I wouldn't compare the United States to a police state. However I would say that the current administration is threatening some of our civil liberties. Bush is setting dangerous precedents that could be further abused by future presidents. For example:

Free-Speech Zone

This article was debated over a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure if you ever saw it, Joren. And in case you want to dismiss it for containing liberal bias or left-wing Californication, take note that it's from The American Conservative.

------------------
"I am downright amazed at what I can destroy with just a hammer."
-Atom and His Package

I'm not the one redefining a word. The idea that Saddam was a dictator is irrelevent as it was his country to rule. If you had the slightest bit of understanding of Middle-Eastern Culture you would be aware of their honor system. For example, if you dishonor a family member (as Saddam's Son-in-law dishonored him by coming to America to study) then the one who dishonored the family must die at the hand of the family in order for honor to be restored. We (based on how we were raised in our culture) may not agree with this line of reasoning, but we MUST respect it, none the less. If the Iraqi people (Shiates and Sunnis, not included) wanted this to change, they would of approached the UN and/or the US or any other country and request assistance in overthrowing the empowering government.

Do you not understand that it is not justified for the US to simply go into another country and overthrow the leader simply because we beleive that that form of government prohibits "US intrests"? Do you not understand that going to war with another country simply over political differences is wrong (rather we agree with their culture or not)?



Information to support the occupation is easily available and regularly touted here at Massassi, in the Media, and else where. What isn't given enough attention is any information that rejects the idea of that support. It must be made clear that innocent people are dying. I read at least one death of a child that was ran over by a tank. This is horrible! What's worse is that so-called "accidents" happen on a regular basis in Iraq, far to frequently and in mass numbers to be considered "accidents." Such example would include the supposed "54-0" US win after a two hour firefight after a US convoy was supposedly ambushed. Oddly enough, the US did not recover any of the Iraqi Freedom Fighters 54 bodies, nor did it pursue it's attackers when they fled so that they might interrogate them. In fact, after reading eyewitness reports, we find that there were only about 3-5 attackers, all of whom managed to flee unscaved. So who were the 54 who died? Civilians! Twelve of which were children.

But, hey, maybe your right. Maybe I am biased. Perhaps I should just ignore the horrendous truth from eyewitness testimony and stick to getting my "facts" from US media sources and other "White-Collars" with their own "Intrests" in Iraq (rather politically or financially).

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

[This message has been edited by CaptBewil (edited February 12, 2004).]

This is laughable. Get this through your head: There is no such thing as "Middle Eastern culture. Iran, Jordan and Turkey are all a part of the Middle East. They do not share a culture.

Holding up Saddam as a paragon of Iraqi culture is an insult, plain and simple. You're like the activists and anthropologists who've read something about Native American culture and then act like some goddamned authority on what they do and don't want. I wonder how an urban Baghdadi would react if you told him he's bound by his culture to kill a family member for dishonoring him.

... The Iraqi people should have gone to the UN? People who spoke out against Saddam had their tongues cut out and were left to bleed to death in public squares. Don't suggest the Iraqis could have politely complained to the UN and then tell me I'm ignorant of Iraqi culture.

And for the record, I did not support the war for mere "political reasons" as you suggest. I'd be more than happy to discuss why, but that really doesn't belong in this thread.



If it makes you feel better to pretend like you're sticking up for the average Iraqi by pointing out that..civilians..are killed in wars..be my guest. But if you honestly think people didn't already know that, you're kidding yourself.

Accidents happen on a regular basis? Oh nos, somebody call the war crimes tribunal! Of ****ing course it's horrible. It's a war. If you disagreed with the premise of going to war in the first place, that's one thing, but if you expect anything other than bloodshed and violence in war you have another thing coming.

As for the convoy ambush, it's never been clear just how many "freedom fighters" (i.e. Saddam's Fedayeen) were involved, and how many people in general were killed. Eyewitness reports? ... The US troops involved were eyewitnesses as well, and given the discrepancy between what US forces reported and what the local population claimed happened, it's obvious the situation was confusing, to say the least. That also explains why US troops may have inadvertently fired on civilians in the heat of battle.

You say you're after the truth? You're doing a damn fine job of hiding your intentions.

Not a bad try, but here is an example where names can be deceiving: the site is spearheaded by Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party. You did have my hopes up briefly though for a challenging read from a conservative viewpoint - hard to get those nowadays. However, I will not lay into you, just in case you weren't aware of who was running the site. Even if you did know and were trying to pull a fast one, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here...

So, anyone else have any left wing articles from people pretending to be moderate or right wing?

Oh, and Capt, I'd address you, but it looks like Sine is doing just fine, and knows his stuff on the Iraqi situation.

But I would like you to tell me this - what part of "Middle Eastern" culture says its ok to rape little girls from ages 4-11, or to torture and kill whoever you dislike?

Watch your reply. This is a loaded question I am asking, and I know it. Any attempt by you to justify those things in the context of "Middle Eastern" or even "Iraqi" culture will only expose how ignorant you are to the reality of the situation there.

That, and I think you are lying about being a conservative. Not trying to argue a point with that last, just my opinion. Just got a feeling you said that just to try to get a leg up, and I have always been a good judge of character...


------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

1.) There was a reason the CIA wasn't allowed to act in the U.S. for a reason, terrorist threats are nothing new, there have been many terrorist actions that failed because of a mistake the terrorists made, not because of U.S. counter-terrorist actions. The FBI should be more than capable of taking care of terrorists without the CIA.

2.) I'm not saying other presidents don't lie, I'm saying they don't have it scheduled into their daily regime between breakfast and making faces in the mirror.

3.) Does the fact that the U.S. purposely doesn't record of who is being held there, where they came from, or what they did strike you as a little odd if they were holding just POWs? It's a nice brick wall technique actually...

4.) I never said you didn't agree with me, but I'm just enforcing the whole "police-state" idea.

7.) I'm fully aware that when you purchase anything with a credit card, your information is spent. The thing is, you can no longer write an anonymous letter to any government representative without them knowing who sent it. It opens the door to silencing people who are seen to be "a radical threat."

8.) And you're assuming he's not.

9.) I don't doubt it has happened before, I just can't find anything where officials admitted to it before...

10.) I never said you did.

I didn't say we were living in a police state, but that we've been brought close to one. Bush is smart enough to know that send shock troopers down the street would cost him the election...

Joren, you're missing the point. I don't care about the film that Greenwald is making, the links have high ranking officials saying Bush and co. knew that Iraqi possession of WMD was possible, but not probable, and they slanted evidence to make the threat look bigger. You're calling me blind as you look at only pieces of evidence that support your argument, and refuse to look at the "big picture."

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Is this the part where you again try to tell us how honest and open-minded you are, Joren?

Jon, is there anything you do here other than hang around and make personal attacks? I have yet to see anything actually resembling a point from you in the times I have been here. Usually you are just ripping on people rather than talking about issues.

Or is that just with me, because you love me so much?

Seriously. If you have a point relating to this debate, make it. If not, your continuing assault on my character only makes you look like that is all you have to hang your hat on.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Did you even read the article, Joren? Please address its contents, instead of ranting about who wrote it.

------------------
"I am downright amazed at what I can destroy with just a hammer."
-Atom and His Package

Why would I bother restating my point when other people are doing it quite well?

See, I could do what you're telling me to do. Or, on the other hand, I could repeatedly observe the fact that you refuse to comment on any supporting evidence on the basis that it was written by a liberal; and then I can observe how you repeatedly claim to be open-minded and good natured and actually interested in a "debate" that doesn't consist of you repeatedly spouting insane BS then crawling off singing "Lalalala I'm always right, everybody else is wrong lalalala!", like some sort of living parody of yourself.

I like that idea more.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited February 12, 2004).]

I did, but as with all things, I still have to consider the source. An interesting read, if not an unfactual one.


Jon'C

Time to put you through the B.S. translation machine.



Trasnlation: I have nothing to offer to this debate, nor do I wish to contribute to it in any way.



Translation: Either I could actually have to do something constructive, or I could just sit back, say absolutely nothing on topic, and essentially be an *** to you for no other reason than I feel like it.



Translation: I enjoy being an ignorant d!ck who picks on people more than I enjoy participating in a debate where I might actually have to try to defend what I think.


-----------------------------------------

If anyone else needs any Jon'Cisms translated into common english, let me know, I am here all week.


------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

[This message has been edited by Joren DarkStar (edited February 12, 2004).]

Stop evading the question. If the article is "infactual," say why.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

My apologies. I should have said biased, not unfactual. But I will make my case either way.



Why is this important, when it is done by many major politicians in many areas? Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago is one person known for this, as well as former Mayor Rudolph Guiliani (sp). Both Democrat by the way. This part of the article seeks to begin to alarm the reader to what Bush is doing, where it actually is status quo for major politicians.

Now I am not saying I like it, or agree with it, but to use that as your campaign against Bush, when its a very common tactic used by a wide majority of politicians, well, thats horsecrap to me.

If the article wanted to freely expose that tactic fairly and across the board, then I would have been more supportive of it. But the fact that this person is singling out Bush with this stuff is like a person among a bunch of coke addicts and 1 heroin user, and is saying they are all ok except for the heroin user, because he is bad for doing heroin. He misses the point that they all are doing the drugs!!

You get the jist of that analogy?

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Joren: You've gotten this whole political spectrum thing confused. Again.

Just for your betterment, Rudy Giuliani is a Republican and Pat Buchanan and the Reform party are reactionary, not radical.

While you're absorbing that, you might as well find examples of content-based "free-speech zones" set up by Richard Daley and Rudy Giuliani, too.

You make it harder and harder to take you seriously, Joren, when you keep confusing very basic concepts.

No, you're not, 'cause you're banned again. My god, will you ever learn to stop insulting people?

I never mentioned anything about you not presenting facts.

HEY! There is no reason to be insulting to me. I acted towards you in a civil and a friendly manner. I was telling you what my book said so we could compare. This is what I get for treating you with civility and like someone who's opinion matters and criticizing some of your perceived actions in a non-insulting and good-intentioned way? Stop taking your anger of Jon and others out on me. I did nothing to you.

Anyway, back to the information. It seems that while there are more Democrats than Republicans, there are more self-alleged Conservatives than Liberals. It wouldn't be totally unusual to see a Conservative Democrat. Or a Liberal Republican for that matter.

It didn't exactly seem that way to me, of course, Firefox and TLiJ seem to be the most vocal posters over there and generally piss everyone off.

Good. I was getting the feeling from your post that you thought you were totally unbiased. I'm glad that's not the case.

And I take it something bad did happen with Joren's Love?

Jon: I don't know how this got started, but it just always seems you like provoking Joren over an over, and then when he reacts harshly, you claim to be the victim. I don't know what Joren did to you, but would you please just stop antagonizing him and stop this cycle? There are far more better, non-insulting, non-alienating ways to put what you have said. And no, you are not completely at fault here. Joren does tend to be a bit arrogant at some points, but that doesn't mean you have to act like that to him. Pissing him off won't get your desired goal of keeping him quiet.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

Sine....I don't mean to sound like a mini-mod, but shouldn't Jon get punished as well? Joren deserves to be punished for how he reacted, yes. But what about the actions taken by Jon that provoked and taunted Joren to do that? I think Jon was purposly trying to get Joren all wound up and make a mistake because no reasonable person would act that way without wanting to be malicious in some way.

Of course, you're the admin.

Joren: I would like to know your response to my post to you. Please e-mail me.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited February 12, 2004).]

That was a pretty sloppy way to ignore his point and turn the question back on him.

Just want to reiterate what Kieran said here, Sine. I know you're usually pretty fair and try to see both sides, so I'm sure you'll take care of this.

------------------
Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin
http://www.writings-emag.net The next big thing since individually wrapped cheese slices (coming soon).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a stickler for personal accountability. Joren is solely responsible for his actions. Blaming someone else is juvenile.

Jon hasn't broken any rules: there's no reason for him to be banned.

I agree with Ictus.

I read it. And to be honest, I do find some of these things troubling. I do not like the Patriot Act at all. Every American has the right to protest our elected leaders. The Founding Fathers wanted that. If Bush is using these tactics, then he is showing lack of courage to stand up to the opposing voice. Pat Buchanon, to me, isn't all that bad. And to me, Reform party members are just disgruntled Republicans who are displeased of how the party is today.


------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

Joren shouldn't have reacted the way he did, and yes, Jon didn't break any express rules. But don't you think goading someone else into breaking the rules is wrong?

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

Joren and Jon were -both- goading/provoking each other, but neither crossed a fine line...until that post by Joren.

I don't like it when debates get this heated either but tightening the rules to address it would basically result in the closing of this thread and most others on similar topics. Then again maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

I never see why a thread should be closed.

If someone is going to cross a line, they should be allowed to, and punished for it. If they take what COULD and SHOULD be an honest debate and turn it into a cockfight to the point where they have to be stopped from crossing a line, I don't see what the point is.

Come on, Do the Evolution.

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

[This message has been edited by Eversor (edited February 12, 2004).]

So... >.> Who is voting for Bush? And why? XD

*smacks self in head repeatedly*

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

hehehe.

Of all the threads you could have revived...

------------------
Or then not. --FastGamerr/Nikumubeki

In be fo da lock up!

------------------
I’m not going to die, I’m going to see if I was ever alive. - Spike
It's not your right to decide whether they live or die. They deserve a chance! - Vash
BABIES EVERYWHERE!!!

Matlock is better

------------------
<landfish> FastGamerr > Satan

Bzzt.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97