Danmac
Well-Known Member
They dont hide in cars, and planes, they hide in countries.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Are you saying Islam, a religion, is a threat to the world?
And that this gross generalization somehow excuses Bush's actions?
Would you support a Constitutional amendment excluding Islam from religious freedom in America then?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Any threat of terrorism in my sphere is from those who would probably describe themselves as Christian. I wouldn't dignify any of those scumbags with my attention.
Islam is no threat to me.
Paranoid, heavy handed crazy people in the USA are the creators of their own threats. The more shooting, bombing, water boarding and collateral damge caused by your government the greater the threat to you will be. The greater the threat to us all will be.
US foreign policy is the bogeyman. Not Islam.
Why would some one in Afghanistan give a hoot about you if you left them alone.
Is 'Islamic terrorism' a threat to Luxembourg?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
We have them hiding here.
Why not destroy the US government, infrastructure, and then search house to house - torturing as we go?
After all, sometimes all that people understand is brute force.
Ironically, if the US government were gone, terrorist would have no reason to attack us any more.... and it will be abundantly clear that we are our own worst enemy.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Probably not as many civilians as he murdered.
Just for giggles, let's see if we can spot a trend in this list of recent terrorist attacks, with the religion of the perpetrators:
- 2001 Anthrax attacks (Catholic, apparently)
- 9/11 attacks (Muslim)
- 1996 WTC bombing (Muslim)
- Atlanta Olympics bombing (Christian)
- Oklahoma City bombing (Christian?)
- 2011 Tuscon shooting (unclear)
- Beltway Sniper shootings (Muslim/Nation of Islam)
- Unabomber (unclear)
- Anti-abortion killings (Christian, Christian, Christian)
Of course! It's Islam that we have the most to fear from.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Did anyone else have to go into the kitchen and shut off the loud bells ringing on their Irony Alert when they read this post by Danmac?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Which we obviously couldn't do, as Halliburton and the rest of the military/industrial complex hadn't quite gotten all of the US tax dollars that it knew were going to be spent, as long as the war/occupation continued.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Oh yes. Because Homeland Security has now made us impervious to any threat of attack. For me, there is nothing more important when I first get up in the morning than to go online and check the Homeland Security website for what color alert we are going to be at that day, and what threats to our system I need to be looking out for.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I liked the federal funding from Homeland Security for select cities to beef up their security.
The problem is, the only people who were effected by this were American citizens... because there were no terrorists to shoot or observe or detain.
Personally, I think the creation of the Department of Homeland Security made a fair bit of sense. Before that, there was a fair bit of duplication between different agencies and poor information-sharing. I think the way that all the agencies were folded into DHS, split apart by function, and recombined in generally relevant ways was an improvement on how things were before.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
The entire "Homeland Security" fiasco was one of the rabbit holes that the federal government poured truckloads of tax dollars into under Lord Bush.
So naturally, we now have Tea Partiers wanting to defund the Department of Education to make up for it.
I just don't understand how you liberals can't see this as being a good thing.
So naturally, we now have Tea Partiers wanting to defund the Department of Education to make up for it.
I just don't understand how you liberals can't see this as being a good thing.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Like any large piece of legislation, there are some good ideas buried in there. The Patriot Act removed some of the artificial barriers that had been put in place to prevent different intelligence agencies from sharing information. Overall, though, it has more potential for abuse, fraud and waste than the good it actually produces (at least, it does in my opinion).
Genuine Realist
Member
It's funny how success will make the public insouciant. On September 12, 2001, the consensus of reasoned opinion was that there was going to be a long series of terrorist attacks around the world, in various countries. With horrific exceptions in Spain and Great Britain, it hasn't happened. No doubt Homeland Security is cumbersome, overstated, and bureaucratic, but in a rough, crude way, it has succeeded.
Just to reassure our European friends, there was no attack on the Constitution under Bush. (Note that Obama has kept most of the apparatus in place.) Throughout Bush's term, society continued to be more and more open.
Despite what those of you who trust Olbermann might believe, there was no one whose freedom of speech was prohibited or even inhibited. If you disagree with me, name someone. I am not aware of any.
There was no change in the Constitution. The provisions of the Patriot Act - twice passed by large majorities in two different Congresses - make largely technical changes in cumbersome US criminal law. There have been no mass arrests, no house to house searches, no change in the basic ambiance of American society. Our European friends might be interested to know that the regimes they are accustomed to living under are considerably more invasive than the US before or after the Patriot Act.
What 'torture' there was - as I noted in another post, subjection to waterboarding is an element of US Special Forces training - was over by 2003, years before the moralizibg started. It reflected the trauma of the event, not any major shift in policy. There is a major gap in the law that should be filled.
There was no warrantless wiretapping in violation of the Constitution. How far the Constitutional protections extend beyond the borders of the US is and remains a gray area. The program was dropped because it wasn't yielding all that much.
George W. Bush has a lot to answer for. The Iraqi War was started on the basis of faulty intelligence, evaluated in good faith, but nonetheless faulty. The occupation was handled in an appallingly shortsighted manner, and Iraq came near to a civil war, with Al Quaeda and various sectarian gangs committing all manner of atrocities. That's enough of an indictment.
There remains, however, the possibility that Bush got the Big Thing right - that the changes he and Tony Blair initiated in the Middle East are positive and ongoing. Faulty intelligence didn't change Iraq into the Netherlands or Saddam Hussein into Queen Wilhelmina. The regime change as such was a big step forward for the Iraqi people. The creation of a successful democracy there will be a major step forward for progressive Muslims. It is an intuitive certainty that its example has had some positive influence on events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. How much I don't know.
What has killed, just killed, the American Left since the 60's is its refusal to the limitations of realistic opposition, to create moralizing myth when reality just isn't good enough. I have friends who would rather die than concede that Bush may have possessed some virtues or that history may finally conclude on his side. Beginning with legitimate opposition to the war (I opposed it too), they have reached a hysterical reaction to the new Iraqi state. They cheer any indication of instability, and continually compare the present uncertainty with the mock tranquility of Saddam. They have literally reinvented the old apologia for fascism, that Mussolini at least made the trains run on the time. They disapprove of Saddam and the mass murderer Bin Laden. Their hatred is reserved for George Bush, and it is tireless and unrelenting.
In this, they have become reactionaries, royalistes, not unlike the salonistes of the French Revolution, the Tories of the American Revolution, the disapproving diarists of the Civil War. Their hatred has destroyed their values. There are all sorts of things to dislike and disapprove about Bush without inventing myth to justify raw loathing.
[P.S. The above is about as moderate a statement as I think it's possible about the last ten years. My bet is that it'll be answered with all sorts of sneering contempt.]
Just to reassure our European friends, there was no attack on the Constitution under Bush. (Note that Obama has kept most of the apparatus in place.) Throughout Bush's term, society continued to be more and more open.
Despite what those of you who trust Olbermann might believe, there was no one whose freedom of speech was prohibited or even inhibited. If you disagree with me, name someone. I am not aware of any.
There was no change in the Constitution. The provisions of the Patriot Act - twice passed by large majorities in two different Congresses - make largely technical changes in cumbersome US criminal law. There have been no mass arrests, no house to house searches, no change in the basic ambiance of American society. Our European friends might be interested to know that the regimes they are accustomed to living under are considerably more invasive than the US before or after the Patriot Act.
What 'torture' there was - as I noted in another post, subjection to waterboarding is an element of US Special Forces training - was over by 2003, years before the moralizibg started. It reflected the trauma of the event, not any major shift in policy. There is a major gap in the law that should be filled.
There was no warrantless wiretapping in violation of the Constitution. How far the Constitutional protections extend beyond the borders of the US is and remains a gray area. The program was dropped because it wasn't yielding all that much.
George W. Bush has a lot to answer for. The Iraqi War was started on the basis of faulty intelligence, evaluated in good faith, but nonetheless faulty. The occupation was handled in an appallingly shortsighted manner, and Iraq came near to a civil war, with Al Quaeda and various sectarian gangs committing all manner of atrocities. That's enough of an indictment.
There remains, however, the possibility that Bush got the Big Thing right - that the changes he and Tony Blair initiated in the Middle East are positive and ongoing. Faulty intelligence didn't change Iraq into the Netherlands or Saddam Hussein into Queen Wilhelmina. The regime change as such was a big step forward for the Iraqi people. The creation of a successful democracy there will be a major step forward for progressive Muslims. It is an intuitive certainty that its example has had some positive influence on events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. How much I don't know.
What has killed, just killed, the American Left since the 60's is its refusal to the limitations of realistic opposition, to create moralizing myth when reality just isn't good enough. I have friends who would rather die than concede that Bush may have possessed some virtues or that history may finally conclude on his side. Beginning with legitimate opposition to the war (I opposed it too), they have reached a hysterical reaction to the new Iraqi state. They cheer any indication of instability, and continually compare the present uncertainty with the mock tranquility of Saddam. They have literally reinvented the old apologia for fascism, that Mussolini at least made the trains run on the time. They disapprove of Saddam and the mass murderer Bin Laden. Their hatred is reserved for George Bush, and it is tireless and unrelenting.
In this, they have become reactionaries, royalistes, not unlike the salonistes of the French Revolution, the Tories of the American Revolution, the disapproving diarists of the Civil War. Their hatred has destroyed their values. There are all sorts of things to dislike and disapprove about Bush without inventing myth to justify raw loathing.
[P.S. The above is about as moderate a statement as I think it's possible about the last ten years. My bet is that it'll be answered with all sorts of sneering contempt.]
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The Patriot Act vs. The US Constitution.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Patriot Act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Patriot Act: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Patriot Act: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...
Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ...
Patriot Act: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.
I hope my posting of specific Amendments to the US Constitution was not too contemptuous.
And for the record, I do not condone Obama's continued support of the Patriot Act.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yeah, possibly not an attack. It was more like pretending the Constitution simply didn't exist.
Whose consensus exactly? Which intelligence that reasoned opinion had? How well did that reasoned opinion predict or explain 2001-9-11?
And that just might put some doubt on the wisdom and foresight of that reasoned consensus, whomever they end up being, don't you agree?
Did it have a challenge to overcome, however? I have yet do see any evidence in that direction. More properly, which kind of challenge would that be? One of security, or of political prestige and internal support?
That is really a minority opinion, AFAIK.
By diminishing civil freedom of US citizens.
If you say so.
Are you claiming that there is nothing wrong with waterboarding?
Under false pretenses, actually. The intelligence wasn't faulty, it was deliberately misinterpreted to achieve a political goal.
The consensus of observers runs against the grain of this claim of yours, you know.
Al Qaeda had no Iraq presence, you know.
For that matter, "there is a possibility" that I am the Messiah. If you are willing to stretch and spin things that much, just about everything is possible.
Frankly, I expect more from you. You have a scholarly bent, but you fail to apply it to important matters of our time.
To attribute the crash entirely to Bush is to ignore the factors & responsibility for them leading up to it. I know you
despise the guy, as many of us do, but this should be done regarding things where he was proximate cause. If you
wanna be my daddy, you gotta impress me more. Hate is a sacred thing...it should be done for the proper reason.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, I could have been more precise.
The economic collapse could not have happened without the housing bubble and unbridled greed. The systematic deregulation of the financial industry beginning with Clinton (pbuh) and trickle down theory didn't help anything.
But the unprecedented spending by Bush is absolutely true.
The doubling of the national debt is true as well. Just think of it. Our national debt doubled.
I'm mad as hell that the Republicans want to do it all over again. And the swing vote morons who thought Obama didn't act fast enough (etc) are going to vote for someone who completely does not support their values. It's insane.