Why we cannot fight terrorism - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-21-2004, 06:49 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Why we cannot fight terrorism

We (civilized countries for instance USA, Japan and Western Europe as opposed to uncivilized ones such as Syria or China who can fight terrorism with a full range of devices at their disposal that civilized countries do not) cannot fight terrorism properly because we have the hand of law enforcement tied behind our backs by civil liberties groups and some dangerous judges, case in point is as follows.
Quote:
NYPD cops blasted a federal judge’s ruling aimed at stopping them from searching demonstrators’ bags outside the Republican National Convention, saying the decision gives “an open door to terrorists.”
Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Sweet’s decision - made public yesterday - prohibits blanket searches of bulky bags and backpacks in the absence of a “specific threat.”

“In this day and age of terrorism, it’s an extremely dangerous step in a very dangerous time in New York City,” said an outraged Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association.

“It’s giving an open door to terrorists, and further handcuffing police at a time that they should be given a little bit more latitude,” Palladino said. He said he plans to urge Mayor Bloomberg to appeal the ruling.

Sweet’s decision also limits how many streets the NYPD can close around Madison Square Garden, and prohibits cops from penning protesters behind metal barricades.

The ruling does not prevent the use of hand-held metal-detecting wands around the perimeter of the convention.

Sweet wrote that his ruling is an attempt to “define a resolution which can serve to encourage free expression in a secure society.”

He described the preventive measure by police as an “invasion of personal privacy.”

Christopher Dunn, an attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union, called it a “historic victory.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-184246c.html

So what we have is a potentially dangerous decision in relation to security at a major event, I cannot express how angry I am at the complacency of the people who will play a politically correct "we will not check bags unless there is a specific threat", they are laying the groundwork for an attack 1000 times worse than 9/11 where hundreds of thousands of people will be killed because of the insistance that nobody gives up any of their pre-2001 liberties - hell they are even extending these rights to people who want to kill us all because it is politically incorrect to attempt to protect yourself these days.

Terrorist attacks are inevitable until most people accept that there is a threat out there and that it can only be dealt with by sacrificing some liberties in the name of securty as has been done in most wars, this is the World War of the Globalisation age and until many get beyond the pseudo-intellectual Oil Imperialism and Orwellian perpetual war rantings of the intelligencia (do not associate that term with actual intelligence) the potential for massive attacks looms large.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 07:57 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 11:51 AM
I think that there are hundreds of millions of people who are effectively supporting terrorism by defending, condoning and rationalising terrorism. Statements like "I oppose terrorism but..".
"remember what happened in 1975 and so i think.."..

I think the language of media doesnt help.. like " spain is paying the price "...as if 3/11 was ok to be done...and such things..
or " osama punished XYZ" as if osama is someone who has the authority to punish..

the media has been reallly disappointing and so has been a large section of people all around the world in the FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.

And thats the biggest problem to fight terrorism - you cant fight something which people actually (indirectly ) want.
__________________

__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 08:03 AM   #3
Refugee
 
LoveTown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 1,359
Local Time: 07:51 AM
While I believe terrorism does exist I think our media and our government are perhaps blowing things out of proportion. We have been on elevated alert since 9-11 happened with no terror attacks to speak of. When you think about it, the terrorists don't have to do anything at all because we are crippling ourselves with our own fear. All they have to do is sit back and watch us!
__________________
LoveTown is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 08:32 AM   #4
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:51 PM
A_Wanderer:
So you suggest that the USA, Europe and Japan (what about Australia?) should copy the Chinese Politics?
You neither trust the democratical nor the law-system of the west? You prefer a dictature to "fight terrorism"??
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 10:48 AM   #5
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:51 AM
The problem is that we're fighting the symptoms and not the cause. You can never cure a disease if you only treat the symptoms.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 11:47 AM   #6
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Bush says that the terrorists hate us because we are free. I honestly don't undersand those who take that to mean that we should therefore have less freedom in order to fight terrorism. What, then, are we fighting for?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 11:52 AM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,669
Local Time: 05:51 AM
So let me get this straight you beat your chest and talk about how the own way to beat terrorism is through deadly force. The only way to find peace is through democracy, yet now we have to lose our democracy in the process. That's some scary thinking if you ask me. Where do you draw the line of people's right's to privacy being taken away. Might as well search everyone's bag within a 2 mile radius of the convention. Why we're at search everyone's house within a 2 mile radius.

Why are we assuming terrorist's will pose as a demonstrator?

This is a ridiculous argument. And like Cydewaze said we need to be fighting the cause.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-21-2004, 12:01 PM   #8
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 754
Local Time: 06:51 AM
cydewaze has it right. until we address the root causes of social injustice like abject poverty, human rights, education, a broken economic system, and systemic corruption within our governments, we will never be able to eliminate terrorism. Terroristic ideas are not natural; they must be bred. We must eliminate the breeding grounds with as much love, tolerance, and wisdom as possible.

i don't buy wanderer's sweeping and insulting statements that we are not supposed to be in an orwellian continual state of war. hello? it's all just about every government official has spewed since 9/11.

if we could all just open our eyes and realize what a devestatingly slippery slope this all is. i would rather die, happily, than give up my bill of rights. period. end of story. and i'll proudly defend my rights from the likes of my fellow americans who would happily surrender MY rights just so that they can falsely sleep better at night.

submission in the name of fear and security is the end-goal of terrorism. to insinuate that not supporting fascist police-state laws and the complete destruction of our bill of rights is to support terrorism is an old, flawed, disingenious, and unsophisticated fallacy.
__________________
elfyx is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:36 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Oh great, another think-piece from our man on the edge, A-Wanderer! Let me guess, authoritarianism is the answer! Lock up those damned civil libruls and communists!

I despise you, A-Wanderer, but have a nice day anyway.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 06:36 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Hmmm because I think that checking peoples bags is a simple way of preventing a disaster therefore I must advocate the creation of a police state, right, I love the logic jump there. Taking a specific example to illustrate that because of some judges fighting terrorism can be impossible to being an indigtment of the entire foundation of our society, truly that is such a good analysis of the way that I think because it is the exact opposite of what I was trying to damn well say.

I mentioned Civilized Countries because I love having an open and transparent democracy and I think that we can defend ourselves without becoming police states, I clarified my statement of civilized countries with examples of what I personally consider to be civilized and then examples that I consider to be uncivilized in terms of human rights and treatment of suspects because if I did not people would complain about using an unclarified statement of what a civilized country is and that would be a pointless argument, evidently people can see the difference between a moral and amoral government therefor my clarifier was useful.

Now the important bit, I in no way shape or form advocate the creation of an authoritarian system of government but I do have a profound sense of disgust when the judiciary removes a common sense means of saving lives on the basis that unless you have specific information relating to an attack it is unwarrented. Looking in peoples bags is not too much of a bother and it has the potential to save many innocent lives so now because I think that this is an example of how the law is failing to protect the citizens of a nation I am a deranged facist who thinks that the people must be submissive to the state and if they don't then they should all be shot.

This is a World War of the Globalisation Age and there is no way to negotiate our way out of it. People will be killed in future terrorist attacks and that is a sad fact, how we deal with the threat and retain those freedoms we hold dear is the question. I personally feel that one of the reasons that 9/11 occured was because the US did not take the threat seriously enough and the terrorists were able to exploit systematic weaknesses in the airport security and law enforcement systems to carry out their goals. That it was a fuckup of tremendous proportions that could have been averted if some reforms had taken place, this is all a coulda, woulda shoudda proposition however now in hindsight it is clear that the checks were not there. So here we are, international terrorists do have the ongoing goal to strike at the civilized world in the belief that they can trigger a chain of events which would allow them to gain power throughout the middle east. They also have the means to do so. Law enforcement should be upgraded to deal with this threat in a way that does not rob people of their rights but does , if 15 Arab Men aged between 20 and 50 board a single plane on a domestic flight then I would expect it to ring a few alarm bells, if a guantanamo bay detainee drops a name then I would expect that law enforcement would follow them up, if there is a politcal convention then I would expect that security is strong and all bags are checked upon entry in order to minimize the risk of disaster. These are very simple ways of dealing with an ongoing threat that do not make peoples lives worse, they do not create a police state and they most certainly do not hurt people or the way they live nearly as much as a terrorist attack would.

My Politics are as follows
1) Government is a necissary evil.
2) The Government must never be given the right to have blanket surveillance of its citizens and all communications. If the government or law enforcement wish to survail individuals then it must be overseen by the judiciary.
3) Islamic Terrorism is a global problem that is a representation of the same type of Authoritarian Systems that the Western World fought against in WW2 and the Cold War plus a lot of apocalyptic Islamist ideology tossed in, because we live in a globalized world its modus operandi are different than that of Nazism and Communism therefore it must be fough against on all levels in order to ensure that there never comes a time when they possess the tools to inflict massive destruction of civilian populations.
4) Governments should be responsible and take measures to protect their civilians and minimize the threat, this must be overseen by the elected representatives of the people and be subject to complete oversight, the law must be changed to take into account the mindset of the suicide terrorist to whom the standard means of detterent are not strictly applicable.
5) The War on Terror is not going to have a definitive winner, terrorism will still be used around the world and innocent people will always be used however the threat of massive attacks can be substantially reduced if much of the Islamic world can undergo the transformation from stagnant den of authoritarianism and hatred to democratic and open societies built on the concept of a free market.
6) All people on the earth deserve to live freely and if they do then there will not be nearly as much conflict and the United Nations etc. would actually work properly.

We must rise to the challenge of terrorism and overcome it by achieving the exact opposite of the terrorist, they do have genuine grievances that I would agree with however the terrorists solutions to those problems would see the destruction of the civilized world and the creation of an authoritarian Islamic superstate. I think the grievances can be solved by introducing democracy and forcing the regimes in the Middle East to modernize and democratize, once this is done the terrorists own support base will be drastically diminished and the brief heyday of global Islamist Terror will have drifted into history as quickly as it began.

Now can anybody else agree with me that checking peoples bags at a big political event that is a prime candidate for a terrorist attack is not an unwarranted interference into their lives and a violation of their rights and that this judges decision has the potential to cost lives.

EDIT
elfyx
Quote:
until we address the root causes of social injustice like abject poverty, human rights, education, a broken economic system, and systemic corruption within our governments, we will never be able to eliminate terrorism. Terroristic ideas are not natural; they must be bred. We must eliminate the breeding grounds with as much love, tolerance, and wisdom as possible.
This is the precise view that Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorists seek to create. What they have done is elevated their grievances to top priority on your list of problems a victory because it creates a lot of advocates who feel that by adressing the "root causes" (Read: Demands) they can prevent future attacks, this will not stop the Islamists they will keep coming until the free world is destroyed and the Caliphate is renewed, Ideological Motivation lies behind the Islamists own Death Cult (I am Calling Al Qaeda/Islamist world view a deathcult because it deals with a very apocalyptic clash of civilizations and end of days BS, Islam is not a Death Cult however branches from the Islamism school of thought most certainly are), the Al Qaeda terrorists themselves did not grow up in abject poverty Osama bin Laden is a well off individual and the Hijackers themselves were by no means poor, they had experience and education, it is not ignorance and poverty that breeds this terrorism it is the sucess of it as a tool to achieve their ends. The Palestinians have been extremely successful in using terrorism to gather world attention and sympathy and from this example Islamist Terrorism is able to manipulate opinion. There are millions of opressed people around the world and dozens of ethnic groups who are on the recieving end of great injustices who do not go out and muder other innocent civilians so we must ask is this the only cause of terrorism. I do not see Tibetan Bombers (Although the CIA backed insurgents did operate their success was relatively poor and it failed to gather the worlds attention as much as Arab hijackings and assassinations), these root causes you speak of are devoid of any real world application, terrorism is a form of political violence used by organizations that feel that they will gather more ground by killing innocents and making people pay attention to them than diplomacy ever can. We should disregard the demands of the terrorists and actively seek to find real and workable solutions to the problems, namely cutting the state sponsership and condeming all terrorist actions, there is absolutely no justification for this evil and by giving reciognition to murderers as we have done to Yassir Arafat we are setting the scene for a lot more trouble. There are problems with the world however the answer is not a utopian peace and love mantra, it involves taking a stand against injustice and bringing a true peace with justice to the world by wiping authoritarian governments and organisations out. People will be better off and the scourge of terrorism will not perpetuate if it never achieves anything.

Furthurmore any liberal democracy must strive to find a balance between Security and Liberties, this is what I was talking about, it must be acknowledged that the 1990's was a period of relative peace (Where it Mattered unfortunately ) and the old Cold War paradigms of Mutually Assured Destruction and calculation of the Soviets motivations were thrown out of the window, this allowed a sense of complacency to take effect and it was this thought that Large Scale Terrorism was something that happened in other places but never in the West that permeated the public conciousness, sure there were attacks but the public refused to acknowledge the gathering threat, now we know better and we should reciognize that the way that law enforcement works should be changed to deal with new threats, this is what I mean by balance. Consider you have a set of scales, in one till you have Liberties and in the Other you have Security, these are interchangeable, you can transfer some libety into security and visa versa, today there is a clear threat out there therefore it is not unwise to sacrifice a few liberties in the short term to ensure that security is not neglected and a big attack does not occur again. This shouldn't be cause for histerical cries that I am a fascist it should really be cause for a legitimate debate about the degree that law enforcement should be allowed to operate to provide maximum security for the minimum sacrifice. When I say that worse has been done in the past I am thinking of things like the treason and sedition acts, internment camps (I do not see Muslims being carted off to live in internment camps, that to me would be an action of an amoral government that would solve a problem but would be completely and utterly wrong), unlawful surveillance (the FBI in the 50's and 60's under Hoover was much more powerful than it is today, if you want an example of a police state look back to the early Cold War).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:41 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
people of their rights but does , if
sorry, didnt finish the first part, here it is.

Quote:
Law enforcement should be upgraded to deal with this threat in a way that does not rob people of their rights but does ensure that the everything that can reasonably be done to prevent an attack is done, failure to do this would be incompetent and plain wrong,
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:44 AM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Furthurmore any liberal democracy must strive to find a balance between Security and Liberties, this is what I was talking about, it must be acknowledged that the 1990's was a period of relative peace (Where it Mattered unfortunately ) and the old Cold War paradigms of Mutually Assured Destruction and calculation of the Soviets motivations were thrown out of the window, this allowed a sense of complacency to take effect and it was this thought that Large Scale Terrorism was something that happened in other places but never in the West that permeated the public conciousness, sure there were attacks but the public refused to acknowledge the gathering threat, now we know better and we should reciognize that the way that law enforcement works should be changed to deal with new threats, this is what I mean by balance. Consider you have a set of scales, in one till you have Liberties and in the Other you have Security, these are interchangeable, you can transfer some libety into security and visa versa, today there is a clear threat out there therefore it is not unwise to sacrifice a few liberties in the short term to ensure that security is not neglected and a big attack does not occur again. This shouldn't be cause for histerical cries that I am a fascist it should really be cause for a legitimate debate about the degree that law enforcement should be allowed to operate to provide maximum security for the minimum sacrifice. When I say that worse has been done in the past I am thinking of things like the treason and sedition acts, internment camps (I do not see Muslims being carted off to live in internment camps, that to me would be an action of an amoral government that would solve a problem but would be completely and utterly wrong), unlawful surveillance (the FBI in the 50's and 60's under Hoover was much more powerful than it is today, if you want an example of a police state look back to the early Cold War).
Yes, there is a sliding scale between Liberty and Government-controlled Security (I am deliberately making this phrase slightly different than yours). Or rather, the option could be better described as Government-control in the name of Security. Does that scale need adjustments?
You personally indicate that you don't mind trading in some liberties for more government control (I am not saying security, because you cannot guarantee it). Others, including me, disagree. I don't want to have less freedom traded in for a feeling that I might be more secure. For me, the trade-off is too inequal. I still have a much higher chance that I die because of a car crash than of a terrorist attack. Yes, terrorist attacks do occur and I may be a victim of them. Sadly, that is the current truth. And yes, you may prevent them by trading in liberties. The country with the lowest chance of a terrorist attack in this world is North-Korea. However, they also have no liberties. How far will you go?

By suggesting that some liberties have to be traded in for government control so you can have a higher sense of security, I don't immediately want to suggest that you are a fascist. But be careful what you wish for. In many countries with totalitarian regimes (pre-WWII Italy and nazi-Germany are the two most obvious ones) it all started when its population voted for more government control so the government could fight the 'terrorists'. Their short-term loss of freedom quickly became a long-term burden (unless you call 10-15 years short term).

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:45 AM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,669
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Oh where to start...I'm just going to address the subjects of the article because the rest of what you preach I find to be drivel.
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer



Now the important bit, I in no way shape or form advocate the creation of an authoritarian system of government but I do have a profound sense of disgust when the judiciary removes a common sense means of saving lives on the basis that unless you have specific information relating to an attack it is unwarrented. Looking in peoples bags is not too much of a bother and it has the potential to save many innocent lives so now because I think that this is an example of how the law is failing to protect the citizens of a nation I am a deranged facist who thinks that the people must be submissive to the state and if they don't then they should all be shot.

if there is a politcal convention then I would expect that security is strong and all bags are checked upon entry in order to minimize the risk of disaster.

First of all the article was about checking the bags of demonstrators and not those that enter the convention. Those that enter the convention will more than likely walk through a metal detector, empty pockets, the whole nine yards just like they would any sporting event etc.

But you're talking about randomly searching innocent peoples bags on the streets. There are so many problems with this. You call it common sense but nothing about it makes sense in a world where certain rights are protected. First of all the man power needed to have someone start looking through everyone's bag will increase that which is already needed for security. Logistically how are you going to search these bags, pull people over from the picket line and dump there stuff out onto a table? How are you going to stop the cops from searching innocent bystanders, those who aren't demonstrators, do you have to have a picket sign in hand to be a potential threat? What will be considered a terrorist threat...will a legal pocket knife now hold someone in suspicion? How will the items found be used against this person...i.e. what if a demonstrator had something illegal but nothing that could be used as a terrorist device would they get arrested? This isn't as simple as hey this man looks suspect let's search his backpack, oh look we found the blueprints to the building and some C-4(that will teach that terrorist to not hold a picket sign).

It's an absurd request you are in essence telling every American that if you use your given right to protest you are suspect of being a terrorists...but maybe that's there goal anyways.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

This is the precise view that Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorists seek to create. What they have done is elevated their grievances to top priority on your list of problems a victory because it creates a lot of advocates who feel that by adressing the "root causes" (Read: Demands)
This is nothing but bull headed arrogance and one of the most ignorant statements I've read in here. Yes I'm sure the terrorist demands are that we reach out and help our fellow man and try to eliminate, educate, and maintain human rights throughout the world. I'm confused now, because earlier you said they aren't freedom fighters, but now these are their demands? Interesting.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:07 AM   #14
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:51 AM
If you "despise" someone, please keep your feelings about them off this board. This is not a place to discuss how we feel about each other; we are here to talk about the issues.

Please, no more personal attacks.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:29 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:51 PM
When people say root causes of terrorism they are inevitably going to talk about the poverty and ignorance of the world and that when it is fixed terrorism will just go away, I wish that were so but it is not. Terrorism is a useful political tool that grabs peoples attention and gets them scared, once scared they seek resolution and want to make the terrorism stop. The easiest way is to say that we must adress the "root causes" of terrorism, I would argue that this is precicely the wrong course of action. The "root causes" of Al Qaeda is ongoing US Support the Saudi Royal Family. Now the first thing that happens is that people demand the US stops supporting Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden has calculated this and that is why he used Saudi Hijackers, it ensures that political pressure will be placed on Bush to hold the Saudi Government to account, by giving into US demands the House of Saud collapeses from internal pressure within the Kingdom and an even scarier Regime that follows Bin Ladens ideology can Sieze Power. It has nothing to do with poverty or ignorance and has everything to do with the Islamist Agenda of toppling existing states and establishing a Taliban Style Islamic Superstate that could seriously threaten World Peace, by dealing with the current root causes of Al Qaeda's existence the west would ensure that they will change the root cause as they are given more concessions and become a bigger threat.

I stand by my statement that those that desire to listen to Bin Laden and deal with the Root Causes are useful idiots because they are playing into his hands exactly, the best way to deal with Islamist Terrorists is to upset the Status Quo of the Middle East and introduce a competing political ideology such as the liberal democracy so that Islamism does not become an inevitability for the Islamic World. Once most people reject his message greater success in preventing future large scale attacks is an inevitability.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com