computers. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

I'm sure that the smart terrorists are at least encryping thier e-mail, but I am also SURE that the gubment has the horsepower to crack most publicly available encryption schemes.

Put a few supercomputers to work with a tuned cracking program and I bet most 256bit encryptions fail in a few days.
 
Quote:
Wow. Then you must not be paying attention. Just a tip: They want to kill us. Not a few of us, not some of us, ALL of us.



Living with this level of fear must be unending hell. I pity you, and thank God I wasn't born a coward.
________________________________

Sounded like a statement of fact to me, not a statement of fear. I don't see how you ended up at the word coward.

John
 
Then please pay attention, John. I repeat:

If a word is an accurate description, it is not an insult. Take fore example, the definition of the word "coward": One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

What could be more "ignoble" than to sacrifice liberty for safety?

Describing one who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger a coward is no more insulting than calling a person from Sweden a Swede.
Click to expand...
 
Secret Ben?

ReadyontheRight said:
Essentially, you are telling me that, as US Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin should not have alerted the US Army to the fact that a US citizen had received a letter addressed from William Howe.
Click to expand...

Essentially, you are being told that, as US Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin should not have had a secret program reading every letter mailed in the US, to see if Howe was the return addressee.

The critical thing is HOW the information was obtained. That is what raises the ethical/political issues. And your example sidesteps dealing with those issues.
 
There is absoletly no threat of violence or terrorism that should make people be willing to hand in their liberty in hopes of avoiding it. Our liberties are what our country is founded on and defines itself by. Creating widesweeping monitoring programs with no oversight and a very large potential for abuse is just another nail in the coffin of those freedoms. I agree 100% with the poster that said fear of terrorism compelling someone to give up their freedoms is a display of cowardice.
 
Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths United States, 2003
(Data from Injury Facts, 2004 Edition)

Motor Vehicle 44,800
Falls 16,200
Poisoning 13,900
Choking 4,300
Drowning 2,900
Fires, flames, and smoke 2,600
Suffocation 1,200



The Federal Govt got a brand new branch of Govt, the TSA, unlimited power for the NSA. Paying off the victims of 9-11(which I never understood---ever....even when I was a member of the GOP)
Spending and growth of the Federal Govt till kingdom comes because 3000 people died. The Federal Govt is making a killing on this.

I'm waiting for the new branch of Govt for the Choking deaths each year.


MY POINT IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVT WILL TAKE ANY EVENT AS A CHANCE TO GROW AND GET MORE CONTROL. WHAT I DONT SEE HAPPENING IS ANY REAL CHECK ON THESE NEW AND CONTINUEOUS POWERS AND ANY REAL PROTECTIONS OF ALL OF THE BILLS OF RIGHTS.

.....THATS what worries me.
 
Quote:
Wow. Then you must not be paying attention. Just a tip: They want to kill us. Not a few of us, not some of us, ALL of us.
Click to expand...



Living with this level of fear must be unending hell. I pity you, and thank God I wasn't born a coward.
Click to expand...
________________________________

Sounded like a statement of fact to me, not a statement of fear. I don't see how you ended up at the word coward.

John
Click to expand...


Thank you John, that is exactly correct. It is a FACT. It has nothing to do with fear, or cowardice. I lived in the middle east for two years and married a Turkish girl. I am quite familiar with the culture and the clearly stated goals of the Islamic lunatic fringe.

If you don't think that is their ultimate goal, you are sadly mistaken, and incredibly naive. That's as far as I'll go on THR responding to such an attack, Lobotomyboy, with the addition that your screen name resembles your remark.

And regarding the post about how democracy couldn't possibly take hold in Iraq, apparently because the people of that culture don't want it, how do you explain Turkey?
 
Why should it be stickied? This is a forum about gun related issues. These NSA activities are not gun related. In my view, since it is not germain, it should be deleted. I can get all this blather from the media.
 
"Eavesdropping" connotes "listening in" on conversations. That's not what the current program does.
 
Read the attached article. Even the unclassified stuff they are doing involves analysing the content of transmissions. And this has a lot to do with gun rights. If anyone comes for your guns, it wont be al queda, it will be our trustworthy government, protecting us from the latest boogeyman.

I love the people that present this debate as a choice between "Let your government spy on you" or "Help terrorists win." 99 percent of the changes we have made do not represent an effective defense against the terrorists. Let's review the three biggest ones:

ECHELON has been in operation essentially since the late 40s and it already failed to stop 9/11 and all the other terrorist plots (Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Iraq). This is because the terrorists know better than to communicate their plans electronically. What do you think all the talk about "better human intelligence" after 9/11 was all about? The government is equipped to spy upon hi-tech groups like the USSR or the Chinese or the citizens of this country, but al queda is staying mostly low tech. Its like using a blackpowder rifle to go fishing- a completely wrongheaded approach.

TSA is a sloppy, swiss cheese barricade between terrorists and civil aviation. Rather than undertake time consuming (but effective) measures modeled on the israeli system, they repeatedly target people who obviously arent terrorists and rarely target any given passenger for a full search. They are expensive and they arent making us safer. ECHELON to the rescue? Nope again.

Our Southern Border is wild open. We are essentially relying on the mexican police to catch terrorists entering their country so they cant walk into ours. This is probably the most obvious security problem right now, and our government is steadfastly refusing to fix it. So much for "security at any cost."
 
simple arithmetic.

Seems to me this whole issue resolves around the bureaucratic government's inability to do simple arithmetic. IOW, the number of terrorists actually in the country is, most likely, proportionally smaller than any noise in the signals they are searching.

Of course they have to improve and use their government "tools" even though they aren't really applicable to the job at hand. Sheesh, how likely is it they will find 8th century wannabe Luddites on the web? Just try getting a bureaucrat off his butt to go out in society and search for terrorists, do some good old fashioned investigating. Ain't gonna happen.

It's way more likely they will declare THR member's right wing extremist cult members so to run another fund raiser than actually find a real live terrorist.
 
Of course they have to improve and use their government "tools" even though they aren't really applicable to the job at hand.
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember what the headlines were about on September 10, 2001? Cheney was pushing for a space-based weapon system. Critics said that the type of attacks we were most likely to face would be low-tech terroristic attacks and not the types of missiles that the exhorbitantly expensive system cost, but Cheney had a big rubbery one for that space-based weapons system anyway. Osama kind of took the piss out of that idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top