Preserved Topic: Land of the Free?

I saw this on the news today and I was pretty shocked:

US begins entry checks on Muslims

All our freedoms are being eroded since 9/11 (polls here in the UK show a smallish majority in favour of such a thing if it will help fight terrorism) and this strikes me as another worrying development. If a country decided to do such a thing against Jewish people the outcry would be deafening.

I was just wondering what people thought about this move.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It's just a scare. We'll do it, get it over with, and apologize in two to four years.

njuice42: I do hope so but by then we will have identity cards (by another name I'm sure) and increased surveillance (for our security) and those kind of things are trickier to claw back once we have given them away. It always seems like the goverments use such scare tatics to push the boundaries of what we find acceptable - here in the UK we are getting 'entitlement' cards (I read somewhere that the number one thing you have to do to get an ID card sytem in is to call it anything but and ID card) because of scares over asylum seekers, the retention of more genetic samples to form a database which can be checked against any crime samples because of peadophile (and other) scares, greatly increased (200-300% in some areas) CCTV coverage because of our fears of street crime and now we have longer retention and greater monitoring of communication data (thanks to The War Against Terror).

This kind of thing is fine in our 'enlightened' times as I'm not going around committing a crime but we never can be sure what could be construde as a crime in a few generations time (sedition?).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ah, yea...I will read it in a second.

But about ID cards, it seems that in America you can't do anything without a Social Security number, a drivers license and a Credit Card. You can't even get a membership at a video rental place without a picture ID and a credit card. What's up with that?

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Ah, yea.

Everyone needs to just become a Christian, and than all these problems would be solved.

quote:

---

scares over asylum seekers

---

Yeah, I thought we were getting a lot of new people in here. Personally, I say we just take them with open arms and let Wakkos initiate them. I'm also a little nervous about the ID card thing--Wolfen already has hers, and I'm just waiting for the day when she decides to issue them to all the inmates as a security precaution.

quote:

---

Everyone needs to just become a Christian, and than all these problems would be solved.

---

Uh, where did that come from?

[The Management would like to note that the above post was not meant to belittle the issue at hand, and the poster does realize that it is almost an entirely useless post. The Management does not, however, apologize, and suggests that those who are offended join us in the basement for shock therapy treatment. Thank you.]


Cell 270

Just kidding Suho... I'm not even a Christian. More into Nature stuff, ya know...Shamanism..

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Like many things Americans end up doing after such tragic events, this is simply one more thing to help ensure that we *DO* have repeated terrorist actions and increased global hatred.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 10-01-2002).]

Suho1004:

Why didn't I see that one coming??

I think GRUMBLE and some others also have ID cards (it all started a while ago - nothing sudden just a gradual shift).

Gilbert Nolander: I'm sure we all spotted it was a joke (but you get shock treatment anyway - singing the Ramones all the way).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I always liked this song from The Clash

quote:

---

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights

You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you

Listen to this
Run

---

Kinda 'in tune' with this thread...

Well, there's two quotes that can pretty much sum up what I think about it:

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace" - John Lennon's "Imagine"

and...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Amen. Very nice...

And true.

Give me freedom and give me death???

Shouldn't we be discussing where to draw the line as opposed to there being a line at all? We are at war right now. It's perfectly natural to scrutinize people based on the current threat. A huge portion of the Islamic world agrees with the attacks and that is why we just can't ignore the facts on this one. If it were a smaller contingent it would be a very different story.

Imagine what it is like to jump from the WTC. And I think even Ben Franklin would understand protecting the nation from attacks from foreign nationals to be a little different than allowing people to criticize their government.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm concerned too... we should all be concerned to protect against going too far but it's almost sounding to me like you're all saying we should have no scrutiny of visitors. Is that really what you're advocating?

. . : slicePuzzle

I have to agree with Bugs on this one. I don't mind being tracked and or watched. I'm not doing anything wrong. I want there to be some huge safety breaks inserted in the implementation of 'ID cards' or whatever it is. I'm not going to get nailed for something that was just made illegal the day before and I hadn't read the paper yet, sort of thing. It isn't like they're talking about putting mikes and cameras on everyone. If they want to track me as I move around... go ahead. It already happens anyway.

What is this essential liberty that I'm giving up? The right to Privacy... Freedom? Are they going to tap my phone and put cameras in my house to watch me in the shower? Get a kick out of me buying my fiance some kinky underwear? I'm still free to do whatever I want providing I don't break any laws. I haven't given up the right to privacy in any way what-so-ever. They don't have the right to access any of the information compiled about me until I'm arrested for a crime or under suspicion of commiting a crime, just like they can't do that today with the information that they have on me already. You see, it's when I commit a crime that I give up my rights.

Profiling goes against my basic principles but when faced with an insurmountable number of people to watch you need to make some choices to narrow the field or you don't watch anyone well enough to make a difference.

And Emp... The Jews aren't portrayed as dangerous, are they? If the Jewish community suddenly went on a 'I hate Americans' killing spree we'd be watching and checking them as they entered our country to protect ourselves. How is this different?

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably"

- STNG

During war, mistakes are made and things are done in the best way they can given the circumstances. The Americans of Japanese descent that were imprisoned during WWII are no longer in the camps. And reparations were paid after the fact. I do *not* want to argue whether it was right to intern them, but I just wanted to point out that not all trangressions against freedom are permanent. Especially in a country like the US where the system is designed to allow for corrections.

Respectfully, I disagree.

The only thing I see wrong with the idea is that it applies only to a certain group. IMHO, such checks should be run on everyone entering the country, including my fellow citizens.

If you read the article closely, it says that those deemed to be an elevated risk will be formally registered and will have *30 days* to say where they are living, working or studying.

It does not say they will be turned away at the border, nor does it say they will be taken into custody.

I live 60 minutes from where the "sleeper cell" was arrested recenty. I'm also 60 minutes from the Canadian border. No one has said anything about the Canadians turning away US citizens at their borders. I myself was denied entry to Canada in 1998. (Four years later, I don't blame them a bit.)

Since 9/11, anyone with any sort of criminal record, including traffic violations, is turned away at the Canadian border. My roommate had a DUI 12 years ago. He had to file with the Canadian embassy, pay $200 (US by the way, they're not stupid) and submit reports from the FBI, NY State, the county and city, proof of completion of alcohol rehab and seven letters of recommendation. Then it took nine months to process his application. Result? He can now enter Canada freely as a tourist. I also know he was not singled out. I personally know three others who have gone through the same thing.

Every soverign nation has the right to grant or deny border crossing to anyone for any reason. Full stop. It is the governments' duty in order to protect its citizens.

Again, the only problem I see here is that particular attention is being paid to a small segment of the 35 million foreign nationals who enter the US every year. The same rules should apply to all.

"the most incredible feats are often accomplished by
those who have had the most incredible challenges"

Why should the same rules apply to all?

because profiling (racial or not) is what you do when a crime has been recently commited to cut down on the investigative work needed to catch the criminal.

If you know his race or face or hair color you look for those characteristics.

In this case, the terrorists we're worried about are from these certain arab and muslim countries.

This of course is also a flawed because not every terrorist is a registered citizen of these countries nor flying in straight from them. But they do this because checking everyone is too hard. Yeah well, tough cookies.

And I don't know what this talk of rights is. They are visitors to our country, not citizens. They don't have the rights we do and we can toss em out as frequently or infrequently as we care to.

note: due to the totally skewed headline on this subject (oh look it's the BBC, what a surprise.) I must clarify the US procedure.
We ARE NOT profiling on their religions, as we would check all people from these countries regardless if they were muslim, jew, or shinto, lima, lentil, soy, or pinto.

If Israelites blew up our military headquarters, I'm sure we'd check anyone from there as well. And in turn BBC would post some fucked up headline like "US begins entry checks on Jewish". What a crock.

quote:

---

If you know his race or face or hair color you look for those characteristics.

---

Oh so if 1 Islamic blows himself up for martyrship than that means they all will?

quote:

---

We ARE NOT profiling on their religions

---

No one ever said we were. We are trying to simply say that religion has been the cause of several political frustration and global for that matter. No one wants to check these people for terrorist activities, no one wants to find any sort of relation to terrorist activity, they are doing it to ensure safety in this country. It's logical.

Now I agree with brucew. Everyone entering the country should be interrogated equally. But since it would be impossible to actually sit down with every american and have a pep talk on weather or not you're a terrorist, we select a group of people which has been statistically proven by majority to be related with terroristic activities, if had not been for certain statisitcs, it would be completely asinine and or stereo-typical for the country to select the muslim ethnicity to interrogate.

Jamie is also absolutely correct. Selecting the muslims and only the muslims will cause the muslims to feel insecure and they won't feel so strongly for the american government. But if they have nothing to hide than it shouldn't be much of a problem. Now the ones that are going to get pissed are the ones that are involved with terroristic activity, and the ignorant ones that have nothing to hide but get pissed anyway because they feel that it is unconstitutional and unfair to select them from a vast majority of ethnic groups residing in our country.

I see no problem with racial profiling.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Well I do. It sets a precidence, and one not to my liking. Every journey starts with the first step. Are we really sure we wish to take this road? Where does it lead? We should be damned sure of where this is going, before implimenting this.

Yes, we have a right to defend ourselves. However, do we have the right to penalize others because of this? Remember, Innocent before proven guilty. On this cornerstone, is our justice system built. We should take great care before smashing it.

All options should be explored before doing this, IMHO. There must be a better way.

Oh so if 1 Islamic blows himself up for martyrship than that means they all will?
No, if we believed that, they would all be immediately arrested.
And even though you first question my argument, then end your post agreeing with me, I will still clarify.
Statistically, now people from the same background as the terrorists are more likely to commit the same crime. They are from the same country, lead by the same propaganda, taught by the same Madrassa's etc.
That's statistics. When 12 people die from lung cancer because of cigarettes, then others with the same habit are believed to be susceptible, so in turn their life insurance rates are raised higher than non-smokers.
Come on... get with the program.

We ARE NOT profiling on their religions
No one ever said we were.
The BBC's headline said exactly that, Insider. You must read all my paragraphs in context with the other sentences. BBC Headline: "US begins entry checks on Muslims".

However, do we have the right to penalize others because of this? Remember, Innocent before proven guilty.

You believe giving them a background check and making them check in with us within 30 days is tantamount to labeling them guilty?

May I remind you that they do not have the right to be here in the first place.
It is a privilige the US government is bestowing upon them.
We don't have to let them in, we can chunk them back in the plane and send their asses back.

They are not US citizens.
No US citizen is being tagged here.
I, for one, am all for militarizing the borders and banning any flights in from terrorist-risk countries.

genis, this

quote:

---

I, for one, am all for militarizing the borders and banning any flights in from terrorist-risk countries

---

is the stupidest thing I've ever heard...do you think that terrorists would have any problem getting around that? It would only keep innocent people from traveling...terrorists have access to passes...and can go through other countries first...

Are you then suggesting, that bussiness people from these countries shouldn't be able to do business with us anymore? Because they surely wouldn't be allowed to enter our country under this...rule. No, that is definetly not a reasonable solution.

Yes, I'm aware that they are not American citizens. However, Innocent before proven guilty is more than just a 'lawyers' saying...it is a cornerstone that our country is built on. It is also a conerstone of what we believe. To say 'Well, they are not US citizens' hardly means that they should not be given just and good treatment. By throwing all those innocents into a basket with a few bad apples, one is doing them an injustice. But you seem to justify this with the 'US citizen' bull...ok, that's your opinion. One must consider, that 'Muslim' countries don't have to sell oil to us, either...or allow our citizens into their countries...without a 'full body cavity check'. Not a very good idea for business, is it?

Remember, we believe that the 'little guy' should be protected from the masses...and that groups shouldn't be penalized because of a few...ring any bells?

This will simply not accomplish anything...other than 'stirring up' the already unsteady situation...

Now, tightening up all the 'control checks' for entering the country...of that, I have no problem with. Just as long as it doesn't 'single out' a particular group, nationality or religion.

And I think WS says it the best - we should be assumed to be innocent before being proven guilty. A lot of these new laws are going for blanket monitoring but there is now evidence that will work at all - the great failure leading up to 9/11 was specific focused intelligence about the activities of a small group.

So its now OK to monitor Arabs from certain countries but there are militant religious leaders in this country (the UK) and young Moslems have been going out to places like Yemen for training so we should really monitor them.

You should also take into account that some of the Arabs who are now US citizens may also be sleepers so we'd better monitor them too.

There is some discussion that militant Moslem groups may be meeting up with far right groups as they have a common hatred of he US government so we'd better keep a closer eye on them.

And lets be honest the Anthrax attacks probably originated from an American (probably with high security clearance in one of a couple of military labs) so we should keep an ear open for evidence flowing from there.

And some of the left wingers have been anti-war all along................

And.........

This isn't a structured war with geographical or temporal limits and I doubt it will ever be 'over' (in fact if poorly handled by our governments it could just get worse) there will be no point where we can really say the threat is over.

And we still have unspecified numbers of Moslems imprisoned without trail in a nuber of locations.

Its much quoted (in many variations) and a little emotive (I apologise in advance if it upsets anyone) but this comes to mind:

quote:

---

â??First they came for the Communists,
but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.â?�

Martin Niemoller

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Amen Emps, that quote is gold, baby...pure gold! Though I've seen it before here...it applies, 100%...

Thanks for posting it.

A lot of these arguements are based on what the Media has decided to focus on. No one has said that we aren't paying attention to other groups that are a threat. We're just placing specific attention to a specific threat. I can't imagine we've stopped watching those we were watching before. If you look at it in the context of trying to protect the country it wouldn't make sense to ONLY focus on arabs/muslims trying to enter our country. it would be beneficial to continue watching everybody but pay more attention to those of the same ethnic background as those the attacked us already. We aren't assuming they're all "guilty" we're assuming that there will be other attacks from that ethnic group and want to scare the attackers off, or catch them. This isn't any different then getting a police sketch of a criminal and having the cops only looking for that type of person. We have evidence that proves that people of that ethnic background are a greater threat to us.(WTC Attack)

So Yeah, You're right it would be foolish to look at only one group of people to try and protect us. It would also be foolish to spread our surveillence so thin that we don't get any infromation anyway. We don't have the personel to handle that amount of background checks. Checking in isn't terribly different in most other countries. I know when my x-wife went to Sweden she had to tell them where she was staying. She also had to have a job first. She was there on a 1 year visa or something. Even when she was just visiting she had to shell out a ton of information. I agree that it should be for everyone. But until we have the structure and capacity to handle that sort of information load we need to focus on where the threat is percieved.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

quote:

---

Why should the same rules apply to all?

---

1) As a demonstration that the concept of equal treatment under the law (although in this case its a policy, not a law) begins at our border.
2) The entire argument of profiling goes away.
3) Why screen only for terrorists? Why not all criminals?

Part of the screening is already carried out in some visitor's home countries through the process of obtaining entry visas from the US embassy or consulate. It doesn't have to take place on the jetway.

It took two years for a friend of mine to get a tourist visa simply because he's Nicaraguan. He'd done his masters here (in IT) on a student visa a few years before and works in the IT department of a bank. Frustrating? Yes. A bit over the top? No doubt.

Still, that process is already in place and has been for some time. I agree with it on basic principles and feel it should be all inclusive.

quote:

---

However, Innocent before proven guilty is more than just a 'lawyers' saying...it is a cornerstone that our country is built on.

---

This concept applies only *after* arrest. No criminal investigation could ever be undertaken if everyone was presumed to be innocent all the time. Suspicion is a requirement for investigation. And it is screening--investigation by another name--that we're talking about here.

Presumption of innocence is part--an important part, but only a part--of the checks and balances in place protect against mistakes on the part of the investigators. It does not apply, however, prior to arrest.

And the screening process isn't neccessarily based on a presumption of guilt. Remember "Trust but verify"?

<edit>typos</edit>

"the most incredible feats are often accomplished by
those who have had the most incredible challenges"

[This message has been edited by brucew (edited 10-02-2002).]

Please read the above quote, then think about what you posted...

Ad another thought, that may sound really terrible to say but...

If they are being labelled poorly by a small constituant of their race, why don't they publicly condemn them and take action against them. I'm not only speaking of muslim/arabs in America, I'm speaking of them all. Even though they don't really like agreeing with each other they are all rolled into one group for the most part. If they would take some action or stand up and say 'We do not agree with the actions of these fanatics and we will do our best to remove them from our country' I've heard the words before but I've never seen any action on those words. We can't fix this from the outside, and we are outside because we're America. Whether they hate us or not... we aren't a part of them. If they would actively oppose the militant groups within their own borders some of the "terrorists" might realize that not all of the muslim/arab community agrees with what is happening. This won't reach all of them mind you, but it might help some of them before they sacrifice their lives to perpetuating this stupidity.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Well while we are talking apt song lyrics:

quote:

---

Dead Kennedys
California Uber Alles


I am governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns
Soon I will be president...
Carter power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school

California Uber alles
California Uber alles
Uber alles California
Uber alles California

Zen fascists will control you
Hundred percent natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay

California Uber alles
Uber alles California

Now It Is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower
Die on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown

California Uber alles
Uber alles California

---

And WS a number of my friends would kiss you for throwing the Clash in there

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Oh but 'they' (man, I really despise it when someone uses that word...) have done so...I think you forgot about Pakistan...and the fact that they allowed us to get that Al Queda member there (and his buds). They also threw a huge amount of support our way during the war in Afghanistan.

There are also other 'signs', if you will, of such...so yes, the 'Moslems' have recognized that this is damaging their image. And they are sending out signals (and gestures, etc) that they wish to do something about it.

It's just hard, in a religious government system, to do exactly that.

I realize its hard and vocal support is better than no support. 'Actions speak louder than words' is a commonly accepted phrase for a reason. I just think it would be nice to see active support from Moslem organizations and other middle eastern communities on a continuing basis rather than in specific instances only.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

GrythusDraconis: Here in the UK most of the mainstream Moslem organisations condemned 9/11 and anti-American sentiment and have been working with the police to keep an eye on the more exteme elements. Unfortunately a stereotypical view of Islam out to take out the Great Satan makes much better (easier) news.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WS: It would be easier for me to address your concerns if you would share with me exactly what they are.

"the most incredible feats are often accomplished by
those who have had the most incredible challenges"

Sorry about the confusion, brucew. That wasn't meant for you, but for the post above yours...I didn't 'notice' yours sneaking in there before mine. No hard feelings?

@Emps...oh, I wasn't aware that there were any The Clash fans still out there...besides myself...*sniff* Just brings tears to my eyes...Punk Lives!!!

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-03-2002).]

quote:

---

do you think that terrorists would have any problem getting around that?

---

*sigh* - how about you bone up on the recent history of how the 9/11 hijackers got in.
... and i'm the stupid one?

quote:

---

It would only keep innocent people from traveling

---

Oh i see, because they are innocent it gives them a RIGHT to travel here? This isn't a borderless world, WS. If a country is at high-risk, we should keep their people out, plain and simple. Got any more secure ideas than that?

quote:

---

Are you then suggesting, that bussiness people from these countries shouldn't be able to do business with us anymore?

---

Yes if that's what it takes. Although in this age of instant communication, travel is far less necessary for doing business.

quote:

---

To say 'Well, they are not US citizens' hardly means that they should not be given just and good treatment.

---

Are we treating them badly by not allowing them into our country? No. Is it unjust to not allow them into our country? no. Our country, our choice. Can your hippie crap.

quote:

---

One must consider, that 'Muslim' countries don't have to sell oil to us, either

---

Good. You don't know how I'd love to see that come about. I actually know how many capped oil wells we have in this country because they can't compete against OPEC prices. An energy crisis is something we'd have for a short while and come out of smelling like daisies.

quote:

---

Now, tightening up all the 'control checks' for entering the country...of that, I have no problem with. Just as long as it doesn't 'single out' a particular group, nationality or religion.

---

Well if wishes were fishes...

As for the Niemoller quote. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU compare our security checks and our holding of detainees to the Nazi internment and slaughter of millions? You disgrace the memory of all those who died in those camps.

quote:

---

(I apologise in advance if it upsets anyone)

---

Oh gee, how nice.

quote:

---

Amen Emps, that quote is gold, baby...pure gold!

---

~pukes~

WS: No problem. There never were any hard feelings. Confusion? Yes. Especially since I don't always see errors in my logic or in expressing my thoughts. So there was every possibility there was something there I just couldn't see. Just checking.

"the most incredible feats are often accomplished by
those who have had the most incredible challenges"

Theres a fundamental flaw to this new policy. Afghanastan didn't declare war on the United States. A small Muslim radical group from various countries with virtually unlimited money and resources did. To penalize specific Muslim countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan is a pretty assinine suggestion. Just as radical Republicans aren't limited to Texas, radical Muslims aren't limited to this area.

-Jestah
Cell 277

I'm going to stay outside of the political argument on this one.

However, the fact remains that there are some powerful ideas and memes running around that cannot be ignored. There is very powerful meme flowing through the Islamic culture that the United States of America is evil. More dangerous than this is that a few of the members of this noble and rich culture have gotten it into their weak minds that it is a Good Idea to kill yourself in the name of faith. This cannot be underestimated. Dealing politically with the issue is tricky at best, but I am glad attention is being paid to it. Sadly, the media will present the enemy as a person, a human (male) who is out to get us. Really, the true enemy is a wicked idea born out of the fallacy of faith in hatred. All humans are succeptible to being consumed by such infomation viruses, not just Muslims. They are just in the spotlight.

- Ben

genis: I think you have completely missed my point - trust me if I wanted to compare the acts of the current US administration to that of the Third Reich I would be more explicit and say so directly. That specific quote although orginating from the Holocaust has a interesting resonance and more than any other I can think of has taken on a life of its own because the lesson it teaches is far more important than just as a historical fact. It says that you should always be vigilant not just for the rights of yourself but for everyone's rights. Not even totalitarian regimes would be bold enough to impose sweeping monitoring measures, or any other erosion of our civil liberties, or large groups of the population. Ruling bodies of all stripes (from juntas to elected parliaments) will try and impose the greatest level of control they can get away with and if hat involves taking advantages of scares or targetting specific members of the population then so be it. In the late eighties early nineties here numerous acts were passed to try and restrict the 'dangers' of New Age travellers and illegal raves and we are still having to deal with the legacy of those laws.

You say you don't mind these laws because you are doing nothing wrong and that attitude is fatal because precedents are being set and what is classed as being wrong has a tendency to shift. On a smaller scale to what we have been discussing but still relevant (I hope): new laws in the pipeline and some legal precedents set may actually make it illegal to block ads.

Anyway I hope I've made my point a bit clearer there.

Jestah: I fear that is a good point - the majority of those involved in 9/11 were Egyptian or Saudi but I suppose the named countries are just easier targets.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Metahedron: Nice to have you back here and (if I've understood you correctly) I think you are right.

What these, and other measures, is trying to do is deal with symptoms not causes and in some ways I think these actions are only going to make matters worse. The reasons the US is hated (not just be Moslems) are many and some of the reasons (the freedom of women, a liberal, secular society, etc.) are ones that should never be changed but the perception that the US (its administration anyway) is being arrogant and high-handed and trying to force its values and systems on to other people aren't going to be helped by current actions.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

yes well, while i agree we should watch out for everyone's civil rights, you seem to be including admittance into the US as a civil RIGHT.
It is not.

quote:

---

And we still have unspecified numbers of Moslems imprisoned without trail in a nuber of locations.

---

And i suppose you would have us give everyone the exact location we are holding Abu Zubaiydah so the red cross could go over and see how his murdering ass is being treated? Well, I would too, if the evidence presented to us about his evil deeds were not sufficient. I'm just glad our government is responsible enough to tell us when they are holding someone. If they ceased doing that, I too would be up in arms. But giving out the location makes it one massive target. This is for our security after all.

quote:

---

You say you don't mind these laws because you are doing nothing wrong

---

I don't know where you are losing track of the beginnings of this post, but I've never said that, and this isn't about targeting Muslims in our country or elsewhere.

It's about securing our country against countries with the highest levels of threatening radical ideas and people. It's statistics once again. If those countries also happen to have a high number of muslims, well whoopty shit. No need to pull the race card or religion card. If Norway suddenly had an insurgence of white radical christian neo-nazis with plans to blow up the San Francisco bridge we would tag everyone coming in from Norway too, if they weren't a US citizen.

Show me where someone's civil rights have been breached and I'll be upset.
Can you show me? Can you?

genis:

quote:

---

I've never said that

---

and I've checked and you didn't - sorry about that. My pint is then directed to GD

I'm curious about the rest of your statements - are you really implying that no-one but a US citizen has rights when in the US? If not it is the way it comes across I'm afraid.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Certainly, taking action to prevent another 9/11 is justified. Even actions that are unpopular. It may be rather unpopular if war against Iraq indeed moves forward. How do you think the battle can be fought not against the humantiy but against language? When an innocent Afghani comes to our country to enjoy the sights and is strip searched, it can bee seen as an over-eager customs agent (and Customs policies) and might be seen as a terrible regression from freedom into totalitarianism. However, althought the pain is real, it is subjective. In my mind, what is happening is that an *idea* is manifested phsyically by a violation of one's privacy. So rarely do I see the issues (political or otherwise) as concept instead of direct personal responsiblity.

Some brave news writers have pleaded with the U.S. to be less of a jerk. Some citizens are seeing past the ACLU-ish goings ons and tried to remedy the sociological errors that created this situation in the first place. Some members of the Asylum seem to be attempting at least to reverse the long-coming loop of eye for an eye, the feeding of the beast.

Emps, when i'm speaking about rights in this thread, I'm saying no one but a citizen has the right to be admitted entry into our country. We can turn you away if we don't like your haircut, and that's the simple truth. The fact that we allow them in is a privilige. If checking in with us in 30 days in undergoing a full background check is the price of that privilige, well they can take it or leave it. Don't matter us none.

quote:

---

Some citizens are seeing past the ACLU-ish goings ons and tried to remedy the sociological errors that created this situation in the first place.

---

Please do continue to open up that can of worms by telling us what you interpret these sociological errors to be, Meta.

Well, to start with: Israel. Is it truly in our best interest to support this last vestage of Divine Providence?

genis, your ranting is exactly that...pointless ranting. You've probably never been in a war, so get a clue. You've probably never lived in another country, so get a clue. You have absolutely no idea about oil, as seen from your previous posts, or how much America consumes, so get a clue.

I'd love to see you getting that 'full body cavity' check on vacation in some other country...just so I could hear you screaming about how you are an American citizen, and that you have rights, etc.

Ach, I'm wasting my breath on you, you're just arguing to argue. And if you call me a 'hippie' again, there will be hell to pay. First off, I fought a war for my country, and I have served. Have you? I am not a 'peace-loving tree hugger with a peace sign t-shirt'.

I have the 'luxury' of having lived in many other countries...not just visited, but lived. Therefore, I have a perspective on the States based on experience that you probably don't have. I have seen (and been a part) of the inner workings of not only America, but a large portion of the western world. I have held high security clearances, not only with the military, but also with the dept. of energy. My 'information' most likely vastly exceeds yours.

But hey, go on ranting...kinda sounds like Mr. Bush...or you could put your 'talent' to use as an energizer commercial...just goes on and on and on....

And I never said anything about the legal aspects of the threads topics...don't know where you got that idea. It's like arguing with a little kid. *shakes head*

@Meta - well said.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-03-2002).]

Everyone duck, the ax is swinging, and hair is flying...

Actually, American culture itself one obese, dirty, disrespectful sociological error, frankly. The beauty and power of the wise men who created our country and the blood of our ancestors is overshadowed by McDonalds, Disney, and Ford. I am so ashamed by the de facto way of living here. The fact that many Americans are ignorant, consuming slobs *does* matter to the world. An important effort would be to try and change our image and focus on the brighter sides of our country.

Emp - My basic point is that we're already being watched and tracked in just about everything we do. I wouldn't fall over if I heard that Ozone was being skimmed by FBI computers. Like... someone... GN, I think, said.

quote:

---

But about ID cards, it seems that in America you can't do anything without a Social Security number, a drivers license and a Credit Card.

---

Official ID cards really make no difference. Your social security card is your ID card. How is a "different" ID card going to be any different?

WS - I confess to missing your point. What about the above quote was supposed to make me re-evaluate what I said?

I'm also not against screening everyone regardless of race, religion, etc. etc.

We don't have the resources to do that right now. When we do, we'd better start searching everyone. I haven't said anything otherwise. I agree with equality. However, when faced with a specific threat and not enough resources to be equal in our checks, we should check where the percieved threat is until we can be equal in our checks. We can assume the innocence of a person until a routine check gives us reason not to. How else are we supposed to screen for criminals?

If I recall correctly, you aren't against security checks so long as they are done for everyone entering the country. If screening everyone isn't feasible at this point in time do you suggest we do nothing until those resources are in place? Or should we do what we can until those resources are in place and then screen everybody after it is feasible?

Maybe if our government was vocal about getting measures in place to be able to check everyone this wouldn't be so big an issue. They should check everyone for any number of crimes. It'll take time and money to get those measures put in place but that is the way it should be done. Some effort should be shown that we are heading that way, the way of equality.

I here ya, Emp. I am woefully subject to the information that is deemed necessary for me to hear from the media. It makes it difficult to really get all of the info. Is this actually that mainstream a thing or is it just here and there? I mean all of not just in the UK.

genis - Much as I agree with the instigating principles of what you're saying... your take is a bit extreme. It is a visitors priveledge to be able to come here. If you want to get strict about something get strict about stopping illegal immigrants or something. Oh... I see, Texas. A friend of mine form Arizona holds that same basic point of view, but only in the immigration for citizenship side of it.

Nods to Meta.

Right on both counts. An improtant effort would be to improve the American lifestyle which would improve our image. Lets not just focus on the brighter sides of America that are here... lets make some more bright sides to look at.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-03-2002).]

everyone is right is someone's eyes.

well, your Social Security Number is not an I.D. card.
As far as I remember from my stay in the US, it's not even illegal to give businesses a fake one. (I'm not sure about government agency, but you could argue for it on the scope in which Social Security Numbers were introduced).

Really scary is biometrical identification (fingerprints (already being done in GA driver's licenses), face recognition data, DNA-scans...) into the ID cards. You can't fake those. (or at least it's much harder to).
And, it's a very small step from there to a central database with this information. Welcome to 1984, only lot's cheaper...

For all your 'Big Brother' needs...this.

So yes, we are being watched, weighted, catogorized, filtered...all over the world. Echelon is a huge intelligence gathering dept. Luckily, it has 'filters' in place...screening much out. It 'looks' for certain keywords, phrases, etc.

However, the 'filters' can be changed...quite easily. The human element is, perhaps, the greatest weakness of this 'community'. They 'obey and follow' guidelines from higher up, on what they 'pass on' as information...

And yes, they 'watch' this board, as well...all boards, to be exact. And E-Mails. And data exchanges. And, and, and....

The nearest 'post' to me, here in Germany, is in Bayern. They actually managed to get into the German news awhile ago...surely, someone f**ked up...

Oh, and to GrythusDraconis, this

quote:

---

We have evidence that proves that people of that ethnic background are a greater threat to us.(WTC Attack)

---

is what I was referring to. Your use of the word 'ethnic' here...personally, it's...disturbing. I would put it more like this 'people from this sort of background' and then go on to explain what sort of background you mean. I don't think that because of the 'ethnic' background, it has anything at all to do with it. There are people from that 'ethnic' background who are christians, or who don't believe in religion, as well. And there are literally millions who are very peace-loving folks.

Maybe we should start doing the same to the Irish, eh? Or the many other 'ethnic' groups around the world where there are some 'bad apples' in the bunch...

And that's what I meant.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-03-2002).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-04-2002).]

Webshaman - I did not write that?

-^^-
--::--
\___/

don't mind WebShaman, GN, he has way more experience than us in everything, so he is obviously right by default.
Our arguing points with him mean nothing because he has been in a war, traveled abroad, and had some sort of security clearance at one time or another in 2, count em, TWO places.

By this same logic we should not question the president or our elected officials, I mean they work in the government for chrissake and have major amounts of security clearance we don't... they obviously know what is best for all of us.

*Shakes head*

There is no need to give Meta a retort for obvious reasons.

tool

Insider - LOL

Genis - Jestah summed it up quite nicely already: "Afghanastan didn't declare war on the United States. A small Muslim radical group ... did." There isn't a Terroristonia, filled to the brim with Terrorists that are just flocking to enter our country. It's a wee bit harder to handle than that. While yes, I do believe that a strong defence be a positive thing in America at the moment, simply slamming the door and telling everyone Muslim to piss off is just... well... ignorant. Perhaps looking at things a bit differently, and showing a moderate amount of respect to those who debate your opinions, and you'll find yourself an actual soap box to stand on and preach. Until then, at least try not to intentionally piss people off for the sake of pissing them off.

-

Moreover, to the ID Cards/Tracking issue that was being discussed before we got into a Americana Rights debate (as a lot of threads are going nowadays), I too don't have any real big issues with being tracked and watched and whatnot... but I don't know, it almost feel like it's an issue of trust. Have I done anything to have anyone really keeping tabs on me and where I go, who I talk to, what I buy? I mean... I pay my taxes, I buy my gas, I have my friends, I go to work, I get my paycheck... I haven't exactly purchased a gallon of napalm or an M-16 anytime lately, so being tracked would just kinda make me feel like my own government doesn't trust me as a citizen. And a government, built by the people and for the people, not trusting it's own citizens... sounds like a pretty shitty government, if you ask me. Why, it almost sounds... undemocratic...



Sorry I lost track of this thread, I fully intended on being a part of things, but I just downright forgot about it.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

genis! Retorts quite welcome to enlighten ignorant and oblivious asylum participants such as the author of such retort-impaired commentary.



(edit - obviously, obligated to correct "oblivious".)

[This message has been edited by Metahedron (edited 10-04-2002).]

Jesus, njuice if you'd just read my posts you'd understand we're not slamming the door on all people muslim... i've only repeated this so many times... you people really suck the life out of debate.

Keep on typing, Meta.

Nope, sure didn't say we did. I said you claimed this was the best course of action, which you did.

If a country is at high-risk, we should keep their people out, plain and simple. Got any more secure ideas than that?

Sorry, did I misread that?

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

slamming the door and telling everyone Muslim to piss off

filtering out a country doesn't filter out a religion.

true we do stop all residents of Iran, Iraq, etc not to come here, but just because their government forces them to be Muslim doesn't mean we're targeting those countries because all their residents are Muslim.

why am i repeating myself? I'm done here... no one listens.

Their people? It was a handful of Islamic fundamentalists. They hardly represent the Middle East population. It's like suggesting that those on death row represent the United States.

It's not that no one listens. We all read your posts, there just generally filled with false generalizations and silly responses. Don't become offended because we disagree with you, try and figure out an effective way to get your opinion across.

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 10-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 10-04-2002).]

No, those islamic fundamentalists do not represent the whole of the Middle East, and neither does Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Lybia.

But when a government brainwashes their population to hate the US and leads them to believe the US is the center of all their problems, is there any wonder why we keep Iranians, Iraqians, and Lybians out?

Have I made a false generalization by saying keeping residents of irresponsible governments out of the US makes us more secure and we have the absolute RIGHT to do so, for the security of our nation?
I don't think so.

You do realize we can't travel to those places either. My passport is not good there, is yours?

You say figure out an effective way to communicate my opinion?
Well if you've noticed, I've been a broken record in all of my posts. I've repeated the same point in all of them over and over but in different manners hoping to get something/anything across.

Doesn't seem to have worked.

First of all, my apologies to GN...indeed, that was meant for GrythusDraconis. Sorry about that. No hard feelings?

And now to Mr. Genis...

Heh. I have absolutely nothing against a good, sound debate...in fact, I welcome such. But personal attacks, name calling, and emotional outbursts are hardly what I would call a 'good, sound' debate. Now, I will do you a favor here, in the hope that you will listen. It is my greatest of hopes that you will remain here at the Asylum, and improve your debating skills (so that I can improve mine). The first few times that you posted at the Asylum, were pretty good...and I thought that maybe we had another thinker in you. However, in this thread, you went way off, maybe because the subject is an emotional one for you, and as you should know, emotion clouds not only judgement, but the thinking process, as well. It is one thing to 'stand on the soapbox', it is quite another to deliberately attack someone else personally. Now, you've been 'shown' the cold reality of your posts. You have a choice from here. Learn, and continue...or become someone who will be isolated. To have an opinion is one thing...yes, we all have opinions here. But to state those as fact, and to personally belittle others, even out of context, is another.

The ability to apologize, is hugely underrated...but sometimes essential. Have I made my point clear?

Also, you assume that I somehow hold the high ground, because of my experiences. Well, sometimes that may be the case, but sometimes not. I can be wrong, and I am well aware of this. When shown that that is true, then I admit it, and accept it. You could do the same.

I sincerely hope that you read this, and take it to heart. We can all make mistakes, yes. It's what we do after that, that is telling.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-04-2002).]

quote:

---

I've repeated the same point in all of them over and over but in different manners hoping to get something/anything across.

Doesn't seem to have worked.

---

Ermz to that...

quote:

---

no one listens

---

That just thralled it to me....

No you fucking idiot, you're not listening. Instead of being so defensive try to understand that these people here have an open mind about everything you say up until you slap down a bunch of shit that not only is rude and disrespectful but is ignorant and lame.

It's quite obvious you have a great sence of global knowlege and we are all happy to converse with you in a civil manor. Now you take the time to listen to what they say and think before you post. Trust me it works.

quote:

---

don't mind WebShaman, GN, he has way more experience than us in everything, so he is obviously right by default.
Our arguing points with him mean nothing because he has been in a war, traveled abroad, and had some sort of security clearance at one time or another in 2, count em, TWO places.

---

And if you don't want to be scalped, I suggest you don't make any more comments on the fact that WS had to go to war. It sickens me when poeple have to go to the extreme to disrespect someone who has put their life up for this country and I won't tolerate it here.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 10-04-2002).]

tool

No no no... See it doesn't work that way....

Unless of course you were calling yourself a tool, in that case your absolutely right.

But since I doubt that you would all of the sudden change your attitude, I can only assume that you called me a tool.

<maynard>Well now I've got some bad advice for you little buddy. Before you point the finger you should know that I'm the man.</maynard>

That's TOOL.

Heh. Never thought that InSiDeR would be 'sticking up' for me...

Well, let's wait and see how genis reacts...I think a reasonable amount of time should be given for him to think, and comptemplate...he's standing on the edge...and his decision now will decide future...actions.

'Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and therefore the consequences' (unless insane).

On with the original topic of the thread!

anyone around here get the irony?

Can anyone tell me what is totally wrong with Insider's post?
I find it glaringly obvious, of course.

Can anyone share with the class? Anyone at all?

Ahhh...genis, this isn't about InSiDeR...I think we've had way too many threads about InSiDeR...in fact, we are all hoping that we won't have to have any more threads about InSiDeR...one can hope...

That said, this thread is about Land of the Free?. My most recent posts, however, were directed soley at you. I await your reaction to them.

oh dude... sorry I didn't even see that one.... will get to it post haste.

I'll play along with this little off-topic ruse for now . . .

emotion clouds not only judgement, but the thinking process, as well.
And boy it must've clouded you when I laid "hippie" out there.

It is one thing to 'stand on the soapbox', it is quite another to deliberately attack someone else personally.
Dude, if you find that my suggesting that you espouse "hippie crap" as a personal attack, then you have got some major problem with hippies that i don't even wanna know about.
Remember, you called my statement on militarizing the border and banning flights "the stupidest thing you ever heard". Well then in your mindset that equates to calling me stupid. So I should be the one apologizing? PUH-LEEZ.

You've probably never been in a war, so get a clue. You've probably never lived in another country, so get a clue. You have absolutely no idea about oil, as seen from your previous posts, or how much America consumes, so get a clue.
Hmm... this isn't a personal attack?
okay then.

Also, you assume that I somehow hold the high ground, because of my experiences.
No ... I don't... that's why i was mocking you sarcastically.
If that offended you.. tough. I know you're a tough guy, i know you can take it.
Sarcastic remarks are a poignant way to get your clouded logic across to you. In this instance, it was your belief that you held the high ground because of your experiences.
Which, i then equated to the president and congress very nicely. Did you read that part? You should really read the whole post, i think that makes it all come together very nicely in the end.

To have an opinion is one thing...yes, we all have opinions here. But to state those as fact, and to personally belittle others, even out of context, is another.
It is funny how stating opinions as fact, which i don't do, and which is wrong, kind of ties back in to my original posting in this part of the forum.
And if you can find anything out of context with my posts, you're probably not comprehending hard enough.

Okay enough of that.
This ruse was just a deliberate attack on my character so you could try and escape replying to my actual points of argument.
You made a huge mistake when you referred to your past experiences as making you some sort of expert on the subject at hand, and I called you on it big time.
And you know that was a bad move.
But how can you save face? By turning the tables and acting like I slammed you personally. Hey, even Insider helped you out by not getting my poignant sarcasm (although he never does).
This ruse wasn't even well played.

We can all make mistakes, yes. It's what we do after that, that is telling.
True indeed, WebShameon, true indeed.



[This message has been edited by genis (edited 10-04-2002).]

Ok genis, you don't seem to be getting it. This was a serious attempt to reach you. Sad...but...it appears to be the path you wish to take.

'He who sows, reaps'.

You called it...now live with it.

One thing though. You seem to think (judging from your post) that this is some sort of 'game', or challenge, or part of the debate. Well, it's not. It's actually a part of the underlying rules here in the Asylum - 'We police our own'. Since the Doc doesn't believe in banning, this is one of the way we attempt to reach (and teach) new members about the workings of the board. Now, maybe you didn't realize this...but if you are as intelligent as you seem...then I feel that you probably realize this. It's a shame, really, that you seem to be ignoring this.

And personally? Well, I certainly have nothing against hippies...I'm just not one. Plain and simple. I might of even let all the other slandering of my character slide, but...you started attacking others, as well. Now that I cannot abide, neither personnally, nor officially. Thus, I took it upon myself to attempt to 'educate' you in this regard. Apparently, this has not reached you. Apparently, you still wish to 'ignore' my suggestions, continuing this absurd 'game'. Maybe you are thinking that I am reacting emotionally. That is clearly not the case, as you can now see. My reason is not clouded. On the contrary, it is finely focused. It is a very rare occasion where I react out of emotion here, at the Asylum. On these rare occassions, I had good reason to do so. This is not one of those occassions.

You made some mistakes. I admonished you for them. You still seem to be ignoring that.

'Pride goes before the fall'.

Yes, I know this, and learned it here as well, in the Asylum. That was awhile ago, and a Mod stepped in and 'showed me the ropes'. I believe that many of us here, in the Asylum have had such a 'learning experience', at one time or another. Some harsh, others not so harsh. The deciding factor, is how one deals with it afterwards...whether or not someone takes it in stride, and to heart. Or not.

Your choice. You decide. Either it's all good, one learning experience more...or I take this to mail. It's that simple...

So I gave you a warning. And a chance.

go ahead, buddy.
I have yet to see you post any direct quotes of mine that relate to this alleged personal attacks.

If you feel your status as "Mad Scientist" allows you to rule with an iron fist, so be it.
Please feel free to "take this to mail", and know that you are safe in your own little virtual world from the hard arguments you've had to face.

Never again will the other "peons" cowering under your "Mad Scientist" status ever make you face your own lapses in logic when posting.
Your opinions will now become law, and let no man deface the golden virtual statue you have erected unto yourself. ALL HAIL MIGHTY WEBSHAMAN!!

I believe in this forum, however, evidence not need be held back due to security concerns. So cough it up, or face judgment yourself. Yes, even in your "official" capacity, you too can be judged by the cold reality of public opinion.

You? Emotional? nooo.
You? Beaten? yes.
And it hurts sooo gooood.

Ok, I've already sent the mail, so I won't be 'answering' your replies here...or 'take the bait'.

My duties as a Mad Scientist aside (which have more to do with archiving/deleting threads, moving threads, closing threads, etc, and nothing to do with 'abusing' whatever 'powers' you may think I have...otherwise, I'd just edit your posts...or delete them. And I certainly don't 'rule' anybody here. You are being silly, in that regards.), it is more that the older members of the board do attempt to help newer members 'learn the ropes'. I see that I have clearly failed in that here (in your case). In that regard, yes, you are correct. You have 'won'. At what price, I dare say.

Sad...

So, let's get this thing back on track folks!



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-04-2002).]

---posted before I read Webshaman's last comment---
---I guess refresh is a good button---

I was wondering when nap time was?

Enough of this BS.
Both of you guys are insulting each other.
This is not a one way thing here.

Ok, Goodie.

Now it's time to sit down by the fire and reflect on the heat you both feel streaming through your scowled faces.....

It's time to get out the peace pipe and try and remember what started this all. And when you realize you can't remember what started this, then you can laugh and smoke, and perhaps drink a couple sips of whiskey.



[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-04-2002).]

Yes, agreed GN. But I'm not angry. A bit sad, maybe, but those are the breaks.

So, to continue...

quote:

---

As for the Niemoller quote. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU compare our security checks and our holding of detainees to the Nazi internment and slaughter of millions? You disgrace the memory of all those who died in those camps.

---

This I not only consider a personal attack, it's a downright insult. Emps said here -

quote:

---

Its much quoted (in many variations) and a little emotive (I apologise in advance if it upsets anyone) but this comes to mind:

---

Then comes the quote. Read in context with his post (and the original topic), it is very easy to understand how Emps meant it. Deliberately 'misunderstanding' it is the way I see genis reacting to it. And then bending it totally out of context...that is an attack, a vicious one. No-one ever said anything about Nazis. And though the quote has its origins in that frameset, Emps (for me, anyway) clearly stated that it applies also to this thread...and it has been used before, here, in other threads in the Asylum to support such, as well without it being misunderstood. But maybe I just overestimate the intelligence of genis. And he probably didn't know that it has been used as such before...

So then there is this -

quote:

---

Our country, our choice. Can your hippie crap.

---

Well, that's clearly a personal attack. Plain to see.

Then this -

quote:

---

*sigh* - how about you bone up on the recent history of how the 9/11 hijackers got in.
... and i'm the stupid one?

---

Well, he 'complains' that calling an opinion stupid somehow means that the person is stupid...so I guess we can all see what he is saying here...and I note, that I never called him stupid, but the opinion. I always considered him intelligent before all this...

Here, the 'beginning'...of the 'twisting and turning'

quote:

---

Statistically, now people from the same background as the terrorists are more likely to commit the same crime. They are from the same country, lead by the same propaganda, taught by the same Madrassa's etc.
That's statistics. When 12 people die from lung cancer because of cigarettes, then others with the same habit are believed to be susceptible, so in turn their life insurance rates are raised higher than non-smokers.

---

- So, now statistics...put them all in a basket. That's how it comes across...

quote:

---

Come on... get with the program.

---

- Either a 'personal attack', or a plea...which one do you think it is? Well, based on genis character, and way of posting, I would say the first one. However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt - which program?

quote:

---

You believe giving them a background check and making them check in with us within 30 days is tantamount to labeling them guilty?

---

No. I am using your comment from above to show that a law created along the lines of 'statistics' like that is considering them guilty. Since those are your thoughts and comments, I then draw the conclusion that you consider them guilty. Which then makes no sense whatsoever when you say that this approach is flawed...in the end, one comes to the conclusion that you are arguing just to argue. Whatever.

quote:

---

May I remind you that they do not have the right to be here in the first place.
It is a privilige the US government is bestowing upon them.
We don't have to let them in, we can chunk them back in the plane and send their asses back.

---

Heh. Who's we? Certainly, if you mean a collective 'we', as in all Americans, I think you have found out we all don't agree on that. Clarify.

quote:

---

They are not US citizens.
No US citizen is being tagged here.
I, for one, am all for militarizing the borders and banning any flights in from terrorist-risk countries.

---

to that, I answered this -

quote:

---

is the stupidest thing I've ever heard...do you think that terrorists would have any problem getting around that? It would only keep innocent people from traveling...terrorists have access to passes...and can go through other countries first...

---

So how does one 'decide' what is a terrorist-risk country? If the 'terrorists' can go through any country...than they are all terrorist-risk countries? In other words, do it to everyone. Ok. On that I can agree. But militarizing the border? Well, that doesn't work. It's been proven, time and again. We've created a huge 'zone' between the US and Mexico...doesn't work. North and South Korea...doesn't work. The old Soviet Union...didn't work. China was probably the first to do it...didn't work. In fact, it never has. Just take a look at Isreal. So, based on history, it's a 'stupid' thing to repeat...because we then haven't learned from the mistakes of the past.

quote:

---

In this case, the terrorists we're worried about are from these certain arab and muslim countries.

This of course is also a flawed because not every terrorist is a registered citizen of these countries nor flying in straight from them. But they do this because checking everyone is too hard. Yeah well, tough cookies.

---

Strange is, you admit yourself that this will not prevent terrorists from entering the country...but you support it anyway. You even admit that it is flawed, but keep on supporting it. Why? One could call this 'paranoia' under another pretense...or fear. I personally choose not to live under fear. That's what the terrorists want. And why should we mess with something that isn't going to have the desired effect? What is the point? Just for the sake of doing something, anything?


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Heh. Never thought that InSiDeR would be 'sticking up' for me...

---

Don't mention it , no seriously, never mention it again....

Heh, I am sure you would do the same for me... Ermz, or would you....

________________________________________________________________


Lets all just wipe the slate clean and just go along with the thread ok?

Ok...

WS - As fun as watching this Did Not!/Did Too! arguement unfold has been, I think your were right when you tried to get it into mail. I'd rather it disappeared, it's killing the thread.

You'd be amazed how far you have to scroll to find pertinent information on this thread now.

njuice42 -

quote:

---

...so being tracked would just kinda make me feel like my own government doesn't trust me as a citizen. And a government, built by the people and for the people, not trusting it's own citizens... sounds like a pretty shitty government, if you ask me. Why, it almost sounds... undemocratic...

---

Good point. I have to admit I hadn't really thought of it that way. I suppose that's one way to take it. You could also take it as the government wants to make sure that its laws are followed and the rest of us are safe from those that would break them.

WS - My choice of the word 'ethnic' was reasonable. It just means that people of the arabic/muslim background are perceived to be a greater threat to us. We can't focus on a localle to screen against. Our enemies will just fly in from some other country. It has to be based on people. I don't see every Arab or Muslim or Afghani as a threat or a suspicious person but I also don't see why I can't check to be sure. Why do apartment complexes check everyone's background? To make sure they haven't done anything wrong and can pay for their apartment. It probably started when a large group of people with the same basic background continually didn't pay up or caused problems. Apartment complexes got it right though, they check everyone. Of course, they're dealing with a much smaller group of people and they make the prospective tenant pay for the background check. Which comes down to the resources of it all. We can't check everybdy that enters the US. Not yet anyway. I don't like checking only arab/muslims, but I choose to accept that until we can check everyone else too.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Gah! Dumb browser!!

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-04-2002).]

Speaking of browsers, mine is taking longer than it should to load this page due to my 56k (i e shit) modem .

Would a psychotoc/mad sci be so kind as to make a new thread?

quote:

---

No-one ever said anything about Nazis. And though the quote has its origins in that frameset, Emps (for me, anyway) clearly stated that it applies also to this thread...and it has been used before, here, in other threads in the Asylum to support such, as well without it being misunderstood. But maybe I just overestimate the intelligence of genis. And he probably didn't know that it has been used as such before...

---

It is used so much in arguments all over the world, it is cliche. And the fact that no one gets as outraged as me when it is thrown around so carelessly, is itself an outrage! Everyone knows the quotes origin, that is what makes it so powerful. You don't have to mention Nazis, it is implied from the "CONTEXT"!
And just because Emps apologized to anyone who might get offended does not prohibit me from SHOUTING my disapproval of his use of it. That is laughable! That sort of apology is akin to belting out a harsh racial slur, then qualifying it with "no offense."
Everyone should be outraged by such careless use of that quote, as it relates to the senselessness of the holocaust and millions of lives lost to unspeakable evil. And by doing so you have equated my government with Hitler.... HITLER!!!
He directly compared "our security checks and our holding of detainees to the Nazi internment and slaughter of millions", which the Nazis carried out against any race, religion, or political party they didn't like. And THAT is not in any way what we are doing or have done, and it is a disgrace that quote ever surfaced here. It is irresponsible and I will FOREVER stand by my position!

quote:

---

Well, that's clearly a personal attack. Plain to see.

---

Telling you to "can your hippie crap." Is no different than you telling me one of my quotes is "the stupidest thing" you've ever heard. It's equivalent to "can your stupid crap". Anyone want to guess which came first? If you guessed WebShaman's insult, you'd be right!! Although, no prize, sorry.

quote:

---

So, now statistics...put them all in a basket. That's how it comes across...

---

It should, put them all in a basket if you can.
Luckily Iraq, Iran, Lybia, etc, make it easier on us, what with their irresponsible government propaganda, and those convenient borders and all. hyuck.

quote:

---

"Come on... get with the program." - Either a 'personal attack', or a plea...which one do you think it is?. . .However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt - which program?

---

Hey look, Insider, WS did actually (try to) stick up for you. Fact is, Insider did need to get with the program. He disagreed with me, then agreed with me in the same post. If "the program" here on the forum is making a clear point, then Insider definitely wasn't "with the program". And pointing that out is a personal attack? ... sad misconception really. <yoda>hmm, stretching you are, yeees.</yoda>

quote:

---

No. I am using your comment from above to show that a law created along the lines of 'statistics' like that is considering them guilty.

---

And as I reiterate... "No, if we believed that, they would all be immediately arrested." and we would throw them in jail, and sentence them, and on and on. But our security checks are just that... checks. When you are not a US citizen and you come from abroad to our country, should we just trust that you don't have a criminal background, that you don't have links to terrorism?
Why should we be so trusting? Is it in our best interests to let people just waltz in here, no questions asked? Would you let a complete stranger in your house, without asking questions and making sure he's an okay guy first? I wouldn't, but hey maybe i'm weird.

quote:

---

"We don't have to let them in, we can chunk them back in the plane and send their asses back." - Who's we? Certainly, if you mean a collective 'we', as in all Americans, I think you have found out we all don't agree on that. Clarify.

---

Americans "CAN" chunk them back in the plane. It's not a matter of opionion or agreement. It is our right to do so. I didn't say "It is right to do so" I said it is our RIGHT. No matter what you think, we CAN. What needs to be clarified?

quote:

---

So how does one 'decide' what is a terrorist-risk country? If the 'terrorists' can go through any country

---

The countries with the irresponsible governments that espouse anti-American sentiment. And if you think Lybians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Iranians, can easily move about the world, you are sadly mistaken. You seem to believe the terrorist networks are highly skilled, covert intelligence forces with James Bond-like resources, when the fact is they get in here on unchecked student-visas by way of refugee status from Canada or other such unsecured methods of travel. All of which we now would be checking at the border with this 30-day check-in system.
It seems, my dear friend, you feel like just giving up. That no security precaution could ever save us. You cast shadows on every security precaution rather than coming up with a feasible solution. If you have one, please share it, but negativity is hardly proactive. And neither is pie-in-the-sky "check everyone" idea, which would be best, but won't happen due to the demand for travel here.

quote:

---

But militarizing the border? Well, that doesn't work. It's been proven, time and again. We've created a huge 'zone' between the US and Mexico...doesn't work. North and South Korea...doesn't work. The old Soviet Union...didn't work. China was probably the first to do it...didn't work. In fact, it never has. Just take a look at Isreal.

---

Militarizing the border, doesn't mean stopping everyone, it means stopping illegal crossings.
In the case of the soviet union, they were trying to keep their own people in, and how many people escaped from there during that time through, over, or under the wall in the 28 years it was erected? 5,075. And how many illegals come in through our Mexican border every year? more than a MILLION!! You call that security?
You think we have a "huge zone between US and Mexico"? Our border guards have been shot at by (hopefully) bribed Mexican army personel. Some have been killed. You think our border is policed enough? I say bring in the military. The constitution created it for protecting our borders, and I stand by the Constitution.

quote:

---

You even admit that it is flawed, but keep on supporting it. Why?

---

because there is no perfect solution if you want to keep the borders open to travel, and as i said before... "keeping residents of irresponsible governments out of the US makes us more secure and we have the absolute RIGHT to do so, for the security of our nation". Hey look! I'm repeating myself again.

quote:

---

One could call this 'paranoia' under another pretense...or fear.

---

I can't believe you just called me paranoid.
HEY EVERYBODY! He personally attacked me! That's okay, I'm a big boy... I can handle it.

Why even try genis?

~sigh~

And for the record....

Sorry Jamie for all the trouble I caused you. I now know how you must feel after reading all the shit I posted, and now I know how ignorant I made myself seem.

~sigh~

Insider, stop trying to run someone else down, just so you can feel better about yourself. I'm as happy as you are that you don't want to be annoying anymore. But trying to pass it off onto someone else wont help your cause.

Jestah, you're not believable as a human being, seriously. It's amazing that in the other thread you actually accused someone else of being blindly devoted to their political party. You think this situation is all about politics, that's your oppinion, but don't try and tell people that it's likely, especially without evidence. You sound like a crybaby, and a peon. And Your comments on Texas and radical republicans? Although the point you were trying to make is valid and true, the way you expressed it was a direct, and unfair attack on genis, and every other conservative from Texas. It's as audacious as me saying "its not like all fucking morons come from Long Island" in reply to one of your posts. Its not Texas that has a high concentration of conservatives, its the entire country, virtually 50/50 between 2 right wing parties. (Not to mention that I'm pretty sure (may be wrong though) in proper terms, 'radical' is the word to describe people on the far left of a political spectrum, while 'reactionary' describes people on the far right)

Genis, getting emotional with text over the internet... I'm sure after you cool down you'll realize why people think you sound dumb. People can't hear the tone in your voice, and they arn't reading your reply to them until hours after they originally posted, so it just sounds like you're over-reacting. Maybe you should take a breather before you reply to something you disagree with.


Now..

On the issue at hand, selectively excluding people from entering the United States. I can't tell you I'd make the same dicission if I was in power. But if the current government stops profiling people entering the country, and there is another attack, there will be many more upset people then there is now. The Bush administration has 290,000,000 reasons to do everything they can to keep the country secure, there is no guarenteed rights or freedoms to 'foreigners who'd like to enter the country'. Is this the right dicission, however? Will it keep the terrorists from entering the country, or will it just ensure that even more hate comes from nations who feel picked on by the U.S. government? I really have no answer. I just hope we never have to find out.

I can see where you are coming from Dan and I don't blame you for thinking the way you did on my behalf. But I am not trying to "pass it off," see. I agree with some of what genis sais, sometimes... Not most of the time but sometimes... But it really pissed me off to see that he just had to make a comment on the fact that WS fought in a war.

And genis let me rephrase that for you.

'I didn't appriciate the fact that you made a disrespectful comment to WS because he did something more American than you probably ever will.'

Not only that but WS's heritage has been on this land for milleniums to come by.

So Dan I don't want you thinking I am trying to pass it off. In fact I hope genis would just come clean and start over. It would make things much better on us all if we just chilled you know? I mean I did say "Lets wipe the slate clean and start over," meaning I no longer had hard feeling on genis and that I wanted the thread to continue. But then genis just had to counter WS's personal attack statements so pretentiously.

Sorry if I made it appear that I am "passing," the title around. I hope I don't continue to make people think that. And genis for the best I hope you come clean too , it makes the best of us, even better.

*sigh*
*sigh*
and.....
*sigh*

Good luck.

It's cool, I'm not trying to bad mouth you, just making sure you don't run around calling everyone a name you heard here

It wouldn't reflect that well on all of us you know.
Now lets get back on topic guys.

quote:

---

Now lets get back on topic guys.

---

Amazing how many people have said that, and when WS and I even tried to in our last posts, you and Insider brought it back. Oh well. Here i go again. Defending my rights.

quote:

---

Why even try genis?

---

I was thinking that myself, Insider. But then I realized not everyone reading this is actually participating, so I hold to the hope that someone is gaining enlightenment through our conversation here, even if it is not those participating.

quote:

---

I'm sure after you cool down you'll realize why people think you sound dumb. . .so it just sounds like you're over-reacting.

---

I've been cool this entire time. . . have you, Dan?

quote:

---

You sound like a crybaby, and a peon.

---

hmm... have you? seems no. "Maybe you should take a breather before you reply to something you disagree with."
I know Jestah's comment was aimed at me, but I didn't respond because sometimes it is better to let people just talk (type) themselves into their own hole, without my help. Also why Metahedron's postings have needed no more response from me.

quote:

---

But it really pissed me off to see that he just had to make a comment on the fact that WS fought in a war. 'I didn't appriciate the fact that you made a disrespectful comment to WS because he did something more American than you probably ever will.'

---

And let me reiterate about you reading the entirety of this topic before replying. I did not bring up the fact that WebShaman fought in a war, he brought it up. And he posted that as credible evidence that I did not have the right to speak out against him, or to call his ideals "hippie"-esque.
And you think being in the military qualifies you as the best American you can be? Then you need to re-examine your belief system. To some people it is just a job, and is in no way because they are patriotic. Perhaps they need money for college, or like the vet benefits, or because of family tradition. You in no way know what his reasons for joining were. And no doubt the war he "fought" (because he may have been in it, but maybe just sewed parachutes.) was the Gulf War. And with the ideas he and you espouse, if we were discussing that war right now, I'm sure you both would say it is all about oil (Kuwaiti oil). Fighting that war seem the most American you can be?
Your getting pissed about that is totally out of character for you, because you seem like the most unpatriotic 14-yr old I've ever come across... and that is saying something.

quote:

---

But then genis just had to counter WS's personal attack statements so pretentiously.

---

Have you a problem with my pretention, Insider, or the rebuttle that has exonerated me from the attacks of someone you have recently backed?

Has no one anything to say of WebShaman's flagrant attacks on me? Never have I targeted him until he singled me out. There must be some logical head out there. Speak if you feel you could weather the storm.

Dan - Unlike InSiDeR I can't even begin to imagine what your talking about. If you actually read what I've written you'll probably see clear as day that I've called no one on this forum a radical Republican nor have I suggested that Texas has a high concentration of radicals. If you want me to explain myself more clearly by all means ask. Don't accuse me of being offensive or demeaning because you disagree with my opinions. The really odd thing is you're here chastizing me on being offensive and you call me a cry baby and a peon. It's just universally uncool to accuse people of being insulting for not having similar beliefs as you and then insult them.

Of course we can chalk this one up to 'not all Canadians read things the wrong way and over react,' but in this situation one did. YMMV

-Jestah
Cell 277

*Super Ultra Mega Sigh*

This is my fault... I flamed genis.

Sorry.

Now everyone shut up and discuss the land of the fucking free!

Edit: You know what? Fuck everything I just said....

quote:

---

You in no way know what his reasons for joining were.

---

quote:

---

And no doubt the war he "fought" (because he may have been in it, but maybe just sewed parachutes.) was the Gulf War.

---

Moron. He put his life up for our country. Did you? Oh you didn't? Keep your god damn hypocritical mouth shut please.

Thats all the sticking up for WS fighting in a war for me. Now I'll just stick up for WS because, well he's a great guy and I admire him.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 10-05-2002).]

What war was WebShaman in anyway?

I was just reading Emps early words in this post and I have to say that I am very worried about national databases and id cards and such like. I do believe this kind of thing can be turned against the populace without proper caution.

But I must say that none of us have any privacy right now and not even before 9/11. In the US, the social security number was never supposed to be an ID number you can't even get a credit card or have your lawn mowed without being asked for it. The point is that I really don't think it is the existence of these measures that are the real threat.

What is the real threat? I have to share this awesome quote I came across a few years back. I really think it demonstrates precisely what we need to guard against:

quote:

---

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

---

Well, I think it's when the public forgets or no longer knows why freedom is so important. As long as we all know what it is we stand for, then I think these measures will be kept in check by our representatives because we'll insist they do our bidding.

About these specific things due to the war... I'll reiterate that I think they will only be needed as long as the Islamist terrorist threat is real. Right now the threat is very real and until we have a few more victories against the terror masters (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria), it will remain as such.

( I didn't jump into that fracas above because it seemed to be going so well on its own... and, genis, I believe it was the Gulf War in which WebShaman served his country with honor. )

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-05-2002).]

~Air Hug~

genis let it go already.


-tiki, cell 478

quote:

---

gaining enlightenment through our conversation here

---

Nope. Just entertainment.

it's gone, tiki. hope it stays that way.

thanks bugs...yes, the Gulf War...

Yes, I have killed to 'protect' (though, in hindsight, it doesn't really seem to have protected American freedoms, now did it?) freedom...namely, the freedom of Kuwait. I was in the War, and I lost friends there...

I have served my country. I 'paid' my debt, if you will...

Bugs brings up the point, and the gist of it. Freedom is a state of mind...not a law, not a rule. When people forget this, then it goes...in the case of America, many are willing to 'sacrifice' their freedom for false security.

So 9/11. Well, besides other 'happenings', I think it has more than proved that there can never be enough security, namely, that no amount of 'security measures' will stop, or protect, someone from such an act. In light of that, and as Dan pointed out, who really knows what these 'new' securities will bring...I personally see no real reason for them. Today the 'Muslems'...tomorrow, the world? Well, whatever...paranoia...and freedom falls...it's almost like McCarthy-ism...

The worst thing about losing Freedom, is that one seems to miss it most, when it's gone...and fighting to get it back is much harder than losing it...

And as for genis? Well, take the rest to mail, as I suggested before. That's all I have to say about...you. One thing...I didn't suggest (or you misunderstood, once again...) that you were paranoid...heh...or I would of said that directly. Namely, I mean the limiting of freedoms and the implimenting of such measures. namely, that train of throught, that meaning, that opinion. So chill, yes?

totally chilled.

ah, forums. free speech at its unfettered best.

Enemy of the State
The Siege


Watch these two movies if you think about this sort of thing all the time.

There some long posts here and it is getting slow (and InSiDeR asked so nicely ) so this is continued here:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000554.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor