White Al-Qaeda

[pacificflows]

Is the federal government trying to turn citizens with inconvenient opinions into terrorists?

Was the patriot act and similar legislation designed with future plans to police the public into submitting to the will of the fed in mind?

The MIAC report and other documents give me suspicions... Try googling "Terrorism what the public needs to know." and check the first link. It should be a pdf.

The EXTREMELY broad generalizations listed in that document mean just about everyone a person knows or even looks at has cause to be suspected of terrorism.

Is this wrong?

I apologize in advance if this is already/has already been discussed.

[dtugg]

Is the federal government trying to turn citizens with inconvenient opinions into terrorists?

Was the patriot act and similar legislation designed with future plans to police the public into submitting to the will of the fed in mind?


No. You're just paranoid.

[pacificflows]

No. You're just paranoid.

Actually, I never said I believe in this. I just think it's something worth discussing. If you disagree you could have simply clicked on and not stopped to make a display of douchebaggery.

[Caustic Logic]

The MIAC report and other documents give me suspicions... Try googling "Terrorism what the public needs to know." and check the first link. It should be a pdf.

The EXTREMELY broad generalizations listed in that document mean just about everyone a person knows or even looks at has cause to be suspected of terrorism.


Holy crap, I read that and now I'm suspecting myself of being a terrorist! "Nice guy image," "travelling in mixed groups" (I ride the bus), years in sleeper mode (my life is just entirely too 'routine) (and I sleep a lot, every day, usually 8hrs+).

Seriously tho, I'd need to know more about what's supposed to be the problem here in order to want to think about it much at all. Like, where does the "white" part come in?

[pacificflows]

Well the term "white" came from some news outlet. Fox, or CNN. Probably both.

The idea is that, "it's not just them anymore, it could be us!" Or at least that's what I was getting out of it. I realize it's racial profiling, and on that basis alone it's wrong in my book.

One thing I recall a news caster saying is, "these ones might be a little harder to spot. you know, they look like us." As if to say every terrorist up until that point wore a turban, had a darker complexion, and rode a camel or something.

I am just a little skeptical of the government's presentation of, "this is what a terrorist is. wait, now THIS is what a terrorist is. actually, now that we think about it, YOU could be a terrorist."

very strange..

[JoeyDonuts]

Alright, fine.

Let's just say that there is a movement to broaden the definition of terrorist to include ah..."people with inconvenient beliefs" whatever that means. Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this taking place outside of the usual Intertubes/YouTube/PrisonPlanet petri dish...Why would this be done? To what end? The only reason you'd do that as a governmental entity would be a precursor to action of some sort against them.

I predict this curveballing into FEMA camps very soon.

[JoeyDonuts]

You should also be wary of taking things out of context.

For example, if you were to read some reports put out by the DoD's "Red Cell," and didn't know any further information about their purpose or mission, you could easily be misled into thinking that Navy SEALs are planning attacks on our shopping malls, ports, and bridges.

Don't confuse "thinking like the wolf" with "stalking in the reeds waiting to tear you limb from limb."

ETA: Good lord, dtugg. You'd make an atrocious Wal-Mart greeter.

[pacificflows]

Nah, if I wanted to talk about FEMA I would just outright start a thread. And it wouldn't be about the "camps" they built, or whatever they really are.

What you're doing is answering my question with a question... But uh, to what end would this be done?

I really can't think of anything worth making a conspiracy documentary like some people can.

Maybe the ability to slap the word "terrorists" onto people deemed "political dissidents."?

[AJM8125]

Alright, fine.

Let's just say that there is a movement to broaden the definition of terrorist to include ah..."people with inconvenient beliefs" whatever that means. Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this taking place outside of the usual Intertubes/YouTube/PrisonPlanet petri dish...Why would this be done? To what end? The only reason you'd do that as a governmental entity would be a precursor to action of some sort against them.

I predict this curveballing into FEMA camps very soon.

Uh-huh. Just exactly the things they would tell you to say. Very clever, AbuDonuts El-Hakim, I presume.:tinfoil

[pacificflows]

You should also be wary of taking things out of context

That is a very good point. I don't mean to throw accusations at the military or the government, or anything like that. I have issues with how the media has painted it, in some cases.
But they only show one way of looking at things, of course, and they have a lot to gain through producing controversy.

I'm only asking the questions for the sake of asking them. I'm not saying I think the government's out to get me for my browser history or something like that.

[JoeyDonuts]

Uh-huh. Just exactly the things they would tell you to say. Very clever, AbuDonuts El-Hakim, I presume.:tinfoil

Is that the name I'm getting under these new regulations? Awww man. I was holding out for Rikishi Achmed Von Pisspot El-Boogalo De Johnson.

[AJM8125]

Is that the name I'm getting under these new regulations? Awww man. I was holding out for Rikishi Achmed Von Pisspot El-Boogalo De Johnson.

So it is said, so shall it be done. I'll petition the mods for the name change straight away.

[JoeyDonuts]

Awww, don't you damn dare!

That sword cuts both ways, strumpet!

Anyway, back to topic - I don't believe that the mainstream media is being manipulated as part of a giant conspiracy. I work at a TV station and I've seen how they decide what stories to cover or not. It has far more to do with the political leanings of the particular news director in charge of the producers who more often than not write the copy and proof the reporter's pre-taped pieces. They aren't perfect and they make mistakes all the time. They're an organization made up of PEOPLE, just like the government is. I think there are contextual issues with this, almost like Rumsfeld's "new Pearl Harbor" remarks in the PNAC document that fuels a lot of conspiracy-laced accusations of this somehow revealing his complicity or desire to plan 9/11 to further his hawkish agenda. I look at Rumsfeld like I look at the media sometimes. Opportunists? You betcha. Complicit in mass murder and disinformation? Not so much. Douchebags? The mainstream media for the most part, yes. Rumsfeld? Definitely.

[/soapbox]

[pacificflows]

This documentary I watched recently, Fiat Empire, noted the drastic shrinking of the amount of ownership governing literally all media. Down to about... six companies, I believe. That alone isn't suspicious to me, but that there used to be laws in place to prevent this exact scenario from occurring is.

Do I think those six companies, or any of them, are working in tandem with the government to lie to the people? No, not really. I do feel, though, that they spend a lot of their time trying to get voters to think a certain way. Why they do is beyond me, but it certainly is suspicious..

[JoeyDonuts]

It's easier to see something like that in big cities and major metro areas where most media outlets will probably be owned by Scripps or Clear Channel or any of the other media conglomos. But you go outside of the big areas, and you'll find an overwhelming number of independently owned affiliates, and some small media companies that own one or two stations in the same state. If you wanted to suppress and fool a population, you'd probably want to push your nefarious agenda on the people who had all the guns.

[Brainster]

From what I can see it's an overly generic advisory (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:zjGvD6zGwCYJ:www.co.cambria.pa.us/cambria/lib/cambria/terrorism_what_the_public_needs_to_know.pdf+Terror ism+what+the+public+needs+to+know.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) given by one particular US attorney's office (Pennsylvania).

[Pardalis]

Is the federal government trying to turn citizens with inconvenient opinions into terrorists?

People who kill innocent civilians in order to generate fear are terrorists, no matter what their opinions are.

One of the government's responsibilities is to ensure the public's safety, thus terrorism is illegal and fought.

[pacificflows]

People who kill innocent civilians in order to generate fear are terrorists, no matter what their opinions are.

Well yeah, anyone who argues with that point is seriously confused.

Was it by accident that your definition of terrorists could pretty easily be applied to us? I mean, the "shock and awe" method of fighting war these days is really just a fancy word for terrorism...

[pacificflows]

From what I can see it's an overly generic advisory (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:zjGvD6zGwCYJ:www.co.cambria.pa.us/cambria/lib/cambria/terrorism_what_the_public_needs_to_know.pdf+Terror ism+what+the+public+needs+to+know.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) given by one particular US attorney's office (Pennsylvania).

It is but one example of a mentality that I hope hasn't become the norm... I've heard that there are hundreds of different variations of this type of overly generic guidelines. I haven't checked into that, personally, but it's not too hard to imagine...

[TraneWreck]

White terrorism? Crazy talk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUjF_ykFv8&feature=related

[TexasJack]

Is that the name I'm getting under these new regulations? Awww man. I was holding out for Rikishi Achmed Von Pisspot El-Boogalo De Johnson.

I believe that is already taken.

[dudalb]

I'll settle for Al Aurens.

"For whom do you ride?"
"We ride for Al Aurens!".

[NorfolkAtheist]

It is but one example of a mentality that I hope hasn't become the norm... I've heard that there are hundreds of different variations of this type of overly generic guidelines. I haven't checked into that, personally, but it's not too hard to imagine...

So what if it's not too hard to imagine? I don't find it hard to imagine a bigfoot, but I don't think that is evidence of real bigfoots.

Even if there are similar pamphlets released by other offices around the country, so what? Without someone presenting a coherent theory outlining a workable and nefarious use for these overly-generic fliers I see no reason to assume any malicious attempt of oppression.

Actually, my gut feeling is that this pamphlet was whipped up rather quickly to hand out to anybody pestering these offices with questions of what they "can do to help" or what they "need to know". Rather than waste 5 minutes talking to every paranoid busy-body who walks through the door they can just say, "Here, take this and call this number if you see something weird. Bye now."

[Pardalis]

Well yeah, anyone who argues with that point is seriously confused.

Was it by accident that your definition of terrorists could pretty easily be applied to us? I mean, the "shock and awe" method of fighting war these days is really just a fancy word for terrorism...

No, it wasn't terrorism, it was a military operation aimed at throwing off the opposing army.

If you want to play the relativist game, and make moral equivalences, then be my guest, but I'll stay out of it, as I do not wish to waste my time on such idiocy. I find this kind of thing morally abject and intellectually dishonest.

[Thunder]

Was the patriot act and similar legislation designed with future plans to police the public into submitting to the will of the fed in mind?


No. It was not. Stop being paranoid. Its a lovely day. Go out and enjoy life.

[pacificflows]

Man, this place is full of douche bags.

No one here wants to discuss anything, they just want to take shots at the new guy.

You're too high and mighty to bring yourself down to my level and discuss a topic because it's "morally abject and intellectually dishonest"? Who cares.

Read the thread if you want. Discuss the topic if you want. But don't make a douche bag out of yourself by cluing me in on how stupid you think the topic is.

[pacificflows]

No. It was not. Stop being paranoid. Its a lovely day. Go out and enjoy life.

You act like you know me, man. Do you know how much time I spend on the internet? Do you know how often I go outside to "enjoy life"?

Do you even know the *********** weather forecast where I'm living? It could have been a ****** day for all you know.

NEWS FLASH EVERYONE:

If you think I'm paranoid for wanting to subjectively discuss a topic, I do NOT give a ****. I'm not posting on here for your goddamn approval. Just keep your judgments on weather or not I'm paranoid, delusional, or any *********** thing else the hell out of this.

[pacificflows]

No, it wasn't terrorism, it was a military operation aimed at throwing off the opposing army.

So you don't believe in the idea that an armies are just terrorists with air forces, then?

[pacificflows]

So what if it's not too hard to imagine? I don't find it hard to imagine a bigfoot, but I don't think that is evidence of real bigfoots.

Even if there are similar pamphlets released by other offices around the country, so what? Without someone presenting a coherent theory outlining a workable and nefarious use for these overly-generic fliers I see no reason to assume any malicious attempt of oppression.

Actually, my gut feeling is that this pamphlet was whipped up rather quickly to hand out to anybody pestering these offices with questions of what they "can do to help" or what they "need to know". Rather than waste 5 minutes talking to every paranoid busy-body who walks through the door they can just say, "Here, take this and call this number if you see something weird. Bye now."

Firs off: thanks for not trying to put me down for bringing this up. :)

Now then. You make good points. I just feel law enforcement has an obligation to not be so vague in this. They're public servants. So what if they have to spend a little time educating a concerned citizen about what the latest "trends" or what-have-you are concerning terrorism.

Simply saying, "they could be anyone! Watch out!" seems kind of... well, irresponsible to me.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Now then. You make good points. I just feel law enforcement has an obligation to not be so vague in this.

It's possible that they chose to be vague so that they don't reveal the extent of their actual knowledge because doing so would hamper their investigations. Of course, it's also possible that terrorists do their utmost to be inconspicuous and this makes it hard to write up a flier listing conveniently specific things to look for in a terrorist. I imagine it is largely a combination of these two points.

They're public servants. So what if they have to spend a little time educating a concerned citizen about what the latest "trends" or what-have-you are concerning terrorism.

Well, because that extra time could be spent doing something more productive. It's a lot more efficient (especially when you consider budgetary concerns) to give people a pamphlet than to spend time talking to them; especially when those folks are unlikely to be of much use, but really want to help.

[Pardalis]

So you don't believe in the idea that an armies are just terrorists with air forces, then?

No.

[JoeyDonuts]

Was it by accident that your definition of terrorists could pretty easily be applied to us? I mean, the "shock and awe" method of fighting war these days is really just a fancy word for terrorism...

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. In any military operation carried out inside population centers there are going to be civilian casualties. It's horrible, but it's a price of war. You're implying that the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq campaign was a terrorist operation. Bollocks. The targets were chosen because of their importance to Saddam's regime, command and control ability, and military strength. And as accurate as precision munitions are, sadly innocent civilians who choose to stay inside a war zone are going to be killed, maimed, or worse. It's reprehensible and it sucks. Kinda like changing a litterbox, but sometimes you gotta do that too.

"Shock and Awe" was not directed against civilian targets, and I challenge you to provide evidence otherwise.

[pacificflows]

Well, the intentions don't really mean as much as the outcome.

Who ended up being more shocked and awed? The terrorists, or the civilians we were supposedly trying to liberate?

I sincerely hope this isn't coming off as a round about way of saying, "I hate the military." Nothing could be further from the truth. I respect what the men and women in the armed forces are trying to do.

I'd join myself if I didn't think I was going to get caught up in some war that's only serving as a way to keep the military industrial complex turning out profits...

Well now that this thread's been derailed I guess I should say that the idea of the government trying to brand the public as terrorists has been shot to smithereens in my mind. I wasn't asking myself the right questions to really solve weather or not I believed it.

[Travis]

Well, the intentions don't really mean as much as the outcome.

No, actually in this case they are very important. American planes accidentally bombed Dutch cities in WWII and killed many civilians. Was that terrorism? What about accidentally destroying a pharmaceutical factory?

Terrorism is defined as it is by what it is intended to do.

Who ended up being more shocked and awed? The terrorists, or the civilians we were supposedly trying to liberate?

What's with the word "supposed?" We did liberate them. If we didn't intend to then we screwed up. As for civilian casualties, the use of very expensive precision munitions is designed to try and minimize them. Not something you do when you're trying to scare everyone.

I sincerely hope this isn't coming off as a round about way of saying, "I hate the military." Nothing could be further from the truth. I respect what the men and women in the armed forces are trying to do.

I'd join myself if I didn't think I was going to get caught up in some war that's only serving as a way to keep the military industrial complex turning out profits...

I assume you have proof that's the only reason the war was fought. Perhaps a forged document from a fake institute in Iron Mountain proclaiming, "we can't afford peace!":rolleyes:

Well now that this thread's been derailed I guess I should say that the idea of the government trying to brand the public as terrorists has been shot to smithereens in my mind. I wasn't asking myself the right questions to really solve weather or not I believed it.

Check out law enforcement guidelines for identifying serial killers. Has every middle class white male with above average intelligence who's shy and courteous been hauled off and disappeared?

[JoeyDonuts]

Who ended up being more shocked and awed? The terrorists, or the civilians we were supposedly trying to liberate?

In that instance we weren't utilizing the campaign against terrorists in the asymmetric sectarian poopstorm you see now. It was against the Saddam Ba'athist government and his military units, the Republican guard. It was also aimed at rounding up members of his regime responsible for the chemical warfare attacks against the Kurds and on the Iranian border.

Excising Saddam from power was a very good thing. It's the mismanagement of what came after that resulted in what you see today. A lot of people forget that.

[Pardalis]

I sincerely hope this isn't coming off as a round about way of saying, "I hate the military." Nothing could be further from the truth. I respect what the men and women in the armed forces are trying to do.

And yet you just compared them to terrorists. :rolleyes:

So you don't believe in the idea that an armies are just terrorists with air forces, then?

Terrorists don't help countries rebuild their infrastructures, roads and schools, and protect their citizens from attacks.

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060710175612idybeekcm0.3198053.html
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/approach-approche/rebuild_stats_may08.aspx?lang=en
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11924&Itemid=128
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50805
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21643&Itemid=1
http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/06/24/10317-balad-opens-iraqi-based-industrial-zone-service-center/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50046
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17535&Itenid=1

[pacificflows]

I've heard it put by the works of John Perkins that the building of infrastructure is a way for America to economically conquer a nation. I don't know the exact mechanics of what goes down, I'd have to re-read "Secret History of the American Empire." but I'm pretty sure it results in the country having a capitol city full of nice hotels for tourists to visit... aand... not much else. The cost of that puts the country in debt to the U.S. for the rest of their natural lives.

The books came from the perspective of a former World Bank contract negotiator. So I don't know if his views apply to what's going down in the middle east.

I'm not saying that building power plants, roads, and schools is a bad thing for us to be doing. From reading these books I have come to think that there's certainly a better way to go about doing it, though. Very often the only ones that benefit from these deals with the World Bank to modernize a country are the few high class citizens. The middle and lower class are largely left in the same straits they were in before we got there...

Is that the fault of our contractors? Or our military, or anyone else that has anything to do with the U.S.? Maybe not. But we certainly don't do a whole lot from how I'm seeing it to discourage corruption among nation's leaders. Quite the opposite, really...

[pacificflows]

[QUOTE=Travis;4550051]Terrorism is defined as it is by what it is intended to do.[QUOTE]

You're right. My bad.

As far as the "we can't afford peace," thing... I maybe shouldn't have said I fear getting caught up in a war that only serves as a way to turn profits. But if that is in anyway involved in the decision making process of military leaders, it's unacceptable in my eyes.

That the pentagon has think tanks designed to give us reasons to go to war with people really doesn't sit too well with me.

[pacificflows]

And yet you just compared them to terrorists. :rolleyes:

It was more of a question of weather or not you believed in that mentality. The "armies are terrorists with air forces" thing isn't something I came up with. I don't think that way.

[Pardalis]

I've heard it put by the works of John Perkins that the building of infrastructure is a way for America to economically conquer a nation. I don't know the exact mechanics of what goes down, I'd have to re-read "Secret History of the American Empire." but I'm pretty sure it results in the country having a capitol city full of nice hotels for tourists to visit... aand... not much else. The cost of that puts the country in debt to the U.S. for the rest of their natural lives.

Did you even take a look at the links I provided?

These are just a few example of US and Coalition forces helping the Iraqi and Afghani people rebuild their countries themselves.

The books came from the perspective of a former World Bank contract negotiator. So I don't know if his views apply to what's going down in the middle east.

snip

From reading these books I have come to think that there's certainly a better way to go about doing it, though. OK, so you don't know how this applies here, and yet you feel there's a better way to do it? :rolleyes:

Looks like you are going backwards, you already have an opinion without actually knowing what you are talking about.

But we certainly don't do a whole lot from how I'm seeing it to discourage corruption among nation's leaders. Quite the opposite, really...Provide proof of this.

[Pardalis]

It was more of a question of weather or not you believed in that mentality. The "armies are terrorists with air forces" thing isn't something I came up with. I don't think that way.

So why did you ask me the question to begin with? The way you compared Shock and Awe to terrorist activities implies that you do think this way.

[pacificflows]

Well, uh... I don't know, officer... Am I free to go now? :p

My comparison stemmed from how I find war to be repugnant... Killing for any reason at all is a tough pill for me to swallow. That doesn't mean I don't think there are circumstances in which it's necessary.

People who do evil **** on a regular basis and run a tyrannical regime that doesn't show any likelihood of being talked down? By all means, Rambo, take 'em out.

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, uh... I don't know, officer... Am I free to go now? :p

My comparison stemmed from how I find war to be repugnant... Killing for any reason at all is a tough pill for me to swallow. That doesn't mean I don't think there are circumstances in which it's necessary.

People who do evil **** on a regular basis and run a tyrannical regime that doesn't show any likelihood of being talked down? By all means, Rambo, take 'em out.

Which is exactly what happened in Iraq. Unfortunately this is not a simple "kill all the red dots" Atari kind of war. Targets are missed, weapons malfunction, intelligence gets goofed, and children and innocents sometimes burn in the fires of war along with its intended targets. I also find war to be repugnant and I was trained for years to be better than the other guy at it. I don't believe any servicemember ever wants to do it, but I am going to "make that other S.O.B. die for his country" to quote General Patton.

And we're still not any closer to proving that the U.S. Government or Dept. of Homeland Security is increasing the scope of the Patriot Act, or broadening the definition of the word "terrorist." All that I can see is an organizational acknowledgment that terrorist organizations don't always wear turbans, kaffiyehs, balaclavas, or carrying AK-47s. Any halfway smart group that wants to infiltrate another is going to use people that blend in. And any halfway smart group on the OTHER side of that is going to expect and be aware of this possibility. I still think you're taking a few things out of context in the report as far as its purpose and importance.

[Travis]

I somehow doubt terrorists would try to infiltrate the USA wearing traditional garb while holding a sign that says "Death to America!" As such any instructions on recognizing terrorists that limits themselves to that description is bound to be useless.

[Red3]

Terrorism to some extent has worked out brilliantly for the Governments of the U.S and U.K for implementing legislation that goes against civil liberties. Just looking at some of the laws that have been past to "counter terrorism" is evidence enough to go some way in proving the establishment is either corrupt or incompetent, I'd say it was both. They're intent in knowing everything about us.

Take for instance the U.K gov's plans to track facebook use; how many terrorists are likely to be on facebook?!

[pacificflows]

Terrorism to some extent has worked out brilliantly for the Governments of the U.S and U.K for implementing legislation that goes against civil liberties. Just looking at some of the laws that have been past to "counter terrorism" is evidence enough to go some way in proving the establishment is either corrupt or incompetent, I'd say it was both. They're intent in knowing everything about us.

Take for instance the U.K gov's plans to track facebook use; how many terrorists are likely to be on facebook?!

I'll play your devil's advocate here, because chances are I'll end up being much more friendly about it than many here.

Legislation that's meant to help prevent terrorism almost always has the negative aspect of lessening our civil liberties. Is this wrong? Well, yeah. I wish it didn't happen. But, "is it wrong?" isn't really the question. I would ask you, "is it necessary?" and hope for an honest answer.

Corruption and incompetence is a way to explain what's been going on. Lack of resources and limited omniscience is another way... Law enforcement can't be everywhere, knowing everything. They're people just like us, and unless they peer into a person's life a little bit, they're not going to know a damn thing about them. I don't know about you, but I can't tell a terrorist just by passing one on the street.

[Red3]

I agree with you. But some of the things being implemented seem like overkill and it makes me suspicious of their motives, especially when you take into consideration the propaganda, spin (and downright lying) and profiteering that surrounded the Iraq war for instance. The people who we place our trust in to protect us, have got a less than clean track record where the war on terror is concerned.

The Government in the U.K is constantly in hot water over issues of dishonesty, corruption and incompetence.

[Travis]

Terrorism to some extent has worked out brilliantly for the Governments of the U.S and U.K for implementing legislation that goes against civil liberties.

First prove those governments wanted to legislate against civil liberties.
Next list the civil liberties we lost in post 9/11 legislation.

Just looking at some of the laws that have been past to "counter terrorism" is evidence enough to go some way in proving the establishment is either corrupt or incompetent, I'd say it was both.

Which laws prove the corruption and which laws prove incompetence?

They're intent in knowing everything about us.

You have proof for that?

Take for instance the U.K gov's plans to track facebook use; how many terrorists are likely to be on facebook?!

I see, this is a derivation from the "ignorant cavemen" canard.

[Red3]

First prove those governments wanted to legislate against civil liberties. Next list the civil liberties we lost in post 9/11 legislation.

I don't have to prove anything, it's my opinion. If I'm allowed to have one.
I didn't say we "lost civil liberties". I said some legislation goes "against" civil liberties. Not the same thing.

But some things that I think are infringing on civil liberties and can be used out of context (and I think they were designed to be) are the monitoring of communications by the gov. (emails, phone calls, surfing habits etc.), making it illegal to photograph the police/forces, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 control orders, dna database, foreign travel monitoring...

Which laws prove the corruption and which laws prove incompetence?

Fair point, I don't know. But without knowing the motives when laws are passed, how would I? But that works either way.

You have proof for that?

Like I said, it's an opinion. I don't have to prove it.


I see, this is a derivation from the "ignorant cavemen" canard.

Ignorant caveman "canard"? No, quite the opposite. Why would a terrorist use a social networking site that has, from the get go, had issues with it's privacy agreement surrounding user content, to plan attacks or share information? Surely they would use a more secure way of communicating? I'm sure they're more technology savvy than the average pc user/facebook user.

[Red3]

Error posting.

[Travis]

I don't have to prove anything, it's my opinion. If I'm allowed to have one.

How do we differentiate your "opinions without proof" from "wild ass speculation?"

But some things that I think are infringing on civil liberties and can be used out of context (and I think they were designed to be) are the monitoring of communications by the gov. (emails, phone calls, surfing habits etc.), making it illegal to photograph the police/forces, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 control orders, dna database, foreign travel monitoring...

Many of those things are UK exclusive, with nothing analogous in the US, but what's interesting is that those things don't really impinge on civil liberties themselves. They could potentially be misused but so could most police procedures.

[Red3]

How do we differentiate your "opinions without proof" from "wild ass speculation?"

I understand what you're saying. I wasn't setting out to convince anyone of anything...I was making a passing remark based on my own and a similarly growing popular opinion (I know, now you're gonna say "prove it's popular opinion"). I know this is is skeptical forum, but I wasn't aware everything I say has to be set out as some water tight hypothesis and then have my every word scrutinized. I'm not officially accusing the Government of corruption. It was a comment on a web forum!

Many of those things are UK exclusive, with nothing analogous in the US, but what's interesting is that those things don't really impinge on civil liberties themselves. They could potentially be misused but so could most police procedures.


I never said they were meant to apply to the US, but since the U.S and U.K's (and other countries') reaction to terrorism are similar I though it was to some extent relevant. I also said above "that could be used out of context", which is pretty similar to saying "They could potentially be misused". But yes, the laws themselves may not themselves be threats to civil liberties; but how they are implemented by the security services/law enforcement might.

But I take your point that what I said wasn't thought through all that much.

[JoeyDonuts]

Hey Red3 - this particular forum is where delusions come to die. Unsubstantiated speculation like yours is going to get called out. If you look critically at what your own beliefs are and the things that you are saying, you could actually learn a thing or two instead of taking umbrage at it.

There are numerous web communities that revel in wild speculation. While you might have more fun and exercise your imagination there, here you stand a good chance at picking up some critical thinking skills, which are sorely lacking nowadays.

[Travis]

There are numerous web communities that revel in wild speculation. While you might have more fun and exercise your imagination there, here you stand a good chance at picking up some critical thinking skills, which are sorely lacking nowadays.

Ugh. Tell me about it.

[Red3]

Hey Red3 - this particular forum is where delusions come to die. Unsubstantiated speculation like yours is going to get called out. If you look critically at what your own beliefs are and the things that you are saying, you could actually learn a thing or two instead of taking umbrage at it.

There are numerous web communities that revel in wild speculation. While you might have more fun and exercise your imagination there, here you stand a good chance at picking up some critical thinking skills, which are sorely lacking nowadays.

Hi,

I wasn't taking umbrage; I admitted I didn't really think what I said through. I take your point about gaining some critical thinking skills and I know I'm (not always to be fair) lacking in them.

I didn't take offense or "umbrage" at anything anyone said. The reason I came on this forum in the first place was to learn something, not to take offense when people disagree or point out some weakness. If I wanted to make statements that went completely unchallenged I would indeed go and join a forum that specializes in wild speculation, but I thought I would come on here ad get a more critical view. After all, how do you know if wrong (critical thinking skills aside) if you don't get challenged?

Edit: Well, O.K, perhaps I did take umbrage a little. :)

[JoeyDonuts]

Right right. Don't feel too bad. I've made some posts here in the past that were ill thought out, and I got called on it. I got pissed and handled much much worse than you. Then I realized it pays to look at yourself more critically than anything else. Believe it or not, my experiences on this forum and getting to know a lot of these skeptics has benefited me in my offline life tremendously.

[INRM]

PacificFlows,

Is the federal government trying to turn citizens with inconvenient opinions into terrorists?

Actually people have worried that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was designed exactly for that purpose.

Was the patriot act and similar legislation designed with future plans to police the public into submitting to the will of the fed in mind?

Well, the original USA Patriot Act was actually replaced during the early morning hours it was to be voted on with a version depicting all sorts of provisions that were not originally to be in it. I'm not making this up.

To make it more interesting many of these provisions and powers had been requested by the government earlier, but were essentially shot-down. They were too excessive and extreme.

The MIAC report and other documents give me suspicions... Try googling "Terrorism what the public needs to know." and check the first link. It should be a pdf.

The EXTREMELY broad generalizations listed in that document mean just about everyone a person knows or even looks at has cause to be suspected of terrorism.

While some of the characteristics in the document listed are indeed indicative of the characteristics of terrorists, *WAY* too many are entirely too broad and could easily encompass a wide number of innocent people who are of no threat.

Is this wrong?

Yes it is. A lot of innocent people could be labled terrorists and subjected to abduction or arrest, extreme torture, years of confinement, possible lifetime imprisonment or even execution.


INRM

[INRM]

Here's a link I found under the same search query that PacificFlows mentioned
URL: http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/observation_post/2009/mar/22/terroristdefentry/

By Vicki Crawford
YOU'RE PROBABLY A TERRORIST IF....
Posted March 22, 2009

You're probably a terrorist if you supported former presidential candidates like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin. The guy with the flip-charts doesn't count. Yet.

You're probably a terrorist if you're against the New World Order, the North American Union, and those united numbskulls, the UN. Reading Tom Clancy novels doesn't help your case.

You're probably a terrorist if you're against abortion, against illegal immigration, and against gun control. If you're just against paying taxes you could be a terrorist unless you're a member of the presidential cabinet or a congressional representative, then you're excused.

You're probably a terrorist if you're against RFIDs (Radio Frequency Identification) and universal service programs. You're probably a terrorist if you're for the US Constitution, for property rights, for national sovereignty, and for Christian ideologies.

You're probably a terrorist if you've seen Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism". Same goes if you've watched "Zeitgeist". Got to wonder if "V for Vengeance" is on the list.

You're probably a terrorist if you stock up on things like water, baby formula, ammo, cigarettes, alcohol, denim jeans, and medicines. And for all you folks rushing out to buy guns and ammo out of fear that the current administration will enact severe gun restrictions, hey, you may have made the list as well.

You're probably a terrorist if you go around carrying things like cameras, binoculars, hand held tape recorders, maps or charts, sketch pads, notebooks, SCUBA equipment, or disguises. Or a tourist.

So far Mom and apple pie aren't on the list, and if you think that all the above is utter nonsense, think again. And while you're at it, scrape off those bumper stickers, hide your flag collection, and get rid of your gold lest those things also give you away as being a terrorist.

This "nonsense" comes from sources such as the Missouri Information Analysis Center Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement (dated 20 Feb 2009), the "If you encounter" pamphlet from the Phoenix branch of the FBI, the Texas Department of Public Safety and Criminal Law Enforcement pamphlet titled "Terrorism: What the Public Needs to Know", and Virginia's "Terrorism & Security Awareness Orientation for State Employees". Additionally there are several news stories and commentaries on the Internet concerning these definitions of terrorists.

This is insane, and it's no wonder there's more than a million names on the watch list and no-fly list. Who's next? The Boy Scouts? Seriously, we've gotten to the point in this country where we need to not only watch what we say, but also what we do and how we do it lest we find ourselves in a hurt locker with the law.

There are many Americans who have become dissatisfied with the direction that the Republican and Democratic political parties have taken, and more and more are looking towards third party candidates for public offices. There are people who are concerned about the negative impacts that some trade agreements and foreign policies have had and will have on the security and welfare of this nation. There are many folks who believe still in the founding principles of this nation, but none of this should classify any of them as threats, potential or otherwise, to the government.

The idea that if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about no longer flies. Such broad and inane definitions throws many harmless citizens into the same categories as real criminals, and creates numerous distractions, as well as wastes in dollars and manpower, from the real terrorists.


INRM

[Thunder]

Here's a link I found under the same search query that PacificFlows mentioned
URL: http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/observation_post/2009/mar/22/terroristdefentry/

By Vicki Crawford
YOU'RE PROBABLY A TERRORIST IF....
Posted March 22, 2009

INRM

Dude, if you believe in the evil "New World Order", you may not be a terrorist, but you sure are stupid.

[INRM]

Parky 76,

That's not the point. The point is that it is very dangerous to use broad definitions for defining a crime as serious as terrorism, innocent people could end up being locked up for expressing an unpopular opinion that the government doesn't agree with.

INRM

[mark4mark]

Couldn't the case of John Walker Lindh have prompted some of these concerns outlining home-grown terrorists?

Isn't he the poster boy for "White Al-Qaeda?"

[JoeyDonuts]

Lindh traveled abroad to link up with the extremists.

I think the point of this thread is the speculation that everyday people will someday wake up and find themselves branded An Enemy Of The Government for various sundry offenses, including but not limited to:

1. Failure to floss regularly
2. Displaying too many bumper stickers
3. Owning more than three (3) Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young albums
4. Still regularly playing a Dreamcast and convinced it's coming back someday
5. Drinking wine out of a box

[mark4mark]

Lindh traveled abroad to link up with the extremists.

I think the point of this thread is the speculation that everyday people will someday wake up and find themselves branded An Enemy Of The Government for various sundry offenses, including but not limited to:

1. Failure to floss regularly
2. Displaying too many bumper stickers
3. Owning more than three (3) Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young albums
4. Still regularly playing a Dreamcast and convinced it's coming back someday
5. Drinking wine out of a box

AHA! There are only three C,S,N, and Y studio albums! The fourth, a live effort-4 way street-doesn't count.

You almost got away with it you bastard...