3 Texas men terror plot foiled.

tyme,
What war are we fighting, when will it end, and who is the enemy? It seems to me that this war is an ideological war, it will not end for a long time, and the enemy is anyone who shares a radical Islamic ideology. That is not easily detected.
I'd agree 100%!
I can't remember any war whose end could be predicted with any accuracy. This war is no exception. I would even go a step further in saying that it would be dangerous for us to try to predict an end. It would encourage terror groups to wait us out and begin all over once we dropped out of the fray. It seems to me that this war is a new experience in waging war. We can't point to just one country and say there's the enemy. In this case the enemy is where we find them. The latest group has been found in Great Britain attempting to bring down planes, but I'm sure they can be found throughout the world. That includes right here in the USA.
I find it odd that while our soldiers are overseas laying their lives on the line to protect our civilian population from certain death at the hands of the terrorists, we have people in this country fighting to protect the rights of those same terrorists. I guess that's what really irks me about that point of view.
Don
 
I find it odd that while our soldiers are overseas laying their lives on the line to protect our civilian population from certain death at the hands of the terrorists, we have people in this country fighting to protect the rights of those same terrorists.
Only because their rights are our rights.
 
Redworm,
Do you believe that no one should be afraid of our government and the possibility of it having more power than the people it's supposed to serve?

In all honesty I think we should be constantly vigilant of the abuse of power by the government, but the day we need to fear our government, should be the first day of the second American Revolution.
Don
 
In all honesty I think we should be constantly vigilant of the abuse of power by the government, but the day we need to fear our government, should be the first day of the second American Revolution.
And that day probably should have been in 1938. So where does that leave us, now?
 
Maybe that's where we differ. I don't believe terrorists are entitled to any rights.
But a lot of the circumstantial evidence that applies to terrorists also applies to some of us. If they are presumed guilty because they're in a van with a bunch of cell phones while Arab, so are we*.

* where "we" includes some Arab-american non-terrorist businessmen

About half the country would diagree with you and say that date should have been 1860.
As I recall, half the country *did* disagree and say that date was 1860. They weren't proven wrong, but they were beaten into submission. Perhaps they should have dusted off their rifles in 1938, but they didn't.
 
I find it odd that while our soldiers are overseas laying their lives on the line to protect our civilian population from certain death at the hands of the terrorists, we have people in this country fighting to protect the rights of those same terrorists.

Actually they are fighting AND dying to protect our rights, among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I find it odd that some people here are doing their best to restrict and take away those freedoms and disgracing everyone who has ever fought and died for this country btw...
 
ccwolff,
Quote:
I find it odd that while our soldiers are overseas laying their lives on the line to protect our civilian population from certain death at the hands of the terrorists, we have people in this country fighting to protect the rights of those same terrorists.


Actually they are fighting AND dying to protect our rights, among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I find it odd that some people here are doing their best to restrict and take away those freedoms and disgracing everyone who has ever fought and died for this country btw...

Okay, let me get this straight. Our soldiers are not fighting to protect Americans from certain death, they are fighting to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Doesn't that add up to the same thing? I would think that certain death would automatically preclude you from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I'll let you explain to us how you plan on living your life, enjoying your liberty, and pursueing your happiness, after your death.
If showing my respect and gratefulness to those soldiers that fight to protect us is part and parcel of disgracing them, then I fail to see it. If anyone is disgracing them it is those of you that would undermine their efforts by allowing teorrists the same rights that we, as Americans, are endowed with.
Don
 
Doesn't that add up to the same thing?

If I may...
According to your argument, they do not. You (and this administration) are demanding that we choose between "life" and "liberty" without even attempting to explain why such a choice is necessary.
In the face of this lack of supporting evidence, I assert that we can maintain both and demand that we do so.

Your entire argument is a false-choice construct and you've been told this repeatedly.
 
GoSlash27,
Okay, so are they inviolable without due process?
I'd have to say that depends upon the circumstances and specific laws involved. The world is not black or white, there are shades of grey. For instance the old yelling fire in a movie theater deal. Would your rights to freedom of speach be violated without due process by your being restrained from yelling fire?
If you'd care to give an specific example, I'd be happy to respond to it.
Don
 
GoSlash27,
You (and this administration) are demanding that we choose between "life" and "liberty" without even attempting to explain why such a choice is necessary.
In the face of this lack of supporting evidence, I assert that we can maintain both and demand that we do so.
I can't think of one liberty this administration has taken from me. If you'd care to tell me which liberty has been taken from you, I may even want to join in and help restore your lost freedoms. Of course I won't be so willing to help out if you've been engaging in suspicious behavior and have come under suspicion as a result of that behavior. But let your heart not be troubled, if you are innocent your freedoms will still be in place. I do hope that you know that if you are a foreign terrorist, you won't be entitled to any of the rights we Americans enjoy.
Don
 
I'm going to paraphrase his worldview:

If you don't want to be watched, monitored, or subject to surveillance, don't leave your house. They have a right to watch you, tape you, record you, follow you. If they don't interfere with or manipulate you, who cares?

If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. Those that have a problem with it have something to hide, it's as simple as that. :rolleyes:
 
The world is not black or white, there are shades of grey.

Yep, that is exactly what this thread is about. Three American people who were assumed to be terrorists, by the .gov that appears to only see things in white and bla..brown these days.
And then acts on it with out regards for the constitution, for example the presumption of innocence among other things...


I can't think of one liberty this administration has taken from me. If you'd care to tell me which liberty has been taken from you, I may even want to join in and help restore your lost freedoms.

False argument.
Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

Ok, by your logic:
Tell me of a single thing that a terrorist has done to harm me or any of the 300MILLION plus people that were NOT directly involved in 9/11 that warrants giving the .gov, that IS in power over me and those 300MILLION, more power.

Yep, thats a false argument as well.

Arguing by emotion is a characteristic of another group of Americans...
Those who argue by emotion would most likely enjoy the conversation here... http://www.democraticunderground.com/ ;)
 
Starting with your second thought from a previous post -- I'll pick up the first one below.
BigBlue said:
It seems to me that this war is a new experience in waging war. We can't point to just one country and say there's the enemy. In this case the enemy is where we find them.
See, right here is where you and the neocons go wrong:
Wars are waged between nations.
In the case of the present so-called "War on terrorism," the Western nations are facing a fairly loose criminal conspiracy; indeed, the most visible success to date have been due police work, not military actions. You can't stop criminals very well with solidiers, especially before they strike; what's needed are police. Calling the conflict a "war" just muddies the water -- and the thinking.

BigBlue said:
The latest group has been found in Great Britain attempting to bring down planes, but I'm sure they can be found throughout the world. That includes right here in the USA.
Yep. 'Cos crooks, petty, medium, and darned near James-Bond-villian scale, can be found just about everywhere. They have no country and just about no command structure.

Now I'm going to pick up your first thought, which I moved down in order to make my main point first.
BigBlue said:
I can't remember any war whose end could be predicted with any accuracy. This war is no exception.
You seem to mistake an end condition for a time. In WW II, the Allies could very well predict the end they were after: the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. Sure enough, when this was achieved, the war was over. Korea, a bit less clear (ask MacArthur!), but returning to the boundary between North and South originally set was deemed acceptable.

But in "The War On Terror," how's that end? When there's no more terrorism? Yah, yah, men shall beat their swords into plowshares, there will be pie in the sky and we'll all sing happy, happy songs of brotherhood...right up until some Scientologist gets peeved at an Objectivist and blows up his car, at which point, Game On! It's unrealistic. It's right up there with "wars" on poverty, drugs and crime: the underside is part of who we are as a species. It can be limited, controlled, corralled, patrolled...and it will always be with us. To fail to understand that is to fail to understand the nature of the struggle -- a misunderstanding made all the more obvious by calling it a "war."

BigBlue said:
I would even go a step further in saying that it would be dangerous for us to try to predict an end. It would encourage terror groups to wait us out and begin all over once we dropped out of the fray.
A known, clear end condition is only "dangerous" to those who use our fear to gather power to themselves and to control us. Y'know what the price of Liberty is? Eternal, personal vigilance. It is not swearing submission to somebody else to be vigilant for you, no matter how noble he seems, no matter his Party or Faction.

BigBlue said:
I find it odd that while our soldiers are overseas laying their lives on the line to protect our civilian population from certain death at the hands of the terrorists, we have people in this country fighting to protect the rights of those same terrorists. I guess that's what really irks me about that point of view.
"Certain death?" Run the numbers; if Islamic terrorists trade deaths for deaths with the West at the same rate as happened in the World Trade Center attack, they'll run out of people long before we will! Many more people die in traffic on a holiday weekend than died as a result of the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC on 9/11. How come we don't have a "War on moronic drivers" already? --'Cos that's not the way to fix it. I strongly suspect that for any individual U. S. citizen within the 50 states, the odds are greater of being struck by a falling piano than killed by terrorist activity.

And let's be very, very clear: in the incident under discussion, we're not addressing any "terrorists," merely some criminal suspects arrested here in the United States, under our laws; laws which grant them the very same rights as you yourself enjoy. Laws which, generally, work. Or did I miss something big blowing up in the States in the last four+ years?
 
Last edited:
Maybe that's where we differ. I don't believe terrorists are entitled to any rights.

Maybe where we differ is that I don't believe all Arabs are terrorists. These there men had the terrorism-related charges against them dropped rather quickly, because they quite frankly weren't terrorists. I've also seen no link yet to a news story stating they were illegal in any way either, so it's reasonable to assume they are American citizens just like you or me. So what, might I ask, was the probably cause under which they were arrested, booked, and charged? Oh wait, the probable cause was that they were Arab. Which means that now in this country if you are the wrong color you can be arrested without any evidence that you've commited and actual crime.

Okay, let me get this straight. Our soldiers are not fighting to protect Americans from certain death, they are fighting to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Doesn't that add up to the same thing? I would think that certain death would automatically preclude you from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I'll let you explain to us how you plan on living your life, enjoying your liberty, and pursueing your happiness, after your death.

Actually soldiers take oaths to both defend the nation and the Constitution...so a little of both on the first part. The real reason I quote this, though, is that "certain death" part. How many Americans have been victims of terrorism in the last 20 years? 3000, maybe 3500? Out of 300 million? Sounds much less than certain. At that rate should we ban alcohol to save people from the "certain death" caused by drunk drivers? Take away all firearms to save people from the "certain death" caused by negligent discharges?
 
Last edited:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The word gets thrown around but what happens if Hillary decides during her fourth term that all firearm owners are terrorists?
 
Back
Top