C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Gizmo, that's the first time I've agreed with you 100% on this (general) subject.
A
Apollo
Guest
Kudos to Ura... that was a beautiful post.
Z
Zadok001
Guest
Also congrats to Ura. Excellently phrased and researched. 
I can't say I agree with all of it (I'm having trouble agreeing with all of anything right now), but excellent work.
I can't say I agree with all of it (I'm having trouble agreeing with all of anything right now), but excellent work.
M
Multani
Guest
After reviewing all 5(!)pages of this thread and seeing DUke's outbursts, and Spiderman's seemingly arrogant replies, I think we need to put some focus back into this discussion.
As the original topic seems to have been addressed, I've decided to comment only on the topic this thread seems to have moved into.
First and foremost: Do not trust CNN or even the Al Jazzerra for that matter. While I personally am extremely biased against the U.S. news networks, in the interest of objectivity, I've decided to include Al Jazzerra as an untrustworthy news source as well. However, keep in mind that given the situation, Al Jazzerra is more credible, as I will later discuss.
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.
Third: Since I have established that Bin Laden was never truly proven guilty, the U.S. assault on Afghanistan can be viewed as aggression similar to Yugoslavia, though slightly more easy to justify. 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. 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. 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. 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.
DUke: My friend, you're leaning perilously close to ignorance, and close-mindedness. I'm not telling you to accept the U.S. version of events. All I'm saying is for you to look at the U.S. version, and the Arab version, and make a middle-ground opinion. It's dangerous to put too much faith in any one news-source. You HAVE to be objective. Do not let sentimism cloud your judgement.
Spiderman, EricBess, Daggertooth: CNN is far from objective in a time like this. When it comes to international issues regarding the U.S., do not put all your faith into CNN. Rather, look at the other side of the story. DUke has seen both sides of the story, and frankly, does see a larger picture then you do, though DUke is blinded by grief and anger, he's shutting out the U.S. version of events. Get on the web. And try to find a different version of the events.
Zadok: Just a little comment on your statement on not taking sides. By not taking sides, you yourself have created a side in and of itself. You see, no matter what, Humans CANNOT be truly objective. Objectivism is like infinity. You can get infinitely close to it, but you'll never reach it.
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. The U.S. is so paranoid, that it's slowly exchanging liberty for safety. The FBI has more power then ever before, and is evolving into something resembling the KGB of the old Soviet Union. Justice is slowly being pushed aside. The old adage of innocent until proven guilty is gone. 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?
Conclusion: With the imformation given, several conclusions can be reached.
a.) The U.S. is doing it's best to find the true perpetrators of the 9-11 incident, but in the meantime, is taking advantage of the situation by using it as an excuse to hunt down an old enemy (Bin Laden) and to attack one of it's third-world enemies (Afghanistan).
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. It is almost an imperialistic motive.
c.) The U.S. is using the incident to further strenghthen its position in the Middle-East. (I shall refrain from saying "strengthening it's world hegemony, as a world hegemony is only a loose theory and I promised to add perspective an objectivity to this thread, not impress my own ideas upon others.)
The best remedy for the current situation, is of course, time. In time, security measures will eventually relax, and the U.S. will either tire of the war, or be ousted by the international community. Either way, I personally, do not believe the U.S. will turn imperial in our lifetimes. The fact is though, this crisis has brought out a very dark aspect of America.
Comments, flames, critisms; I'm open to suggestions. You know where to post 'em. It is my sincere hope that after this post, objectivism will be restored.
As the original topic seems to have been addressed, I've decided to comment only on the topic this thread seems to have moved into.
First and foremost: Do not trust CNN or even the Al Jazzerra for that matter. While I personally am extremely biased against the U.S. news networks, in the interest of objectivity, I've decided to include Al Jazzerra as an untrustworthy news source as well. However, keep in mind that given the situation, Al Jazzerra is more credible, as I will later discuss.
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.
Third: Since I have established that Bin Laden was never truly proven guilty, the U.S. assault on Afghanistan can be viewed as aggression similar to Yugoslavia, though slightly more easy to justify. 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. 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. 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. 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.
DUke: My friend, you're leaning perilously close to ignorance, and close-mindedness. I'm not telling you to accept the U.S. version of events. All I'm saying is for you to look at the U.S. version, and the Arab version, and make a middle-ground opinion. It's dangerous to put too much faith in any one news-source. You HAVE to be objective. Do not let sentimism cloud your judgement.
Spiderman, EricBess, Daggertooth: CNN is far from objective in a time like this. When it comes to international issues regarding the U.S., do not put all your faith into CNN. Rather, look at the other side of the story. DUke has seen both sides of the story, and frankly, does see a larger picture then you do, though DUke is blinded by grief and anger, he's shutting out the U.S. version of events. Get on the web. And try to find a different version of the events.
Zadok: Just a little comment on your statement on not taking sides. By not taking sides, you yourself have created a side in and of itself. You see, no matter what, Humans CANNOT be truly objective. Objectivism is like infinity. You can get infinitely close to it, but you'll never reach it.
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. The U.S. is so paranoid, that it's slowly exchanging liberty for safety. The FBI has more power then ever before, and is evolving into something resembling the KGB of the old Soviet Union. Justice is slowly being pushed aside. The old adage of innocent until proven guilty is gone. 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?
Conclusion: With the imformation given, several conclusions can be reached.
a.) The U.S. is doing it's best to find the true perpetrators of the 9-11 incident, but in the meantime, is taking advantage of the situation by using it as an excuse to hunt down an old enemy (Bin Laden) and to attack one of it's third-world enemies (Afghanistan).
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. It is almost an imperialistic motive.
c.) The U.S. is using the incident to further strenghthen its position in the Middle-East. (I shall refrain from saying "strengthening it's world hegemony, as a world hegemony is only a loose theory and I promised to add perspective an objectivity to this thread, not impress my own ideas upon others.)
The best remedy for the current situation, is of course, time. In time, security measures will eventually relax, and the U.S. will either tire of the war, or be ousted by the international community. Either way, I personally, do not believe the U.S. will turn imperial in our lifetimes. The fact is though, this crisis has brought out a very dark aspect of America.
Comments, flames, critisms; I'm open to suggestions. You know where to post 'em. It is my sincere hope that after this post, objectivism will be restored.
D
Daggertooth
Guest
After every conflict the US has ever had there was a temporary restrain on freedoms with Concentration camps, Mcarthyism, and laws blatently against freedom of speach. I hardly think this event is different. Sure Big Brother just got a bit stronger, and there is strong opposition to anti-american sentiment, but thats just to be expected in times of crisis.
Those news Groups don't intentionaly lie. They present the story as they see it and try bring the truth to the people. The problem is that they tend to show different degrees of truth as they see fit as well as show conflicting statistics on the end of what they want. Thus they may have a 5 min blurb on an afganistan perspective then move to 55 min of american. Point is, you should be able to trust your news group to an extent, as long as you search out all other perspectives. And keep in mind that much of the details are most likely tainted with propaganda.
By the way, does Al Jazzerra have a website, I can't seem to find one.
And why is it that flames are always expected when a new idea is presented?
Daggertooth
Those news Groups don't intentionaly lie. They present the story as they see it and try bring the truth to the people. The problem is that they tend to show different degrees of truth as they see fit as well as show conflicting statistics on the end of what they want. Thus they may have a 5 min blurb on an afganistan perspective then move to 55 min of american. Point is, you should be able to trust your news group to an extent, as long as you search out all other perspectives. And keep in mind that much of the details are most likely tainted with propaganda.
By the way, does Al Jazzerra have a website, I can't seem to find one.
And why is it that flames are always expected when a new idea is presented?
Daggertooth
M
Multani
Guest
Because humans seem to hate change, and therefore greet all new ideas wil flames. It's human nature.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
I must agree with Multani here. I'm open minded enough so that when an open minded person tells me that I'm closed minded, I can take it. (Does that make sense?)
Multani, I don't believe Aljazeera 100%. I don't believe any news media 100%. I don't believe anything 100%, until it happens to me, I see it, or hear it for myself. Until I experience it. Though, I must admit, Aljazeera goes back to the history that may have lead to the attack rather than just focus on the attack itself, which is what the CNN has been doing to an extent. Aljazeera discusses why the attack happened, gives possible reasons, possible outcomes, and has execlusives interviews. Additionally, like you mentioned, an evidence has not been presented yet. I think we as a united nation, living in a just government have the right to know who caused this tragedy. Yet again, like you mentioned, the constitution is slowly being thrown away...and that's what I'm seeing right now.
Daggertooth, when a new opinion is presented, it is in fact human nature to disagree and flame. This happened with Gizmo, with Arhar, and with me...invovling this and other issues. And one more thing, here's Aljazeera's website: http://www.al-jazeera.com/, though I must warn you, it's all in Arabic that you may not be able to read, and I don't think you can veiw it in English. I never tried...
Quick translation, though -- there's a poll on the left hand side. Translated, it reads:
"After the United States bombings on Afganistan for 4 weeks, did the United States establish anything on the lines of stopping the terrorism? *Yes. *No. *I do not know.
I'll go ahead and answer it: no. Not really.
You know what sucks? I voted, and it doesn't show what others voted. I think they collect all the votes, and when they close it, they reveal the results.
I must agree with Multani here. I'm open minded enough so that when an open minded person tells me that I'm closed minded, I can take it. (Does that make sense?)
Multani, I don't believe Aljazeera 100%. I don't believe any news media 100%. I don't believe anything 100%, until it happens to me, I see it, or hear it for myself. Until I experience it. Though, I must admit, Aljazeera goes back to the history that may have lead to the attack rather than just focus on the attack itself, which is what the CNN has been doing to an extent. Aljazeera discusses why the attack happened, gives possible reasons, possible outcomes, and has execlusives interviews. Additionally, like you mentioned, an evidence has not been presented yet. I think we as a united nation, living in a just government have the right to know who caused this tragedy. Yet again, like you mentioned, the constitution is slowly being thrown away...and that's what I'm seeing right now.
Daggertooth, when a new opinion is presented, it is in fact human nature to disagree and flame. This happened with Gizmo, with Arhar, and with me...invovling this and other issues. And one more thing, here's Aljazeera's website: http://www.al-jazeera.com/, though I must warn you, it's all in Arabic that you may not be able to read, and I don't think you can veiw it in English. I never tried...
Quick translation, though -- there's a poll on the left hand side. Translated, it reads:
"After the United States bombings on Afganistan for 4 weeks, did the United States establish anything on the lines of stopping the terrorism? *Yes. *No. *I do not know.
I'll go ahead and answer it: no. Not really.
You know what sucks? I voted, and it doesn't show what others voted. I think they collect all the votes, and when they close it, they reveal the results.
D
Daggertooth
Guest
Wow! you can read that stuff.
I'm sure there's translational software somewhere. Anyone know where I can find it.
I'd vote NO on the US strikes being effective, but I don't even know where that option is, or the send button. Not to mention why vote when you don't get to see the results.
I wish CNN would report more on the origions of this conflict. I feel that the general american knows very little when it comes to this. And a historical perspective is so important when it comes to these conflicts.
Daggertooth
I'm sure there's translational software somewhere. Anyone know where I can find it.
I'd vote NO on the US strikes being effective, but I don't even know where that option is, or the send button.
Not to mention why vote when you don't get to see the results.I wish CNN would report more on the origions of this conflict. I feel that the general american knows very little when it comes to this. And a historical perspective is so important when it comes to these conflicts.
Daggertooth
D
DÛke
Guest
...
YOU CAN see the votes, I was reading throughout, and I noticed there's a little "view results" button (in Arabic). Sorry. The results are:
4.7% Yes.
94.1% No.
1.2% I do not no.
This is from 665 voters, from November 3rd to the 6th.
To vote "yes," select the top box; for "no," select the bottom. If you don't know, choose the last box. There are 2 circles under the poll. The right side one is "Submit vote," and the left side is "View results." You can also view the results before voting (cheater). The numbers are in English, so you can see it for yourself.
YOU CAN see the votes, I was reading throughout, and I noticed there's a little "view results" button (in Arabic). Sorry. The results are:
4.7% Yes.
94.1% No.
1.2% I do not no.
This is from 665 voters, from November 3rd to the 6th.
To vote "yes," select the top box; for "no," select the bottom. If you don't know, choose the last box. There are 2 circles under the poll. The right side one is "Submit vote," and the left side is "View results." You can also view the results before voting (cheater
). The numbers are in English, so you can see it for yourself.
B
Bob
Guest
Yeah, I don't think anyone should wholly believe either station. Both of the side's presses are making their side seem the hero, (Of course!) and even though i'm on the side with America, we do think we are better than anyone else, and we belive we can solve anything, which is totally untrue. Just look at Vietnam...
I think the Taliban deserves the attacks, but I dont think the attacks are stopping terrorism. I don't think either side is correct, the U.S. is a stupid bully who wants to be the hero, and does stuff recklessly, and the Taliban is just evil, even if they arent behind the attacks because of what they did to Afganistan and it's citizens, especially women.
I think the Taliban deserves the attacks, but I dont think the attacks are stopping terrorism. I don't think either side is correct, the U.S. is a stupid bully who wants to be the hero, and does stuff recklessly, and the Taliban is just evil, even if they arent behind the attacks because of what they did to Afganistan and it's citizens, especially women.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
Semantics made the world go round,
Semantics laid it low.
And from the pits there came a sound,
That none would ever know.
Semantics cranked the carousel,
A garish pastel hoax,
And then it shut the thread-bare cell,
and so all mankind croaks.
Semantics laid it low.
And from the pits there came a sound,
That none would ever know.
Semantics cranked the carousel,
A garish pastel hoax,
And then it shut the thread-bare cell,
and so all mankind croaks.
U
Ura
Guest
Multani said:
Its just like a murder investigation or a case of sexual assault. The details are always classified when the investigation is proceeding and are then presented in court. Even then if its held in a closed court situation then the media gets no access to it anyways. But thats a decision that is usually left to the presiding judge or cousel of judges to make in the interests of having a fair trial. The only reason that the information that we do know about the investigation has been released to the public is because of just how high profile this situation is. Otherwise the rest is only privy to investigators and their respective governments.
The only other broadening of police powers is that they can now arrest and hold people on suspicion of terrorism. 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. Some people scream discrimination over it, but when the alternative is to let possible suspects walk around until their plan is in progress or its after the fact its not that bad an idea. I'd rather live with that then see another sky scraper come down. The people who do get picked up may spend a week or two in jail, get questioned and have their backgrounds poked apart. Oh well, I personally don't find that so horrible compared to other alternatives. I've had my background picked apart and searched through once already and it didn't do anything to my life, I just didn't get kept in a holding area for the time period.
*shrugs*
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.
Its just like a murder investigation or a case of sexual assault. The details are always classified when the investigation is proceeding and are then presented in court. Even then if its held in a closed court situation then the media gets no access to it anyways. But thats a decision that is usually left to the presiding judge or cousel of judges to make in the interests of having a fair trial. The only reason that the information that we do know about the investigation has been released to the public is because of just how high profile this situation is. Otherwise the rest is only privy to investigators and their respective governments.
You've proven nothing, you've just given your opinion on the situation from your perspective.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, so besides from your opinion, prove it?
So why aren't you?
As I said above, prove it?
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.
The only other broadening of police powers is that they can now arrest and hold people on suspicion of terrorism. 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. Some people scream discrimination over it, but when the alternative is to let possible suspects walk around until their plan is in progress or its after the fact its not that bad an idea. I'd rather live with that then see another sky scraper come down. The people who do get picked up may spend a week or two in jail, get questioned and have their backgrounds poked apart. Oh well, I personally don't find that so horrible compared to other alternatives. I've had my background picked apart and searched through once already and it didn't do anything to my life, I just didn't get kept in a holding area for the time period.
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'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.
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.
This crisis has brought out the dark sides in everybody unfortunatly, but thats what you get with an over developed yet primitive species.
I thought I already took care of that.
*shrugs*
A
Apollo
Guest
I mostly agree with Ura on all counts. However, there was one conclusion of Multani's that I agreed with:
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.
M
Mr.Gnome
Guest
I completly agree with everything that Ura has said, i have been watching this thread and have read about everything. I was about to post something but Ura said about everything i had to say. Apollo ~ Just because they want you to say the pledge every day doesn't mean you have to do it, they cannot make you say it. I ussually don't say the pledge of alliegence because i find it very stoopid to repeat the same thing every day.
D
Daggertooth
Guest
Those "headliners" had nothing to do with our new found patriotism. A disaster like this tends to allways bring people together. Especialy when it vibrates throught our entire society.
The US has always tried to make sure everyone was loyal. Why else do you have to repeat the pledg every day in elementary and learn so much history of just the US? In times of crisis it the population gets scared of contriversial ideas. Wich is why alternat oppinions contrary to the US are not well accepted with most people. And the reason Patriotism is so high.
As for the Pledg of Alligence, How stupid is it to demonstrate your patriotism? How stupid is it to proclaim your loyalty to your country? As stupid as saying a prayer everyday befor every meal and before you sleep, I suppose.
Daggertooth
The US has always tried to make sure everyone was loyal. Why else do you have to repeat the pledg every day in elementary and learn so much history of just the US? In times of crisis it the population gets scared of contriversial ideas. Wich is why alternat oppinions contrary to the US are not well accepted with most people. And the reason Patriotism is so high.
As for the Pledg of Alligence, How stupid is it to demonstrate your patriotism? How stupid is it to proclaim your loyalty to your country? As stupid as saying a prayer everyday befor every meal and before you sleep, I suppose.
Daggertooth
G
Gizmo
Guest
Are you allowed to not say the Pledge Of Allegiance? I mean, if you wanted could you just stand there and stick your middle finger up at the flag if you wanted to?
This is a serious question, Ive no idea how the US system works. But if you cant do that, then I think that is a very bad way of doing it.
If I wasnt a christian Id object to being forced to say a prayer every night - Id feel it was a fundamental infringment on my rights and freedoms as a human being.
This is a serious question, Ive no idea how the US system works. But if you cant do that, then I think that is a very bad way of doing it.
If I wasnt a christian Id object to being forced to say a prayer every night - Id feel it was a fundamental infringment on my rights and freedoms as a human being.
Z
Zadok001
Guest
Technically, yes. Realistically, no. The teacher will ask you to leave the classroom if you do not participate. At least, that's how it was when I was young, and tried that.
American "freedom" is usually limited to either doing what you're told, or doing nothing.
American "freedom" is usually limited to either doing what you're told, or doing nothing.
M
Mongoose Man
Guest
By law they cannot do anything to you for not saying the pledge, if they punished you for it then you can sue them for infringing your rights. Im shure if you flipped off the flag you would get in trouble for using that gesture tho. I haven't said the pledge since fourth grade when i decided it pointless to repeat the stoopid thing every friken morning. Im only in 8th grade rite now but i kno that they cannot do anything to me for not pledging my alliegence, i would feel nervious pledgeing my alliegence to anything.
M
Multani
Guest
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 give
a rat's behind about it, but then again, that's what the FBI wants isn't it? You must admit, under the circumstances you described, it's extremely easy for the government to falsely convict someone of crimes they never commited...I mean, any information that could prove you innocent is conveniently classifed. Which brings to mind whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if I were suddenly one day questioned by the FBI as to my alleged 'spying' activities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Told you above why CNN would have more incentive to have more propaganda in its coverage.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
I apologize thus far for expressing any personal opinions, but so far, I've tried to be as logical in my reasoning of the statements making as I possibly can.
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'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.quote:
It is my sincere hope that after this post, objectivism will be restored.
I thought I already took care of that.
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.Any other replies are welcome. Again, I look forward to all replies and calm and logical views on this subject.