C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Gizmo, that's the first time I've agreed with you 100% on this (general) subject.
Because humans seem to hate change, and therefore greet all new ideas wil flames. It's human nature.And why is it that flames are always expected when a new idea is presented?
You know what, you won't see any evidence nor should you expect any other then the chain of events and movements of the terrorists that has been given already. The reason why? Because that is how criminal investigations are carried out and any law enforcement agency worth its salt will tell you that. All facts are confidential and classified except to those in the loop of law enforcement who are involved in some way to the investigation, and remain that way until either they are presented in court or the investigation is closed and declassified. Civies and the news media are not and never have been in the loop of law enforcement in the way to be privilage to classified information in an ongoing investigation. There isn't any "convenient" classifying of information as you suggest and this kind of information isn't available through the freedom of information act. It never has been.Second: I have yet to see any evidence Bin Laden is truly the perpetrator behind the attacks. As far as I've seen, througout the course of time from 9-11 to now, Bin Laden became a prime suspect, and then was then said to be the one responsible. The news media then follows with evidence that, was circumstantial at best. Of course, the public immediately pointed the fingers of blame at Bin Laden. Now, all evidence that could prove Bin Laden's innocence or guilt has been conveniently 'classified'. Such actions lead me to believe that Bin Laden is not truly the one who has masterminded this.
You've proven nothing, you've just given your opinion on the situation from your perspective.Third: Since I have established that Bin Laden was never truly proven guilty
Actually the assault on Afghanistan is punishment for aiding and abetting a wanted felon. The normal punishment would be arrest and said charges laid, but as they can hardly just walk into th country and say they're all under arrest they're using a military alternative however questionable its being carried out. Justified, not really as death is never justifiable. Its just their only option at the moment.the U.S. assault on Afghanistan can be viewed as aggression similar to Yugoslavia, though slightly more easy to justify
Well, I haven't noticed any significant differences in the two stations other then one is showing the Arab side and the other the American side. Both are giving the facts pretty much equally other then variations in the numbers or the death toll, I'm thinking its somewhere between the two and A-J has much more, graphic, film footage since they're allowed into the Taliban area of the combat zone to report.Because of this, it is more likely that Al Jezzerra is relaying information with a higher truth level then CNN or any other major U.S. news network.
Well, you want to know why those people work for the FBI, CIA, and other government offices? Because they are the true experts. They're the ones who are involved with the situation directly and the ones who are trained for this kind of work. You honestly think that some guy in a university somewhere for example is more of an expert about things like this then the departments that specifically train and hire people because of their expertise. You think because someone works for one of the above said institutions that they're no longer true experts on the matter, then you're dreaming. People don't get those jobs unless their true experts. Also CNN and other American news group have been consulting and interviewing experts that aren't involved with any government institution, you've probably just missed the interviews. Larry King for instance has had several such people in his panels on his show.Also, the fact that CNN has recently been consulting with more Government officials, Federal Procecutors, past FBI and CIA chiefs and public spokesmen rather then true experts on the matter leads me to believe that CNN's news will be diluted with a considerably larger amount of government propaganda.
Ok, so besides from your opinion, prove it?This is however, not to say that Al Jazzerra does not also have a large amount of propaganda in its news. It's just that CNN has an even larger amount.
So why aren't you?In these times of crisis, it's often best to see both sides of the story, and then make a detailed analysis; weeding out the propaganda, and gleaming the facts out of the story, before forming an opinion.
As I said above, prove it?CNN is far from objective in a time like this.
Hehe, ok, lets look at the facts for this. The legislation that has been and is being passed is equipped with a sunset clause so that the legislation is dissolved in 4 years and police powers return to normal. As for the violation of your individual rights, well which rights. The right to privacy? Well nothing is changing there, the Echilon project has been listening to trillions of phone calls and observing billions of e-mails for over 10 years now. The difference is that before it was only for the CIA and CSIS so they could listen in for drug lords and other international orginized crime. Now their just letting domestic law enforcement agencies like the FBI and RCMP in on the same deal and equipment thats been happily yet quietly observing from afar for years. The way the technology works btw is that computer systems have preprogramed hot words that the systems will pick up on and observe that call for more indicators while digitally recording it from the pick up point and tracing the lines. Should several other hot words fire off the computer system alerts a human operator to the call for further investigation otherwise the tracing and recording are all automatically deleated. So its not like other people are sitting there day and night reading our mail and listening to us talk dirty to our girlfriends, its just one more computer in the loop. There is actually a very good article I read once about the system and an interesting list of hot words, I'll see if I can find the article and post it. The people that are screaming its an end to freedom really don't know what their talking about, trust me, no one will notice a change in their life styles unless they make them themselves. The only flaw in this is the use of racial profiling that is a sad but true reality thats been in use for many years as well. Its just much more apparent all of a sudden because of the gravity of the situation, and no, its not fair.Fourth: Let us also look at domestic issue. With the crisis, we can see how the U.S. legislative branch really thinks. We can finally see the U.S.'s true colors. We see broader laws being passed that violate our individual rights ever so slightly. Many say that the end of freedom in the U.S. is just on the horizon. Sadly, I'm inclined to agree if this trend continues.
Sorry, but the FBI is nothing like the old KGB. Thats like comparing Charles Manson to some kid who gets busted for selling weed at a house party. Unless you really know and understand the KGB and how they operated you can't possibly make comparisons to it. If you want a current comparison for the KGB look to the Taliban's religious police and its pretty close.The FBI has more power then ever before, and is evolving into something resembling the KGB of the old Soviet Union.
You're being overly paranoid to put it simply, things aren't anywhere near that bad and never will be in our life time. If anything our generation is the one that going to be flipping all this around anyways so its not really worth giving yourself a heartattack over.Now, there is almost a witch-hunt atmosphere in the U.S. The Bill of Rights is slowly being chipped away. I hate to say this, but I see 1984 on the horizon. I see history repeating itself. The Roman Republic didn't change to the Roman Empire overnight. It was a gradual process. This may be a more modern time, but really nothing has changed. In the past, I came up with a quote: "Democracy is simply the delay of tolitarianism." Now, I have just one question to ask all. Who REALLY watches the watchers?
I'd say your conclusions are flawed. Mostly by the idea that you seem to be approching this with the feel that the US is massively corrupt in its government and law enforcement branches and are using facts to support your opinion. Not quite what I would call being objective but it does give an interesting point of view. Your Conclusion B about the hardliners however is quite accurate, but they're just another "extremist" grouping of conservative patriots that demand everyone to be just like them.Conclusion: With the imformation given, several conclusions can be reached.
This crisis has brought out the dark sides in everybody unfortunatly, but thats what you get with an over developed yet primitive species.The fact is though, this crisis has brought out a very dark aspect of America.
I thought I already took care of that. *shrugs*It is my sincere hope that after this post, objectivism will be restored.
Yeah, they have. We're now saying the pledge every day in school, and they said they wanted all the students to sign a banner saying "Strongsville High School Bucks For Bush" (I didn't sign). That kind of thing is one of the things about the whole situation that really bothers me.b.) U.S. hardliners see this as an opportunity to create a more conservative U.S., and are making a push to make sure all people in the U.S are loyal to only the U.S.
Ah, yes, I suppose I'll have to wait 20 years to find out who really attacked the World Trade Center when they declassify the necessary information, which, by that time, no one will giveYou know what, you won't see any evidence nor should you expect any other then the chain of events and movements of the terrorists that has been given already. The reason why? Because that is how criminal investigations are carried out and any law enforcement agency worth its salt will tell you that. All facts are confidential and classified except to those in the loop of law enforcement who are involved in some way to the investigation, and remain that way until either they are presented in court or the investigation is closed and declassified.
Actually, I never said I proved he was not guilty. I simply ESTABLISHED, that he was not guilty. I made an assumption about it, but it was well-based assumption. Again, I quote the U.S. adage of innocent until proven guilty, because until Bin Laden is dragged into court, and with CONCRETE, GENUINE, and SUFFICENT evidence, proven quilty, and convicted, he is not guilty. It doesn't matter what the public believes, or what the media and FBI say. Until he is proven guilty in the court of law, he is NOT guilty. This has nothing to do with my perspective.You've proven nothing, you've just given your opinion on the situation from your perspective.
Punishement is usually morally or at least, legally justified. The U.S. has no legal right or power over Afghanistan. Doesn't matter that Bin Laden is there. You use him as an excuse to launch a military campaign. You're right in the fact that it's not justified, which makes it aggression.Actually the assault on Afghanistan is punishment for aiding and abetting a wanted felon. The normal punishment would be arrest and said charges laid, but as they can hardly just walk into th country and say they're all under arrest they're using a military alternative however questionable its being carried out. Justified, not really as death is never justifiable. Its just their only option at the moment.
Look at it this way. Does the U.S. really have the right to attack Afghanistan when in fact if Afghanistan has yet to directly pose a serious threat to U.S. interests? Let's face it. Does Al Jarrezza really need quite as much as propaganda as CNN does? Technically, remember that international law is on Afghanistan's side. Also, remember that it's the U.S. that hit Afghanistan first, not the other way around.Well, I haven't noticed any significant differences in the two stations other then one is showing the Arab side and the other the American
side. Both are giving the facts pretty much equally other then variations in the numbers or the death toll, I'm thinking its somewhere between the two and A-J has much more, graphic, film footage since they're allowed into the Taliban area of the combat zone to report.
I've heard interviews with former FBI, and CIA heads, and you know what? Strangely they presented more opinion then facts. Yes, I do think people in universities know more and are more objective then the people who work for the government agencies, because let's face it. Unless you're really loyal to the government you're not gonna make it into something like the FBI and CIA. And yes, I know there are some reviews with experts on this matter. It's just that it pales in comparison to the interviews with government officials.Well, you want to know why those people work for the FBI, CIA, and other government offices? Because they are the true experts. They're the ones who are involved with the situation directly and the ones who are trained for this kind of work. You honestly think that some guy in a university somewhere for example is more of an expert about things like this then the departments that specifically train and hire people because of their expertise. You think because someone works for one of the above said institutions that they're no longer true experts on the matter, then you're dreaming. People don't get those jobs unless their true experts. Also CNN and other American news group have been consulting and interviewing experts that aren't involved with any government institution, you've probably just
missed the interviews. Larry King for instance has had several such people in his panels on his show.
Told you above why CNN would have more incentive to have more propaganda in its coverage.quote:
This is however, not to say that Al Jazzerra does not also have a large amount of propaganda in its news. It's just that CNN has an even larger amount.
Ok, so besides from your opinion, prove it?
Actually, I have. Through DUke, I can see the Al Jarrezza side of the story. Through my dad, I've seen Southeastern Asia's side of the story, and through myself, I've seen America's take on the events. Now, I admit, I'm not nearly as objective as I probably should be, but then again, I'm also human. Keep in mind, I never said that the Taliban was good or anything. I just said that in this case, the U.S. is not justified in attacking Afghanistan at this moment in time in the name of self-defense and anti-terrorism.quote:
In these times of crisis, it's often best to see both sides of the story, and then make a detailed analysis; weeding out the propaganda, and gleaming the facts out of the story, before forming an opinion.
So why aren't you?
Gee, where do I start with this one. Well, for one thing, on CNN I have seen basically, one general viewpoint. I see nothing regarding whether or not the U.S. should or shouldn't be attacking. It's rather, which method of attack will be most destructive. That doesn't sound like objectivism to me.quote:
CNN is far from objective in a time like this.
As I said above, prove it?
Really? And if they torture you in mental and physical ways, and you report it to the court, who's gonna believe you? Can you prove it? I point to the Lee Wen Ho's case, and the police shootings of the past as an example of how all law-enforcement agencies can grossly abuse their power. Also, at the end of my post, I specifically said that in time, the measure would relax.While the legislation says indefinately, its doesn't strip of the people being arrested of their right to attourny, silence, and humane treatment (no torture) and it doesn't make them guilty until proven innocent.
Really? Have you been to Russia? Do YOU know what the KGB is really like? I've already shown you how the FBI can frame people and get away it. Oh sure, there's always a system for checks and balances for everything on paper, but in reality, it's extremely easy for law-enforcers to get around the law regrading, shall we say, shady actions.Sorry, but the FBI is nothing like the old KGB. Thats like comparing Charles Manson to some kid who gets busted for selling weed at a house party. Unless you really know and understand the KGB and how they operated you can't possibly make comparisons to it. If you want a current comparison for the KGB look to the Taliban's religious police and its pretty close.
You still haven't answered my question. And as long as there's the potential for what I and many people say could happen, then we should be worried. Of course alot of Americans are so wrapped up in the illusion of freedom, justice, and liberty that they wouldn't know it if totalitarianism hit the U.S. upside the head.You're being overly paranoid to put it simply, things aren't anywhere near that bad and never will be in our life time. If anything our generation is the one that going to be flipping all this around anyways so its not really worth giving yourself a heartattack over.
Actually, are my two international conclusions really that hard to believe? Let's face it. This is a perfect opportunity to advance U.S. interests, and Bush isn't stupid enough to let this pass, and even if he is, Rumsfield isn't gonna let it slide. Also, as to my 'infered' conclusion, since I never stated it, it's not really the point of the post. Everything I stated is POSSIBLE to the best of my knowledge. Should you come up with facts that contradict my statements, I would be more then happy to change my current views.I'd say your conclusions are flawed. Mostly by the idea that you seem to be approching this with the feel that the US is massively corrupt in its government and law enforcement branches and are using facts to support your opinion.
I'll admit, I was a bit opinionated, but being human, aren't we all? I TRIED to be objective, and my point was to restore a semblance of logical reasoning and debate back into the post. Of course, time will tell whether or not I succeded. As for you, Ura, I would be delighted to no end if you took a hand at being objective. I have already been enlightened by some aspects of your post despite having disagreements with you on some things regarding my post. Also, can you really say I'm not more objective so far as say, DUke, Arhar, or even Spiderman? Again, keep in mind, throughout, I only stated that the U.S. attack on Afghanistan is not justified, and I only gave a version of what COULD happen to the U.S. government due to this incident. I admit, regarding the domestic aspect of my post, I got a bit carried away. However, nowhere did I say the Taliban was good or bad, or that the U.S. was good or bad.quote:
It is my sincere hope that after this post, objectivism will be restored.
I thought I already took care of that. *shrugs*