NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, most of the terrorist attacks in Europe and in the US are Islamic in motivation.

Or do you not keep up on current events, and want to ascribe their motivations to other reasons?

The leader of the cell in the UK was a prominent public figure and speaker, who kept saying that we have nothing to fear from Muslims - they are no more of a risk than anyone else - while he was making bombs in his flat, while he was recruiting people to carry them aboard aircraft.

Singled out by publications such as Time Magazine as one of the top intellectuals in the world - a Wahhabi extremist Muslim whose beliefs brought him to want to commit terrorism on a grand scale.

So how does this allow you to use racial and religious profiling to improve airport security? And how about addressing my questions?

of course I hear no mention of profiling Tamils....

:rolleyes:
Sure. Profile ideologies and groups that commit terror.

'Fraid not, the Cuban government doesn't really like to talk about the exiles, and the Exiles say they left because "they didn't like Cuba", much as people who are too wimpy to fight say "He wasn't worth it" or whatever.
Then if you can't prove it, you're making quite an accusation, no? You're calling the Cubans who braved a dangerous ocean crossing to get to America criminals. Think about it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+AM+ERROR

That sums up Barry.

rofl...

Today, most of the terrorist attacks in Europe and in the US are Islamic in motivation.

Or do you not keep up on current events, and want to ascribe their motivations to other reasons?

The leader of the cell in the UK was a prominent public figure and speaker, who kept saying that we have nothing to fear from Muslims - they are no more of a risk than anyone else - while he was making bombs in his flat, while he was recruiting people to carry them aboard aircraft.

Singled out by publications such as Time Magazine as one of the top intellectuals in the world - a Wahhabi extremist Muslim whose beliefs brought him to want to commit terrorism on a grand scale.

Ok...lets take your logic to its conclusion

Wahhabi - Saudi

America supports the house of Saud

You pay taxes

Therefore you are supporting terror.

Please report to Gitmo forthwith DK.

:rolleyes:

So how does this allow you to use racial and religious profiling to improve airport security? And how about addressing my questions?
Why is this so hard to understand? You gotta go after the people that are most likely to be terrorists, based on how they look and act. There are specific ways of identifying someone as a Muslim, and since most terrorists are Muslims, that's who you need to go after.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+AM+ERROR

That sums up Barry.

Classic. :)

Ok...lets take your logic to its conclusion

Wahhabi - Saudi

America supports the house of Saud

You pay taxes

Therefore you are supporting terror.

Please report to Gitmo forthwith DK.

:rolleyes:
We need the Saudis to give us oil. It's a disgusting relationship, but that's how it is. I don't think that means we should just roll over and let them have their way with us, though, do you?

Why is this so hard to understand? You gotta go after the people that are most likely to be terrorists, based on how they look and act. There are specific ways of identifying someone as a Muslim, and since most terrorists are Muslims, that's who you need to go after.
such as?

People only need $3500 of spending money a year because the state provides so much for them...

Cuban health care kicks the US' arse, so does its education - very close to 100% of Cubans can read - something the US isn't quite as good at.
Actually, you've been drinking a bit too much of the propaganda syrup. The Literacy rate in Cuba rated at 97%. The literacy rate in the US is rated at 99%. Not much of a difference, but it also gives lie to your claims.

CIA World Factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html

United Nations Human Development Reports:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_USA.html
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_CUB.html

What else, oh yeah. You're claims about the 'quality' of the Cuban healthcare system. The UNHDR also shows that your claims that Cuba has such a drastically better healthcare service than the US are also fundamentally flawed. Take a look at points 6, 7 and 8 on the UNHDR. You'll see that you're wrong.



And compare it to Haita, where the US succeeded in a capitalist revolution - nice, eh?
There's as much capitalism in Haiti as there is in North Korea. None.

such as?

Being brown? Oh, and screaming 'ALLAH ALLAH ACKBAR' at the top of their voices. Firing guns into the air is also noted as a certain way of identifying them.

We need the Saudis to give us oil. It's a disgusting relationship, but that's how it is. Of course, we can do a lot of things to prevent attacks on our homeland.

Bollocks.

The US could cut deals with others or....SHOCK HORROR...Actually cut down on its consumption and run a program to develop systems that removes the reliance on fossil fuels.

such as?
They have scinitars and ride around on horses yelling Allah Achbar.

such as?
Muslim women often wear headscarves. Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look. Some of them also may wear articles of clothing on their heads.

Today, most of the terrorist attacks in Europe and in the US are Islamic in motivation.

Or do you not keep up on current events, and want to ascribe their motivations to other reasons?
Yeah, I'll ascribe their motivations for a bit :

Disgust at the US' foreign policy.
Even more disgust at Blair's government kneeling down and licking Bush's balls.
A fairly high level of poverty and unemployment in areas lived in by Muslims, and the government's lack of doing anything about it.
Racism from the police and general public, as well as intolerance of Islam.

You are/were a soldier, correct?

What made you take up arms?
The leader of the cell in the UK was a prominent public figure and speaker, who kept saying that we have nothing to fear from Muslims - they are no more of a risk than anyone else - while he was making bombs in his flat, while he was recruiting people to carry them aboard aircraft.
Could it be?

A "foiled plot" that is nothing more than scaremongering now that more and more British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, to try and make us believe that we can fight the concept of terrorism with weapons?

"hmm we need to scare the public shitless"

"let's have a Muslim character who pretends he's a goodie, but is really a BADDIE, at least for propaganda purposes, then"

"Good idea, ignorance and fear should help Labour while Blair's on holiday"

"Aye, let's do that, then, no matter that it's in the holiday season - in fact, we can teach children that Islam is BAD by cancelling their flights to holiday destinations and then we can blame it on Muslims"

"Nice one!"
Singled out by publications such as Time Magazine as one of the top intellectuals in the world - a Wahhabi extremist Muslim whose beliefs brought him to want to commit terrorism on a grand scale.
Is that text lifted straight from FOX News' website or something?

Muslim women often wear headscarves. Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look. Some of them also may wear articles of clothing on their heads.
So you assert no one but Arabs or Persians are Muslim?

Why is this so hard to understand? You gotta go after the people that are most likely to be terrorists, based on how they look and act. There are specific ways of identifying someone as a Muslim, and since most terrorists are Muslims, that's who you need to go after.

You seem to be under the misconception that I do not understand what profiling is. What I would like would be a clear definition of what you mean by profiling, and a clear description of how this would be used in an airport to improve security.

Going after people based on how they act is not profiling. Doing it based on how they look is. Therefore you are arguing that profiling is one technique of many that should be used. Is that what you're saying?

What are these specific ways of identifying someone as a Muslim? Describe them with enough accuracy that we can all understand their validity.

Now, after rounding up all the Muslims, how do you identify which are terrorists?

A commotion is not necessarily a threat to the security of the plane, however.

Yes, it is. In fact, you can be arrested for intentionally casuing one.

And, at any rate, it is much more dangerous than my quiet friend from Indiana who, according to Deep Kimchi, has been proven to be more dangerous than I am.

A baby could have a really smelly diaper, causing a bit of an issue if the parent-in-question isn't able to take care of it quickly. However, that's not anything to do with the security of the plane.

A smelly diaper is going to stink. It isn't causing a commotion.

Muslim women often wear headscarves. Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look. Some of them also may wear articles of clothing on their heads.

and the white converts?

or an indonesian muslim?

Muslim women often wear headscarves. Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look. Some of them also may wear articles of clothing on their heads.
the bolded part show where profiling would be grossly innefectual.

The underlined part is just plain wrong. About half of the Mulsims in the USA are not of middle eastern descent but rather converted or look white as there are more than brown people in the middle east.

Bollocks.

The US could cut deals with others or....SHOCK HORROR...Actually cut down on its consumption and run a program to develop systems that removes the reliance on fossil fuels.
If we could cut deals with others, don't you think we would have done it? Saudi Arabia has the largest known oil reserves on the planet, and they are willing to sell us oil because we keep the house of saud secure.

I, too, would love to see us use less oil, or better yet, none at all, but this is a process that would take decades. We just don't have the technology yet. It's a shitty deal, but we just have to deal with it.

The proper phrase is "allah'akbar" (or "alluah'akbar").

Just for everyone's trivia edification. Insh'allah.

And that about does it for the arabic I know.

are we forgetting the shoe bomber?
Admittedly, the most dangerous group is insane morons...

Then if you can't prove it, you're making quite an accusation, no? You're calling the Cubans who braved a dangerous ocean crossing to get to America criminals. Think about it.
I have thought about it... and by the sound of them, they seem like a bunch of tossers (they were mostly wishing death upon Castro - I might not like Bush, but I wouldn't actually wish death upon someone).

are we forgetting the shoe bomber?
Who was actually a Muslim himself.

PWNED.

The proper phrase is "allah'akbar" (or "alluah'akbar").

Just for everyone's trivia edification. Insh'allah.

And that about does it for the arabic I know.

Muad'dib means teacher
Shai'halud means "one who is eternal"

im such a dune nerd :D

And that about does it for the arabic I know.
Marhabe, ismii Joe, wa anta?

OH NOES I'M A BADDIE!

Yes, it is. In fact, you can be arrested for intentionally casuing one.
But that doesn't mean that all commotions are necessarily a danger to the security of the flight. Note the universal: all. Please keep that in mind. If some person's heart attack causes a commotion, is that a danger to the security of the flight? No. Was it done intentionally? Odds of course are that it wasn't.



A smelly diaper is going to stink. It isn't causing a commotion.
It might if something isn't done about it soon. The baby could start screaming and crying up a storm. Y'never know. But that's not something detrimental to the security of the plane, right?

I have thought about it... and by the sound of them, they seem like a bunch of tossers (they were mostly wishing death upon Castro - I might not like Bush, but I wouldn't actually wish death upon someone).
Have you considered that they left Cuba because they hated communism, and wanted to live in a free country? I hope that doesn't make you a criminal, because if it does, I might just as well turn myself in right now.

Muad'dib means teacher
Shai'halud means "one who is eternal"

im such a dune nerd :D

fear is the mind killer.

Admittedly, the most dangerous group is insane morons...


I had actually messed up because the shoe bomber did convert to Islam, BUT I was thinking that he was saying yet again that it was only Arabs that pose a risk for air travel, and I was pointing out that he was not Arabic.

Not that he isnt a racist as he keeps saying that black people are dumber and more prone to kill someone than a white person.

Have you considered that they left Cuba because they hated communism, and wanted to live in a free country? I hope that doesn't make you a criminal, because if it does, I might just as well turn myself in right now.
I'm pretty sure hijacking a plane is illegal..

Who was actually a Muslim himself.

PWNED.


You are right and I clarified. YOu posted as I was doing so.

fear is the mind killer.

It is the little death that brings total anhilation, I will let the fear pass through me, only I will remain:D

Who was actually a Muslim himself.And you would have recognized this by looking at him how exactly?

PWNED.I had an exgirlfriend that always said she won whenever she lost...;)

If we could cut deals with others, don't you think we would have done it? Saudi Arabia has the largest known oil reserves on the planet, and they are willing to sell us oil because we keep the house of saud secure.

I, too, would love to see us use less oil, or better yet, none at all, but this is a process that would take decades. We just don't have the technology yet. It's a shitty deal, but we just have to deal with it.

First part - where to start? Geopolitics? Iraq? Quatar? the Emirates? Why Saudi? And why the House of Saud? The Wahhbists?

Second part....we agree on something! :)

Have you considered that they left Cuba because they hated communism, and wanted to live in a free country? I hope that doesn't make you a criminal, because if it does, I might just as well turn myself in right now.
You'd really have to hate communism quite a lot to leave, to be honest.

And actually, people can live quite liberally, as far as their civil (if not political) rights go.

You'd really have to hate communism quite a lot to leave, to be honest.
Or just be able to find a boat. Cuba really is about as bad as North Korea. Scratch the pretty surface and you find a good chunk of the population living in squalor.

The Dune-isms that have suddenly sprung up have made me chuckle.

You'd really have to hate communism quite a lot to leave, to be honest.

And actually, people can live quite liberally, as far as their civil (if not political) rights go.
Yeah, communism is a corrupt and flawed economic system. What's more, every communist country, including Cuba, has very little to none personal freedom.

If you can live so liberally, can you freely criticize Castro? Can you burn the Cuban flag and not get arrested? And most of all, can you smoke pot?

Or just be able to find a boat. Cuba really is about as bad as North Korea. Scratch the pretty surface and you find a good chunk of the population living in squalor.

but cuba has at least a shadow of an economy, N. Korea just counterfeits US money

and N korea has nazi style concentration camps

The Dune-isms that have suddenly sprung up have made me chuckle.

Perhaps the gom jabbar could be used at airport screenings.

"Put your hand in the box please."

We just don't have the technology yet. It's a shitty deal, but we just have to deal with it.
Urmm... what about making petrol from coal?

Or running cars on ethanol?

What about biomass?

Windfarms?

Hydrogen fuel cells?

There's a whole load of stuff out there, one solution is to use less shitty cars.

Get some from Europe, they're much more fuel efficient.

Yeah, communism is a corrupt and flawed economic system. What's more, every communist country, including Cuba, has very little to none personal freedom.

If you can live so liberally, can you freely criticize Castro? Can you burn the Cuban flag and not get arrested? And most of all, can you smoke pot?

I have been to Cuba, and seen Cubans:
-freely criticize Castro
-smoke pot
-live liberally with personal freedom

Never have I seen a Cuban burn a Cuban flag. The ones I met were fiercely patriotic.

EDIT: What dose this have to do with racial profiling in airports?

First part - where to start? Geopolitics? Iraq? Quatar? the Emirates? Why Saudi? And why the House of Saud? The Wahhbists?

Second part....we agree on something! :)
Iraq is actually producing less oil right now than it was before the liberation.

I explained already, the Saudis have more oil than anyone else, more than 265 billion barrels. The other nations have a lot too, but not nearly that much. For a country like America, we need a lot of oil, and the Saudis are the only ones who have the capacity to give us as much as we need.

but cuba has at least a shadow of an economy, N. Korea just counterfeits US money

and N korea has nazi style concentration camps
I suppose it's the difference between diddly and squat.

Perhaps the gom jabbar could be used at airport screenings.

"Put your hand in the box please."

ZOMG i forgot the gom jabbar!!!!1!

its made out of plasteel which won't show up on metal detectors!!

we must profile all bene gesserits >_>
<_<

such as?

Durkha durkha durkha. Muhammed Jihad. Matt Damon.

Urmm... what about making petrol from coal?

Or running cars on ethanol?

What about biomass?

Windfarms?

Hydrogen fuel cells?

There's a whole load of stuff out there, one solution is to use less shitty cars.

Get some from Europe, they're much more fuel efficient.
1. That will cause even more pollution. And what happens when we run out of coal?
2. Technology developing but not quite there. Also, there's no way we could produce enough ethanol for all the cars in Amerca.
3. Technology not there yet.
4. Technology not quite there yet, also, they would take up way too much land.
5. Technology definetely not there yet.
6. Fuel efficient cars, for now, are probably the best option.

Durkha durkha durkha. Muhammed Jihad. Matt Damon.

the sad part is that i know people who think team america's depiction of muslims is accurate

ZOMG i forgot the gom jabbar!!!!1!

its made out of plasteel which won't show up on metal detectors!!

we must profile all bene gesserits >_>
<_<

Would a crysknife show up?

The Bene Gesserit could be stewardesses. With their weirdling ways, they would destroy would be terrorists.

Urmm... what about making petrol from coal?

Or running cars on ethanol?

What about biomass?

Windfarms?

Hydrogen fuel cells?

There's a whole load of stuff out there, one solution is to use less shitty cars.

Get some from Europe, they're much more fuel efficient.
Be like me and ride the fucking bus :D

Yeah, communism is a corrupt and flawed economic system.
No, most communist countries have had corrupt and flawed leaderships... that's been the main problem...
What's more, every communist country, including Cuba, has very little to none personal freedom.
It's "very little to no personal freedom" (I thought US citizens were well educated...) and Cuba has perfectly fine personal freedoms, you can drink early on in life, smoke fine Cuban cigars early in life also, have sex earlier that in the US and generally have a good time.

Fine, you can't criticise Castro's government, but I've heard tales of US citizens being stopped posting any anti-Bush comments by their ISPs on the internet - rather similar, no?
If you can live so liberally, can you freely criticize Castro? Can you burn the Cuban flag and not get arrested?
Those are political rights that the US hardly gets with the PATRIOT Act.

Someone unrolled a large protest flag in New York a couple of years ago over the front of a skyscraper - a few minutes later, the police had helicopters trying to remove it.

That flag wasn't even burning, it had just been changed a bit...
And most of all, can you smoke pot?
I don't think you can, no, can you in the US?

Be like me and ride the fucking bus :D
Yeah, exactly, public transport is the way forward also.

I have been to Cuba, and seen Cubans:
-freely criticize Castro
-smoke pot
-live liberally with personal freedom

Never have I seen a Cuban burn a Cuban flag. The ones I met were fiercely patriotic.

EDIT: What dose this have to do with racial profiling in airports?
Don't you think it's possible that maybe, just maybe, you saw what Castro wanted you to see? Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Cuba, but there's got to be a good reason why people are trying to leave for America every single day.

Muslim women often wear headscarves. Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look. Some of them also may wear articles of clothing on their heads.

Yes, Muslim men have a distinct middle eastern look.

Like this guy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

He's even wearing an article of clothing on his head!

I explained already, the Saudis have more oil than anyone else, more than 265 billion barrels. The other nations have a lot too, but not nearly that much. For a country like America, we need a lot of oil, and the Saudis are the only ones who have the capacity to give us as much as we need.

Is that why we get most of our oil from sources other than the Middle East?

Would a crysknife show up?

The Bene Gesserit could be stewardesses. With their weirdling ways, they would destroy would be terrorists.

or the stewardesses could be face dancers
ZOMG!!1!1!!!! everyone could be a facedancer!!! <_< >_>

I COULD BE A FACEDANCER!!!
*puts on tin foil hat*

Would a crysknife show up?

The Bene Gesserit could be stewardesses. With their weirdling ways, they would destroy would be terrorists.
Depends on what you made the handle out of.

Given that the blade is made from the tooth of a sandworm, it's perfectly plausible that no metal detector would hit on it.

Don't you think it's possible that maybe, just maybe, you saw what Castro wanted you to see? Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Cuba, but there's got to be a good reason why people are trying to leave for America every single day.

Perhaps. All conspiracy theories are possible. What does this have to do with racial profiling and airport security?

1. That will cause even more pollution. And what happens when we run out of coal?
We're not set to run out of coal for a fair while yet.
2. Technology developing but not quite there. Also, there's no way we could produce enough ethanol for all the cars in Amerca.
Then maybe you should use public transport/produce less horribly inefficient cars...

"The Hummer Mk II - going 8 miles to the gallon in the city near you!"
3. Technology not there yet.
Yes it is, there are towns in the US that use biomass to power them, from rubbish, what's more.
4. Technology not quite there yet, also, they would take up way too much land.
The technology is definitely there...

And a lack of space?

What about, let's say, most of the middle of the US?

How's about offshore wind farms?
5. Technology definetely not there yet.
Yes, yes it is...
6. Fuel efficient cars, for now, are probably the best option.
Or public transport... or bicycles... or - even better - walking.

But then again, if you use buses the commies win or something.

No, most communist countries have had corrupt and flawed leaderships... that's been the main problem...

It's "very little to no personal freedom" (I thought US citizens were well educated...) and Cuba has perfectly fine personal freedoms, you can drink early on in life, smoke fine Cuban cigars early in life also, have sex earlier that in the US and generally have a good time.

Fine, you can't criticise Castro's government, but I've heard tales of US citizens being stopped posting any anti-Bush comments by their ISPs on the internet - rather similar, no?

Those are political rights that the US hardly gets with the PATRIOT Act.

Someone unrolled a large protest flag in New York a couple of years ago over the front of a skyscraper - a few minutes later, the police had helicopters trying to remove it.

That flag wasn't even burning, it had just been changed a bit...

I don't think you can, no, can you in the US?
Communism as a system produces bad leadership. It inevatbly devolves into a bunch of old kooks (China) or one kook (Cuba) making all the rules and killing anyone who doesn't agree.

How early can you drink? Smoke?
And please don't tell me you need the government to tell you when you can have sex. The legal age of consent laws are a joke in the US, unless the parents are fundie christians, and try to sue. Then you're in a world of shit.

Not at all similiar. So you've heard stories from somoene who has heard stories? The very fact that you can say you don't like Bush goes to show that you have more freedom on a bad day than a Cuban on a good day.

Clearly, you don't know much about the Patriot Act. It's chief purpose is to enhance surveillance and intelligence abilities. No one's going to lock you up in a gulag, even if you checked out a book about Islamic fundamentalism and a guide to making bombs.

No actually you can't smoke pot in the US. That was actually a joke question, though.

No, most communist countries have had corrupt and flawed leaderships... that's been the main problem...

It's "very little to no personal freedom" (I thought US citizens were well educated...) and Cuba has perfectly fine personal freedoms, you can drink early on in life, smoke fine Cuban cigars early in life also, have sex earlier that in the US and generally have a good time.

Fine, you can't criticise Castro's government, but I've heard tales of US citizens being stopped posting any anti-Bush comments by their ISPs on the internet - rather similar, no?

Those are political rights that the US hardly gets with the PATRIOT Act.

Someone unrolled a large protest flag in New York a couple of years ago over the front of a skyscraper - a few minutes later, the police had helicopters trying to remove it.

That flag wasn't even burning, it had just been changed a bit...

I don't think you can, no, can you in the US?

Exactly - is this guy trying to say it's legal to smoke pot in the US?

I find it funny too that he thinks the US is so free that we can do whatever we want... I wonder if he's heard about peace activists being put on nofly lists simply because they dont support Bushs forengn policy and hold protests (???)

And I suppose he has never heard about our own politicians trying to outlaw flag burning.

Don't you think it's possible that maybe, just maybe, you saw what Castro wanted you to see?
Yeah... nice one... or maybe it's just not as much of a shithole as the US government says it is?
Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Cuba
Could have fooled me!
but there's got to be a good reason why people are trying to leave for America every single day.
Because they've been kicked out instead of just filling jail cells?

Don't you think it's possible that maybe, just maybe, you saw what Castro wanted you to see? Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Cuba, but there's got to be a good reason why people are trying to leave for America every single day.
Watch what they say once their living standards and life expectancy drop through the floor, post-liberation. Ukrainians are so pissed at the results of the "Orange Revolution", they asked the old "dictator" to join a coalition government and help fix it. Russia still isn't back to where it was during the 1980s, and probably won't be for a generation. Africa will never be back to where it was under British colonial rule. You will see for yourself, that for the current generation of young Cubans, the departure of Fidel Castro will mean a huge step back, and their kids are not guaranteed a better ride.

Nothing screws things up more for people than a political discontinuity, and it rarely matters what the two phases either side of it are, and in what order they take place.

Exactly - is this guy trying to say it's legal to smoke pot in the US?

I find it funny too that he thinks the US is so free that we can do whatever we want... I wonder if he's heard about peace activists being put on nofly lists simply because they dont support Bushs forengn policy and hold protests (???)

And I suppose he has never heard about our own politicians trying to outlaw flag burning.
The pot question was a joke.

Give me a link to the bit about peace activists and such, and I'll believe you.

I'm against anyone pol who cares more about a piece of cloth than my freedom.

Yeah, communism is a corrupt and flawed economic system. What's more, every communist country, including Cuba, has very little to none personal freedom. That shows you've never been to one. Stop repeating what you've been told by those that had reasons to leave and find out for yourself.

Fine, you can't criticise Castro's government, but I've heard tales of US citizens being stopped posting any anti-Bush comments by their ISPs on the internet - rather similar, no?

You've heard tales that were false. ISPs have not stopped people from posting anti-Bush comments. And given the vast quantity of anti-Bush stuff on the internet, I doubt those claims very much.

Most of the claims are akin to an argument a guy I know made. He said that he was pulled over because he had a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. Never mind the fact he was going 30 MPH over the speed limit.

Those are political rights that the US hardly gets with the PATRIOT Act.
Last I checked the PATRIOT Act, no matter how much I dislike it, has nothing to do with either of those actions. It's primarily a law enforcement measure. The laws regarding drug trafficing were pretty much just copied, with the words specifying drugs being changed to specify terrorism. It has nothing to do with flag burning, or political criticism of the President.


Someone unrolled a large protest flag in New York a couple of years ago over the front of a skyscraper - a few minutes later, the police had helicopters trying to remove it.

If I remember correctly, that was because the owner of the skyscraper wanted it removed.

The pot question was a joke.

Give me a link to the bit about peace activists and such, and I'll believe you.

I'm against anyone pol who cares more about a piece of cloth than my freedom.


Well I smoke it anyway as well but you have to admit that there are degrees of freedom/oppression and the US is not some sort of liberally social paradise

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL&type=printable

But that doesn't mean that all commotions are necessarily a danger to the security of the flight.

Yes, it does. Any commotion is a distraction to flight attendants and/or pilots and must be dealt with.

If some person's heart attack causes a commotion, is that a danger to the security of the flight? No.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, it is an unavoidable danger.

It might if something isn't done about it soon. The baby could start screaming and crying up a storm. Y'never know. But that's not something detrimental to the security of the plane, right?

No, a screaming baby is not detrimental to the security of the plane. It is annoying, but we can all ignore it. In fact, all of us who have ever been on a plane with an infant that didn't sleep the whole time have done so.

Watch what they say once their living standards and life expectancy drop through the floor, post-liberation. Ukrainians are so pissed at the results of the "Orange Revolution", they asked the old "dictator" to join a coalition government and help fix it. Russia still isn't back to where it was during the 1980s, and probably won't be for a generation. Africa will never be back to where it was under British colonial rule. You will see for yourself, that for the current generation of young Cubans, the departure of Fidel Castro will mean a huge step back, and their kids are not guaranteed a better ride.

Nothing screws things up more for people than a political discontinuity, and it rarely matters what the two phases either side of it are, and in what order they take place.
WWHAT!!! An informed post that does not end up with “Capitalism is the PW0nZors” or “Comunism is the BEST!!1”

:eek:

Iraq is actually producing less oil right now than it was before the liberation.

I explained already, the Saudis have more oil than anyone else, more than 265 billion barrels. The other nations have a lot too, but not nearly that much. For a country like America, we need a lot of oil, and the Saudis are the only ones who have the capacity to give us as much as we need.

1 - and how long have we been doing biz wiv the Saudis? :rolleyes:

2 -

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/images2006/Graphs/US-oil-consumption-600.jpg

link to info below (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-06 May-06 YTD 2006 Jun-05 Jan - June 2005
CANADA 1,799 1,868 1,763 1,705 1,606
MEXICO 1,734 1,576 1,679 1,616 1,568
SAUDI ARABIA 1,549 1,457 1,443 1,598 1,526
VENEZUELA 1,008 1,169 1,156 1,292 1,329
NIGERIA 996 1,075 1,111 1,012 1,040
IRAQ 617 666 547 608 548
ANGOLA 525 379 448 397 430
ALGERIA 474 350 294 292 195
ECUADOR 282 239 279 288 289
RUSSIA 216 255 92 116 253
COLOMBIA 211 185 169 227 142
KUWAIT 201 220 163 184 186
UNITED KINGDOM 185 174 132 269 227
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 114 46 74 66 53
LIBYA 110 26 54 87 38

Yeah... nice one... or maybe it's just not as much of a shithole as the US government says it is?

Could have fooled me!

Because they've been kicked out instead of just filling jail cells?
For some reason, those people aren't dying to go back. Or do you think that amilijio gonzalez, the little boy who crossed in 2000, was a criminal?

I find it funny too that he thinks the US is so free that we can do whatever we want... I wonder if he's heard about peace activists being put on nofly lists simply because they dont support Bushs forengn policy and hold protests (???)
So have small babies, and last I checked, very few 5 month olds have been vocal advocates of the anti-war movement. The nofly lists are flawed and random. Peace activists were not put on the lists because they were peace activists, they were put on the lists because of a mistake.

That shows you've never been to one. Stop repeating what you've been told by those that had reasons to leave and find out for yourself.
I was born in the USSR. My parents lived most of their lives there.

I know more about it than you ever will.

the sad part is that i know people who think team america's depiction of muslims is accurate

:confused:

You mean it isn't?!?!?!

That shows you've never been to one. Stop repeating what you've been told by those that had reasons to leave and find out for yourself.

It is bilge actually. Even that great ogre, the USSR, enjoyed periods of great freedom.

I was born in the USSR. My parents lived most of their lives there.

I know more about it than you ever will.

If you don't mind my asking, when did you live there?

Well I smoke it anyway as well but you have to admit that there are degrees of freedom/oppression and the US is not some sort of liberally social paradise

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL&type=printable
I'll admit that America is no Scandinavian liberal lovefest, but it's ridicuous to say that the Bush administration is oppressing people because they're peace activists, or somesuch.

Yes, it does.
Then you have a very different definition of "danger" than everyone else has.


No, a screaming baby is not detrimental to the security of the plane.
But it's a commotion. Which you said is a danger. Reconcile your contradictory stance.

If you don't mind my asking, when did you live there?
I was born in 89. I'm too young too remember communism, but from what my parents told me, I guess I can be glad to not have remembered it.

It is bilge actually. Even that great ogre, the USSR, enjoyed periods of great freedom.
That's an exaggeration. These "periods of great freedom" you talk about went to the extent that you wouldn't be killed if you criticised communism. You'd only be socially ostracized.

I was born in the USSR. My parents lived most of their lives there.

I know more about it than you ever will.My apologies. Blanket statements like that tend to come from people that have no clue what they are talking about. And I will still call into question your knowledge of "every communist state". I've grown up surrounded by a communist state, seen the Wall come down, and studied in an East German town. I doubt you will know more about the GDR and the "absolute lack of personal freedom" there than I do, though I will not conclude that you do not have the ability to learn more, if you try.

It is bilge actually. Even that great ogre, the USSR, enjoyed periods of great freedom.
Primarily because at times the Soviet government didn't have the resources to exercise the levels of control that it wanted, or because the government realized the gig was up, and if they didn't start lifting the controls, they were really screwed.

My apologies. Blanket statements like that tend to come from people that have no clue what they are talking about. And I will still call into question your knowledge of "every communist state". I've grown up surrounded by a communist state, seen the Wall come down, and studied in an East German town. I doubt you will know more about the GDR and the "absolute lack of personal freedom" there than I do, though I will not conclude that you do not have the ability to learn more, if you try.
I'm not sure if you're patronizing me, or apologising.

If you grew up in West Germany, you weren't really surrounded, though. France, Holland, and Austria were all socialist, not communist nations.

So have small babies, and last I checked, very few 5 month olds have been vocal advocates of the anti-war movement. The nofly lists are flawed and random. Peace activists were not put on the lists because they were peace activists, they were put on the lists because of a mistake.


ok... it was just a coincidence. If you want to believe that, I don't have the means to convince you otherwise.

Anyway it wasnt babies, it was one 4 year old kid who had a similar name to someone else that was on the no-fly list. The peace activist issue was not the same thing. nice try though.

I'm impressed that you believe so strongly in your govt that you can't accept that there would ever be any sort of retaliation by those in charge of it for questioning their policies.

Primarily because at times the Soviet government didn't have the resources to exercise the levels of control that it wanted, or because the government realized the gig was up, and if they didn't start lifting the controls, they were really screwed.

Um, not really. NEP?

Then you have a very different definition of "danger" than everyone else has.

Not really. The FAA seems to agree that distractions to flight attendants/pilots on an airplane is a danger. Otherwise, it woudln't be a crime to intentionally cause one.

But it's a commotion. Which you said is a danger. Reconcile your contradictory stance.

No, it really isn't. It is an annoyance, but could only be considered a commotion by the broadest of definitions - which is not the one I was using.

I'll admit that America is no Scandinavian liberal lovefest, but it's ridicuous to say that the Bush administration is oppressing people because they're peace activists, or somesuch.

So then you dont believe that it is oppressive to put political dissidents on a no fly list because of their public protests?

Or you don't believe that anyone in the US govt is unethical enough to retaliate?

So then you dont believe that it is oppressive to put political dissidents on a no fly list because of their public protests?

Or you don't believe that anyone in the US govt is unethical enough to retaliate?
First of all, it's up to you to prove that happened, since you're making the accusation.

What makes you think that I though something like that was ok?

I'm not sure if you're patronizing me, or apologising.

If you grew up in West Germany, you weren't really surrounded, though. France, Holland, and Austria were all socialist, not communist nations.

Never heard of West Berlin?

The Stasi??

ok... it was just a coincidence. If you want to believe that, I don't have the means to convince you otherwise.

Anyway it wasnt babies, it was one 4 year old kid who had a similar name to someone else that was on the no-fly list. The peace activist issue was not the same thing. nice try though.

I'm impressed that you believe so strongly in your govt that you can't accept that there would ever be any sort of retaliation by those in charge of it for questioning their policies.
Actually, it's been more than just one child. There have been numerous incidences of children under the age of five being placed on the no-fly lists.

Another example is Don Young (R-AK), the third most senior Republican in the US House of Representatives. He was placed on the no-fly list by mistake as well, and he's no critic of the Bush administration.

I'm not saying that I trust the government so much that I don't believe it's possible that the government would put critics on the list, it's just that the facts point against that claim.

:confused:

You mean it isn't?!?!?!


this may be a shock dempub, but the arabic language consists of more than four words

I was born in 89. I'm too young too remember communism, but from what my parents told me, I guess I can be glad to not have remembered it.OK, so your claim to know more than I do is erroneous. You do not have the background knowledge yourself to remember communism due to age reasons; all you have is what your parents told you. I see your testimonies of people that were there and left (I'll chip in my Grandparents that fled with my infant mother before the wall went up) and raise you five years of age, 17 conscious years of life in a Western Enclave inside the GDR, one and a half years of life in what used to be the GDR, and constant bombardment by the dissemination of GDR heritage in the media I watch.
I know more than you do about the respective communist state.

Communism as a system produces bad leadership.
No it doesn't... the people who choose to institute Communism are often bad leaders, but that's not a fault wit Communism...
It inevatbly devolves into a bunch of old kooks (China) or one kook (Cuba) making all the rules and killing anyone who doesn't agree.
As opposed to the USA where it's always just a bunch of old kooks doing just about anything
How early can you drink? Smoke?
Fourteen to drink, sixteen to smoke IIRC.
And please don't tell me you need the government to tell you when you can have sex. The legal age of consent laws are a joke in the US, unless the parents are fundie christians, and try to sue. Then you're in a world of shit.
Not interested in illegal activities.

It's 18 to have sex in the US, sixteen in Cuba, and in Cuba that includes homosexual intercourse as well (dunno about American law, it's 21 for man-man in the UK, I assume it's the same in the US)
Not at all similiar. So you've heard stories from somoene who has heard stories?
Incorrect. I saw it on the news, and actually reputable news, not CNN or FOX.

And how, may I ask, is it different?
The very fact that you can say you don't like Bush goes to show that you have more freedom on a bad day than a Cuban on a good day.
I'm sure that Cubans are free to dislike the government of Laos, so I don't really see where you're going on this one.

I'm a citizen of the UK. I can dislike the government of the US all I want.
Clearly, you don't know much about the Patriot Act. It's chief purpose is to enhance surveillance and intelligence abilities. No one's going to lock you up in a gulag, even if you checked out a book about Islamic fundamentalism and a guide to making bombs.
What's Camp X-Ray for, then?
No fly lists?
Getting your phone tapped and your emails read if you take the Anarchist's Cookbook out of a library?
No actually you can't smoke pot in the US. That was actually a joke question, though.
Still, it shows that you have less personal freedoms than the average Cuban, no?

Never heard of West Berlin?

The Stasi??
He didn't specify that he lived in Berlin. I assumed he lived in mainland West Germany.

Not really. The FAA seems to agree that distractions to flight attendants/pilots on an airplane is a danger.
Only intentionally caused ones. Otherwise, it would be a crime no matter what.

First of all, it's up to you to prove that happened, since you're making the accusation.

What makes you think that I though something like that was ok?

I posted the link - didn't you see it? It was in the reply to you asking for a link.

I didn't say you thought it was okay - if you see proof of oppression then you can't deny that we have an oppressive govt can you? ANd like I said there are degrees of oppression and I never said that Cuba wasn't oppressive against political dissidents either.

Just looking for a bit of observation of truth.

Yes The US is better than some places in some ways and other places are better than the US in some ways. I've travelled abroad and have experienced both good and bad in other countries.

To deny that the US isn't oppressive in some ways is disingenuous or perhaps willingly ignorant?

Actually, it's been more than just one child. There have been numerous incidences of children under the age of five being placed on the no-fly lists.

Another example is Don Young (R-AK), the third most senior Republican in the US House of Representatives. He was placed on the no-fly list by mistake as well, and he's no critic of the Bush administration.

I'm not saying that I trust the government so much that I don't believe it's possible that the government would put critics on the list, it's just that the facts point against that claim.

Even if people are put on nofly and watch lists by mistake (and they are), that is not evidence against political dissidents being specifically placed there. Even with the errors, if there really are a disproportionate number of peace activists being placed on the list, that could be reason to believe it was intentional.

That said, to add to the problems, a friend of mine has a name that is the Arabic equivalent of "John Smith". So there is a listed terrorist with the same name (surprise surprise). I also know a man named "John Doyle" who has had problems flying, because there is another man with the same name in the IRA (LOL, how many John Doyle's do you think there are in Ireland?? :rolleyes: )


this may be a shock dempub, but the arabic language consists of more than four words

That's good. I was wondering how they communicated anything at all!

I was born in 89. I'm too young too remember communism, but from what my parents told me, I guess I can be glad to not have remembered it.


That's an exaggeration. These "periods of great freedom" you talk about went to the extent that you wouldn't be killed if you criticised communism. You'd only be socially ostracized.

Fair enough. My knowledge of the USSR extends to 1953 at present, so I can't comment upon much of its history.

However, surely the periods October 1917/June 1918 and 1921/the left turn constituted relative personal freedom?

I'm not sure if you're patronizing me, or apologising.

If you grew up in West Germany, you weren't really surrounded, though. France, Holland, and Austria were all socialist, not communist nations.The apology was earnest at the time. I was patronizing you later.
I grew up in West Berlin. It hardly borders on the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia during that time), or Austria. It did border on the GDR though.

For some reason, those people aren't dying to go back.
Because they'll be kicked out again, you fool.
Or do you think that amilijio gonzalez, the little boy who crossed in 2000, was a criminal?
Awww a sob story!

And probably not, but I imagine his parents were and he was taken with them.

WWHAT!!! An informed post that does not end up with “Capitalism is the PW0nZors” or “Comunism is the BEST!!1”

:eek:
Ya wai man, ya wai! :eek:

But yes, no-one can make a blanket statement that one "-ism" is better than another without seeing how it was applied during a particular time period in a particular place. There are advantages and disadvantages to all ideologies, and many take the form of local and/or transient conditions.

A blanket statement that one can make however, is that a revolutionary transition from one -ism to another, is usually very bad news, without reference to what the original and new -isms are.

You could undergo an overnight change from an absolute monarchy to communism, from communism to social democracy, from a paternalistic technocratic democracy to fascism, and it does not matter in what direction the changes occur. It is the abruptness of the change that does the damage. The more abrupt, the greater the damage. Especially if the change is brought about by war.

To put it another way, free-fall is psysiologically tolerable, and so is lying on a hard surface. It is the abruptness of the transition that determines whether or not the transition in the form envisaged, is a good idea. It is not clever to slam people into Freedom at 55 m/s, and it is not clever to slam Freedom into them at 55 m/s. And the same is true if you spraypaint Constitutional Theocracy or Libertarian Utopia onto the surface.

So where Cubans or anyone else are concerned, if liberation comes by surprise one night, I will not envy that generation.

No it doesn't... the people who choose to institute Communism are often bad leaders, but that's not a fault wit Communism...

As opposed to the USA where it's always just a bunch of old kooks doing just about anything

Fourteen to drink, sixteen to smoke IIRC.

Not interested in illegal activities.

It's 18 to have sex in the US, sixteen in Cuba, and in Cuba that includes homosexual intercourse as well (dunno about American law, it's 21 for man-man in the UK, I assume it's the same in the US)

Incorrect. I saw it on the news, and actually reputable news, not CNN or FOX.

And how, may I ask, is it different?

I'm sure that Cubans are free to dislike the government of Laos, so I don't really see where you're going on this one.

I'm a citizen of the UK. I can dislike the government of the US all I want.

What's Camp X-Ray for, then?
No fly lists?
Getting your phone tapped and your emails read if you take the Anarchist's Cookbook out of a library?

Still, it shows that you have less personal freedoms than the average Cuban, no?
Do you really think it's a coincidence that communism has failed everywhere it has been tried?

The USA is a democracy. If you organize, you can change things. Remember the anti-war movement during Vietnam.

It's 16 in some American states.

I didn't realize you weren't American. My bad.

Are you talking about Gitmo? Where they detain terrorists? Despite what the BBC would have you believe, we don't jail hippies and commies.

The no-fly lists are meant for terrorist suspects. Occassionally someone who has nothing to do with terrorism may get placed on it, but that's an intelligence failure, not a deliberate attempt to silence dissent.

Only intentionally caused ones. Otherwise, it would be a crime no matter what.

That's a rather ridiculous claim, considering that accidents, even if they would otherwise be crimes, are rarely considered criminal.

For instance, if I pick something up and walk out of a store with it, that is a crime. If, on the other hand, I am trying on jewelry and forget a piece when I walk out of the store, it is not (although I am certainly expected to give it back).

If I start yelling obscenities at the top of my lungs on the street, I may be considered a public nuisance and arrested. If I have Terret's Syndrome, I will not be charged.

I was born in the USSR. My parents lived most of their lives there.

I know more about it than you ever will.


I was born in michigan, my governor is a communist

Because they'll be kicked out again, you fool.

Awww a sob story!

And probably not, but I imagine his parents were and he was taken with them.
His mother died during the crossing. He lived with his father before he was deported back to Cuba. Just goes to show that they aren't criminals and vagabonds.

I was born in michigan, my governor is a communist
WTF??

Do you really think it's a coincidence that communism has failed everywhere it has been tried?

The USA is a democracy. If you organize, you can change things. Remember the anti-war movement during Vietnam.

It's 16 in some American states.

I didn't realize you weren't American. My bad.

Are you talking about Gitmo? Where they detain terrorists? Despite what the BBC would have you believe, we don't jail hippies and commies.

The no-fly lists are meant for terrorist suspects. Occassionally someone who has nothing to do with terrorism may get placed on it, but that's an intelligence failure, not a deliberate attempt to silence dissent.

Communism has never actually "been tried". Sorry to dissapoint you, but no state on earth is, or has ever been, genuinely communist.

I was born in michigan, my governor is a communist

Goody for you. I assume you did mean to contribute a valuable point somewherealong the line?

Communism has never actually "been tried". Sorry to dissapoint you, but no state on earth is, or has ever been, genuinely communist.
Because no state can "genuinely" be communist. It's a pipe dream.

However, surely the periods October 1917/June 1918 and 1921/the left turn constituted relative personal freedom?
Yeah, it was called anarchy.

Because no state can "genuinely" be communist. It's a pipe dream.

Indeed. Trotsky was entirely correct in advocating "Permanent Revolution", since a global revolution is the sole means to effect communism.

He didn't specify that he lived in Berlin. I assumed he lived in mainland West Germany.

umm....surrounded by a communist country....total state control...that would be the DDR....slap bang in the middle of which was...Berlin.

With all due respect but please get a basic grasp of reality...

I know you are young..and I am not being patronizing...I was also a 17/18 year old hot head once :p

but to make bizzare statements about West Germany and leaving out Berlin in the manner which you did is pretty...well...inexcusable really.

But hey...no one is perfect...and I am happy that this is not degenerating into a flame fest....for a change! LOL :)

Do you really think it's a coincidence that communism has failed everywhere it has been tried?
Other than Cuba, Vietnam, China and arguably Laos.
The USA is a democracy. If you organize, you can change things. Remember the anti-war movement during Vietnam.
Remember Kent State University?
It's 16 in some American states.
What about smoking and alcohol use?
I didn't realize you weren't American. My bad.
Hmm never had that before, but fair enough.
Are you talking about Gitmo? Where they detain terrorists? Despite what the BBC would have you believe, we don't jail hippies and commies.
I think you mean "where we detain anyone too brown for our liking, or too left-wing for our liking also".

Read "The Men who Stare at Goats" (by Jon Ronson) - there's a section which is basically an interview with a guy who was released from Guantanimo (he was completely innocent). Interesting reading.
The no-fly lists are meant for terrorist suspects. Occassionally someone who has nothing to do with terrorism may get placed on it, but that's an intelligence failure, not a deliberate attempt to silence dissent.
Not true, people have been put on that list because of their political leanings. Fairly extreme leanings, but that's fair enough.

Actually, it's been more than just one child. There have been numerous incidences of children under the age of five being placed on the no-fly lists.

Another example is Don Young (R-AK), the third most senior Republican in the US House of Representatives. He was placed on the no-fly list by mistake as well, and he's no critic of the Bush administration.

I'm not saying that I trust the government so much that I don't believe it's possible that the government would put critics on the list, it's just that the facts point against that claim.

I could only find one instance of a child being on it. Admittedly I didnt search the whole of the internet for it but I thought my keywords were pretty good.

Anyway the only instances you have put up that I could researtch were because of similar names:
Rep. Donald E. Young (R-Alaska), said he was flagged on the “watch list” when the airline computer system mistook him for a man on the list named Donald Lee Young.
Names which they released to show that they were similar.

On the Democrats and Green Party members as well as scores of peace activists on the list there was no such information given, although they said that "it's possible their names matched someones on the list" (yeah fucking right... a group of twenty peace activists were held all at once, coincidentally), they did not release the names of the people their names were similar too.

So if you believe it's possible and statistically it looks like much more than a coincidence... why do you insist on defending the govt. as being spot free from unethical and oppressive actions?

No it's certainly not oppressive to have fenced off free speech zones miles away from where rallys are held either. They get to voice their opinions at least right?

Like I said, the US has a lot of good things about it and we have many freedoms but I think it must be willfull ignorance to believe that there is no oppression whatsoever.

Indeed. Trotsky was entirely correct in advocating "Permanent Revolution", since a global revolution is the sole means to effect communism.
Aye, if only Trotsky had gained control rather than Stalin... bah!

That's a rather ridiculous claim, considering that accidents, even if they would otherwise be crimes, are rarely considered criminal.
But the distinction must be made, correct? Otherwise, since commotions are a danger, they must all be punished.

FYI: Tourrette's.

Aye, if only Trotsky had gained control rather than Stalin... bah!
But...but...then we wouldn't have WWSD? (the answer to which, of course, is PURGE!)

His mother died during the crossing.
Doesn't stop her being a criminal.
He lived with his father before he was deported back to Cuba. Just goes to show that they aren't criminals and vagabonds.
Again, there's no proof that his father wasn't a criminal.

I also said nothing about being a vagabond...

Aye, if only Trotsky had gained control rather than Stalin... bah!

He never stood a chance. Genuis though he was, he was a tad lacking in political sense, whereas Stalin was a political master.

A crying shame really. Trotsky would have been the perfect man to inspire communism.

But...but...then we wouldn't have WWSD? (the answer to which, of course, is PURGE!)
Why would it be called that?

It'd just be called... Earth...

And we'd all be sharing stuff out. It'd be great.

He never stood a chance. Genuis though he was, he was a tad lacking in political sense, whereas Stalin was a political master.

A crying shame really. Trotsky would have been the perfect man to inspire communism.

which why he got the ice pick in the head in Mexico City I understand...

which why he got the ice pick in the head in Mexico City I understand...

Well quite. As a politician you do have to admire Stalin.

Why would it be called that?

It'd just be called... Earth...

And we'd all be sharing stuff out. It'd be great.

Gotta admit...I don't wanna share.

He never stood a chance. Genuis though he was, he was a tad lacking in political sense, whereas Stalin was a political master.
I disagree, it was more about self-confidence. Trotsky was relatively mild-mannered, and thought that he wouldn't make good leader material on account of being Jewish (see Ten Days That Shook The World, by John Reed), whereas Stalin was very proud and willing to take up whatever political position was given to him.
A crying shame really. Trotsky would have been the perfect man to inspire communism.
Very true.

Why would it be called that?
You didn't note the humor of the WWJD? take-off, WWSD?


It'd just be called... Earth...

And we'd all be sharing stuff out. It'd be great.
Not if you understand human action, scarcity, and all that.

Gotta admit...I don't wanna share.
You might actually want to if the choice had been made in 1923, and by the 1930's everywhere was communist.

You'd be sort of used to it.

Well quite. As a politician you do have to admire Stalin.

as a sociopath perhaps...

I disagree, it was more about self-confidence. Trotsky was relatively mild-mannered, and thought that he wouldn't make good leader material on account of being Jewish (see Ten Days That Shook The World, by John Reed), whereas Stalin was very proud and willing to take up whatever political position was given to him.

Very true.

Trotsky did reject the Premiership in 1920 I believe, on the grounds of the embarressment he would have caused Lenin's state. However, he could have never defeated Stalin in the leadership contest.

Other than Cuba, Vietnam, China and arguably Laos.

Remember Kent State University?

What about smoking and alcohol use?

Hmm never had that before, but fair enough.

I think you mean "where we detain anyone too brown for our liking, or too left-wing for our liking also".

Read "The Men who Stare at Goats" (by Jon Ronson) - there's a section which is basically an interview with a guy who was released from Guantanimo (he was completely innocent). Interesting reading.

Not true, people have been put on that list because of their political leanings. Fairly extreme leanings, but that's fair enough.
It failed miserably in those countries. Vietnam, like China, is embracing capitalism.

21 in most states I think, but it should be 18.

Notice how the guy was released? If the US government is truly oppressing people, don't you think he would have been killed and not allowed to tell his story?

I'd think that anyone who is willing to blow something up should be in Gitmo. Doesn't matter what kind of terrorist you are-islamic, environmental, etc, a terrorist is a terrorist.

You might actually want to if the choice had been made in 1923, and by the 1930's everywhere was communist.

You'd be sort of used to it.

nothing like free will huh ? ;)

You didn't note the humor of the WWJD? take-off, WWSD?
I sort of did, but it wasn't that amusing to be honest... sorry.
Not if you understand human action, scarcity, and all that.
Yeah, probably. I'm a bit of an idealist in some circumstances, how communism'd work over the world being one of them.

Yeah, probably. I'm a bit of an idealist in some circumstances, how communism'd work over the world being one of them.

yeah...we can tell from yer sig! LOL :)

It failed miserably in those countries. Vietnam, like China, is embracing capitalism.
What's wrong with Cuba, then?
21 in most states I think, but it should be 18.
It should be legal to smoke pot in the UK. It isn't...

What's your point?

"Shoulds" don't belong in discussions about current laws, really.
Notice how the guy was released? If the US government is truly oppressing people, don't you think he would have been killed and not allowed to tell his story?
He was released after a year and a half, and the guy had to be named under a false name.

He was barely allowed to tell his story.
I'd think that anyone who is willing to blow something up should be in Gitmo. Doesn't matter what kind of terrorist you are-islamic, environmental, etc, a terrorist is a terrorist.
Alright, but soldiers, general people willing to protect what is theirs and mercenaries need also go there, then.

We all have it in us, for different people, different things spark it off.

yeah...we can tell from yer sig! LOL :)
Nah, really?

But the distinction must be made, correct?

The distinction is made in whether or not it is criminal, not in whether or not it is a danger. An action that is not criminal can certainly be a danger.

Otherwise, since commotions are a danger, they must all be punished.

We generally don't punish people for unintentionally causing danger. You might think we should go around punishing people for accidents, but the law generally disagrees. The only accidents that get punished are those that actually result from negligence on someone's part.

If I get angry and push someone, causing them to fall, that is assault. If, on the other hand, I trip and fall, causing someone who was standing nearby to fall as well, that is not assault. The physical danger to the person falling, however, is the same.

FYI: Tourrette's.

Indeed. Thanks.

What's wrong with Cuba, then?

It should be legal to smoke pot in the UK. It isn't...

What's your point?

"Shoulds" don't belong in discussions about current laws, really.

He was released after a year and a half, and the guy had to be named under a false name.

He was barely allowed to tell his story.

Alright, but soldiers, general people willing to protect what is theirs and mercenaries need also go there, then.

We all have it in us, for different people, different things spark it off.
Check out the wikipedia article on Cuba. They also started introducing free-market reforms, since communism failed miserably for them.

Maybe he used an alias for privacy reasons? Don't you think the US government would have done everything in its power to prevent him from talking? Killing him would have only been too easy.

I'm open to the possibillity that an innocent person can be detained at guantanamo, but when they are cleared, they are released, they aren't killed.

No, very few of us would resort to terrorism. You'd need to hold extreme political beliefs, and even then, it would take a lot to drive you to violence.

Nah, really?

nope...my mistake...you are in the neg on lib/authoritarian side...sorrry!

Am also studying for a job interview for tomorrow so things are a bit hectic LOL

guys please take the commie Vs. cappie to another thread please

Check out the wikipedia article on Cuba. They also started introducing free-market reforms, since communism failed miserably for them.
Wiki?

No ta!

The government may be making certain free-market choices, but on the other hand, the money goes right back into the people.
Maybe he used an alias for privacy reasons? Don't you think the US government would have done everything in its power to prevent him from talking? Killing him would have only been too easy.
Killing him would have been very, very easy, but if found out would have caused an Artichoke-level PR crisis for the US government.
I'm open to the possibillity that an innocent person can be detained at guantanamo, but when they are cleared, they are released, they aren't killed.
This guy was being monitored at all times by people from the British Intelligence services. They aren't killed, but their every move is tracked.
No, very few of us would resort to terrorism.
How could you possibly know?
You'd need to hold extreme political beliefs, and even then, it would take a lot to drive you to violence.
Politics hardly comes into it.

If someone's blown your house up and killed your family and friends, you'd strap a bomb to yourself and detonate it in the region of anyone from the country that's done a great injustice to you, no?

guys please take the commie Vs. cappie to another thread pls
I'll not do what someone who says "pls" says, thanks.

Although this is getting slightly irrelevant.

I'll not do what someone who says "pls" says, thanks.

Although this is getting slightly irrelevant.

:D

Nothing on NS General is ever irrelevant, even the Beach Club.....

Remember Kent State University?
I don't remember it, but I've studied the incident in depth, as my hometown is about a half mile from the campus, and my mom graduated from said university.

The shootings were a tragic accident, whose causal chain begins when anti-war protestors burned down the ROTC building. Following that, Governor Rhodes deployed the National Guard to the area in an attempt to restore order, and prevent any further violence. The Ohio National Guard was deployed with M1 Garand Rifles, Gas Masks and Tear Gas. The Quartermasters independently decided to also equip the Guardsmen with ammunition for their M1 Garand Rifles. This is one of the key mistakes, as they were instructed to NOT give ammunition to the troops.

It was inevitable that there would be a clash between the protestors and the Guardsmen. Initially it started off with a small group of protestors holding a rally of sorts against the Guardsmen. The Guardsmen were deployed in as observers, lest the protest should get abnormally violent. The crowd had grown rather large by this point. This is where the stories start to fudge, but a combination of the two is most likely.

The Guardsmen claim that at this point, members of the crowd started to threaten them, they also charge that rocks were thrown. Naturally, the protestors deny these claims. No eyewitnesses can confirm or deny either story. The Guardsmen then fired smoke and tear-gas grenades at the protestors, and the protestors begin to throw them back at the guardsmen. At this point, the Guardsmen began to advance, and some really unique psychology begins to kick in with both groups. Espescially regarding individualism and identity when hidden behind a mask, like what the guardsmen were wearing.

The Guardsmen and the protesters moved up over a hill, and the exchange of the tear-gas and rocks continues for a few moments. We know from the Guardsmen who were on the hill that they were scared. They were a handful of men and they were looking at a rather large crowd of people. They were terrified. At which point, an unkown Guardsmen levels his rifle at the protestors, for a reason unkown even to this day, and fires. Several other Guardsmen follow suit, and the firing continues for something like ten seconds.

Video of the incident does indeed confirm that the officers attempted to stop their men from shooting. The Guard Captain can indeed be seen getting in front of his men and shoving their rifles into the air. This is a clear sign that they did not start firing on the basis of any orders given to them by their superiors on the scene. All analysis of the evidence leads solely to the conclusion that the Kent State Shootings were a tragic accident. They were not coordinated by anybody, and were born out of fear, chaos and misunderstanding. The Kent State Shootings are a human tragedy.

I don't remember it, but I've studied the incident in depth, as my hometown is about a half mile from the campus, and my mom graduated from said university.

The shootings were a tragic accident, whose causal chain begins when anti-war protestors burned down the ROTC building. Following that, Governor Rhodes deployed the National Guard to the area in an attempt to restore order, and prevent any further violence. The Ohio National Guard was deployed with M1 Garand Rifles, Gas Masks and Tear Gas. The Quartermasters independently decided to also equip the Guardsmen with ammunition for their M1 Garand Rifles. This is one of the key mistakes, as they were instructed to NOT give ammunition to the troops.

It was inevitable that there would be a clash between the protestors and the Guardsmen. Initially it started off with a small group of protestors holding a rally of sorts against the Guardsmen. The Guardsmen were deployed in as observers, lest the protest should get abnormally violent. The crowd had grown rather large by this point. This is where the stories start to fudge, but a combination of the two is most likely.

The Guardsmen claim that at this point, members of the crowd started to threaten them, they also charge that rocks were thrown. Naturally, the protestors deny these claims. No eyewitnesses can confirm or deny either story. The Guardsmen then fired smoke and tear-gas grenades at the protestors, and the protestors begin to throw them back at the guardsmen. At this point, the Guardsmen began to advance, and some really unique psychology begins to kick in with both groups. Espescially regarding individualism and identity when hidden behind a mask, like what the guardsmen were wearing.

The Guardsmen and the protesters moved up over a hill, and the exchange of the tear-gas and rocks continues for a few moments. We know from the Guardsmen who were on the hill that they were scared. They were a handful of men and they were looking at a rather large crowd of people. They were terrified. At which point, an unkown Guardsmen levels his rifle at the protestors, for a reason unkown even to this day, and fires. Several other Guardsmen follow suit, and the firing continues for something like ten seconds.

Video of the incident does indeed confirm that the officers attempted to stop their men from shooting. The Guard Captain can indeed be seen getting in front of his men and shoving their rifles into the air. This is a clear sign that they did not start firing on the basis of any orders given to them by their superiors on the scene. All analysis of the evidence leads solely to the conclusion that the Kent State Shootings were a tragic accident. They were not coordinated by anybody, and were born out of fear, chaos and misunderstanding. The Kent State Shootings are a human tragedy.

A billboard for the argument that riot officers should not be issued lethal weapons

A billboard for the argument that riot officers should not be issued lethal weapons

more like that military part timers ought not to be involved in 'riot' duties...

Even if people are put on nofly and watch lists by mistake (and they are), that is not evidence against political dissidents being specifically placed there. Even with the errors, if there really are a disproportionate number of peace activists being placed on the list, that could be reason to believe it was intentional.


There's no evidence of disproportionate numbers of peace activists being placed on the list though. And given my studies of the TSA, the primary defining feature is that of sheer managerial incompetence. The no-fly lists are notoriously random, poorly designed and arbitrary. People who should not be on them are regularly found to be on them. It's a system massively in need of reform.

A billboard for the argument that riot officers should not be issued lethal weapons
Quite. The National Guard troops were also not trained for the duty they were assigned. These guys were not riot cops, they were soldiers. They were poorly equipped and poorly trained for the situation they were facing.

Quite. The National Guard troops were also not trained for the duty they were assigned. These guys were not riot cops, they were soldiers. They were poorly equipped and poorly trained for the situation they were facing.

if I was facing a massive crowd of angry people I probably would be scared enough to make a very, very stupid decision

There's no evidence of disproportionate numbers of peace activists being placed on the list though. And given my studies of the TSA, the primary defining feature is that of sheer managerial incompetence. The no-fly lists are notoriously random, poorly designed and arbitrary. People who should not be on them are regularly found to be on them. It's a system massively in need of reform.

never forget Cat Stevens;)