# Constitutional Right to emit radiation?



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10588528/

Apparently some are upset that the US government has impeded on their constitutionally protected rights to emit radiation.

Someone explain to me, please, just exactly how someone's rights are being infringed upon by scanning the air for radiation.  Just exactly HOW is that, in any reasonable way, an invasion of privacy?  What possible private concerns can be undermined by scanning for radiological weapons?

There's no eaves dropping, there's no singling out of any particular person, there's not even any interference whatsoever with the every day comings and goings.  In fact, no one even knows it's going on.  It isn't listening on people's private conversations, or reading their private documents, or even watching them.  It is scanning for radiation.

What's more, it's being done on public property. From a constitutional rights perspective, you are not required to have a warrant on public property.  You can conduct surveillance without a warrant on public property.  So where's the invasion?  Maybe someone could shed some light for me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

While I have a problem with some of the privacy issues previously mentioned, scanning for biohazards, radiological, or similar strikes me as one of the things they should be doing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> While I have a problem with some of the privacy issues previously mentioned, scanning for biohazards, radiological, or similar strikes me as one of the things they should be doing.


 I know, right? Seems a no brainer for me.  There is no invasion of privacy...so long as you aren't emitting radiation.  And IF I was unknowingly emitting that much radiation...I'd kind of like to know.  

The fact that someone would believe this is an invasion of privacy strikes me as....bizarre.


I think what have here is an effort to 'pile on' on the whole administration 'surveillance' scandal.  There are, arguably, some issues, like you said, that need to be addressed.  This one, however, isn't one of them.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

The 'invasion of privacy' issue doesn't seem to quite describe the problem. It does sound like a 'right-wing' talking point however. Which would be a slippery slope indeed - because then it would open up other 'invasion of privacy' issues, which might be legitimate ... such as, abortion, say.

A more realistic issue might very well be the 'targeting' of the system.


If one wants to catch 'speeders', one sets up a speed trap on the road ... because that is where the 'speeders' are.

If one wants to catch 'illegal nuclear emmissions', on sets up the trap .... let's see ... where could we do it .... Oh, yeah, how about places where Muslem's gather, like Mosques. 

And ... while most officials refuse to be quoted on this issue ... here is one quote



> "We categorically do not target places of worship or entities solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation. Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."


 
And yet, the off-the-record comments seem to indicate that most of the 120 monitoring sites were, indeed, focused at Muslem citizens of the United States.


.... if you aren't doing anything with that First Amendment right now ....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

Considering that they see the biggest threat as extremist islamic terrorists, I would have to agree with them looking in the most likely spots. Looking at the local YMCA probably wouldn't be a good idea. They do have evidence of support in this country for terroristic actions from fringe members of the islamic community. Makes sense to start there.  After all, you wouldn't monitor Kmart for speeders.  I would be upset if I found out they scanned me, but, I'd rather have them scan me and find my neighbor, than not scan me and I end up as a crispy critter.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Considering that they see the biggest threat as extremist islamic terrorists, I would have to agree with them looking in the most likely spots. Looking at the local YMCA probably wouldn't be a good idea. They do have evidence of support in this country for terroristic actions from fringe members of the islamic community. Makes sense to start there. After all, you wouldn't monitor Kmart for speeders. I would be upset if I found out they scanned me, but, I'd rather have them scan me and find my neighbor, than not scan me and I end up as a crispy critter.


 
You don't ring a doorbell with a bazooka.

If the goal is to find extremist Islamic terrorists, it would seem that scanning public places is a rather random way of going about it. That's a lot of resources looking at a lot of innocent citizens on the off chance of finding, maybe, something. 

And, if you're looking for 'radiation', why are you monitoring nuclear power plants, nuclear weapon facilities, and the like. Isn't that where the radiation is kept? 

I would prefer they just go to Northern Pakistan and find Osama bin Laden.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 24, 2005)

I'm nearly certain that the authorities overseeing this monitoring would much rather have the option to monitor indiscriminately, disregarding cost considerations and man power problems.  I have a sneaky feeling that there are likely a few restrictions there.

So, when pennies need to be pinched, what is the intelligent choice?  Selecting locations with a higher likelihood of providing results seems to be a good one.  Finding ways to make the program as efficient and effective as possible doesn't seem to me to be a malicious activity... it's simply intelligent spending.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would prefer they just go to Northern Pakistan and find Osama bin Laden.


Though helpful, I don't for a second believe that this would significantly increase the safety of Americans.  I think that this homeland security stuff you guys are doing will never, ever go away.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 24, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Though helpful, I don't for a second believe that this would significantly increase the safety of Americans.  I think that this homeland security stuff you guys are doing will never, ever go away.


Unfortunately, you're probably right.  Because we are a nation of fearful citizens and that is not by accident.  And we all know that the more fearful we are the more tolerant we are of a stronghand to "protect us."  And the more power we are willing to give them. It seems many of us would rather be imprisoned without freedom too just as long as they got the bad guy as well.

*looks around for bad guy ....*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

Radiation isn't radiation. The "signature" of a power plant is different than than of a bomb. I suspect that in those cases they are looking for a difference from what is "normal" for the area being monitored.

As to the secret police, nope. It's here to stay. At least we aren't required to keep our TVs on 24/7 yet.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you're probably right. Because we are a nation of fearful citizens and that is not by accident. And we all know that the more fearful we are the more tolerant we are of a stronghand to "protect us." And the more power we are willing to give them. It seems many of us would rather be imprisoned without freedom too just as long as they got the bad guy as well.
> 
> *looks around for bad guy ....*


 
I think the 'nation of fearful citizens' comment is dead on.

I refuse to be fearful, which may explain why my voice seems the loudest (on this board at least) concerning the 4th Amendment abuses revealed in the past week. 

I believe Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' book opens with a chapter on 'There is on Terrorist Threat'. 

I am aggrevated every time I have to remove my shoes when I get on an airplane. I do *not* feel any safer because of that action. 

I think those most justifying the actions of the NSA, are, perhaps, the most fearful among us.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am aggrevated every time I have to remove my shoes when I get on an airplane. I do *not* feel any safer because of that action.


 
Here's the problem tho... and Im with you, it aggrivates me, and its one of the reasons I almost never fly anymore... but check it out...

Guy gets on a plane with a shoe full of explosives.  Now we have to "de-shoe".  Much like Kid goes into school with a gun, now we have to pass thru metal detectors... 

It happenes, they look for a "Simple" solution.  And honestly, its obnoxious but probably DOES make things safer, because _*my*_ twisted mind picks thing up like that... If I saw that guy with the shoe bombs get busted, and they went "Hey hey, well, wanst he clever, but c'mon, whos gonna try it again" and did nothing... I would file that away as a way to get explosives on a plane SHOULD I EVER NEED TO... which means the people who think they DO need to would probably think exactly the same thing.  

Besides, Id rather take my shoes off then go thru one of those airports that use x-ray vision cameras to look at my willie.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

Let me first send my condolances to your willy. I'dl be worried about a mob scene if I walked through one of those machines.

And, I don't believes it makes us any safer because, as the President has stated, the terrorists can 'adapt'.  If someone has bad designs, and they know shoes are getting looked at, they'll find another way to accomplish their objectives. 

After watching my wife get frisked post 911, I, like many others, figure there has to be a more intelligent way. 

I actually think now, I am less concerned with safety. Maybe it would be better if we spent all the security money (or at least some of it) on landing gears and reverse thrusters for airplanes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A more realistic issue might very well be the 'targeting' of the system.
> 
> If one wants to catch 'illegal nuclear emmissions', on sets up the trap .... let's see ... where could we do it .... Oh, yeah, how about places where Muslem's gather, like Mosques.
> 
> ...


 
Let us not forget the shameful acts of our nation during World War II, when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese-American citizens to intern camps, basically Prisoner of War Camps on our own soil, just because they shared an ethnic history with one of our wartime enemies.  We are supposed to learn from these past mistakes.  We said "never again", but here we are, heading down that same road.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Besides, Id rather take my shoes off then go thru one of those airports that use x-ray vision cameras to look at my willie.


 
Hey, if ya got it, flaunt it!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You don't ring a doorbell with a bazooka.
> 
> If the goal is to find extremist Islamic terrorists, it would seem that scanning public places is a rather random way of going about it. That's a lot of resources looking at a lot of innocent citizens on the off chance of finding, maybe, something.
> 
> ...


 Kind of a bogus argument, as what they are LOOKING for is evidence of illegal weapons.

What's, i'm going to go out on a limb here and argue, since the technology they are using is classified, that they are scanning (passively) for Muslims visiting mosques who have come in contact with radiation and emitting abnormally high levels of it.

Now, what are the odd's that a devoit and radical muslim, intent on detonating some sort of radiological bomb, visiting a MOSQUE?  I'd say...better than average.

What's more, being a passive scan, from a public place like a parking lot, NO one's rights, first amendment or otherwise, are impacted upon.  You are not invading anyone's privacy, you are not restricted their movements.  Heck, if they don't show up positive for radation, you won't even know who you've scanned.

Personally, I could care less.  This is no more of a violation of rights that getting radared as you fly down the interestate.  As a matter of fact, since the tests are passive, rather than active, they are LESS intrusive than police radar.


I also might add, that those complaining the LOUDEST are also those who criticized the president the MOST for intervening with Islamic extremists visiting US flight schools, a fact that, had the government intervened in, those same people would be making the same arguments they are making now.

This isn't based on fear, it's based on sound reasoning.  What's more, as i've pointed out before, I don't support whole sale surveillance of US citizens.  I support going where the problem is.  That's the difference.  Some want WHOLESALE monitoring, because it's 'fair'.... To heck with 'fair'.  Go after the problem.  If that problem happens to the threat of radiological weapons from a certain segment of society, then by all means passively monitor them for radiation from a public parking lot.  

Many of you have confused dislike for the President, for attacking even reasonable investigative methods.  It's a purely emotional response.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Kind of a bogus argument, as what they are LOOKING for is evidence of illegal weapons.
> 
> What's, i'm going to go out on a limb here and argue, since the technology they are using is classified, that they are scanning (passively) for Muslims visiting mosques who have come in contact with radiation and emitting abnormally high levels of it.
> 
> ...


 
I dont think the real objection is whether or not civil rights have been directly violated, but rather that this kind of activity is a targeting of a certain ethnic and religious group on a broad scale by the government.  This is a step in the direction of demonizing and scapegoating a broad group of people.  Once the government takes a step down that dangerous road, it becomes easier and easier to take the next step after that.  Eventually, we end up with things like Internment camps like Japanese-Americans were put into during WWII, or worse yet, the Jewish Holocaust.  While these may be extreme examples, they all started out as something that the people of the time considered "modest" and "reasonable" and grew into something terrible.  It is this trend in our government's activities that people find objectionable.

Muslims and Arab-Americans are becomming the scapegoat for this administration.  They want Americans to be constantly afraid, and that is easier to do when there is a minority group who can be demonized and scapegoated.  The administration wants Americans to believe that any Muslim or Arab is a potential terrorist or enemy of the state.

In reading the online article, I did not get the impression that what they were hoping to find was individuals who are emitting unusual amounts of radiation, (i.e. "badguys" who were exposed to radiation in the middle east before slipping illegally into the US to commit terrorist acts) but rather looking for a source of radiation kept at the mosques that would indicate there are activities going on centered around building some kind of a dirty bomb with radioactive material.  Making a broad assumption that mosques and other centers of Muslim and Arab activity in the US are going to be hotbeds of terrorist activity is racist, and goes a long way in sending a message to other Americans that they not only need to be constantly afraid, but specifically be afraid of Muslims and Arabs.  This casts suspicion on all Muslims and Arabs, making people question and suspect their neigbors for no good reason, and is wrong, plain and simple.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 25, 2005)

I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...

I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?

If you were going to Buy _*Christmas*_ presents, would you do it for a Christian  or a Jew?

If a group of radical muslums was blowing things up all over the world, would you look for a group of Buddist monks?

I mean... come on now... 

Scanning for radiation in a place its *more* likey to be found makes... well... sense...  But if you are really worried about it, you can tell them to come sit outside my house and scan.  Sure... its a waste of time.  But its fair right?

I mean hell, Im not a shoplifter but I am passivly scanned for stolen merchandise everytime I leave a store... what about MY rights If it goes off by accident, everone around me will assume I am a shoplifter, and thats not right!!!
​


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...
> 
> I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?
> 
> ...


 

You have good points, and this is what makes this a difficult issue.

If there is a solid suspicion that a specific individual, or group of specific individuals, or specific mosque is engaged in dangerous activity, then they should be monitored to determine if there is a legitimate threat.  But to blanket an entire group of people because of a shared ethnic or religious history is inappropriate.

When we walk out of a store, we are all often scanned for stolen merchandise.  Modern technology makes this possible.  What makes it acceptable is that it is done across the board without discrimination (assuming, of course, that the scanners themselves do not create a health threat).  If you don't want to be scanned you have the option to not shop at that store.  But by way of comparison, what if the store made a policy that only African-Americans would be scanned, based on some statistic that our prison populations contain a higher percentage of African-Americans?  We would all be outraged, and nobody would deny the racism in that activity.

When the government conducts secret monitoring like this, there is no "opt-out" opportunity, like choosing to not shop at the store that conducts scanning.  And remember, these people who are being monitored by the government are US Citizens.  Unless specific people are targeted for monitoring, there can be no claim that only non-US citizens are being targeted, who might not be entitled to the same protections and rights under US law.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno... I can see justification to these methods...
> 
> I mean, if I commited a series of Murders and they knew it was a white guy who did it would it make sense to haul a bunch of Black men in for a lineup?
> ​


​ 

If they knew a white guy was committing murders, they would haul in someone who fit the description.  But the description requires more than just the fact that you are white.  If every white guy in the neighborhood was hauled in based on the fact that he is white, we would be outraged.  We need to go after specific people against whom there is a solid body of evidence to make them suspect.  Just because someone shares an ethnic or religious background with the real bad guys does not make them somehow guilty by association.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 25, 2005)

After 911 it was all "how come with all our intelligence gathering agencies and technologies we were not able to find and stop these people".

Now its "All this Homeland Security stuff is bull****, we are too paranoid."

People are freakin amazing. I just watched that special on discovery channel about the flight that fought back on 911 and it made me so angry. Angry at the people and organizations that did it and applauded it and angry at Americans who seem to have already forgotten about it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> After 911 it was all "how come with all our intelligence gathering agencies and technologies we were not able to find and stop these people".
> 
> Now its "All this Homeland Security stuff is bull****, we are too paranoid."
> 
> People are freakin amazing. I just watched that special on discovery channel about the flight that fought back on 911 and it made me so angry. Angry at the people and organizations that did it and applauded it and angry at Americans who seem to have already forgotten about it.


 
Nobody has forgotten 9/11, and nobody should.  However, the world is, unfortunately, a violent place.  To believe that we can make the US completely safe from any further attack on any level, is unrealistic.  Yes, we will be attacked again at some point, as we have been in the past, but this will happen no matter what level of security the government puts into place.  Yes, the government needs to take reasonable steps to safeguard the citizens of this country, but some of their actions deserve scrutiny as they could very easily get out of control.  If fear and paranoia are cultivated well enough, as the current administration seems to be trying to do, our nation will become a fascist police-state.  Nobody wants this.

We will always be a target for attack by people who hate us.  These people don't hate us for the simple reasons that the White House wants us to believe.  They don't "hate our freedom" like Bush tells us.  The real issues are far far more complex.  We as a nation, for decades, have treated other nations in ways that have made them hate us.  We have pushed them around both economically and militarily and taken advantage of them for our gain, while giving them little or nothing in return.  Until we wise-up to this, take a good hard look at our past actions, acknowledge our mistakes as a nation, and take serious steps to change our behavior toward other, weaker nations, especially weaker nations who have natural resources that we want, we will continue to be hated.

I hate to say this, but the events of 9/11 were in many ways brought upon us by our own actions.  There is no single event or action that this can be connected to, but rather a long history of actions that have offended, insulted, or manipulated people in other parts of the world.  There is a very very big picture that the events of 9/11 are only one small part of.  We need to pull back and look at this big picture to understand the full situation.  Only then will we begin to understand what can be done to repair our relationships with other nations, and only then will we lessen our liklihood to be attacked again.

To some nations in the world, The US with the Bush Administration in particular, are seen as the single largest threat to world peace.  Some people may write off these nations as rogue or insignificant, or extremists who don't matter, but the fact is, they do matter.  These are the very same nations from which the extremists who do our nation harm come from.  Like it or not, their opinion does matter.  They are the one's who need to be convinced that the US has good intentions, but this is a tough message to deliver when we deliver it down the barrel of a cannon.  While many of these nations have oppressive regimes, regime change needs to start at home.  It needs to come from the people, not have it imposed upon them by the US military.

The US is a nation that sponsors terrorism.  The CIA, by our own definitions, is the world's largest, best organized, best funded, State-sponsored terrorist organization.  The CIA has used fear through torture and assassinations, has taught other regimes how to use torture, has supplied weapons and training (including to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein) and encouraged civil wars, has assassinated political leaders, made people disappear, and undermined elected governments all over the world, to further the political and economic gains of the US.  We are a terrorist nation, through the agency of the CIA.  Yet we hypocritically accuse others of terrorism and extremism and call them the "bad guys".

This is what makes people around the world hate us.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I dont think the real objection is whether or not civil rights have been directly violated, but rather that this kind of activity is a targeting of a certain ethnic and religious group on a broad scale by the government. This is a step in the direction of demonizing and scapegoating a broad group of people. Once the government takes a step down that dangerous road, it becomes easier and easier to take the next step after that. Eventually, we end up with things like Internment camps like Japanese-Americans were put into during WWII, or worse yet, the Jewish Holocaust. While these may be extreme examples, they all started out as something that the people of the time considered "modest" and "reasonable" and grew into something terrible. It is this trend in our government's activities that people find objectionable.


 What religious affiliation are all the members of al-Qaeda again?  Wouldn't really make much sense to check for radiation among the Amish.  



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Muslims and Arab-Americans are becomming the scapegoat for this administration. They want Americans to be constantly afraid, and that is easier to do when there is a minority group who can be demonized and scapegoated. The administration wants Americans to believe that any Muslim or Arab is a potential terrorist or enemy of the state.


 Scape goats?! You are aware that the vast majority of terrorist who have attacked the US and other nations in recent years, the overwhelming amount, have been Arab Islamic men between the ages of 17 and 45, right?  I mean, that FACT has not escaped you, has it?  Perhaps you'd prefer we started randomly scanning old ladies walking down the street, like at the airport!  The idiotic belief that we must AVOID directly investigating where the problem most likely is, to avoid offending anyone, is beyond me.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> In reading the online article, I did not get the impression that what they were hoping to find was individuals who are emitting unusual amounts of radiation, (i.e. "badguys" who were exposed to radiation in the middle east before slipping illegally into the US to commit terrorist acts) but rather looking for a source of radiation kept at the mosques that would indicate there are activities going on centered around building some kind of a dirty bomb with radioactive material. Making a broad assumption that mosques and other centers of Muslim and Arab activity in the US are going to be hotbeds of terrorist activity is racist, and goes a long way in sending a message to other Americans that they not only need to be constantly afraid, but specifically be afraid of Muslims and Arabs. This casts suspicion on all Muslims and Arabs, making people question and suspect their neigbors for no good reason, and is wrong, plain and simple.


 Well, mosques in the middle east are used as bases of operations and safe havens for muslim extremists, why is this such a leap?  

Moreover, I don't quite get your distinction between scanning the bad guys for radiation and scanning the mosques for radiation.  If there's a radiological bomb on either one, I want to know.  

What's more, my friend, since this was a secret operation, it certainly doesn't seem designed to make YOU or anyone ELSE afraid.  More likely, they were operating on the, I BELIEVE QUITE CORRECT, assumption that there are still islamic terrorists operating in the US who wish to attack us.

So, your paranoia about 'them trying to keep you in FEAR' seems grounded mostly in paranoid delusions.  If this served that purpose, it wouldn't have been a 'secret' operation, only revealed after someone leaked it in hopes of damaging the administration.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Nobody has forgotten 9/11, and nobody should. However, the world is, unfortunately, a violent place. To believe that we can make the US completely safe from any further attack on any level, is unrealistic. Yes, we will be attacked again at some point, as we have been in the past, but this will happen no matter what level of security the government puts into place. Yes, the government needs to take reasonable steps to safeguard the citizens of this country, but some of their actions deserve scrutiny as they could very easily get out of control. If fear and paranoia are cultivated well enough, as the current administration seems to be trying to do, our nation will become a fascist police-state. Nobody wants this.


 In other words, folks, just bend over and grab your ankles, and hope the bad man don't do it too much, right?



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> We will always be a target for attack by people who hate us. These people don't hate us for the simple reasons that the White House wants us to believe. They don't "hate our freedom" like Bush tells us. The real issues are far far more complex. We as a nation, for decades, have treated other nations in ways that have made them hate us. We have pushed them around both economically and militarily and taken advantage of them for our gain, while giving them little or nothing in return. Until we wise-up to this, take a good hard look at our past actions, acknowledge our mistakes as a nation, and take serious steps to change our behavior toward other, weaker nations, especially weaker nations who have natural resources that we want, we will continue to be hated.


 More myths about Islamic fundamentalism based on the outdated 'socialist' model of world history (i.e. everything is the result of US imperialism ala soviet propaganda that is still reverberating far beyond the death of that government).  

Islamic fundamentalism has been expansionist for a millenia.  What they want, isn't us out of their affairs, what they want is to return to the glory days when they were on the offensive, that ended at Vienna in 1683, when European forces routed the Islamic armies, and pursued them back to their old borders.  

It isn't the US that Islamic Fundamentalists hate, it's the fact that infidels are in power anywhere.

If it was just the US, then why is there war and conflict ANYWHERE the Islamic world touches the non-islamic?  Sudan, Israel, India, Thailand, the Phillipines, on and on and on.  Anywhere Islamic populations touch non-islamic, fundamentalists groups engage in violence against their non-islamic neighbors.

It is very clear that they take the proclaimation that there exist only two abodes in this world, the abode of islam and the abode of war, quite literally.  Moderate muslims don't take this literally, but fundamentalist extremist muslims certainly do.

Ignorance, however, is in trying to apply socialist views to Islamic fundamentalists.  They hate, EVEN MORE, than christian Americans, secular Americans.  At least christians, in their view, are considered children of the book.  Atheists and other non-believers are considered blasphemers.

The rest of your post is the same conspiratorial drivel I come to expect from those who buy in to the socialist view of history and politics.  Again, it's the same old leftist propaganda recycled.  The problem is that many on the left desire to view the islamic terrorists as simply just brothers in the struggle against 'the big baddies', which leftists define as the US in general, and Bush and republicans in particular.

Problem is, Islamic Terrorists don't have any love for you either, and would just as gladly remove your head from your shoulders as they would mine.

Inane Michael Moore 'scare tactics' talking points don't an argument make.  Especially when he, and many like him, are completely IGNORANT to the far longer history involved here and how continues to apply.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In other words, folks, just bend over and grab your ankles, and hope the bad man don't do it too much, right?
> 
> More myths about Islamic fundamentalism based on the outdated 'socialist' model of world history (i.e. everything is the result of US imperialism ala soviet propaganda that is still reverberating far beyond the death of that government).
> 
> ...


 
well, you don't have to agree with me, but until we step back and take a look at the bigger picture and recognize that we as a nation have more that just a little responsibility for our own woes, we will continue to have problems.  Denying this isn't going to help matters.  I am not in any way justifying what happened on 9/11, but at the same time, we as a nation are far from being pure blameless victims here.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Problem is, Islamic Terrorists don't have any love for you either, and would just as gladly remove your head from your shoulders as they would mine.


 
of course.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 26, 2005)

Lots of victims of crime have responsibility for their woes too. Hanging out in bad places, flashing lots of money, letting themselves get drunk when they are among strangers, and the like. Just because they did things that allowd themselves to become victims doesnt make what the other guys did right or even understandable. Saying that plane loads of working people and children somehow deserved 911 and that we deserved it is plain wrong. Tell the parents of some murederd child that they bear some responsibility because they didnt watch their child close enough. That was one of the most disturbing posts I have read. I dont get how Americans have gotten that way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Saying that plane loads of working people and children somehow deserved 911 and that we deserved it is plain wrong. Tell the parents of some murederd child that they bear some responsibility because they didnt watch their child close enough. That was one of the most disturbing posts I have read. I dont get how Americans have gotten that way.


 
I have NEVER EVER suggested that plainloads of citizens deserved what happened to them on 9/11.  Do not twist what I have said.  

I am only pointing out that OUR OWN GOVERNMENT has, for decades (and this is not a Republican, or Democrat thing, because all administrations, like the current one, have contributed to this) treated other people around the world with distain and a tremendous lack of respect, and this is what causes people to hate us and strike at us.  NEVER have I suggested that the people who suffered in these attacks deserved what they got.

I am suggesting that we need to recognize the decades of history that lead up to the events of 9/11, and we need to change our nation's activity on an international level, in order to head-off further attacks like 9/11.  Hiding our collective head in the sand and refusing to recognize this will inevitably lead to more attacks in the future.  Our nation's actions around the globe have repercussions, and we saw a terrible example of those repercussions on 9/11, something that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

But do not ever accuse me of saying that the individual victims of 9/11 deserved what happened that day.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, I don't believes it makes us any safer because, as the President has stated, the terrorists can 'adapt'. If someone has bad designs, and they know shoes are getting looked at, they'll find another way to accomplish their objectives.


 
True, but at least we are forcing them to think and change plans.  If we did... nothing... and made it EASY on them... I have to wonder if we would see more of it... rather than a slowdown as they test the waters, see what they can and cant get away with... etc...  

If you planned one day to walk into a courtroom and shoot a judge, and then someone tried and they put in metal detectors... obviously that would put a dent in your plans more than if they did not... you might go in several times... see who they check, who they dont etc etc... as opposed to if they had done nothing and you just walked in and shot him.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> True, but at least we are forcing them to think and change plans. If we did... nothing... and made it EASY on them... I have to wonder if we would see more of it... rather than a slowdown as they test the waters, see what they can and cant get away with... etc...
> 
> If you planned one day to walk into a courtroom and shoot a judge, and then someone tried and they put in metal detectors... obviously that would put a dent in your plans more than if they did not... you might go in several times... see who they check, who they dont etc etc... as opposed to if they had done nothing and you just walked in and shot him.


 
You make the assumption that there *has been* a slow down? On what basis, I wonder?

We have no idea what their plans are or were. 

As easy as it is for some to imagine the color-coded heighten alert system has 'slowed down' the plans of al Qaeda, it is for me to imagine they have taken a 'wait-and-see' attitude toward the New Caliphate as George Bush provides for them much which they could not acquire for themselves .... 

U.S. Freedom under attack from with ...
An Shi'ite government in Iraq ...
New Terrorist training camps against real targets.


----------



## still learning (Dec 26, 2005)

Hello, Today world is different, todays bombs are larger and more dangerous.

The American people should have the right for someone to find radiation signatures.  

Remember our constitutional was written in a different time and type of world.

Today if they were alive I am sure things would have been written a little different.

Take religion when they wrote separation of church and goverment. They meant that religion cannot play politics or make rules basis on religion.

Yet they Ben and the others did not mean to remove the word god,10 commendament from goverment buildings. Prayers in schools and so on....we got carry away. 

They did mean we can practice religion everywhere....but not to let it rule our laws.

Why do you think congress have their own prayers before starting.....

America was built on belief's of God.....to right to worship him in our own ways........Not total separations................Aloha

Coins " In God we Trust"  who else can we trust?    "Bush"?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You make the assumption that there *has been* a slow down? On what basis, I wonder?


 
Prolly on the same evidence you assume there HASN'T been.  

If you re-read my post I said that as a hypothetical...



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if we would see more of it...


 
See? I said I wonder IF... not we would have.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As easy as it is for some to imagine the color-coded heighten alert system has 'slowed down' the plans of al Qaeda,


 
There is a big difference between taking real action like searching people and scanning Mosques for bombs and Creating a system of colors to use as a code.  Even you know that.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2005)

Something about the 4th Amendment?

Privacy, illegal search and seizure?

Scanning specific locations without a warrant is just as illegal as wiretapping without a warrant, or simply entering a building to physically search without a warrant.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Prolly on the same evidence you assume there HASN'T been.
> 
> If you re-read my post I said that as a hypothetical...
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I do not there is a difference among the actions taken. I have used one of the actions the government has taken as an example, hopefully representative of all the legal actions taken by the government. It is certainly the 'highest profile' action taken (or at least it was high profile before the election, eh?).

Yes, I understand your discussion was a hypothetical. Which hypothetical is more probable? 

That we have slowed them down.
That we have not slowed them down.

New York, 2001 
Bali, 2002 
Jakarta, 2003
Madrid, 2004 
London, 2005

Attacks seem to continue. Can we be certain we are looking in the right direction? Are we doing for Osama bin Laden that which he couldn't do himself?

Did we remove a secular leader from a major middle east country?
If they are attacking us, as the President likes to say, 'because of our freedoms', are we restricting those freedoms to secure security?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Something about the 4th Amendment?
> 
> Privacy, illegal search and seizure?
> 
> Scanning specific locations without a warrant is just as illegal as wiretapping without a warrant, or simply entering a building to physically search without a warrant.


 
I don't think any citizen can expect privacy in a public place. Setting up monitoring devices in the town square, I don't believe, violates the forth amendment. I think there is some question about the targets of some of the sampling devices.

Yes, profiling is an important tool in law enforcement. But, when the vast majority of 120 sampling sites are directed at Muslem's, the citizens can legitimately question if they are free to practice their religion.

This is a difficult question. Much more difficult than the wiretapping issue (or the Abramoff issue, or the Plame issue, or the Curveball issue, or the Padilla issue, or the .... well, you get the point). 

I don't know the answer on this one. Although, I think accepting the possibility, and probability of future attacks is a prudent place to start. We can not be made completely secure. At least, not without turning into the a totalitarian, facsist state. I am not willing to surrender to that.

So, while honest people can disagree where the line should be drawn, on this issue. I think it should be pulled back quite a bit. Secure our chemical, biological and nuclear sites. Send money to Russia more quickly to secure their nuclear sites. And stop putting the gieger counters outside churches.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> New York, 2001
> Bali, 2002
> Jakarta, 2003
> Madrid, 2004
> ...


 
But are WE providing the security measures in Jakarta, Bali, Madrid, and London?  Or were they just easier targets?

Again... We dont know... *I* am trying to think about it like I am in their position, and looking at what *I* would do... and one thing I would do is go for the easiest target that would do the most damage... so Im not gonna try an bypass any "hard" security... I'd go for fast dirty and easy... 
Was that Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, and London?  Maybe.  It certainly WAS New York in 01


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, when the vast majority of 120 sampling sites are directed at Muslem's, the citizens can legitimately question if they are free to practice their religion.


 
Can you offer me a legitimate reason passive scanning around mosques interferes with someone freedom to practice religion, unless maybe we snatch em for for taking the Sacramental Plutonium to the altar...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 26, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Something about the 4th Amendment?
> 
> Privacy, illegal search and seizure?
> 
> Scanning specific locations without a warrant is just as illegal as wiretapping without a warrant, or simply entering a building to physically search without a warrant.



I found this.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/kyllo.htm

That does not appear to be entirely true.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Can you offer me a legitimate reason passive scanning around mosques interferes with someone freedom to practice religion, unless maybe we snatch em for for taking the Sacramental Plutonium to the altar...


 
Nope. 

Except, the slippery slope argument. I am thinking of Monk's role in that Danzell Washington/Bruce Willis film. A good upright arab police officer, rounded up and brought to the football stadium under and sanctioned off with all the other swarthy looking men. I just don't think that is a country I want to live in. .... that whole "with liberty and justice, for all" thing.

And, it seems to be casting a wide net, with very big holes in it. I have to imagine there is a more intelligent way of searching of radioactive materials. This almost looks like: "We have no idea what we're doing, but we have to do something".


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Again... We dont know... *I* am trying to think about it like I am in their position, and looking at what *I* would do... and one thing I would do is go for the easiest target that would do the most damage... so Im not gonna try an bypass any "hard" security... I'd go for fast dirty and easy...
> Was that Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, and London? Maybe. It certainly WAS New York in 01


 
I am not an expert, but I have heard/read that Mr. bin Laden's idea of a 'New Caliphate' is a 100 year war. I have heard that 'they' know we are impatient. Viewed from that time-table, juxtaposed against our cycle of heightened security alerts, the pace of those attacks don't necessarily look, perhaps, quite so random.

And we have gone from the President saying "Dead or Alive", to a President saying "I don't think about him".

Where, if what I have seen is true, they know they will not be around when there objective is going to be fulfilled. 

Two different mind sets. I don't know which is correct. 

I just don't want my country to be doing things that meet their objectives. If we assume zero conversion rates among religions (which is false, I have heard Islam is growing faster than any other religion in the world today). There are 25 million more people living under an Islamic government today than there were three years ago.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 27, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I found this.
> 
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/kyllo.htm
> 
> That does not appear to be entirely true.


 
The majority opinion upholds that the use of scanning technology infringes on 4th amendment rights. 

The only question is whether a mosque is a public or private space. It is a privately owned and operated building open to the public as the owners see fit, but it is NOT public space.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 27, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Can you offer me a legitimate reason passive scanning around mosques interferes with someone freedom to practice religion, unless maybe we snatch em for for taking the Sacramental Plutonium to the altar...


 
Because the scanning involves human observers. It's a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building. Freedom to practice your religion MUST include freedom of movement and assembly in your place of worship. 

Today it's Muslims, during WWII, in North America, it was Japanese and Germans, in Germany, it was Jews. 

I do not wish to live in a society where I am targeted simply for belonging to an identifiable group. If the governemt believes that there are grounds to survey a location, convince a court.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Because the scanning involves human observers. It's a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building.


 
But Its legal to do so.  I can sit outside your house and photograph you all I want, as long as I am not ON your property.   I can sit outside a Mosque, a Catholic Church, or the Kingdom Hall of the Jehova's witnesses and do the same thing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 27, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> The majority opinion upholds that the use of scanning technology infringes on 4th amendment rights.
> 
> The only question is whether a mosque is a public or private space. It is a privately owned and operated building open to the public as the owners see fit, but it is NOT public space.


  I dont know. After reading this I still dont think you are entirely right.  http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Thermal.htm  In some situations where the scanner is being used to actually observe people and their activities inside a building you may be right. But I dont think this applies to this stuff. What is the danger of abuse here? Perhaps some innocent person with radioactive material in his home will be unjustly prosecuted? Im happy the gvt. is doing this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In other words, folks, just bend over and grab your ankles, and hope the bad man don't do it too much, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
After giving your post here a bit more consideration, I wanted to comment a bit further.  As to your first comment about bending over and grabbing our collective ankles and waiting for the next attack, I say no.  Actually, I think you should simply go about your life as you always have and don't worry about it.  While I do believe that it is inevitable that we will be attacked again no matter what level of security the government tries to implement, at the same time I also believe that the chance that you or I specifically will be victims in those attacks are very very small.  Yes, there will be victims.  Who they will be is as unpredictable as when and where another successful attack will happen.  But the statistics are hugely against any of us individually becoming a victim.  Yes, it could happen, but it is something we have no way of predicting, and no control over, so I say live your life and don't be afraid of it.

With regard to your second comment above about there being conflict anywhere the Muslim world touches the non-muslim world, yes, you have a point.  There certainly are radical muslims who hate the non-muslim world, and they are working to destroy all that is non-Radical Muslim.  These are extremists, and they will always exist to some degree.  No extremist is good, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other kind of extremist.  They all have a twisted ideology that is not in line with the true teachings of their faith.  But this does not excuse the actions of the US that have given these people legitimate reason to hate us.  When you take the history of US global abuses and mix it with extremists who hate us, it is a volatile recipe.  Our history of abuses have given strength to the extremist movement.  Other Muslims who in their hearts are really moderates and wouldn't hate us (at leat not enough to want to attack us) join with the extremists because they are fed up with us.  If we didn't continue to give them reasons to hate us, the extremists would have few followers, and would not have the resources to effectively strike us.  There is a shared responsibility here.  Crazy extremists do and will always exists, but we need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

With regard to your last paragraph above, I would suggest that you might find a more productive debate if you stop throwing loaded labels at your fellow debaters, like "conspiratorial drivel" and "leftist propaganda."  You are almost guaranteed a negative reaction when you do this, and it really detracts from any intelligent conversation that might otherwise be had.  You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar...

And no, I don't believe that those who swing to the political left see this situation in such a simple, black and white, good vs. evil way.  They do not see the radical Muslims as "brothers in the struggle against the 'big baddies'".  But they do recognize the complexity of the situation, and they do see that at least some of our own problems are the repercussions of our Nation's international activities.

With regard to your last sentence above, it should be clear that I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I see this problem as much larger than them alone.  I don't feel it is a specifically Democrat or Republican issue as I feel all administrations for many decades have contributed to this and other problems facing this country.  I am a proponent of looking at history with a critical eye, and seeing what we can learn from it.  Maybe then we can come up with reasonable and sound solutions to these complex problems.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Something about the 4th Amendment?
> 
> Privacy, illegal search and seizure?
> 
> Scanning specific locations without a warrant is just as illegal as wiretapping without a warrant, or simply entering a building to physically search without a warrant.


 Sorry, that's a distortion.  The scanning is occurring in public places.  Time, after time, after time, the courts have supported this kind of search.  

It is NOT an illegal search, if what you have in your building, is leaking out into the public.  For example, the courts have supported, for years, the idea that a K9 scent search, is not a 4th amendment violation of your expectation of privacy in a car.  Why?  Because the dog isn't looking in the car, he's scenting the public air around your car for the drug scent that is escaping in to public.

If you have a bomb in the front seat of your car, in plain view, and an officer walks by an sees it, is this an illegal search an seizure?  Of course not, because, though the bomb is in your car, it is visible from a place where the officer, or the public in general, have a right to be, outside your car.

Scanning for radiation in a public parking lot fits perfectly with the existing case law a legal search.  The officers are where they have a legal right to be.  Moreover, they are only testing things, passively, that travel or drift in to a location where they have a right to be.

What's more, courts have long weighed evidence in regards to the exigent circumstances.  A drug seizure based on a K9 search has a law enforcement interest, but it is hard to argue that it is an immediate public safety issue.  A radiation scan, however, has an even GREATER public safety concern, so would be even more likely to be considered a circumstance where latitude is given.

So, once again, the claim that this is a 4th amendment violation, is bogus.  The 4th amendment protects from 'illegal' searches and seizures....not ALL searches and seizures.  As this type of search has a history of precedent along similar lines, I think they are on safe legal grounds, despite the hyperbole.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> After giving your post here a bit more consideration, I wanted to comment a bit further. As to your first comment about bending over and grabbing our collective ankles and waiting for the next attack, I say no. Actually, I think you should simply go about your life as you always have and don't worry about it. While I do believe that it is inevitable that we will be attacked again no matter what level of security the government tries to implement, at the same time I also believe that the chance that you or I specifically will be victims in those attacks are very very small. Yes, there will be victims. Who they will be is as unpredictable as when and where another successful attack will happen. But the statistics are hugely against any of us individually becoming a victim. Yes, it could happen, but it is something we have no way of predicting, and no control over, so I say live your life and don't be afraid of it.


 Not even the point at all.  What I said was, should we as a nation simply decide that we're just going to bend over and take it when it comes.  What if it's a small tactical nuclear device?  Do you consider that an 'acceptable' level of damage and loss of life?  Yeah, the odd's that I, personally, am going to die is small.  Is it ok as long as only 50,000 Americans get killed in a blast?  Do you consider that acceptable, to avoid offending anyone? 



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> With regard to your second comment above about there being conflict anywhere the Muslim world touches the non-muslim world, yes, you have a point. There certainly are radical muslims who hate the non-muslim world, and they are working to destroy all that is non-Radical Muslim. These are extremists, and they will always exist to some degree. No extremist is good, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other kind of extremist. They all have a twisted ideology that is not in line with the true teachings of their faith.


 Yes, but your dismissive way of simply insinuating that ALL extremists are bad, really misses the point.  NOWHERE does the muslim world touch the non-muslim, that is not a conflict.  We make excuses for this, by simply trying to write it off.  Why try to say 'well, see, it's just that all extremism is bad, not that extremist Islam is particularly attrocious' while France burns, the US gets attacked, Spain, Great Britain, Indonesia, etc, etc, find themselves facing a terrorist threat.

Trying to make this simply about 'The US' is a cop out.  It isn't just the US they hate, it's just the fact that the US happens to be the one to beat right now.  We aren't the first OR the last.  I suggest you reexamine what is actually happen from a historical perspective, not the more limiting 'I hate Bush' perspective.  None of this is new.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> But this does not excuse the actions of the US that have given these people legitimate reason to hate us. When you take the history of US global abuses and mix it with extremists who hate us, it is a volatile recipe. Our history of abuses have given strength to the extremist movement. Other Muslims who in their hearts are really moderates and wouldn't hate us (at leat not enough to want to attack us) join with the extremists because they are fed up with us. If we didn't continue to give them reasons to hate us, the extremists would have few followers, and would not have the resources to effectively strike us. There is a shared responsibility here. Crazy extremists do and will always exists, but we need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.


 It's a typical ploy to talk about the US in vague and subtle innuendo, and not spell out the issues.  Lets hear a list of these 'abuses' as they apply toward the Islamic world.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> With regard to your last paragraph above, I would suggest that you might find a more productive debate if you stop throwing loaded labels at your fellow debaters, like "conspiratorial drivel" and "leftist propaganda." You are almost guaranteed a negative reaction when you do this, and it really detracts from any intelligent conversation that might otherwise be had. You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar...


 The reaction I get will be negative to those who disagree with it regardless. 

I'm under no illusions. I've given up on converting anyone who embraces 'conspiratorial drivel' and 'leftist propaganda'.  I prefer to embolden those who agree with me already, and perhaps convince a few fence sitters.  

There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it.  Even our words don't mean the same things.  We argue about context and connotation, and each of us tries to alter the definitions to fit our arguments.  Why?  Because, though it may sound alike, we don't even speak the same language.  

I don't think it means that the left is evil...just naive about certain realities.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> And no, I don't believe that those who swing to the political left see this situation in such a simple, black and white, good vs. evil way. They do not see the radical Muslims as "brothers in the struggle against the 'big baddies'". But they do recognize the complexity of the situation, and they do see that at least some of our own problems are the repercussions of our Nation's international activities.


 They like to feel they are more 'nuanced' in their estimation, but in reality they are just engaging in that age old partisan struggle.  They believe their only REAL enemy are conservatives, republicans, and most especially, Bush.  Any enemy of Bush, is a friend of theirs.  Sad but true.

More to the point, they can't accept the reality of a world where conflicts might be driven by anything more than a misunderstanding.  That people really DO seek to destroy you.  



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> With regard to your last sentence above, it should be clear that I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I see this problem as much larger than them alone. I don't feel it is a specifically Democrat or Republican issue as I feel all administrations for many decades have contributed to this and other problems facing this country. I am a proponent of looking at history with a critical eye, and seeing what we can learn from it. Maybe then we can come up with reasonable and sound solutions to these complex problems.


 The problem, pure and simple, is a 12th century mentality among a small segment of the Islamic world, who prefer an age when women were property, Caliphs ruled, and the Islamic world was on the offensive.  There is no room for negotiation with that mindset.  It must be destroyed, and we need to stop considering it a valid world view and combat it any way we can.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it.


 
Yes, that does seem to be the bottom line.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 29, 2005)

Since I'm  ....._somewhat_ familiar with the program in question...

_If_ "something" were detected-and I won't get into the myriad scientific hurdles involved, dependent upon type of material, quantity, distance, and type of building-suffice it to say that brick buildings not only offer shielding, but are also significantly more radioactive than those made of wood or concrete-and its method of detection and subsequent seizure were to result in arrests and trials, then the question of privacy, illegal search, etc., would be one for the lawyers to ask, and the courts to eventually answer-though one can certainly make the case that something that could be detected from outside a building would constitute probable cause, like marijuana smoke, or screams. 

It's highly unlikely (without getting into details) that anything could be detected passively from such a distance. 

It's also totally unlikely that if anything were (or *has ever been*) detected by such methods, that the question of evidence in court would ever come up, nor is it likely that it would ever make (or * has evermade *) the papers-save for, in the case of say a hypothetical smaller yield device or so-called dirty bomb, mention of a "gas leak" or some other likely reason for evacuating several city blocks in the event that it were plausible to do so.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, that does seem to be the bottom line.


 And I don't say that in a dismissive way, but merely as an observation of the diametric differences among certain positions.  I've come to the conclusion that the issue isn't one of a misunderstanding on a particular issue, but of a completely different perspective on the world in general.

Still, I do hold out hope that occasionally we might find common ground.  This issue, however, doesn't seem to be one of those issues.  

I guess we can agree to disagree. :asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But Its legal to do so. I can sit outside your house and photograph you all I want, as long as I am not ON your property. I can sit outside a Mosque, a Catholic Church, or the Kingdom Hall of the Jehova's witnesses and do the same thing.


 
First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm

for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.

Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted. I am. And if my place of worship was under constant surveilance, I might stop frequenting it, THAT infringes on my freedom of religion. This is especially true of Muslims in America today.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm
> 
> for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.
> 
> Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted. I am. And if my place of worship was under constant surveilance, I might stop frequenting it, THAT infringes on my freedom of religion. This is especially true of Muslims in America today.


 Your radiation rights are being persecuted? lol.  Exactly what invasion is taking place....assuming you don't have a nuclear device nearby.  There's no listening, there's no intrusion whatsoever.  No, it's not a 'if you have nothing to hide' argument, there's ZERO invasion of privacy.  Are you suggesting you might stop frequenting a church because government agents were detecting for radiation in a private parking lot?  

Also, please deal with the post i've already made about passive radiation detecting.  The church's aren't being 'scanned', the radiation levels in public parking lots are being analyzed.  Huge difference, the precedent case law has been pretty clear on this kind of thing.  This is nothing different that narcotics dogs, which the courts have upheld.  In fact, a better case can be made for this, than narcotics dogs.

As I posted earlier.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Sorry, that's a distortion. The scanning is occurring in public places. Time, after time, after time, the courts have supported this kind of search.
> 
> It is NOT an illegal search, if what you have in your building, is leaking out into the public. For example, the courts have supported, for years, the idea that a K9 scent search, is not a 4th amendment violation of your expectation of privacy in a car. Why? Because the dog isn't looking in the car, he's scenting the public air around your car for the drug scent that is escaping in to public.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 1, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's a typical ploy to talk about the US in vague and subtle innuendo, and not spell out the issues. Lets hear a list of these 'abuses' as they apply toward the Islamic world.


 
These issues are too broad and large to adequately spell out and discuss on this forum.  I am afraid you will need to do some homework.

I would suggest you read a book entitled _Imperial Ambitions, Conversations on the Post-9/11 World_, by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian.  It is not long, and is an easy read, so it is not a big commitment in time to read this book.  It took me an afternoon to read it.  

This book is a collection of interviews Mr. Barsamian had with Mr. Comsky from March 2003 thru February, 2005.  Mr. Chomsky, professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, is not a champion of the Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, Right or Left.  He analyzes history, tracking the actions of the US over the last several decades.  In these interviews, many of the abuses that I am referring to are brought up.  Since these are interview trascripts, the book does not go into tremendous details regarding the events, but it brings them up and is a good place to start in getting a sense of the bigger picture.  If you find yourself interested in particular topics that are brought up, other books are in print, including others by Mr. Chomsky and could give you more information.

Sorry I can't do better than that, but I really believe that my own attempts to spell out these issues on this forum would be tremendously inadequate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> These issues are too broad and large to adequately spell out and discuss on this forum. I am afraid you will need to do some homework.


 In other words, nothing comes to mind, though your sure examples MUST exist.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I would suggest you read a book entitled _Imperial Ambitions, Conversations on the Post-9/11 World_, by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. It is not long, and is an easy read, so it is not a big commitment in time to read this book. It took me an afternoon to read it.


 Chomsky?  I didn't realize you were going to be referring me to the fiction section.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This book is a collection of interviews Mr. Barsamian had with Mr. Comsky from March 2003 thru February, 2005. Mr. Chomsky, professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, is not a champion of the Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, Right or Left. He analyzes history, tracking the actions of the US over the last several decades. In these interviews, many of the abuses that I am referring to are brought up. Since these are interview trascripts, the book does not go into tremendous details regarding the events, but it brings them up and is a good place to start in getting a sense of the bigger picture. If you find yourself interested in particular topics that are brought up, other books are in print, including others by Mr. Chomsky and could give you more information.


 Oh, i'm quite familiar with Chomsky.  Chomsky calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist.  

What he is, in fact, and always has been, is a communist apologists.  He has taken everything about the cold war, and spun it so as to focus solely on the US, devoid of any influences created by the Soviets.  This is the same man who denied that the killing fields of Cambodia existed, and ridiculed anyone who suggested they did.  He went great links to defend Pol Pot (as he has done virtually every other communist tyrant).  

Then, after it was evident to everyone that he was sadly mistaken, he tried to spin the whole affair and blame it one the US.  Chompskyites the world over then participated in the attempt to completely bury Chomksy's defense of the homicidal regime of the Khmer Rouge.  Chomsky only has credibility among the kook fringe of the left, who laud his linguistics 'accomplishments' as if they give him absolute credibility in the area of political and philosophical enlightenment.  

If Chomsky wrote a book about World War II, it would consist wholely of 'unprovoked US Imperialist aggression against the free peoples of Germany, Italy and Japan.'  It would begin with the D-Day invasion of Normandy, devoid of any context, and would describe it as a sneak attack against another nation.  That's how devoid Chomsky's books are of objectivity and context.   They count on the ignorance of the reader to any historical context on the subject matter, so he can substitute his own imagined context in it's place, therefore creating a mythos that paints the US as the great evil of the world.  



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Sorry I can't do better than that, but I really believe that my own attempts to spell out these issues on this forum would be tremendously inadequate.


 Don't sell yourself short.  I give you far more credibility than I do Noam Chomsky.  Though, the religious following the Chomsky is legendary.  Just by even suggesting he has no credibility, i'll probably be targeted for 'liquidation' by the Chomsky mafia.....fortunately, none of them can shoot straight.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 1, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> First, it's not legal. read http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nlaw/kyllo.htm
> 
> for the Supreme Court's take on scanning.



Ok, First, Your Link is broken, try again.

I have to assume based on your post, however, that is about the supreme courts take on SCANNING.  My post was about PHOTOGRAPHY, in response to your quote that it was "a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building" which, I dont know what the laws are up there in Canada where you are, its legal down here.  Check with an American Lawyer and see what they have to say about your right to do it  here.



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Second, the comment was made about how doing so infringes on one's freedom of religion. By your comments I assume you are not part of a religious minority, and certainly not one that has been persecuted.



I still dont see evidence that passive scanning of people or buildiungs infringes on one's freedom of religion. So I present this: (1) Can you please give me a concise reason that passive scanning prevents anyone from worshiping? and (2) Is it any more restrictive of religion than saying that a Mormon is NOT allowed to have more than one wife, or that a Devil Worshiper cannot sacrifice small animals (Satanists, Take note, I said Devil Worshiper not Satanist) or that a Christian Judge cannot display the 10 commandments?  Nah, its actually less, because 1 tells you how you can and cannot worship, the other doesnt.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 1, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ok, First, Your Link is broken, try again.
> 
> I have to assume based on your post, however, that is about the supreme courts take on SCANNING. My post was about PHOTOGRAPHY, in response to your quote that it was "a short step from taking pictures of people entering and exiting the building" which, I dont know what the laws are up there in Canada where you are, its legal down here. Check with an American Lawyer and see what they have to say about your right to do it here.


 
Well, it's not MY link.

On the photography, if a private citizen camped himself outside my house or place or worship and photographed it constantly, I'd call the cops to investigate. If a law enforcment agency did the same, I'd want to see the cause for the surveilance. It is not legal for law enforcemnt to set up surveilance without cause.




> I still dont see evidence that passive scanning of people or buildiungs infringes on one's freedom of religion. So I present this: (1) Can you please give me a concise reason that passive scanning prevents anyone from worshiping? and (2) Is it any more restrictive of religion than saying that a Mormon is NOT allowed to have more than one wife, or that a Devil Worshiper cannot sacrifice small animals (Satanists, Take note, I said Devil Worshiper not Satanist) or that a Christian Judge cannot display the 10 commandments? Nah, its actually less, because 1 tells you how you can and cannot worship, the other doesnt.


 
Polygamy and cruelty to animals is against the law.

Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion.  If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 1, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion.



Uh... no.  If someone thinks/knows they are being watched and CHOOSES not to go thats a CHOICE.  If the government said "You cant go in there" THAT would be infringement.  

There is a BIG difference, even if you dont see it.

Why would anyone be afraid, unless they were carrying radioactive materials?  Like I said before, I vollunteer my house, they can sit outside and scan.  Why?  Cuz it doesnt affect me one way or another.



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.



Again, no big news flash there... they can, and pretty much will, trample my rights, your rights, their rights... at the drop of a hat.  Many of mine have already been taken away... and we do what we have to do.

*I* personally believe I have all the *rights* that I am willing to TAKE for my own, regardless of what the government, conservative moral majority or Gun-fearing liberals have to say about it... and when the time comes that they take enough of my rights away that it actually impacts me in a way that makes me fearful for my freedoms or saftey, and it _*can't*_ be changed, I'll leave. 

So far Im less concerned that Scanning buildings for radiation is as much of an infringement as say telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt for my own saftey.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Well, it's not MY link.
> 
> On the photography, if a private citizen camped himself outside my house or place or worship and photographed it constantly, I'd call the cops to investigate. If a law enforcment agency did the same, I'd want to see the cause for the surveilance. It is not legal for law enforcemnt to set up surveilance without cause.


 Yeah, you'd call the police, but that doesn't mean they could do anything about it if they were on public property.  The media does this all the time...camp out, outside someone's house, on public property, and photograph them.  Perfectly legal.  



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Surveilance of a specific place of worship can stop people to freely enter that place of worship thus infringing on their freedom of religion. If you enjoy living in a society where your rights can just be trampled without cause, I feel for you.


  All irrelavent.  Nobody knew about the surveillance, as it was covert.  What's more, nobodies freedom to come and go was violated.  You've got no legal standing on this issue.  No one is in any way violating anyone's freedom of religion.  The idea that the police might not be nearby is not enough to justify the idea that your freedom to freely engage in religion is somehow infringed.  It's an abstraction.  'The police are violating my rights, because I THINK they might be nearby', it doesn't fly.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Uh... no. If someone thinks/knows they are being watched and CHOOSES not to go thats a CHOICE. If the government said "You cant go in there" THAT would be infringement.
> 
> There is a BIG difference, even if you dont see it.
> 
> Why would anyone be afraid, unless they were carrying radioactive materials? Like I said before, I vollunteer my house, they can sit outside and scan. Why? Cuz it doesnt affect me one way or another.


 Even beyond that, the police sit in public places and scan people all day long, often times without anyone knowing it....they call it radar.  This is no different.  

When the courts decide the admissability of certain searches, they often heavily take in to account the degree of intrusion involved.  Scanning radiactive particles present in the air of a public parking lot has nearly ZERO intrusion involved.  The abstraction that people just MIGHT not want to visit church, because they think police MIGHT be scanning a public parking lot nearby for radioactive particles is extremely weak and nebulous.  




			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Again, no big news flash there... they can, and pretty much will, trample my rights, your rights, their rights... at the drop of a hat. Many of mine have already been taken away... and we do what we have to do.


  I support your rights, and would defend them against any unreasonable searches and seizures....However, this is not even REMOTELY unreasonable.  



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> *I* personally believe I have all the *rights* that I am willing to TAKE for my own, regardless of what the government, conservative moral majority or Gun-fearing liberals have to say about it... and when the time comes that they take enough of my rights away that it actually impacts me in a way that makes me fearful for my freedoms or saftey, and it _*can't*_ be changed, I'll leave.


 Funny you should mention that....most of the people whinning about scanning public parking lots for radioactive particles, were not in the least concerned when Janet Reno's justice department was hunting down law abiding Americans on the slightest provocation in the name of gun-control.  But let the government look for actual terrorists, who by virtue of the fact that they might be aliens, are a protected class, and watch them fly in to a rage.  



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> So far Im less concerned that Scanning buildings for radiation is as much of an infringement as say telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt for my own saftey.


 They pick and choose their concerns based on some rather bizarre criteria, do they not?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 2, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There's really not much middle ground between me and my ideological opposites, as the disagreement is less a disagreement of particular facts, and more about an entirely different view of the world in general and our place in it. Even our words don't mean the same things. We argue about context and connotation, and each of us tries to alter the definitions to fit our arguments. Why? Because, though it may sound alike, we don't even speak the same language.


 
I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question.  With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this?  Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam?  Are there other factors involved?  Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us?  Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us?  Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves?  Is there something else, that I have completely missed?  If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question. With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us? Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us? Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.


 
You make an interesting point, and one I cannot completely disagree with, however Can I counter question with the same one, asking if they maybe have done the same?

With respect to the amount of hatred that American supposedly have for Middle Easterners, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely Elietism demonizing all that is Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the people there have ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in the west involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused us to resent, or even hate them? Do you believe that they are mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause us to hate/mistrust them? Do you believe that they have any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means they give up some ideals that they feel they have a God Given Duty to? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify YOUR beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 2, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You make an interesting point, and one I cannot completely disagree with, however Can I counter question with the same one, asking if they maybe have done the same?
> 
> With respect to the amount of hatred that American supposedly have for Middle Easterners, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely Elietism demonizing all that is Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the people there have ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in the west involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused us to resent, or even hate them? Do you believe that they are mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause us to hate/mistrust them? Do you believe that they have any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means they give up some ideals that they feel they have a God Given Duty to? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify YOUR beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.


 
Fair enough.  I think all nations have an obligation to treat other nations with respect, including respecting our differences.  I don't think anybody is guilt-free here.  I think we have a series of "eye for an eye" events, the latest of which is the US invasion of Iraq as misdirected retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 (At least that is part of the government's story to the public).  The attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for the fact that the US has military bases in some of the holiest regions of the Muslim world, and for the fact that the US abandoned people like Bin Laden after supporting him for years and did not help rebuild the region after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their lengthy occupation of Afghanistan.  Yes, they have struck at us, as we have struck at and manipulated them.  

However, I think overall the Western nations, including (but not exclusively) the US, have been in a much stronger position over the decades to manipulate, exploit, control, and push around these other nations, since the US is far far stronger, and has a far far greater rate of natural resources consumption.  This has given us the incentive to exert control and pressure on other nations, especially where natural resources like oil are concerned.  In the early and mid parts of the 20th centuries, the Western nations, including the US, carved up the Middle East into political entities that were designed to meet our needs, especially with regards to oil.  Much of the resentment that people of this region feel toward the US and other Western nations stems from this era, along with the establishment of Israel.

Did these nations or groups ever invade the US?  Did they ever manipulate US economy and take US natural resources for their gain?  Did they ever set up a puppet government in the US?  Did they ever carve up the US and establish new nations designed to fulfill their economic needs?  The answer to these questions is "no".

Have they preached hate against the US based on religion?  Have they struck at us, and caused injury to members of our population and destruction to our property?  yes, but primarily in response to the injuries that we have been doing to them for decades, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 2, 2006)

I agree with almost all of that...

I was curious how you felt, as I have been told many times that we are soley responsible and that the way we feel is wrong because its such a small, radical group of them clouding our vision on the whole peoples.  

It's good to know where people stand.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 2, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I agree with almost all of that...
> 
> I was curious how you felt, as I have been told many times that we are soley responsible and that the way we feel is wrong because its such a small, radical group of them clouding our vision on the whole peoples.
> 
> It's good to know where people stand.


 
Thank you.  I think my main message is that this is a very large, complicated issue and until we are willing to recognize it as such, we will be unable to devise reasonable and effective solutions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question. With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam? Are there other factors involved?


 I attribute to a desire to pursue what they believe is their god-given mission...i.e. reassert control and dominance over the middle east, and renew Islam's glorious past.  As to what they consider their justification, I believe it's rooted in Islams recent history.  They were on the march, until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna a little over 4 centuries ago.  Since then, they feel that the western world's progress, and their stagnation, is an insult, and a judgement by god that they have not been devoit enough.  Islam teaches that there exist only two abodes, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.  The US represents the Abode of War, and as the most powerful nation among what they perceive as the west, which is standing in the way of a second golden age of Islam, we are the nation to beat first.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us? Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us? Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.


 I believe the US just happens to be the flag-bearer of western civilization in the minds of the radical Islamic world right now.  Islam has been at nearl constant war with the west for over a thousand years.  In 1899 it was the British who were the standard bearers, when they broke the back of an Islamic army an Omdurman, when the radical forces of the Mahdi fought their last battle.

Do I believe the US is innocent of actions that would cause them to hate us?  I believe the very question is loaded with a false assumption.  The fundamentalists of the Islamic world will hate ANY power that stands in the way of renewing the Islamic empire to it's former glory.  That is why bin Laden is called 'the Sheik' by his followers, it is why he sees a new Pan-Islamic caliphate as the future of the Arab world.

Every tin-pot dictator and religious fundamentalist in the middle east has tried to tap in to the Arab desire to see a reemergent Islamic empire, be it secular (in the case of Saddam, the Ba'athists and the other Fascists) or religious (in the case of the Shiite Shah, and the Wahhabist al-Qaeda).  You misunderstand....every place that fundamentalist islam touches the non-Islamic world, the result is WAR.

It hurts certain egalitarian principles to even remotely believe that a large minority of the Islamic world will fight ANY and ALL who oppose their ambitions.  The US is now the poster child for the western world.  Before, they fought the Soviets, then the British and French.  It's an age old story.  If you believe by playing nice and saying in our own sandbox it will bring peace, your are ignorant of certain historical realities.  Paris burned, and Europe hasn't heard the last of this problem.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I think all nations have an obligation to treat other nations with respect, including respecting our differences. I don't think anybody is guilt-free here.


 Guilt has very little to do wit it.  



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think we have a series of "eye for an eye" events, the latest of which is the US invasion of Iraq as misdirected retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 (At least that is part of the government's story to the public).


 Wrong.  It is the attempt of some to make a strawman argument, claiming that Iraq was about 9/11.  Iraq was a problem LONG BEFORE 9/11.  Iraq was invaded because it was time to either put up or shut up and leave on the Saddam problem.  The timing was determined by the fact that we either A) Dealt with Saddam at that point, when we had the political capital or B) We let him off the hook, and waited to see what happened.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> The attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for the fact that the US has military bases in some of the holiest regions of the Muslim world, and for the fact that the US abandoned people like Bin Laden after supporting him for years and did not help rebuild the region after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their lengthy occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, they have struck at us, as we have struck at and manipulated them.


 Again, wrong.  bin Laden wasn't so much angry about the military bases, the problem is that he sees the US as being responsible for shoring up the House of Saud.  Why does bin Laden care?  Well, he wants to topple the House of Saud, so that he can install of the seat of a new Pan-Arab Caliphate in Saudi Arabia.

As for the US abandoning bin Laden, that is partially true, however, this is not why bin Laden is angry with the US.  Anger has little to do with it.  bin Laden, and the other members of al-Qaeda and that whole former segment of the mujahadeen, feel that they, singlehandedly, defeated the Soviet Union.  In the minds of the islamic world, the Soviet Union ALWAYS represented the more dangerous of the two super-powers.  If they could defeat the Soviet Union, then they could surely defeat the US, which they perceived as a paper-tiger.

The attack of 9/11 was designed to draw the US in to another Afghan quagmire, so that the US could be defeated Soviet style.  What happened, however, was not according to bin Laden's plan.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> However, I think overall the Western nations, including (but not exclusively) the US, have been in a much stronger position over the decades to manipulate, exploit, control, and push around these other nations, since the US is far far stronger, and has a far far greater rate of natural resources consumption.


 Meaning, that the western world has been more successful in gaining and securing influence.  That has not always been the case.  It was Islam on the march for most of it's history.  Suddenly demanding that EVERYONE play nice, will not stop those who desire to expand, from doing so.  That we may have lost the will to decide the course of world history, doesn't mean others haven't lost the will to take our place.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This has given us the incentive to exert control and pressure on other nations, especially where natural resources like oil are concerned. In the early and mid parts of the 20th centuries, the Western nations, including the US, carved up the Middle East into political entities that were designed to meet our needs, especially with regards to oil. Much of the resentment that people of this region feel toward the US and other Western nations stems from this era, along with the establishment of Israel.


 Before the western countries came, the Ottoman empire was in the decline, and the nations of the middle east were full of semi-nomadic civilizations, with just a few cities.  The only reason that oil came in to the equation, was that western countries discovered it, and developed an infrastructure in the middle east to develop it.  When it became profitable, the leaders of those nations desired to nationalize it.  Of course, they would never have gotten anything out of it, if we had not gone there and found it to begin with.  So, what prosperity they have at ALL at this point, is a direct result of western influence.  That point always gets ignored.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Did these nations or groups ever invade the US? Did they ever manipulate US economy and take US natural resources for their gain? Did they ever set up a puppet government in the US? Did they ever carve up the US and establish new nations designed to fulfill their economic needs? The answer to these questions is "no".


 Again, irrelavent question.  They don't see the US as a singular entity, but as a representative of the western world in general.  So, it's better to ask the question this way.  'Did these nations or groups ever invade the western world'?  Yes, many times.  They ruled Spain for centuries, they expanded throughout Europe.  It was only after they began falling behind technologically, that the forces of Islam began to receed.  They marched to the gates of Vienna, and then began to decline.  It wasn't lack of will, it was loss of ability, that resulted in the islamic world's decline.  Oil gave them a valuable resource to attempt to recover that lost empire.  That you seek to seperate the US from the western world in general is only the desire to, as the Europeans hope to, make this solely about the US.  However, history shows that mentality is a HUGE error.  



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Have they preached hate against the US based on religion? Have they struck at us, and caused injury to members of our population and destruction to our property? yes, but primarily in response to the injuries that we have been doing to them for decades, at least in my opinion.


 Primarily in a desire to return to a glorious imperial past.  Have you actually listened to bin Laden?  He isn't saying 'Allow us to live in peace'.  This is the kind of appeasement talke we have seen in the past.  The idea that the other side is simply wanting a concession, and that if we give them what they want, they'll put down their arms.  Appeasement does not work.   The goal of bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and many, many fundamentalist Islamists, as well as Iran (on a Shiite model) is the creation of a Pan-Islamic superstate, stretching across the Islamic world.  What's more, al-Qaeda seeks to expand Islamic interests in places where it is developing a large foothold, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, various other Asian nations.  The motive to expand the boundaries of this future Pan-Islamic Empire is clear. 

The blindness that much of the west has to this, however, is that we've adopted an 'us versus us' mentality, where we think that we are our the only enemies around.  We see that in the US.  Democrats believe that Republicans are the big threat, and vice-versa.  Further, those on the left have embraced the marxist model, where all conflict is as a result of wealth inequality, so they see the Islamic Fundamentalist issue as merely a response to western wealth and imequalities.  It blinds them to a wider reality.  The world is much more complicated than that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I attribute to a desire to pursue what they believe is their god-given mission...i.e. reassert control and dominance over the middle east, and renew Islam's glorious past. As to what they consider their justification, I believe it's rooted in Islams recent history. They were on the march, until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna a little over 4 centuries ago. Since then, they feel that the western world's progress, and their stagnation, is an insult, and a judgement by god that they have not been devoit enough. Islam teaches that there exist only two abodes, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. The US represents the Abode of War, and as the most powerful nation among what they perceive as the west, which is standing in the way of a second golden age of Islam, we are the nation to beat first.
> 
> I believe the US just happens to be the flag-bearer of western civilization in the minds of the radical Islamic world right now. Islam has been at nearl constant war with the west for over a thousand years. In 1899 it was the British who were the standard bearers, when they broke the back of an Islamic army an Omdurman, when the radical forces of the Mahdi fought their last battle.
> 
> ...


 
You are right:  we have very different perspectives on this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Guilt has very little to do wit it.
> 
> Wrong. It is the attempt of some to make a strawman argument, claiming that Iraq was about 9/11. Iraq was a problem LONG BEFORE 9/11. Iraq was invaded because it was time to either put up or shut up and leave on the Saddam problem. The timing was determined by the fact that we either A) Dealt with Saddam at that point, when we had the political capital or B) We let him off the hook, and waited to see what happened.
> 
> ...


 
So in the larger scope of the issue, do you have any thoughts on how the US should best handle the situation, particularly with regards to the threat from those in the Middle East who wish to do us harm?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> So in the larger scope of the issue, do you have any thoughts on how the US should best handle the situation, particularly with regards to the threat from those in the Middle East who wish to do us harm?


 
1) Support secular (preferably democratic) forces in the middle east.
2) Continue overt and covert actions against terrorist groups
3) Acknowledge that the threat is greater than 'just a few criminals'.  That, in reality, it is a large movement.
4) Understand that several governments in the middle east are duplicitous.
5) Do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent development and production of nuclear weapons technology.
6) Covertly support anti-government forces in places like Iran (Yes, Persian, not Arab, but Islamic none-the-less).
8) Spend money to support secular education,more important than ending poverty....it is belief that drives this movement, not poverty.
9) And last but not least, work to end dependency on Arab oil.  It is oil revenues that fuel terrorists and despots alike.  It wasn't poverty that drives the conflict in the Islamic nations of the middle east, but easy revenue produced without having to modernize in thought and action.  Without oil, they'd either be forced to join at least the 20th century, or they'd at least be as harmless as sub-saharan africa.  Either way, it isn't poverty and exploitation, but easy revenue.  

A few more might come to mind, but these are what pop in my head immediately.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1) Support secular (preferably democratic) forces in the middle east.
> 2) Continue overt and covert actions against terrorist groups
> 3) Acknowledge that the threat is greater than 'just a few criminals'. That, in reality, it is a large movement.
> 4) Understand that several governments in the middle east are duplicitous.
> ...


 
1.  OK, by support I would say encourage, not support militarily or thru espionage/CIA activity.  When we get involved on that level, I believe it encourages more hatred directed at the US.  Those who don't hate us already will begin to.

2. OK, but we are walking a fine line between battling "terrorist" groups and targeting a whole racial group.  We need to identify specific individuals and groups who might have a realistic capability of attacking us and direct our efforts against them, without demonizing a whole group who don't pose a threat.  This is both within the US borders, and without.

3. The threat is large because in many ways we have added fuel to the fire.  I am willing to accept that there are those within Radical Islam who trace their hatred of the West back as far as the Crusades.  But Islam itself does not teach violence any more than Christianity does, yet both have been used many times to justify war and many other atrocities.  Those who do so are twisting the message of the faith.  They are enjoying a level of success and growth in their movement in large part because the West has given them reasons to hate us (see my previous posts).  People who otherwise would not join their movement do so out of frustration with our own actions.  If we didn't give them such reasons, their movement would be very small and ineffectual.

4.  Maybe true, but so is our own government.  We cloak the invastion of Iraq with bringing them democracy, when it is really about oil.  If they ever succeed in establishing a viable democracy that is a fine afterthought, but it really doesn't matter to our government, as long as we have control of the oil.

5.  Agreed, including a real commitment on our part, and the part of our allies, to fully eliminate our own nuclear arsenal.  Those in the Middle East shouldn't have them, but neither should we.

6. Not sure I can agree here.  This is the kind of meddling in their affairs that adds fuel to the fire and causes Fence Sitters to join the radical elements who hate us.  They may well have horrible regimes, but trying to tear it down and rebuild one of our own plan, at the barrel of a gun, will never be accepted by those people.  While I hate the Bush administration, I would never support a coalition of Canada, Mexico, France, and Germany if they decided to invade the US, destroy our government and install one that they felt, in their infinite wisdom, was better for us.  Nobody here would accept that, and we would all be "insergents" fighting the occupiers.

8. OK but this could be seen as an attack on their religion.  Might cause a lot of trouble.  I see your point, but I am wondering how it could be successful.

9. Agreed, but perhaps for different reasons.  We need to end dependency on a non-renewable resource.  Eventually we will use it up.  No one knows for sure when, but I suspect it could be sooner than we would like to believe.  Also, this is what drives US involvement in the Middle East.  End this involvement and develop a new relationship based on respect and trust, and the Radical movements that hate the US will lose their strength.

Thoughts?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 4, 2006)

I think that if you base all your decisions on not 'offending' anybody you make no decisions. Someone wil always find reason to be offended. I would never elect someone whos platform was all about 'not offending' people. Being in charge means having to make decisions about who the risk of offending is worth it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I think that if you base all your decisions on not 'offending' anybody you make no decisions. Someone wil always find reason to be offended. I would never elect someone whos platform was all about 'not offending' people. Being in charge means having to make decisions about who the risk of offending is worth it.


 
Showing respect and a sense of fairness in the international community is not the same thing as being afraid of offending anyone.  Go back and read some of these posts a little more closely.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 4, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Showing respect and a sense of fairness in the international community is not the same thing as being afraid of offending anyone. Go back and read some of these posts a little more closely.


 
I agree with this statement, however I have to point out somtimes this policy can be bad too...

What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...

and you, thru a policy of communtity and fairness offer food to the Flyingcraneites beacuse the war has created a famine there... and that makes the Sgtmacites hate you on principle?  The only way to ensure somthing like that never happens is a total policy of non-involvement, and suppose you adopt that and the Flyingcraneites decide to hate you because you DIDNT give them food?

Damn... there is just NO way to win.

Oh and BTW, not trying to insult anyone you two are just on opposite sides of the spectrum so I used your names


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Damn... there is just NO way to win.


 
This does seem to be a big truth. Appreciate the thought.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...


 
Wow, I'm a god now.  This is much better than getting a lousy old Tenth Degree Grandmaster Professor Soke Black and Red Checkerboard Belt!  Thanks, man!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I agree with this statement, however I have to point out somtimes this policy can be bad too...
> 
> What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...
> 
> ...


 
OK, Good point, politics are always sticky and I clearly don't have all the answers.  It can be a difficult dance but we do our best.

But lets apply your example of two antagonists and a third party, to a real example of our own.  When the US was preparing to start a war with Iraq, our allies gave us strong criticism and several were strongly against the move.  The response of our government was "either you are with us, or you are against us".  Essentially, we told our allies that because they disagreed with our intentions, they were now our enemies also.  

We should feel lucky that we had such good friends who were willing to stand up and tell us when they thought we were wrong.  Those must be very strong friends to do that.  Our government might still disagree with them and carry out their plans, but at least respect their right to disagree with us.  Much friction occurred between the Pentagon and nations like France and Germany because of the antagonistic position our government took, regarding their objections to our war in Iraq.  Instead of respecting their disagreement, we started calling French Fries "Freedom Fries".  Silly and pointless, total lack of respect.  Sometimes I wonder that we have allies at all.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, Good point, politics are always sticky and I clearly don't have all the answers. It can be a difficult dance but we do our best.


 


			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> But lets apply your example of two antagonists and a third party, to a real example of our own. When the US was preparing to start a war with Iraq, our allies gave us strong criticism and several were strongly against the move. The response of our government was "either you are with us, or you are against us". Essentially, we told our allies that because they disagreed with our intentions, they were now our enemies also.


 The 'with us or against us' statement has been taken vastly out of context.  That statement was a direct challenge to any regime on the planet that overtly or covertly supported terrorism against the United States.  I think it's a valid statement of intent.  As for our 'friends' many of them opposed for business reasons.  They continued to make billions of the Saddam regime, and more than a couple of them wanted to increase their investments in Saddam's Iraq.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> We should feel lucky that we had such good friends who were willing to stand up and tell us when they thought we were wrong. Those must be very strong friends to do that. Our government might still disagree with them and carry out their plans, but at least respect their right to disagree with us. Much friction occurred between the Pentagon and nations like France and Germany because of the antagonistic position our government took, regarding their objections to our war in Iraq. Instead of respecting their disagreement, we started calling French Fries "Freedom Fries". Silly and pointless, total lack of respect. Sometimes I wonder that we have allies at all.


 Yes, with friends like those......  France and Germany, along with Russia, had much to gain by maintaining the status quo with Iraq.  That they convinced their populations that their reasons for opposing the Iraq war were humanitarian, are an indication of just how right the myth of free European media isn't.  Why should we respect a disingenuous disagreement who's REAL basis is continued profit?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The 'with us or against us' statement has been taken vastly out of context.


  I think it has been intentionally taken out of context.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I think it has been intentionally taken out of context.


 Yeah, pretty much.


----------

