We Told You So: Government Spying Has Been Targeting Innocent Citizens, not Terrorists

[Bob Hubbard]

Because they are our allies. We do have a moral and ethical obligation to our allies don't we?

Let me get back to you after I check and see how many troops they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much they contributed to 9/11 funds, Katrina cleanup, and how many aid packs they sent to Galveston.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Admin Note:
Concerning certain exchanges between a couple of people, the idea here is "attack the message, not the messenger". If you can't do that, expect to find your access to this section of the site removed shortly.

 

[Big Don]

Let me get back to you after I check and see how many troops they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much they contributed to 9/11 funds, Katrina cleanup, and how many aid packs they sent to Galveston.

We told them not to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan, as the inclusion of Israeli troops would have made the Muslim inhabitants of both go up in flames. The only country that I recall even offering a contribution (and crocodile tears) was Saudi Arabia, who Guiliani rebuffed. What nations offer us aid? Who sent aid packs to Galveston?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We told them not to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan, as the inclusion of Israeli troops would have made the Muslim inhabitants of both go up in flames. The only country that I recall even offering a contribution (and crocodile tears) was Saudi Arabia, who Guiliani rebuffed. What nations offer us aid? Who sent aid packs to Galveston?

Exactly.

 

[Big Don]

Exactly.

Exactly?
We tell them NOT to help, because the attitudes of others would refuse,(At best) Israeli aid and that is them not helping or not being our ally, how exactly?

 

[Archangel M]

Yeah. Israeli troops in Iraq. Could you just imagine that?

How much (significant) aid has any other nation sent us?

Lets abandon one of the few friends we have in the area. Good idea.

Lets abandon an ally because our enemies dont like them. Good Idea.

Why exactly should we cut them loose?

They dont need MY support

Well the USA aint just you. They need MINE. Back to equilibrium.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Exactly?
We tell them NOT to help, because the attitudes of others would refuse,(At best) Israeli aid and that is them not helping or not being our ally, how exactly?

Your words are the answer.

The only country that I recall even offering a contribution (and crocodile tears) was Saudi Arabia, who Guiliani rebuffed. What nations offer us aid? Who sent aid packs to Galveston?

Why the hell are we spending BILLIONS to help all these ingrates? Why are our men and women dying to protect them? Does Israel really need all that money we send them?

I say, let them live or die on their own devices. Maybe if the US wasn't shoring up all thee ingrates, there'd be 2 towers still standing in NYC, and we wouldn't be worrying about all the constitutional trampling that the current administration has done, nor arguing about which of their predecessors had what stuck up where, or if it's really in the best interests of this countries security to listen in to some lonely soldiers phone sex session with the wife he hasn't seen in 2+ years because he's fighting a war he shouldn't be, and wasn't allowed out of the service when he should have been.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yeah. Israeli troops in Iraq. Could you just imagine that?

How much (significant) aid has any other nation sent us?

Lets abandon one of the few friends we have in the area. Good idea.

Lets abandon an ally because our enemies dont like them. Good Idea.

Why exactly should we cut them loose?



Well the USA aint just you. They need MINE. Back to equilibrium.

Lets put "Continued Military and Financial Support for Israel" on the ballot in November. See what the people want to do.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Lets put "Continued Military and Financial Support for Israel" on the ballot in November. See what the people want to do.

Since when did the people's wants matter?

 

[Twin Fist]

The USS Cole? First WTC Bombing? or earlier than those?

all the way back to 84, the marine barracks. So the Iraq war isnt really even a major reason they mess with us

I don't know. I see no reason to continue to shore up Israel. They've got a pretty damn good military, who does pretty good for themselves. They don't need my support.

i dont think they need our financial support, but i am quite sure they will ALWAYS be an ally, and we will always help protect them.

It's called education. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

non answer. The Wahabbist have stated thier goal, aWORLD WIDE caliphate. or did you miss that? and the wahabbist are the ones driving radical islam. Sorry Bob, the facts are not on your side on this one.

This kinda agrees and disagrees with you.

judical fiat, andit has AlWAYS been suspended in time of war, and if you think we are not at war, you have another think comming brother.

 

[Twin Fist]

Twin Fist, I am asking honestly because I don't know... why do we have a moral and ethical obligation to them?

because we stood by and let 6 million of them get turned into air pollution

because they are the only democracy in the region

need more reasons?

 

[Cryozombie]

because we stood by and let 6 million of them get turned into air pollution

because they are the only democracy in the region

need more reasons?

Hmm. Interesting.

Can you explain the first one? Because the only thing that comes to mind is WWII and AFAIK we Didn't "Stand By" and let anything happen. Perhaps you could tell the Families of the 300,000 or so US Soldiers killed fighting over there that we stood by and did nothing. You might get hurt, but you should tell them that.

Is it our obligation to defend someone just because they are a democracy?

Yeah, I need more reasons. Sorry. Niether of those work as solid reasons we are OBLIGATED. Reasons TO maybe, but not reasons we MUST. And your Argument was MUST. So...

 

[Twin Fist]

Yes actually....and have the National Defense Ribbon to prove it.

CC, as one vet to another, thank you for your service to our country.

..a platoon of rowdy Brits? Seriously?

yeah seriously. if the FF's had to face the type of threat we do today, i am more than certain that old ben wouldnt have said that.

Moses isn't relevent because he had nothing to do with the founding of this nation...but the fact that Benjamin Franklin is one of the founders of this country, that his ideology and those of his peers are the foundation of what what we supposedly believe in do make his quote very relevant.

nope
the times he lived in are as different from today as Moses' world was from franklins. Brains evolve and adapt for a reason....

And the Constitution doesn't outright list privacy as a right but does prohibit illegal search and seizure...the "search" part could easily fall under having one's phone tapped.

thats debatable,and none of us here are constitional experts. So no one opinion is more valid than any other one opinion.

In addition, it also prohibits the Fed from depriving citizens of life, LIBERTY, and property without due process. One could easily debate that one's LIBERTY is being infringed upon by having one's phone conversations taped without a court order (that would be due process.)

thats pure idealism and has no basis in a conversation about the REALITY of fighting terroism

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"because we stood by and let 6 million of them get turned into air pollution"

Funny, I had 3 uncles who were in Europe in the 1940's, along with well over a million of their buddies, a good number of them (over 120,000) who died there liberating countless death camps, as well as an ever ungrateful France.

Of course, not a single citizen of the nation of Israel was killed in Europe prior to May 14, 1948. (The war in Europe ended in 1945 BTW)

But, if we're supposed to shore up a nation that didn't exist at the time of a horrific crime, because of that horrific rime, shouldn't we also be supporting gypsies, slavs and gays since those 3 groups also were "turned into air pollution" as you so poetically put it?

"because they are the only democracy in the region"

Wiki says this: "In the middle east only Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel were considered democracies to the extent that all but authoritarian regimes were considered democracies."
That's more than 1.

 

[Twin Fist]

yeah, iraq held elections, where saddam was the only one on the ballot, and he got 100% of the vote, everytime, for 20 years.....

and Bob, I agree with you about the gypsies, slavs and gays.

but gypsies, slavs and gays didnt migrate en masse to america and get involved in politics.

jews did

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Dude, 1 word.
Hollywood!
All those actors, doing the politics thing....think about it.
:rofl:

That report was on 2007 Iraq.
Dubya saw to it that he got the short drop and sudden stop treatment on December 30, 2006.

 

[celtic_crippler]

CC, as one vet to another, thank you for your service to our country.

No need for thanks....I did it because I believe in the ideals this country was founded on and was willing to give my life for them as many have before me.

yeah seriously. if the FF's had to face the type of threat we do today, i am more than certain that old ben wouldnt have said that.

Conjecture. Fact: he said what he said and the FF's believed in what they believed in. Thank God for that, or there wouldn't be U.S.A. today.

nope
the times he lived in are as different from today as Moses' world was from franklins. Brains evolve and adapt for a reason....

Granted the times are different, but I don't view that as an excuse to whore out the ideals our country were founded on.

I personally believe in those ideals and think they're just as relevent today as they were back then....perhaps even more so.

Just because we're being tested as never before is not a reason to turn our backs on our ideals. There's been enough of that already. The Founding Father's knew what it was like to suffer at the hands of tyranny, what it was like to be powerless and have no say in how their lives would be affected by unfair governmental policy. I argue that their beliefs are more relevent today than ever becuase it's apparent that many have forgotten their importance because of complacency.

thats debatable,and none of us here are constitional experts. So no one opinion is more valid than any other one opinion.

I'm no constitutional lawyer for sure, and opinions are....well....ya know. LOL. But I do know that any policy or law that violates what many citizens view as a basic liberty should be extremely scrutinized.

thats pure idealism and has no basis in a conversation about the REALITY of fighting terroism

Ideals concerning liberty and freedom are the reason we fought a revolution...a civil war....and two world wars... I don't see the war on terrorism as being any different.

I think where we differ is that I refuse to prostitute those ideals in the name of achieving victory. To me, a victory achieved at the expense of selling out our ideals is no victory at all.

The government uses fear to rob you of your freedoms and liberties that millions have shed blood to ensure you have. To allow that to happen only makes their sacrifices meaningless; they died for nothing. Being a vet, are you willing to allow that?

Where do you draw the line? At what point do we no longer resemble the dream our Founding Fathers had of a free country?

Our enemies hate us because of what we represent...because of those very ideals you support getting rid of. Therefore, by allowing our government to take more and more freedoms away we are only playing into the terrorists aims. Even if we kill every last one of them, they still win if we allow our government to take away our liberties in the name of "national security."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is worth repeating.

Our enemies hate us because of what we represent...because of those very ideals you support getting rid of. Therefore, by allowing our government to take more and more freedoms away we are only playing into the terrorists aims. Even if we kill every last one of them, they still win if we allow our government to take away our liberties in the name of "national security."

 

[elder999]

thats debatable,and none of us here are constitional experts. So no one opinion is more valid than any other one opinion.

The Supreme Court, are, by definition-constitutional experts.

Their opinion is more valid than any other:

"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment." Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S.(1928).

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives.The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

I could go on, but I'm tired-and you're-quite simply-wrong on this.

 

[Twin Fist]

judical fiat

if they thought it was that important,it would have been in there, plainly stated. it isnt


and again, privacy has ALWAYS taken a back seat in time of war.

I am quite simply correct on that.