PDA

View Full Version : Our freedoms. Let go?!



seenbad
09.12.01, 11:03 PM
I've been hearing much talk about how it is inevitable that we will need to give up "some" of our freedoms of americans to become safer (for a short term of course:roleyes: ). People seem to be ok with this too! Am I in the minority by thinking this is the completely WRONG way of thinking?

I say we dont give up SHIT. Ever. I'm not good at quoting anything so dont laugh at me, but wasnt it Ben Franklin, one of our founding fathers that said something like "The person who is willing to sacrifice freedom and independece for safety, deserves neither". I wholeheartedly agree. We dont give up ANYTHING for one second. What we do is eliminate the very thing that threatens our safety, freedom and independence and eliminate it quickly by God.

Your thoughts..

MikeL
09.12.01, 11:30 PM
I hate the way people are letting this change their daily lives. That's what those bastards that did it want. I had a lunch meeting yesterday, and 2 people didn't show because they didn't feel comfortable due to the attack.

AbeVanHalen
09.13.01, 05:20 AM
Now that Colin Powell has called on NATO for support, the wording has now been changed from 'act of WAR' to 'act of BARBARISM'. I think we may have blown all hope of making a strong enough statement to really be effective.

After much thought, it seems the only way to hurt the perpetrators is to go OVERBOARD, and make them pay a price they are not willing to pay. Yes, that means the slaughter of their families, kids, dogs, cats, homes, cities, swimming pools, churches, etc. Just killing the guilty parties is meaningless-it is their DREAM to die for the glory of their god. We need a shocking attack; one that would even scare our allies to the point where the whole world's jaw drops while they say "holy shit! I cannot BELIEVE the US could be so cruel." Anything shy of that, our freedoms here will likely forever be altered.

VP Cheney has been SILENT; I don't think he approves of any of what's being discussed behing closed doors. Without the US making an almost insane response, and doing it quickly, we will simply become the laughing stock of the terrorist world, and will be forced to deal with an altered lifestyle forever.

The time is NOW-tactical nuclear eradication of even a few select cities, with NO ground troops involved, is the only language those guys are going to understand. If we want to stop terrorism, it's gotta come from within their own ranks. Just taking out the major players ain't gonna cut it.

Just like Al Capone; we managed to get him locked up, yet the Mafia continues to thrive to this day. We achieved nothing by locking HIM up; he was simply replaced by another guy, and it's continued ever since.

We don't need to hit the 'right' target either; we need to instill FEAR, not implement justice.

diggyd
09.13.01, 05:38 AM
I agree with Abe. Nuke 'em all or face the facts that we are a bunch of pussies. It's time to make a global statement. What a way to boost our economy. It's time to build up the US war machine to unprecedented levels. I also say LET ISRAEL LOOSE! These fuckers would clean house in the middle east and then we can split the profits of all the oil refineries. Gas would be 50 cents a gallon. Give me a gun or put me in office. I will lead us all.

tap1966
09.13.01, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seenbad:
I've been hearing much talk about how it is inevitable that we will need to give up "some" of our freedoms of americans to become safer (for a short term of course:roleyes: ). People seem to be ok with this too! Am I in the minority by thinking this is the completely WRONG way of thinking?

I say we dont give up SHIT. Ever. I'm not good at quoting anything so dont laugh at me, but wasnt it Ben Franklin, one of our founding fathers that said something like "The person who is willing to sacrifice freedom and independece for safety, deserves neither". I wholeheartedly agree. We dont give up ANYTHING for one second. What we do is eliminate the very thing that threatens our safety, freedom and independence and eliminate it quickly by God.

Your thoughts..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen the quote attributed to both Franklin and Jefferson. RIght now I think you are in a minority judging from poll results I've been seeing. I hope when the dust settles (figuratively and literally) people we see things differently.

Some things obviously need to change, like airport security (and way more than the pointless changes proposed by the FAA). But those things should be inconveniences not limitations on freedom.

I think certain elements in the media have said some very stupid things. You keep hearing this "things will never be the same" mantra from media agencies who should know better. It's in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Europe has lived with terrorism (not on this immediate scale of course) without restricting how people are able to lead their lives. There's no need for drastic changes to happen here.

diggyd
09.13.01, 05:50 AM
Correction my brother Jonathon. Germany is very tough at the airport. You are checked from head to toe. It's tough to pull something off at an airport there.

AbeVanHalen
09.13.01, 05:59 AM
KMart and Walmart have ceased to sell guns for the time being. That is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Major League Baseball is postponed.

The NFL is considering the same thing.

The PGA has cancelled a HUGE event.

Airport security is going way up. No steak knives for first class. I guess they'll all eat soup.

In 24 hours, US intelligence has found 50+ suspects in this already. Suddenly they have sprung to life.


Things are already changing. Even if they are temporary, they have changed.

tap1966
09.13.01, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by diggyd:
Correction my brother Jonathon. Germany is very tough at the airport. You are checked from head to toe. It's tough to pull something off at an airport there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummm....I'm British, I'm well aware how tight security is at European airports. I think you missed my point, airport security in the US is an oxymoron. Those are things that can and should change drastically without infringing on people's freedom.

tap1966
09.13.01, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AbeVanHalen:
KMart and Walmart have ceased to sell guns for the time being. That is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if they've done it by order of the government. Otherwise it's just a business changing how they operate.

LA
09.13.01, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:


I think you missed my point, airport security in the US is an oxymoron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

boy did you ever get THAT right...! smilies/mad.gif

LA
09.13.01, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AbeVanHalen:
KMart and Walmart have ceased to sell guns for the time being. That is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if you can buy guns anywhere else it isn't. They've made a decision to not carry a product. Would you get upset if they quit carrying your brand of shampoo?

Most of the other things have been cancelled or postponed out of respect for those who died. Others out of concern for the safety of those who might be in attendance.

You want war over this. You want us to nuke whoever did it. If we do that (and I'm not saying we shouldn't strike back, but I AM completely OPPOSED to nuclear strikes), then be prepared for LOTS more to change. Remember if this came from middle east terrorists, they believe in an Eye for an Eye. If we strike, don't think that they won't strike back.

Right now things have to change. We have to be alert. We should have always been alert. We slacked and we pay the consequences now. We strike back, and things will REALLY change. I don't think we can ever go back completely to the way we were. That's a closed chapter

ANGEL4U
09.13.01, 06:48 AM
According to an interview last night with Bin Ladens *teacher*, it doesn't matter how secure we "think" we are.....they live in a country where people will suicide themselves...in that sense/belief, we will be an easy target smilies/mad.gif

NE169
09.13.01, 09:47 AM
Don't know if we need the nukes--it'll give them another excuse to retaliate in kind.

I wouldn't kill the ones actually responsible--but I'm all for making their lives as agonizing as humanly possible by physical torture!!

I also advocate going after as many terrorist cells as possible, not just the ones responsible for the WTC, all of 'em! While we got most of the world on our side, let's take out as much as we can!!

Regarding the freedoms, I'm all for tighter airport security, but that's about it. We lose freedoms only if we allow it.

diggyd
09.13.01, 08:00 PM
Jonathan, I reread your post and I took the ball and ran in a different direction. My bad. Good post...Cheerio!

tap1966
09.13.01, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by diggyd:
Jonathan, I reread your post and I took the ball and ran in a different direction. My bad. Good post...Cheerio!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problem smilies/smile.gif

laner
09.13.01, 09:59 PM
i don't think that nuking the country that harbored the person resposible is a good idea. primarily, most of the population of afghanistan is also scared of bin laden, so if they annihilate the entire coutry, you would also be eliminating people on our side, not to mention innocent people, which would make us just as bad as they are. you don't want to sink to their level do you?

i am all for taking out every terrorist though, i don't have any tolerance for that. bin laden needs to go.
smilies/mad.gif

seenbad
09.13.01, 10:50 PM
Problem is laner, that taking out the terrorist simply wont do. You have to take out any country that houses and shelters them as well if the world is to make itself VERY clear on this. There is NO ROOM for this in this world any longer. I think that soon, there wont be a level of their own to sink to.

I'm not a blood thirsty barbarian, and I'm telling you that if we nuked a country again I would cry till' I simply have no more salt in my body to let out with the loss of life we would be responsible for taking. BUT, our world is one that requires the NEED for extreme measures to signify the point of non tolerence to a particular behavior. Killing the terrorist himself does nothing. He will become a hero to future terrorists, an idol to worship and be "just like when I grow up". Well, I see it like a blackberry bush man. You gotta get the roots if you want to have a chance, and the roots in this case are any and every hut, city, state and nation that prescribes to or supports in one way or another the act of terror.

I would much rather do it without nukes, but something tells me that they will probably use them first (pakistan with russian intelligence, or Iraq, and even more dangerous of course, Iran). And if that happens, of course we and the rest of the world will follow.

Speculation....blah blah blah.

AbeVanHalen
09.14.01, 02:16 AM
Here's the harsh, bitter reality. The terrorists themselves WANT to die; it's the greatest glory they can do for their god. If you want to stop them, hit them where it hurts. That means kill their women, children, dogs, cats, houses, cities, etc. It's cold, but effective. It is war, not diplomacy.

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

That is not a statement of hate, violence, or anger. It is STRATEGY. Using smaller tactical nukes is the most effective way to achieve the result, and it puts as few of our guys in the line of fire as possible.

Also, as for getting the leader, consider Al Capone. He was undoubtably THE head guy of the Mafia. We got him and locked him up. 60-odd years later, the Mafia is stronger than EVER. Killing the leader is ineffective. Surgical strikes do NOT generate the kind of fear that these people understand. AND, if we DID use nukes, it would shock the whole world. They would say "Holy shit! Those guys will stop at nothing!"

That is how you win a war. We saw how effective surgical strikes of conventional weapons are in the Gulf War; they did a LOT of damage, but achieved very little in the long run.

We need to show the world that it ain't safe to screw with us. If our allies don't like it, FUCK 'EM. Think back to the time when asked Spain if we could fly over them to attack elsewhere. They said 'no'. We said 'well, I DARE you to stop us'. We flew over unimpeded. It's too late for diplomacy, this is WAR. To win a war, you gotta fight dirty, like a wounded animal. You do WHATEVER IT TAKES, and, if this is going to be long and drawn out, we MUST consider cost effectiveness.

And if France, or Britain, or Canada, or England, or whoever does not approve, TOO FUCKING BAD. Remember The Untouchables-Sean Connery picks up a guy (dead, but their captive doesn't know he's dead), holds a gun to his mouth and tells him to talk or die. When the guy doesn't talk, Malone (Connery) splatters his brain all over the glass in front of the captive, who then shits himself and sings like a bird. The Canadian Mountie says to Mr. Ness, "I do not approve of your methods." Well, ya know, too bad. It worked.

If we don't attack to the FULLEST of our capabilities, with as much (apparent) cruelty and barbarism, we will have Vietnam part II on our hands. It is WAR-not a game. There are no rules, and there are no referees.

Right now, we ARE a wounded animal. It's time to act like one. Otherwise, we cannot win.