Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[Mikelly]

Kevin, I'm speechless... You can't be serious about your theory of tower seven???? OMG... I'm amazed....

 

I could honestly care less about the story about our friend the Palistenian... Price for peace... I could relay many many stories about white americans being detained in other countries, myself included... It is the PRICE to pay for being a stranger in a strange land during war conditions... TOUGH. Suck it up and deal with it or get out. If he was an american citizen and he was here during the period right after the attacks, then he would have done himself good too cooperate with the authorities until his situation was sorted out... We had OTHER PEOPLE who fit the description who have since been positively IDed as part of the attack staging and planning, who walked out of our grasp... and out of the country... Possibly never to be caught and tried for their crimes. YOUR friend the palistenian can thank THEM and those who attacked us for the harsh treatment our government has to apply in maintaining security... If it upsets you, then you might want to go hide in a cave... THE SINGLE REASON I WILL VOTE FOR BUSH will be because HE KILLS PEOPLE who don't like Americans... So unless I get my perfect candidate, I'll have to jump fence and vote republican... Because he isn't screwing around like Clinton did for eight years.

 

Guys, this is a WAR... We had ATTACKS on our soil BY people of muslim persuasion... Would you rather us LAY DOWN, FLING THE BORDERS OPEN and let every person in to attack us? Lets collapse the gov't and let who defend us? WHO?

 

This is NOT a perfect situation, but given the nature of those who attacked us, I think our government has done very well with coping and trying to reform our intelligence gathering and coordination efforts... We making changes for the better, but as ussual, most of you won't get the visibility to see these changes... It is the nature of national security. Honestly Kevin the information you apparently seek, you have NO NEED to know... That is the answer your gorvernment would give you. And they are right.

 

Mike 8)

[Moridin]

Kevin' date=' I'm speechless... You can't be serious about your theory of tower seven???? OMG... I'm amazed....

 

I could honestly care less about the story about our friend the Palistenian... Price for peace... I could relay many many stories about white americans being detained in other countries, myself included... It is the PRICE to pay for being a stranger in a strange land during war conditions... TOUGH. Suck it up and deal with it or get out. If he was an american citizen and he was here during the period right after the attacks, then he would have done himself good too cooperate with the authorities until his situation was sorted out... We had OTHER PEOPLE who fit the description who have since been positively IDed as part of the attack staging and planning, who walked out of our grasp... and out of the country... Possibly never to be caught and tried for their crimes. YOUR friend the palistenian can thank THEM and those who attacked us for the harsh treatment our government has to apply in maintaining security... If it upsets you, then you might want to go hide in a cave... THE SINGLE REASON I WILL VOTE FOR BUSH will be because HE KILLS PEOPLE who don't like Americans... So unless I get my perfect candidate, I'll have to jump fence and vote republican... Because he isn't screwing around like Clinton did for eight years.

 

Guys, this is a WAR... We had ATTACKS on our soil BY people of muslim persuasion... Would you rather us LAY DOWN, FLING THE BORDERS OPEN and let every person in to attack us? Lets collapse the gov't and let who defend us? WHO?

 

This is NOT a perfect situation, but given the nature of those who attacked us, I think our government has done very well with coping and trying to reform our intelligence gathering and coordination efforts... We making changes for the better, but as ussual, most of you won't get the visibility to see these changes... It is the nature of national security. Honestly Kevin the information you apparently seek, you have NO NEED to know... That is the answer your gorvernment would give you. And they are right.

 

Mike 8)[/quote']

 

He was interogated, yes. So what I guess, but the part that really bothers me is the fact that he wasn't told why he was being detained, how long he was going to be there, and had no access to a laywer or anyone for that matter. That, to me, is not right. That's my point of view.

 

As to attacks on our soil and such, I believe it was very much a result of the United States' foreign policy. When you start fooling with other countries enough, those citizens are going to get mad. Osama, as I recall, was trained by our government. Those WMD's in Iraq were given to them by us (or they used ours to help develop their own). Our country also gave weapons to both the Iraqi's and Iranians during their war with eachother. Our government helped to install the Taliban and I believe the current Iranian government (not to sure about the Iranians). A lot of the left overs from the Cold War in the Middle East are now coming back to haunt us and the Russians (although Russia is a little different).

 

I think the question we should be asking is why are we now giving up freedoms for what is likely the result of our government's foreign policy over the years.

 

If this is the aftermath of the Cold War, what will happen in the years to come when those left in dark during the Drug War come back around?

 

If anyone knows any studies done on the affects of our foreign policies in relation to terror, I would like to know. I think there is a stronger connection that most would think.

[tannji]

There is always a connection to our foreign plans and the mess in the middle east. It will always look like we did the exact opposite of what would have been most appropriate. There are a lot of problems there, and most of them go back further than our country does. It wouldnt be such a big deal if such a high percentage of the worlds supply of oil didnt reside there tho. With that being the case, it has been a balancing act since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, wherein Palestine was declared the Jewish Homeland. The majority of the region was parceled out into manufactured nation states by the UN, with the exception of Palestine, which Britain essentially realigned as a Jewish state. The main concern in the region was oil, and the objective was to "divide and domesticate" so that no one people or country controlled too much of the oil. Unfortunately, this left the Palestinians out in the cold, and Israel the target of some 50 million angry Arabs. The United States has been involved ever since to varying degrees, originally out of an interest in controlling some of that oil (like every other major power of the time) and afterwards in an attempt to maintain balance, so that none of the fragile, manufactured countries of the area managed to amass enough power or influence to control a dangerous percentage of the oil supply. As 2-faced as we were in playing Iran against Iraq, and jumping sides every so often, there was a very pragmatic reason for it. we could not afford either country to "Win". Ever since 1917, the only thing really protecting both the Jews and the worlds oil supermarket, was the fact that the Arabs, who had so much in common, and so much potential power at their figertips, have never been able to agree or cooperate long enough or faithfully enough accomplish any of their cherished goals. 50 million Arabs failed spectacularly at defeating something less than 1 million Jews. (the Jewish state did lose something like 1% of their entire population during the insuing war tho)

Since then, Israel has taken a lot of heat for the Palestinian refugees, the majority of whom left Palestine in a greedy gamble encouraged by all their Arab neighbors..... In other words, something in excess of 400,000 Palestinians left the area, not because they were forced, but they calculated, and were encouraged to believe, that the Jews were about to be massacred, and they would be back soon, also in possession of the formerly Jewish land and properties. The gamble failed, embarrassingly so, and they have been looking for veangence ever since. This mess has served as starting point for most of the hate and death there ever since. Israel is our only "natural" ally in the area, which is a two edged sword, as it makes it very difficult for any Arab country to cooperate with us officially, without major problems from all their neighbors. As alluded in the previous post, we could get uninvolved there, but someone (at this point most likely Iran) would end up in control of 80 or 90% of the regions oil, and the means of shipping it anywhere.

 

Terrorism in the Middle East is almost unavoidable, due to the unique social conditions. The vast majority of the Arab population is uneducated, and takes their guidance from a minority of political and religeous leaders, most of who are strongly anti-Israel, and by extension, anti-USA, and even anti-anything Western. Many modern trends in radical Muslim belief originate with "Mullahs" and "Imans" who exploit their largely uneducated and easily lead constituency for political ends. Hate and fear are the weapons and tools of choice. Look no further than our own KKK of the first half of the century to understand the social implications, tho the main and defining difference is probably our country's relatively high standard of living and access to education, for the most part free of Idealogical Manipulation.

The saddest part of all this in my eyes is how alienated our three cultures have become, while their origins are so very similar. I am exposed to the differences and difficulties on a regular basis, as my girl friend's children are half Syrian, and the father is a Syrian, with dual nationality, currently working as a pilot in the Syrian National Airline. As a result, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that G.W. Bush's actions in the Middle East may be imperfect, but they are having a significant impact on the conscious of Ali-on-the-street. They see us as motivated, justified, to an extent, and definitely not worth crossing. I dont mean to say they love us....! lol. But if they were voting democracies, we would be in pretty good shape over there. Unfortunately, the average person there will probably never have a real voice or choice in their nations direction or policies, and so we are left dealing with the people that have the most to lose, (their power base) and the most power to oppose us. Even more unfortunately, most of the positive change there is invisible to the average American. Even if Syria or Lybia, or Iran decides at some high government level that it is in their best interest to back down, or even cooperate with us, they are in a position of being unable to do so publically, without losing their control and even their lives. Ask Sadat, Mubarak, The Shah of Iran, or Saudi Arabia's Monarchy about the repercussions of appearing too Western, too accepting of Israel's right to existance, or too much like a lap dog of the United States.

 

Now, if you read all that, you really need a life.... and you can see how little of a life I had as a child, because most of that comes from a series of essays I had to do when my parents went thru one of their guilty stages about me not being in school. Imagine my chagrin when I found out MUCH later that my parents never read most of the material they made me read.... They just wanted to be sure I didnt miss out on the important stuff. They even had me brainwashed into appreciating Dickens!! lol

[Guest freedomfighter]

WOW! Go TANNJI... that was amazing... where would this post be without you! That was absolutely amazingly texted (is that a word?)

[Mikelly]

Moridin, I am assuming you are intimating that we deserved to be attacked...

 

As for our training Osama, DOn't have a clue where you got that information... we did not. Further more, We had NOTHING to do with the development of WMD in Iraq. We supported Iraq in their conflict with Iran, but once we found out they were developing WMD and had USED them on Iran, we stopped supporting them. All support of Saddam's power ended when (And I was working a watchcenter position when this went down, it was a horrible night!) he gassed the Kurds.

 

I'm going to repeat myself again, and we ALL need to heed this... DO your research and be DAMNED CERTAIN you understand what you are reading before you allign yourselves with a candidate... My personal opinion on the middle east has always been one of two choices... 110% support of Israil, with full warfare on Syria, Iran, Iraq (Which is done now), Libya, and the complete destruction of the PLO and it's leadership... OR PULL OUT OF THE Region and let them (All of them) fix their own problems... But the last caveatte comes with a string attached... When the rest of the world comes crying to us for help, we turn them away...

 

You can't have it both ways, people... You can't want for us, the most powerful country in the world, to go out to these arm pits of the world to provide assistance without getting somewhat involved in their politics... We try to remain neutral in most cases, but you always have a power struggle between those who live in the region to get our alignment with them...

 

Some of the cavelier attitudes have begged this question to be asked... Since you folks are so critical of our government... WHAT ARE YOU DOING to make it better? We can type and bitch and moan about how we aren't happy with the internation political scene we are currently a part of, But what are "WE" as a population going to do about it??? Need some cheese with that whine? I am hearing lots of complaining but no solutions... Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but so is masturbation... In the end, nothing really gets accomplished...

 

Personally, I believe we have tried to be less partial in the region because we don't fully understand the middle eastern culture enough... However, I believe that because of the damage that has been done on both side, that we should employ extreme measures in regions where we know a terrorist state exists... Mushroom cloud them and get over with it. The hate is multi-generational and we will only correct this by pulling out and allowing the terrorists to take full control of that region, or turning it into a glass bowl... Until September 11, 2001 I wanted Syria to be a nice glass bowl... Now, You can add the whole region to it... I'm done.

 

 

Mike (Who would vote for Bush is he announced a nukes campaign in the Middle East!) 8)

[Michael]

Tannji (and others) – The price of being safe – that is, of having one’s safety maintained by an organization wielding authority – is obedience to that authority. This is the crux of the debate on this thread. There are some who resent the latter, but still desire the former. Others point out the inconsistency, and state that they’d gladly accept the authority if that’s the price of protecting life and limb. But I say: dispense with the authority, accepting loss of protection. It’s not the case that I would not be afraid of fanatics with AK-47’s. But rather, that I recognize that the price of dismantling the paternalism of authority is exposure to the dangers from which that paternalism is purported to protect. Hey, I don’t want to get blown up in a hijacked airliner either. But I’d actually rather have that happen to me, than to a heart-to-heart basement chat. My belief is that much as 9/11 was a horror and a tragedy, the steps that would have been necessary for completely foolproof proof protection from such an event would have been too onerous an assault on our liberties. This is the logic behind statement #3 in my prior post.

 

Now, to answer Mike’s question – “what could I actually DO about the government, to make it better?†Well, for us government employees, there’s an insidious little law called the Hatch Act, which largely bans political (partisan) activity. I suppose I could donate to the Libertarian party, but that’s about it.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Kevin, I'm speechless... You can't be serious about your theory of tower seven???? Mike 8)

 

Mike,

 

The issue isnt what I think nor what you think. What either of us think is completely immaterial. What matters is "What did happen?" Only when you can offer a forum where the NYFD survivors can speak openly w/out threat of jail or loss of job will we then be able to form an educated opinion. As of now they, the NYFD survivors can not speak openly due to the Gag Order forced upon them.

 

You still have not commented on how Commander Carr was able to predict how WWIII would begin and be played out way back in the early 1950's...back when the only "Enemy" of America was Communism.

 

Which is interesting that he would make such a comment because his info was obtained from copying a letter Albert Pike wrote back in the 1800's....where he outlined not just how WWIII would begin but also how the previous WWI and WWII would play out & their purposes.

 

If these "wars" occur on their own accord then how was it that not only Albert Pike was able to comment on them back in the 1800's and if Albert Pike's assumed letters were fraudulent - What about Commander Carr's books where he posted said info back in the 1950's....long before the Arab Terrorists connection was even on the radar screen? Hmmm? Please explain this because I would love for someone to rationilize these issues away.

 

I guess those who are prone to asking questions for real answers will continue asking questions while those who arent interested in asking questions for real answers will accept the status quo..

 

BTW: I do believe those that once believed the world was flat made up a majority...and as my history has proved - they were wrong. Let us also not forger Einstein's theory of relativity. When Einstein was preparing to go public w/said theory the "Respected & Majority" of physicist got together and produced a book, "1000 Reasons Why Einstein is Wrong"...some 100 or so respected physicist signed the book. When Eisnstein did go public with his theory, his speach was entitled, "Why 100 Physicist are Wrong"..something like that - I dont have the source handy so I paraphrased here. So just because you believe what you believe - and said belief may be the majority - doesn not mean you are right.

 

FWIW: I do believe the terrorist threat is real and that sleeper cells are here. I have been telling people this for the last 10 years. Imagine if you can the response your giving me now for my beliefs: they paled in comparison to the responses I got 10 years ago when I was telling people about said sleeper cells. The responses I always got were, "Well if that is so why arent we hearing about this on TV?" People are so dumbed down they cant think for themselves unless some puppet on a string, on some late night news program, tells them it is so! I will always question what I am hearing regardless if it is from the left, middle, or right.

 

Regardless of who is behind the terrorism is academic and in the end who knows how much it will really matter. What matters is that our way of life is about to get really ugly. This is the slippery slope to which we are not going to return from.

 

Again, we are danged if we do nothing - things will just get worse, and we are danged if we do what we have to do..

 

I've said enough - so I will quit from here on out.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[tannji]

WELLLLL..... I suppose if there had to be a double post, that one was as good as any to do so, lol. I think that when people say that we trained Osama they are regurgitating poorly presented info. They are knowingly or unknowingly referring to the fact that we had some hand in supporting and training "freedom fighters" who were resisting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Osama was there, and involved in the resistance, tho that is about as far as I can take it, without implicitly saying that "we trained him". Really tho, whats the big F'ing Deal??? We are not responsible and can not be responsible for what people decide to do with their lives and the choices they make. We rebuilt Europe and are NATO allies with France and Germany, and look where that has gotten us. They are still allies, but seemingly only when convenient. Get used to it, the Soviet Union is no more, and that leaves France and Germany jockeying for power in the "European Union". That leaves us out in the cold, quite frequently.

 

As for the complete destruction of anyone in the Middle East.... it would indeed have to be complete, and would have to involve several countries, or none at all. We are already the enemy to too many people, and that would cement things for anyone who was "on the fence", lol. There is very little in the Middle East that conveniently sorts itself out into piles of Right and Wrong. Everyone there is there legitimately, everyone has a stake, everyone has been wronged, and no one there is willing to compromise or forget the past. The people with probably the worst case of grievances are the Palestinians. (note I didnt say the PLO, you cant wrong a political party) They have the right to a country or homeland, and have quite seriously been screwed by Britain, the UN, and Israel. Ironically, all the other Arabic people in the region who make such a show of solidarity with the PLO, are about as guilty as anyone else in the West for the plight of the Palestinians. Syria is big on my list, because they have been the most actively and visibly involved in fanning the flames against Israel ever since the 1940's. But you cant ignore Iran, which is where an awful lot of the doctrine of hate originates in the Muslim world. Imagine the Catholic Church, splintered into about 10 or 15 competing factions, but still heavily influenced by Rome, and all having a militia like the IRA (Irish Republican Army, some of us arent up on all that) The "Religeous Right" in the Middle East takes advantage of all this hate and ignorance, and by tying it into the Muslim faith, insures that no one there trusts or is willing to openly deal with anyone they accuse of either supporting the Zionist state, or trying to steal oil. Ironically, the people they "protect" never had any benefit from the oil or its wealth in the first place.

 

The thing that makes this all so mysterious and frustrating to the average American citizen is that there is no "4 year plan" like we have been trained to expect and believe in here at home. (4 year plans dont work here either, but we still expect them to, whenever we get a new president, lol.) Our options are indeed to either get out completely, or accept a larger role, and make it stick. If we get out, someone will end up in control of all that region's oil, and power. That is not an acceptable option, for anyone, let alone the United States. But the bellyachers are accomplishing one thing, just as surely as they accomplished it in Viet Nam. Anything we do over there is subject to our 4 year presidential term, and to the whims of policy makers who rely too much on popularity polls. This practically guarantees that we stick to a practice of doing everything half-assed, and finishing nothing. While we whine about Bush being an aggressor and being in Iraq for the wrong reasons.... the average American doesnt even understand why he is there in the first place. Bush made a serious mistake by even talking about WDM. He had a mandate on terrorism, and he had Saddam by the gonads based on compliance with UN resolutions. He should have stuck with that, and been judged by that. Instead, we damn him for toppling Sadam, when we cant find Osama. Please...... you cant even find your keys or the remote, try to understand finding Osama and all his underlings, in their turf, may never happen. Not finding him could be the best thing we ever did, especially if he will keep releasing videos and statements to the Arab press. As long as Osama runs his mouth, we have a visible target and justification for our efforts. If we had caught him early on in Afghanistan, how motivated and supportive would the fickle American public been about the effort, manpower, and dedication it requires to fight his oraganization that remains in place around the globe?

 

Bush took on a task that he had to know was tatamount to political suicide. Picture Bush taking that walk before invading Iraq, but imagine him trying to decide if he was ready to throw his career away, and accept vilification for doing what was right and needed. There is no way Bush the individual wins in this situation. We may recognize him in the history books, but no matter hwat he ends up accomplishing, he will be hated not only for doing it in a way that didnt waste billions on "feel-good" social programs and dialogue, but also for being the one in power and doing something. His enemies will never forgive him for being president and trying to do his job.

[tannji]

Tannji (and others) – The price of being safe – that is' date=' of having one’s safety maintained by an organization wielding authority – is obedience to that authority. This is the crux of the debate on this thread. There are some who resent the latter, but still desire the former. Others point out the inconsistency, and state that they’d gladly accept the authority if that’s the price of protecting life and limb. But I say: dispense with the authority, accepting loss of protection. It’s not the case that I would not be afraid of fanatics with AK-47’s. But rather, that I recognize that the price of dismantling the paternalism of authority is exposure to the dangers from which that paternalism is purported to protect. Hey, I don’t want to get blown up in a hijacked airliner either. But I’d actually rather have that happen to me, than to a heart-to-heart basement chat. My belief is that much as 9/11 was a horror and a tragedy, the steps that would have been necessary for completely foolproof proof protection from such an event would have been too onerous an assault on our liberties. This is the logic behind statement #3 in my prior post.

 

Now, to answer Mike’s question – “what could I actually DO about the government, to make it better?†Well, for us government employees, there’s an insidious little law called the Hatch Act, which largely bans political (partisan) activity. I suppose I could donate to the Libertarian party, but that’s about it.[/quote']

 

I have to respond very carefully, and briefly, or this could get out of hand.

Michael, you recognize our slippery slope, and wonder where it will end with the current system of authority and protection.... and then advocate a situation where the authority (if there is one) does nothing to protect you, or the rest of us? You dont think THAT would be a slippery slope all by itself? How exactly would you prevent anarchy? Or do you actually support anarchy? Can you point to a country, current or historical, that had such a system? Can you expound upon this country with no authority, and how everything worked?

I think I am open minded, and I am relatively well informed and educated. I cant think of a historical situation that would encourage your statement, and I cant see any way that this would work in any modern country either. If this is an imaginary state of being you aspire to, rather than think is practical or possible in our real world, please clarify that. If you actually think this is something we should try to enact, or should be trying to enact here in the United States today, I think it is worthy of its own thread, with a lengthy first post. Otherwise, you come off with about as much credibility as Clinton on honesty in public service.

 

There.... I tried to keep it short, civil, and encourage further dialogue..... but WTF!!! Sorry, that just slipped out.... = )

[JMortensen]

I don't like either side of the Palestinian issue, but it's pretty easy to see where Moridin comes in on that one. I just wanted to point out a couple things about Palestine...

 

I wouldn't trust the Balfour "Declaration" to entitle me to a ham sandwich if I were in Palestine in 1917. The whole meat of the document that entitles the Jews is --get this-- 1 sentence. When I read it I get "yeah, it's ok with us if you guys want to go there just don't F anyone over", and it doesn't do a damn thing to help establish a govt or state what should be done with the Palestinians or anything. What's more it has the qualification of "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." Clearly this didn't happen, but it was the result of both parties IMO. The Jews came in and bought up a bunch of land and irrigated it and farmed it and refused to let the Palestinians work for them and did not share in their technological advantage. The Palestinians had to keep selling more land to the Jews just to get by, but were increasingly angry about their social status and the Jews' determination not to help them.

 

Arafat, who was (I think still is) the leader of FATAH, is a huge part of the problem. Part of the charter for Fatah reads as follows "Military defeat [of Israel] is not the sole goal in the Palestinian Liberation War, but it is the blotting out of the Zionist character of the occupied land, be it human or social." And "The Jewish state is an aberrant mistaken phenomenon in our nation's history and therefore there is no alternative but to wipe out the existential trace of this artificial phenomenon." Would YOU try to negotiate with that guy???

 

Sharon is a member of the Likud party, and here's a bit of their party charter "The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore Judaea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River] there will be only Israeli sovereignty." Clearly the group which Sharon has aligned himself is only slightly more appeasable than Fatah.

 

Sharon will back off when he gets Israel to be a solid sovereign nation from with no West Bank or Gaza strip, and Arafat just wants to kill every Jew in Palestine.

 

I don't think that a lot of Americans understand what is going on there, but I think these guys are going to have to die for there to be peace. I see it similarly to Cuba. I think the situation in Cuba will probably improve 100 fold when Castro croaks.

[Tony D]

Training Osama? Well we did train the Muj's in Afghanistan. Milt Bearden CIA Bureau Chief during that period personally regrets what we did only because it has been misused. From a guy who DID the training, imagine the ghosts he has to live with, how do you think he feels about justified steps to redress that "training error"? The point that once it's been learned, we really have no control what people use it for is very valid, and I persoanlly feel sad that Milt has such a hard time of if---but it was what was required at the time. You do what you need to do when fighting a war, and that's what we needed to do. That they took it to another extreme due to religous zealotry is another matter. What happens during wartime is usually redressed equitably at the ceassation of hostilities. (more on that later...)

 

Remember that the Taliban, the Muj's all those boys had their butts KICKED by the Russians, regardless of their "proud fighting heritage". Until Uncle Sam came in and supplied them, they were residing themselves to the fact that they were done with their fight and were going to live out their lives in Pakistan because the Russians were too strong.

 

Then, in a stroke of "get back at the bastards for VietNam" the US supplied them, trained them, and gave the Russkies a bit of their own medicine.

 

The problem now is funding. Without these idiots being funded they will be snuffed out and defeated. Which is a reason for the tact the USA is taking in the war. As much shooting as snooping will be required. To prevent the terrorists from being funded (like we did for the Muj in Afghanistan, and the Russkies did to the HoChiMinh boys in VN) will require what normally would be considered terribly invasive investigative methods. This is required because of the way the Muslim World treats "charities"---many of them soilicit funds, but really don't keep books the way they should. Many links to "Martyrs Funds" and the like have been found from "legitimate" muslim charities operating in the USA. Without the investigative powers, there was no way to make this connection, and the funding would still be flowing. Like Hezbulloh in Beruit, they operate child care centres, typical charities, and...welll... other things as well. But who can turn down money for a child care centre, huh? Not to say 100% of your money (or any at all) will ever go for the centre. But hey, it's a charity!

 

On another note, while Manzanar (yeah, from waay back in the post...) was for the Japanese, and they got offered reparations, my relatives of GERMAN and ITALIAN descent who were legal citizens for years by the time the war was declared were uprooted and sent to camps in North Dakota and the Midwest for the duration of the war. But the Japanese had a vocal lobby in congress, so they go a nice little payoff. And in many cases they didn't leave the state. Who mentioned that there is a little different treatment for different groups? We got the shaft on that one. My kid's college fund could use a boost.

 

But many people took it for what it was: something that occurred in war, it was done, it was over, and you try to learn from it. As far as I can see, nobody is locking up people fromthe USA, they are usually from Islamic States captured on the battlefield (Gitmo)...

 

It's like getting your hassle from a cop. Yeah, it's a pain, and it probably shouldn't happen, but what is the use of bellyaching after the fact?

 

I can think that somewhere I am on some government list for making international cellphone calls from China to the USA and saying something like "CNC Bridgeport Mill" or referring to my compatriots in the states at assorted times as "Tom Bin Laden" or "Abdullah Allsama Bengali Viniard" then saying "semtex, C4, plastique"...

 

Ever since I saw Bill Murray in "Wherre the Buffalo Roam" I have always had the urge to say "F... Hoover!" whenever I answer the phone in these situations.

 

I digress. 8)

[tannji]

Commander Carr, huh? here is an excerpt, for thse who havent read him.

 

If what I reveal surprises and shocks the reader, please don't develop an inferiority complex because I am frank to admit that although I have worked since 1911, trying to find out why the Human Race can't live in peace and enjoy the bounties and blessing God provides for our use and benefit in such abundance, it was 1950 before I penetrated teh secret that the wars and revolutions which scourge our live, and the chaotic conditions that prevail, are nothing more or less than the effects of the continuing Luciferian conspiracy. It started in that part of the universe we call heaven...

 

Very few people seem to be able to appreciate the Lucifer is the brightest and most intelligent of the heavenly host and, because he is a pure spirit, he is indestructible. The Luciferian ideology states that might is right. It claims beings of proven superior intelligence have the right to rule those less gifted because the masses don't know what's best for them. The Luciferian ideology is what we call totalitarianism today.

 

In 1776 Weishaupt organized the Illuminati to put the plot into execution. The word Illuminati is derived from Lucifer, and means 'holders of the light.' Using the lie that his objective was to bring about a One World government to enable men with proven mental ability to govern the world he recruited about 2000 followers. The included the most intelligent men in th field of Arts and Letters; Education; the sciences, finance and industry. He then established Lodges of the Grand Orient to be their secret headquarters...

 

In 1789, John Robinson warned Masonic Leaders the Illuminati had infiltrated their lodges. John Quincy Adams had organized the New England Masonic Lodges. He wrote three letters ... exposing how Thomas Jefferson was using Masonic lodges for subversive purposes.

 

Carr saw conspiracy and elitism everywhere. He was apparently intelligent and certainly outspoken, but I think his credibility ends with his naval career.

 

If these "wars" occur on their own accord then how was it that not only Albert Pike was able to comment on them back in the 1800's and if Albert Pike's assumed letters were fraudulent - What about Commander Carr's books where he posted said info back in the 1950's....long before the Arab Terrorists connection was even on the radar screen? Hmmm? Please explain this because I would love for someone to rationilize these issues away

 

WWI and WWII were not something that spontaneously combusted out of nothing. The social, political, and economic conditions were extant, and not difficult to anticipate, especially in speculative correspondence. Europe has been continuously involved in the same debates and conflicts for HUNDREDS of years. That continent has had very few years without war in some corner for the last 500 years and more. The advent of modern warfare and armament actually made somethings easier to see and "predict". Hmm, Germany has the leading scientists, universities, and manufacturing, as well as military masterminds. On a continent where war is a given, what will develope, and how big could it get. Geez, it might actually be a little worse and far reaching than it has been in the past 500 years.... and now we have mass transportation and efficient killing machines, radio and newspapers (efficient communication for propaganda). Predicting a war with international involvement and incredible destruction didnt require a conspiracy or tremendous intellect.

 

As for predicting problems in the Middle East, you take the one area of the world that has a greater record for war, empire making, power struggles, and religious discord than Europe, and add an uneducated, unempowered populace, and Oil, which the rest of the world wants. Not too difficult there either. Oh yeah, terrorists.... time honored tradition there, not exactly a new developement, and certainly not news to anyone that has followed the past 1000 years of history in THAT region. Ask Britain why they gave up trying to build a stable situation between Israel and the Palestinians back in the teens and twenties last century? Ask them about the Irgun and Stern gang, and Haj Amin al-Husseini's operatives. Terrorism was a serious problem long before Carr ever wrote about it.

[tannji]

I don't like either side of the Palestinian issue' date=' but it's pretty easy to see where Moridin comes in on that one. I just wanted to point out a couple things about Palestine...

 

I wouldn't trust the Balfour "Declaration" to entitle me to a ham sandwich if I were in Palestine in 1917. The whole meat of the document that entitles the Jews is --get this-- 1 sentence. When I read it I get "yeah, it's ok with us if you guys want to go there just don't F anyone over", and it doesn't do a damn thing to help establish a govt or state what should be done with the Palestinians or anything. What's more it has the qualification of "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." Clearly this didn't happen, but it was the result of both parties IMO. [b']The Jews came in and bought up a bunch of land and irrigated it and farmed it and refused to let the Palestinians work for them and did not share in their technological advantage. The Palestinians had to keep selling more land to the Jews just to get by, but were increasingly angry about their social status and the Jews' determination not to help them.[/b]

Arafat, who was (I think still is) the leader of FATAH, is a huge part of the problem. Part of the charter for Fatah reads as follows "Military defeat [of Israel] is not the sole goal in the Palestinian Liberation War, but it is the blotting out of the Zionist character of the occupied land, be it human or social." And "The Jewish state is an aberrant mistaken phenomenon in our nation's history and therefore there is no alternative but to wipe out the existential trace of this artificial phenomenon." Would YOU try to negotiate with that guy???

 

Sharon is a member of the Likud party, and here's a bit of their party charter "The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore Judaea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River] there will be only Israeli sovereignty." Clearly the group which Sharon has aligned himself is only slightly more appeasable than Fatah.

 

Sharon will back off when he gets Israel to be a solid sovereign nation from with no West Bank or Gaza strip, and Arafat just wants to kill every Jew in Palestine.

 

I don't think that a lot of Americans understand what is going on there, but I think these guys are going to have to die for there to be peace. I see it similarly to Cuba. I think the situation in Cuba will probably improve 100 fold when Castro croaks.

 

Good points for the most part, but not entirely accurate in several points...

 

The Jews did not come in and just randomly decide to buy property that needed improving, and then shut out the palestinians from any sharing. It was difficult for Jews to buy ANY property there, and much of was they did buy was in such poor condition that the arabs or palestinians sold it at obscene prices, thinking they were suckering jews for worthless land. Later, as the jews improved the land and started to bring in crops, and built communities, many went thru "sellers remorse". It also drove up the price of additional land, once it was seen what a little tech and sweat could do. The conditions were primitive, the jews were for the most part very poor, and gained what they got honestly with sweat equity. As a matter of fact, there were many jewish communites that saw the value of educating and helping their less fortunate or capable neighbors, to build truely cooperative Coops, or Kibbitzim. There were Always jews who wouldnt do any unnecessary business with Arabs, and vice versa. This did not initially cause the tremendous friction we see today. Once Palestinian leaders (or opportunists) saw what the jews were building, they became worried, but not entirely for the reasons you would initially expect. The jewish communites and success were indeed a threat, and were treated as such. But they were not threatening just because scum like Amin al-Husseini saw the possibility of Israel rising from the ashes and forcing out the Palestinians, but rather because there was a great Idealogical danger of the elevated standard of living and education of the Jewish families and communities seducing the Palestinian populace away from the system and leadership they had thus far "enjoyed". There were many examples of palestinians and jews living peacefully and cooperatively side by side, until hate mongerers from both sides jumped in to correct this grievous wrong. Certainly there had always been legitimate concerns on both sides as to equality and religeous freedoms, not to mention holy places of great importance and antiquity.... but these things had a slight chance of resolving themselves, until mongerers of hate and distrust stepped up and muddied the waters, not to mention killing quite a few innocent and defenseless people from both sides.

 

As to Fidel's death being a good thing, there is every likelyhood and possibility that who ever replaces him will be merely filling the power void, or move Cuba into a more adverserial posistion. Be careful what you wish for, you may get a saddam hussein!

[JMortensen]

Well, my synopsis was a little simplistic, but I didn't want to write a book. My point was more that a large portion of both sides are unwilling to deal and are ideologically opposed to peace with the other, so it becomes a standoff that requires the death of the Jews or the abdication of relatively large parts of Palestine to bring either side to a situation where peace is even a possibility. If they were able to deal then Arafat would have signed the agreement Clinton proposed. But they weren't then and they aren't now.

 

I just don't think that peace is going to exist there until the extremists die off, and they aren't likely to die off anytime soon since there are such a large contingent of Jews and Palestinians that raise their children to be extremists and continue on the fight. I do see small signs of hope like the Palestinians protesting the PLO about a month back I think it was. I didn't look too far into that one, they could have been protesting for the PLO's weakened stance or something, but the news portrayed it as a good thing.

 

I guess I have a rosier outlook on Cuba. I think there are some big changes in store for Cuba when Castro bites the dust.

[Moridin]

Moridin' date=' I am assuming you are intimating that we deserved to be attacked...

 

As for our training Osama, DOn't have a clue where you got that information... we did not. Further more, We had NOTHING to do with the development of WMD in Iraq. We supported Iraq in their conflict with Iran, but once we found out they were developing WMD and had USED them on Iran, we stopped supporting them. All support of Saddam's power ended when (And I was working a watchcenter position when this went down, it was a horrible night!) he gassed the Kurds.

 

I'm going to repeat myself again, and we ALL need to heed this... DO your research and be DAMNED CERTAIN you understand what you are reading before you allign yourselves with a candidate... My personal opinion on the middle east has always been one of two choices... 110% support of Israil, with full warfare on Syria, Iran, Iraq (Which is done now), Libya, and the complete destruction of the PLO and it's leadership... OR PULL OUT OF THE Region and let them (All of them) fix their own problems... But the last caveatte comes with a string attached... When the rest of the world comes crying to us for help, we turn them away...

 

You can't have it both ways, people... You can't want for us, the most powerful country in the world, to go out to these arm pits of the world to provide assistance without getting somewhat involved in their politics... We try to remain neutral in most cases, but you always have a power struggle between those who live in the region to get our alignment with them...

 

Some of the cavelier attitudes have begged this question to be asked... Since you folks are so critical of our government... WHAT ARE YOU DOING to make it better? We can type and bitch and moan about how we aren't happy with the internation political scene we are currently a part of, But what are "WE" as a population going to do about it??? Need some cheese with that whine? I am hearing lots of complaining but no solutions... Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but so is masturbation... In the end, nothing really gets accomplished...

 

Personally, I believe we have tried to be less partial in the region because we don't fully understand the middle eastern culture enough... However, I believe that because of the damage that has been done on both side, that we should employ extreme measures in regions where we know a terrorist state exists... Mushroom cloud them and get over with it. The hate is multi-generational and we will only correct this by pulling out and allowing the terrorists to take full control of that region, or turning it into a glass bowl... Until September 11, 2001 I wanted Syria to be a nice glass bowl... Now, You can add the whole region to it... I'm done.

 

 

Mike (Who would vote for Bush is he announced a nukes campaign in the Middle East!) 8)[/quote']

 

All I'm trying to say is that our foreign policy has a very big impact on our country.

 

Here's a link to Osama's CIA ties and training http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

 

Another interesting link:

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

 

One about our corporations supplying weapons to Iraq

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

 

The United States actions (and corporations actions) have consequences.

 

Like Mike K. said, do your research and vote for the candidate who best fits the agenda you agree with. Remember though, there are more than two candidates and every politicians agenda isn't what it may seem to be.

[pparaska]

Kevin' date=' I'm speechless... You can't be serious about your theory of tower seven???? Mike 8)[/quote']

 

Mike,

 

The issue isnt what I think nor what you think. What either of us think is completely immaterial. What matters is "What did happen?" Only when you can offer a forum where the NYFD survivors can speak openly w/out threat of jail or loss of job will we then be able to form an educated opinion. As of now they, the NYFD survivors can not speak openly due to the Gag Order forced upon them.

 

Kevin, do you see centuries-long evil conspiracies at work everywhere you can't see all the facts? It certainly seems so. There are other motives for a gag order than to cover up some kind of evil conspiracy.

 

Regardless of who is behind the terrorism is academic and in the end who knows how much it will really matter. What matters is that our way of life is about to get really ugly. This is the slippery slope to which we are not going to return from.

 

On what facts do you base your ascertion that "our way of life is about to get really ugly." ?

 

And how can you say "This is the slippery slope to which we are not going to return from." ?

 

The sky is not falling the last time I looked. It's not 1984 or "Brazil" or even close to a communist Russia or China secret-police state. And Russia slid back UP the hill.

 

For someone who says they won't be able to make up their mind before they have all the facts, you sure do jump to (the EVIL) conclusions.

 

FWIW, if anyone gets a chance to go see the SPY musem in DC, do it soon. They have an exhibit on "Terrorism - the enemy within" I learned (why don't they teach this stuff in school!) about the prpblems with terrorists that we've had in this country since before the revolutionary war, how we've taken away civil liberties and given them back many times. We're nowhere close to where we got back in the early and mid 1900s when we had the Sedition Act, etc.

 

I came away from that exhibit with a few lessons:

1- terrorists are those that are too lazy and cowardly to try to change the system by peaceful means. I knew this already, but it was reinforced.

2- In times of siege (like we are in now and have been for 10 years - thanks Kevin) the US government has seen fit to take away some civil liberties in order to protect teh country from the enemy. But in short order, the great (mostly) FREE society we live in forces the laws to be revised to restore and usually improve the civil liberties situation. The advent of the ACLU is one example.

 

As for Mike's two ways to deal with the Middle East, I say continue to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan to better than when we got there and then leave the Middle East (ALL OF IT) to it's own devices. That's the only way the anti-western hate will have a chance of ending. Take away the hate monger's amunition and they'll not have the fodder for their terrorist cannons against us.

[Guest Phil1934]

However we received almost unanimous support when we invaded Afghanistan and the opposite for Iraq. Part of the reason we are hated by that part of the world is our arms deals. We sell to both sides. Much was made of the money for Contras (that came from the sale of weapons to Iran.) Arms sales are a dirty business that the U.S. needs to drop. An interesting side note is that Reagan's campaign manager met with Iranians in a hotel in London when his only gov't related job was Reagan's campaign manager. The hostages were released on Inauguration Day and the new president saw fit to sell this group weapons. Yet the public was steered to the Contra affair and Ollie North. Win an election at any cost should be the motto of both parties.

[Mikelly]

Moridin, Post all the links you want, but as we all know, the media isn't your friend, my friend or the CIA's friend... The media posts information inaccurately for their own means, they post remarks out of context and are not concerned with facts...

 

WAS Osama in Afghanistan during the war with Russia? I suppose he was... Were we assisting the insurgence IN afghanistan? Yes. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything else... But that does NOT mean we singled out Osama Bin Ladden and trained him.

 

But to say we trained him so he couild eventually attack us is increadibly short sited. We deal with the international situations as they are at the time, and can NOT account for what a group, or country (CUBA?) does after we assist them in their time of crisis. Sometimes things work out well for us, and sometimes they don't.

 

Michael, I'm more than familiar with our constraints as civil service employees... But we have several thousand members on this site and THEY could certainly begin a new political party, or back an existing one, in order to make PEACEFUL and REAL change, rather than pissing and moaning on some BB on the internet.

 

I'm all for packing it in, bringing the troops home, and sealing our borders, enforcing the existing laws on our books and letting people into the country who come in by legal means... Lets do it... I think the rest of the world community need to step up and pull their own weight.

 

Mike 8)

[tannji]

Yeah.... it is definitely wrong for countries to get involved in other countries internal matters.... I am certain Kuwait would back that up... as well as Grenada, Panama, Britain, France, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Egypt, Ethiopia, China, and others whom the Unites States has literally pulled the bacon out of the fire for. The United States generally tries to do the right thing... but that will always include looking out for our own interests as well, and plenty of people will be unhappy about it afterwards. France was involved in our Revolutionary War, which we certainly appreciated, but it had as much to do with spitting in Britains eye as it did any noble tendencies on Frances part. We can talk about minding our own business all we want.... it isnt possible in this day and age, at least not if we want to maintain even a fraction of our all-important standard of living. If we did that in the Middle East instead of the first Gulf War, you would have had 2 possible outcomes, with one wildcard thrown in.

1. Iraq would have had little to stand in their way to become the dominant power in the Gulf. (and if you dont realize this was their intention, You are not familar with much there. Everyone knew this in the area)

2. Someone else, like Russia or China, or one of our holier-than-thou allies, like Germany or France would have stepped in and done the dirty deed, then stayed to enjoy the payoff.

3. The wildcard is always Israel. Nuclear Israel. Irael would Deep Fry the area before being overrun by their neighbors again. And that would likely start WWIII. Its convenient to have them as Allies, but we spend as much of our time trying to keep Israel on a leash as we do enjoying her company as an ally.

 

The bottom line is, as much as it would seem to be simpler and correct to become Isolationist, we can not afford to. I would love to see some sort of game, or turn based scenario generator so that we could explore some of the likely results of just minding our own business. I think there are many here that would be stunned at some of the outcomes.

[Mikelly]

Tannji, I know you are correct... However, it would be interesting to pull everyone home, sit on the sidelines for a year and SEE how the rest of the world screws themselves into oblivian...

 

We are a nation with good intentions, while guarding our own interests, and our own populous can't seem to grasp the situation for what it is... There is no "Fixing" this...

 

Mike 8)