Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23

Author Topic: United State Govt. drops pretense of freedom [NDAA PASSED]  (Read 19928 times)

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2011, 03:07:16 pm »

There should be precautions.  There always were.  But 9/11 was not sufficient cause justify increased precautions.  First, it was a single event; the only one of its kind ever in a span of decades of flight industry operation, right?  Second, it was not prevented because the prevention methods already in place were not properly carried out, not because those methods were insufficient and needed to be upgraded.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2011, 03:07:32 pm »

Quote
I'm saying the TSA sucks and is ineffective, they need to be more effective somehow, without trampling on people's rights....

If you're failing to chop the tree down with your herring, the solution is not to try and find a sharper herring.

More directly related to your hiring analogy, it would be similar to a company being sued from someone slipping on an icy patch outside the front door, and the company responding by hiring a fleet of janitors to insure all paths are always water free. (or, to keep it more similar, a huge team of lawyers to insure they could never be successfully sued for anything ever again)

(in addition to basic court-ordered response of salting the paths in cold weather, obviously)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 03:11:17 pm by GlyphGryph »
Logged

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2011, 03:13:45 pm »

It may be a freak occurrence or people did deliberately close their eyes. The CIA planned worse.

Truean, we do need anti terrorist units, but it so happen that we have some, they are pretty effectives, and happen to cost less than yours.
They work under the jurisdiction of regulatory agencies, need warrant to perform search and our checkpoint happen to be a rather unobtrusive process that take care not to harass the passengers.

And all that's not rocket science : we've had it before, and actually probably needed it more before, when communists terrorist were still strong. Not to mention how France was under threat of Islamic and Corse terrorists, Spain deal with eta since forever, England has IRA, ...

You deal correctly by terrorist by counterintelligence, not by chaining everyone to their seats. That and basic checkpoints.
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2011, 03:14:44 pm »

Also, people just have to get over the fact that the people that are in charge, the people that are supposed to protect you, are simply humans. Humans make mistakes sometimes. Sometimes catastrophic mistakes which cost lives. Nothing you do can protect from Murphy's law. Nothing can be done to make things foolproof. Nothing can be done to guard against every eventuality.
Logged

Kogan Loloklam

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm suffering from an acute case of Hominini Terravitae Biologis. Keep your distance!
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2011, 03:16:36 pm »

I'm saying the TSA sucks and is ineffective, they need to be more effective somehow, without trampling on people's rights....

As for the numbers on deaths from terrorism. A.) Depends on how you define it (civilian Iraqis and Afgans? cause that'll boost those numbers up).
Those numbers are included. Global means global. it includes, for example, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack where 12 were killed and 18 injured.

B.) We want the numbers to be as low as possible.... This is the same argument I've heard companies say about not needing lawyers. "Look at how we haven't been sued." You're welcome. Then they drop the legal department, are promptly sued because no one is watching their backs anymore and.... Vicious cycle. This is an argument to numbers, a logical fallacy. The number of people who've died from it can't be conclusive in this instance. We do need to prevent it, while not being massive jackasses in the process....
No. just no. Having a legal department ≠ removal of constitutionally protected rights. It cannot be justified by a global rate of deaths that equals less than 0.1% of all the deaths that occurred in the United States that year.
Logged
... if someone dies TOUGH LUCK. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED ATTENTION DURING ALL THE DAMNED DODGING DEMONSTRATIONS!

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2011, 03:17:43 pm »

It may be a freak occurrence or people did deliberately close their eyes. The CIA planned worse.

Thanks, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

I don't believe that there was some massive government conspiracy, but I don't believe we know anywhere near the full story, either.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2011, 03:47:22 pm »

Quote
I'm saying the TSA sucks and is ineffective, they need to be more effective somehow, without trampling on people's rights....

If you're failing to chop the tree down with your herring, the solution is not to try and find a sharper herring.

Obviously. Also, the solution is not to just to give up and and stop cutting down the tree. This of course assumes cutting down the tree is desirable and proper.

The solution is to identify what an axe is, find one, and use it. It should go without saying that you shouldn't use an axe that cuts you or use an otherwise OK axe in a manner that cuts you....

There should be precautions.  There always were.  But 9/11 was not sufficient cause justify increased precautions.  First, it was a single event; the only one of its kind ever in a span of decades of flight industry operation, right?  Second, it was not prevented because the prevention methods already in place were not properly carried out, not because those methods were insufficient and needed to be upgraded.

There were no real precautions, at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hijacking#Dealing_with_hijackings

"Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal." http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch3.htm

That is not a plan. That is letting the hijackers do whatever the crap they want in the hopes that they will eventually leave without inflicting serious harm. This is the "sit still, hope and pray" strategy. There was no massive failure of government policy leading to 9/11. The government policy itself enabled 9/11, because the pilots and crew were trained to passively let the hijackers do whatever the crap they wanted in the hope they would eventually land safely without hurting anyone. They did exactly as they were instructed.... The flaw was assuming that the hijackers would want to land safely....

Not the only one of it's kind:
http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=10016 People have been hijacking airplanes for some time. Granted, this was the first suicide attack with one, unless you count you know. Kamikazes.... It was far from unforeseeable. 

It may be a freak occurrence or people did deliberately close their eyes. The CIA planned worse.

Truean, we do need anti terrorist units, but it so happen that we have some, they are pretty effectives, and happen to cost less than yours.
They work under the jurisdiction of regulatory agencies, need warrant to perform search and our checkpoint happen to be a rather unobtrusive process that take care not to harass the passengers.

And all that's not rocket science : we've had it before, and actually probably needed it more before, when communists terrorist were still strong. Not to mention how France was under threat of Islamic and Corse terrorists, Spain deal with eta since forever, England has IRA, ...

You deal correctly by terrorist by counterintelligence, not by chaining everyone to their seats. That and basic checkpoints.

I really know nothing about your country's countermeasures. Would you perhaps be so kind as to point me towards some literature on the matter, in English if possible? Failing that, I readily admit I have no idea how to respond

I'm saying the TSA sucks and is ineffective, they need to be more effective somehow, without trampling on people's rights....

As for the numbers on deaths from terrorism. A.) Depends on how you define it (civilian Iraqis and Afgans? cause that'll boost those numbers up).
Those numbers are included. Global means global. it includes, for example, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack where 12 were killed and 18 injured.

B.) We want the numbers to be as low as possible.... This is the same argument I've heard companies say about not needing lawyers. "Look at how we haven't been sued." You're welcome. Then they drop the legal department, are promptly sued because no one is watching their backs anymore and.... Vicious cycle. This is an argument to numbers, a logical fallacy. The number of people who've died from it can't be conclusive in this instance. We do need to prevent it, while not being massive jackasses in the process....
No. just no. Having a legal department ≠ removal of constitutionally protected rights. It cannot be justified by a global rate of deaths that equals less than 0.1% of all the deaths that occurred in the United States that year.

Ok, first let's start by me saying I'm sensing you might be a little upset. Please allow me to respectfully clarify my point. I grasp your argument. You are saying that the number of deaths globally from terrorism is less than those in the United States from Car crashes alone. I hear you saying that. I am directly and I believe reasonably disputing your numbers and logic. I believe the definition of "terrorism" that lead to that study has to be under reporting the deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism This is your source. I'm disputing the numbers reported on two primary points:

1.) What is an "act of terrorism?" I think it's defined in the study too narrowly. The report does not even count roadside bombs in Iraq. THere are many things it does not count as "acts of terrorism." It is not all inclusive. Since the start of the year [2007] through September, coalition forces found 25,208 IEDs, according to the figures, which were confirmed by the Pentagon. In those nine months, IEDs killed 510 coalition troops. The study you sited doesn't count any of those roadside bombs as "acts of terrorism." Hence, the people killed by those roadside bombs aren't counted. Keep in mind the articles don't list Iraqi Civilians: 125,000 Iraqi civilians, and many times more than that who’ve been wounded or displaced by the Iraqi misadventure. None of them count? Not a one, even though they are often very dead from things that if they happened in the US would absolutely be "Acts of Terrorism" If thousands of roadside bombs went off in the US, you can bet it would be considered a huge act of terrorism. Why does the location matter in an allegedly "global" report?

I respectfully contend that the figures you're citing vastly underestimate the number of people killed by "global terrorism." It doesn't seem to include what I would say are valid acts of terrorism and also the report doesn't include statistics or commonly used methodology of reporting. If you dig into it, it's not entirely unreasonable to question it.

2.) Logic No one is saying, "Having a legal department = removal of constitutionally protected rights." I'm saying having a legal department as a deterrent = having a deterrent against X. I don't understand why you found it necessary to say that having a legal department was not equal to removing constitutionally protected rights. No one was saying it was. Rather, "removing protections" was closer to the analogy I was going for.... We need to find means of protection that do no remove constitutionally protected rights....

Recap. 1.) I think far more people died than the report shows. 2.) I was never saying we should have counter measures that remove constitutionally protected rights. I was saying we should find protections that do not....
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 03:54:44 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Fenrir

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2011, 03:48:35 pm »

It may be a freak occurrence or people did deliberately close their eyes. The CIA planned worse.

Thanks, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

I don't believe that there was some massive government conspiracy, but I don't believe we know anywhere near the full story, either.

Often do I see people fearing to be thought mad for proposing the idea that more than one person in the United States government might come together in an effort to deceive the public. I am still not sure why this is.

This is in opposition to corporate-conspiracy theories, which seem to be commonplace and socially accepted.
Logged

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2011, 04:00:29 pm »

Here you are. It so happen that Belgium was assuming Europe's presidency in 2001 and coordinated Europe anti terrorist effort.

Basically the axes of our stategy were empathy

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Understanding the roots causes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And safeguarding human rights

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2011, 04:05:00 pm »

I should state that one thing your forgetting about Airport security is how overt it is.

One of the possible reasons for the new scanners on airports is not because it is anymore effective but that people feel safer with it being there. Thus the airports make more money.

Mind you I am probably wrong... but it is similar in concept to fake cameras in parking lots.
Logged

Kogan Loloklam

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm suffering from an acute case of Hominini Terravitae Biologis. Keep your distance!
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2011, 04:36:34 pm »

1.) What is an "act of terrorism?" I think it's defined in the study too narrowly. The report does not even count roadside bombs in Iraq. THere are many things it does not count as "acts of terrorism." It is not all inclusive. Since the start of the year [2007] through September, coalition forces found 25,208 IEDs, according to the figures, which were confirmed by the Pentagon. In those nine months, IEDs killed 510 coalition troops. The study you sited doesn't count any of those roadside bombs as "acts of terrorism." Hence, the people killed by those roadside bombs aren't counted. Keep in mind the articles don't list Iraqi Civilians: 125,000 Iraqi civilians, and many times more than that who’ve been wounded or displaced by the Iraqi misadventure. None of them count? Not a one, even though they are often very dead from things that if they happened in the US would absolutely be "Acts of Terrorism" If thousands of roadside bombs went off in the US, you can bet it would be considered a huge act of terrorism. Why does the location matter in an allegedly "global" report?

I respectfully contend that the figures you're citing vastly underestimate the number of people killed by "global terrorism." It doesn't seem to include what I would say are valid acts of terrorism and also the report doesn't include statistics or commonly used methodology of reporting. If you dig into it, it's not entirely unreasonable to question it.
US soldiers killed to Roadside bombs by insurgancies are not acts of terrorism. We have another word for it. Military personnel put themselves in the position they are in an act of war, and casualties from non-conventional war, while frightening, are designed to KILL individuals, and not to terrorize the populace.

As for the number of Iraqis killed in roadside bombs in 2001.... Please show me where the report is wrong.
A warzone skews the entire figure of understanding casualties, which is why I picked a year that had no war while still reporting the highest rate of global terrorism.
Even so, the massive casualties resulted of not one, but TWO airplanes being deliberately crashed into a occupied tower in an area with a huge population density, and even if it was quadrupled it still wouldn't equal up to automobile accidents in the USA, and it would still be a drop in the bucket of casualties by preventable causes.

MADD had a larger figure of preventable deaths and had a smaller impact on personal freedom than the result of a few airplanes being hijacked.

You know what happened in 2001 besides the World Trade Center terrorist event? American Airlines Flight 587 crashed. There were other incidences of failures aboard other aircraft that year. Some that resulted in casualties. Other hijackings occurred that year too, which resulted in no casualties.


2.) Logic No one is saying, "Having a legal department = removal of constitutionally protected rights." I'm saying having a legal department as a deterrent = having a deterrent against X.

We already established deterrent against x removes some constitutionally protected rights. Therefore by a=x=b, a=b. If a≠x, and x=b, then a≠b. Very simple.

The rest of your statement backpedals on what we already established, which is that no matter what you do, increased security results in the loss of some rights. You advocate we need a better balance, I am saying that we need to go back to nothing.

Recap. 1.) I think far more people died than the report shows. 2.) I was never saying we should have counter measures that remove constitutionally protected rights. I was saying we should find protections that do not....
I am saying such protections that you think we should have are unnecessary and still remove more rights that is justified. As for number of deaths, how much more do you propose that there is? I'm willing to pad the number by a few thousand. My point will still stand.

As for former policy regarding terrorist attacks, cooperation was proven at the time to save more lives. It wasn't until we realized that people could deliberately crash their airplanes into crowded neighborhoods that we became less concerned with saving the lives on the plane and more concerned with protecting people from stuff the terrorists might do with the planes. Most plane hijackings, even today, aren't about destroying the plane. It's about holding hostages to get their ideological goals met.
Logged
... if someone dies TOUGH LUCK. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED ATTENTION DURING ALL THE DAMNED DODGING DEMONSTRATIONS!

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #71 on: December 02, 2011, 06:04:33 pm »

You advocate we need a better balance, I am saying that we need to go back to nothing.

And there we have it. Nothing, just .... Not a thing? I don't really have a burden of proof here, but I'll dig a little anyhow. To begin with, the study's list of terrorist incidents, is horribly incomplete. In addition to the fact that it doesn't track injuries at all, it misses a lot of terrorist events:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf

 Take a look at Jan 2003, the report does not list the following terrorist attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2003
1.) January 16, 2003 Four (4) dead Twenty-seven (27) injured Colombia Colombia: A car bomb kills four and injures 27 at a shopping mall in Medellín. The attack is believed to be a retaliation of FARC for the arrest of 53 of its members in the preceding days.

This is absent entirely from the report. The report  lists the following for jan 2003 on Pages 1 and 2 of the link in appendix A http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/33890.pdf:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Notice, there is no FARC car bombing attack listed, at all....

2.) It also doesn't list March 13 2003 one (1) dead Serbia: Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic is assassinated by snipers.

3.) The report also missed:March 30, 2003 Zero (0) Forty (40) wounded    Israel Israel: In the first suicide bombing since the start of the Iraq war, a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated himself outside a crowded cafe in the Mediterranean coastal city of Netanya, wounding nearly 40 people, two of them critically.

It doesn't matter that no one was killed because the study's definition says it should include this example but it does not: "Note: The U.S. Government’s Incident Review Panel has determined that the following incidents meet the criteria for significant international terrorist incidents. An International Incident is judged significant if it results in loss of life or serious injury to persons, major property damage (more than $10,000), and/or is an act or attempt that could reasonably be expected to create the conditions noted."

I assure you, 40 people wounded, 2 of them critically, counts as "serious injury to persons. I also bet there was way more than $10,000 in property damage.

4.) The study also did not show: April 10, 2003. One (1) Dead, Nine (9) injured Palestinian territories Palestinian Territories: An Israeli settler detonated a bomb in the playground of a Palestinian school, injuring 20 children.

5.) The study also did not show: May 8, 2003. (3) dead, zero (0) wounded Colombia, : A bomb kills three in an attack against a water treatment plant in Cali. FARC is blamed.

You really want me to keep going? This study understates the deaths from terrorism and doesn't include A LOT of Terrorist incidents. Wikipedia alone shows some of the stuff they have missed.

If I can find this stuff in 15 minutes at my computer using nothing but civilian resources, then what else did they miss. It's pretty sad when wikipedia picks up things the government reporting misses. I don't know by how much it understates the deaths caused by terrorism, but if a civilian resource using person like me can find stuff the study missed in 15 minutes, then I bet it's a lot.

That study is sloppy....

I don't have to prove it's flawed, the study has to prove it is right. That's where the burden of proof should be.

Here you are. It so happen that Belgium was assuming Europe's presidency in 2001 and coordinated Europe anti terrorist effort.

Basically the axes of our stategy were empathy

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Understanding the roots causes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And safeguarding human rights

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thank you, I always find this sort of thing interesting. Reading it now.

Edit: You've no idea how happy I would be if that would really work. Actually, I be even happier if there were no such thing as terrorism. I dunno, perhaps I'm just too much of a cynic. Please pardon this fault. I have something to think about now though.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 06:21:36 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #72 on: December 02, 2011, 06:22:23 pm »

Or more simply, replace "IED" with "Landmine bought from a legitimate weapons manufacturer in response to an invasion."  Would it still be terrorism?

I don't think we shouldn't have any security.  I just don't think we need much.  We don't need to put every person's life history and good will on trial in exchange for permission to board a flight.  It's too much of a tool for discrimination.  I could easily be identified as a disgruntled person who disagrees with official policies and behaviors of the U.S. government and major corporations, and thus a 'potential domestic terrorist' and too risky to allow on a plane.  Someday I'd like to get the hell out of this hellhole, and I don't need that getting anymore difficult than it already is.

The whole issue is a clean case of one bad experience turning into a long-term paranoia, like when a person antagonizes a dog, gets bit, and hates/fears dogs as a species for the rest of their life.  People fail to put things like this in perspective all the time.  It's always bothered me how much effort is put into security from violent behaviors.  Violent causes of death have been a minority for a very long time, well behind starvation and stress-related illness.  Our priorities are all out of whack because we focus on the threats to our well-being that are the most sensational, rather than the most likely.  I make a point every 9/11 anniversary of reminding friends and family that many times more people died of starvation on that same day, the same as every other day, then died in a terrorist attack... but they're not getting any national moments of silence or multi-trillion dollar efforts to fix the situation.


Often do I see people fearing to be thought mad for proposing the idea that more than one person in the United States government might come together in an effort to deceive the public. I am still not sure why this is.

This is in opposition to corporate-conspiracy theories, which seem to be commonplace and socially accepted.

I'm right there with you.  The reality is there are only very specific accepted issues on which you are allowed to question authority (even corporations) without being shamed in most communities.  9/11 is not one of those issues which is commonly accepted.  I appreciate that this forum is a very open-minded community.  So long as you can back up your statements, you can get away with saying just about anything here.  9/11 is one of those things I get nervous talking about, because it's borderline taboo and there is tons of conflicting information out there that makes it difficult to filter out what's genuine, so even here I feel like I should tiptoe around it.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 06:24:26 pm by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #73 on: December 02, 2011, 06:31:27 pm »

Everyone in this debate, I don't want to taken for a mindless nationalist, but I posted earlier a link to a document detailing Belgium's anti terrorist policy, who happen to be the one that design EU response to 9/11. It's a simple example of sane and efficient anti terrorism response.

It so happen that it worked quiite well, and that Belgium passed from a nexus of international terrorism (small country, lot of migrant, center of Europe, Tolerant law, no specific crime for terrorism) to a pretty clean state. Without loss of civil liberties.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 06:34:38 pm by Phmcw »
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: United State Senate drops pretense of liking citizens [Stage 1 complete]
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2011, 07:47:03 pm »

Everyone in this debate, I don't want to taken for a mindless nationalist, but I posted earlier a link to a document detailing Belgium's anti terrorist policy, who happen to be the one that design EU response to 9/11. It's a simple example of sane and efficient anti terrorism response.

It so happen that it worked quiite well, and that Belgium passed from a nexus of international terrorism (small country, lot of migrant, center of Europe, Tolerant law, no specific crime for terrorism) to a pretty clean state. Without loss of civil liberties.

And that's awesome. Can you understand how it's somewhat incredible though? Unbelievable even. Can you really go from someone wanting to kill you to someone you can get along with so simply. I'm sorry; I just can't seem to help myself in doubting you. I don't mean this as an insult or anything at all like that, but it's just an incredible idea. That someone could go from a murderous rage and participation in planned premeditated attacks against another country, to just chilling out just because people started being nice? There simply has to be something I'm missing here. Doesn't there?

My brain can't process this.

State of Mind A:
 >:( <--- Murderous.

State of Mind B:
 :) <--- Not murderous.

It just.... Something happened there and if I could bottle it, I'd be rich.... What happened there?


It can be abused. It will be abused. Prevention and remedy of that abuse, is possible and should be the focus in my eyes.

Quote
Or more simply, replace "IED" with "Landmine bought from a legitimate weapons manufacturer in response to an invasion."  Would it still be terrorism?

It is a war crime to deliberately plant landmines in areas heavily frequented by civilians. Sadly, this still happens. Equally sad, "frequented by civilians" isn't a workable definition and those areas shift over time as older landmines are forgotten but still active over the years and decades.

If you plant a landmine in an area you KNOW civilians will be in just because you also know your enemy will be there.... :( I like to think that's the difference.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 07:54:24 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23