• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

And when we got a look at what was really going on we found out that Saddam had no clue about the sad state of his army. The so called terrorists he may have dealt with were an anti Iranian group in Kurdistan. His so called terrorist camps were built so the army could work on counter terrorism.



It was hardly an expansion. The borders are porous, the Taliban was cozy with the ISI, and many Afghanis live in waziristan.



Totally wrong. ALQ was allowed to stay in Aghanistan by Mullah Omar, and Osama paid allegiance to him because he didn't want to relocate. Osama had no role in the govt.

Cite your evidence weakling or be disbelieved.
 
And, you consider yourself slightly Liberal? Why not just go all the way, dude?

Please dumb this down to your level so I can follow your (?) logic. Or perhaps you prefer to just keep the meaning of this little bon mot to yourself.
 
Please dumb this down to your level so I can follow your (?) logic. Or perhaps you prefer to just keep the meaning of this little bon mot to yourself.

Currently 50+ Posts into your career here at DP and it's not looking good, chap.
 

And which one of these people are now on the terrorist watchlist? None of those people were even arrested, the kid from the first article wasn't even searched, and once again the stop and search is only allowed in places which have been designated to be at high risk for terrorist targeting.

Ok, maybe not the best example... but then again, not even being able to walk down the street with a beer in hand is pretty rediculous of a restriction if you think about it... now, while driving is a different issue, but then you become a public risk.

It depends where you're at. It's a state thing, 7 states in the Union don't have open container laws. I personally disagree with open container laws but I can see the logic in trying to prevent public intoxication, it hardly makes one less free to have to drink in the bar, now if one were not allowed to drink at all; such as Iran, then you might have a point.


Ya, this is true... but we have a 'patriot act' now where you can be deemed a 'domestic terrorist' for violating any 'federal or state law' and then stripped of your constitutional rights.

False, it could not be any crime it had to be specifically conspiring in acts of terrorism, aiding terrorists, or funding terrorists, and that provision of the Patriot Act was overturned by the SCOTUS in the Padilla case, and then under the Military Commissions Act only ALIEN unlawful combatants could be held without Habeas Corpus not U.S. citizens, and in fact that has since been overturned by the SCOTUS in the Boumediene case, and even when ALIEN unlawful combatants were stripped of Habeas Corpus they still had the right to a hearing by military tribunal to determine if their was actually cause to hold them and if there was they were then entitled to a trial by military commission.


No, but I've learned enough history to see what goes on in a police state, that's I said, we're not in one... but rather a few steps away. Then again, when the time comes it'll be like that quote in 'star wars' : "And so the republic ends not with a wimper, but with thunderous applause."

But since you're so smug on the subject, how about you list the differences between the CURRENT reality of north american life, and a police state. This way I can at least see if your idea of a police state is nothing short of open martial law with troops on the streets.

Well first of all you are wrong about your assertions regarding the Patriot Act and stripping U.S. citizens of their Habeas Corpus rights.


Freedom of speech has ended in this country... now it's 'free speech zones' and other similar speech restrictions. Our speech is no longer free, just 'lightly restricted when needed'.

Free speech zones are only used when public office holders; such as the POTUS, who are in danger of assassination are present, again it is not an attempt to stifle free speech, it is an attempt to provide security and considering the numerous times Presidents in our country have been assassinated it may not be such a bad idea.


Yes... like we saw in Pittsburgh... where there is video of people sitting on their porches, or on campus being told that they were participating in an 'illegal gathering' and then blasted with a sound cannon, beat up, pepper sprayed and arrested.

Um I believe you're referring to the Pittsburgh black bloc during the G20 summit, sorry sport you have the right to peaceably assemble not to stage black bloc riots as they do everytime they protest.

Not to mention that the permitted march was denied access to part of the permitted area and then blasted with the sound cannons (that's right before the "anarchists" pushed the trashcans towards the police line)

Um no that was right after the anarchists started trying to incite a riot by rolling dumpsters towards the police line. Giving a lawful order for an unruly mob to disperse is not a violation of free speech, for Christ's sakes John Adams successfully defended the ****ing red coats after the Boston Massacre for a far more viscous assault.


True... although most churches have signed away their rights as a religion but instead are 'tax-exempt charities' under the law... 501(c)3

How does a church being tax exempt harm freedom of religion one iota?

With voting machines designed for ease of fraud, specifically the computerized ones.

They got rid of the computerized voting machines. First those who screamed frauds in 2000 wanted computerized voting machines, then those who screamed fraud in 2004 wanted to get rid of the computerized voting machines, and after 2008 you don't hear anyone screaming about fraud now do you? Gee I wonder why that could be, could it be that the leftist activists finally got the results that they wanted?

Unless you are charged under patriot act.

Once again that is false as demonstrated.
 
Currently 50+ Posts into your career here at DP and it's not looking good, chap.

Actually, you gotta give some props to any poster who says "bon mot".
Previous to the advent of tjinta ibis, I think I was the only poster who had ever used the term.
 
You were disrespectful to the "Highest Law in the Land" and got cocky about it. Not my fault.

Ok, well, I will apologize for the apparent disrespect... that much was not intended. The point was that the constitution is being rendered legally irrellevant, and this must not happen if we hope to remain in a free country.

Show me some cases where your average, everyday pothead gets the Patriot Act treatment. Then tell me some smugglers from Columbia helping to bring in over 80% of the nation's cocaine, killing anyone who gets in their way, don't deserve to be considered terrorists?

The Seattle Times: Local News: Marijuana smuggling case first local use of Patriot Act provision (Using patriot acts 'sneak and peak' warrants)

Yes, I do agree that a cartel is quite likely to engage in terrorism... but funny thing is that the CIA and FBI have been caught so many times bringing drugs INTO the US that elements of these agencies are just as complicit in those terroristic aspects of the business as the actual cartels going around killing the competition.

The Stossel thing was a joke, dude. It's to keep an air of humor around here.

Ya... I should take this more lightly, but it's like half the time I'm stuck trying to prove that something EXISTS rather then being able to get into the purpose of the discussing whether or not it's a good thing. So, I do get frustrated sometimes.

I'm actually surprised that even after bringing up the potential that this shooter might very well have been a victim of 'mk-ultra' experiments... it's been partially declassified that it IS POSSIBLE to create a 'manchurian candidate' (ie a person so mind-f****d by drugs and hypnotic suggestions that they can litterally be given a completely new identity and be 'triggered' into action).... that noone has even touched... whether or not that is the case... at the very least I would put money that he was on some sort of SSRI (prozac / ritalin) type drug, because it's pretty well ALWAYS the case in mass shootings that the perpetrator had a psychotic reaction to the drugs.
 
Now the rest of the B part can be justified in many ways, but the wording also doesn't preclude political activism.

Who the hell is stossel?

Um no B is very specific and clarifies A, you might not be reading it correctly A&B are complimentary, the only laws which it is talking about in A are those which involve the actions in part B, and B is clearly definitions of terrorism and it sure as hell does preclude peaceful political activism as peaceful political activism is not against the law.
 
Prove me wrong!

I knew you could be provoked into rising to the bait and taking the hook. The weakling thinks she can set the terms of the argument. Let me clue you into the nature of reality young lady.

I asked you a series of questions for the purpose of engaging you in debate. You only get to ask me questions after you've answered mine.

Take a look at your post no. 92 on this thread. Then take a look at my post no. 113 on this thread. If you feel you might be up to a no holds barred debate then answer my questions. Otherwise you're through on this thread.
 
Um no B is very specific and clarifies A, you might not be reading it correctly A&B are complimentary, the only laws which it is talking about in A are those which involve the actions in part B, and B is clearly definitions of terrorism and it sure as hell does preclude peaceful political activism as peaceful political activism is not against the law.

That may be the case, but Pittsburgh's G-20 has shown that even 'peaceful' protest can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'... hell, what the cops / millitary did at the university could even extend that to 'peaceful spectating' of political activism can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'.

It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.
 
Gee this sounds like a tract from the 60's, when Blacks started to demand equality, and whites (southerners especially) said "they" should go back to Africa. And I think the number of murders of white people committed by blacks, and vice versa is 10000% higher than any violence by Muslim Americans.

lmfao the KKK has not killed as many people in the last 50 years as AQ killed in a single day. In fact the total amount of lynchings of African Americans since 1882 only slightly exceeds that of those killed on 9-11, 2,976 killed on 9-11 versus 3,445 lynchings of African Americans since 1882.

Lynching Statistics by Year
September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That may be the case, but Pittsburgh's G-20 has shown that even 'peaceful' protest can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'... hell, what the cops / millitary did at the university could even extend that to 'peaceful spectating' of political activism can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'.

It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.

There were some less-than-peaceful protesters in Pittsburgh (There were a few hardcore 'Anarchists'), and the presence of a **** ton of Cops I'm sure didn't make them any less likely to not try and cause trouble. Thank Goodness there was no major trouble while the Foreign Leaders were there.
 
Which is like saying that the hillbillies captured Appalachia and the Ozarks.

Um no the hillbillies didn't perpetrate massive genocide to obtain Appalachia and the Ozarks, that is what the Islamic Imperialists did to the Hindus living in the Indian subcontinent during the worst ethnic cleansing in history right up until that perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin.
 
This really is an inside peek at how the sausage is made.:cool:
 
And when we got a look at what was really going on we found out that Saddam had no clue about the sad state of his army. The so called terrorists he may have dealt with were an anti Iranian group in Kurdistan. His so called terrorist camps were built so the army could work on counter terrorism.

Um no smart guy he collaborated with Islamist terrorist organizations including AQ affiliates and he wasn't going after Iran he was going after the U.S. I suggest you read The Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," which demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.


Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun


Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6


It was hardly an expansion. The borders are porous, the Taliban was cozy with the ISI, and many Afghanis live in waziristan.

The Taliban was spreading its puritanical Islamist ideology internationally.


Totally wrong. ALQ was allowed to stay in Aghanistan by Mullah Omar, and Osama paid allegiance to him because he didn't want to relocate. Osama had no role in the govt.

Wrong again chuckles, AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special branch of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, and the Taliban granted them a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks.

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.
 
if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.


I don't know about that analogy....The CIA does whatever they want, with or without the U.S. Gov't.



:lol:
 
That may be the case, but Pittsburgh's G-20 has shown that even 'peaceful' protest can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'... hell, what the cops / millitary did at the university could even extend that to 'peaceful spectating' of political activism can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'.

lol the black blocs don't peaceably assemble sport, they incite riots, that's what they do, that's all they do, and they've been doing it since at least Seatle, giving a lawful order for an unruly mob which is inciting to riot, to disperse is not a violation of free speech, for Christ's sakes John Adams successfully defended the ****ing red coats after the Boston Massacre for a far more viscous assault.

It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.

All refer you once again to the Padilla case Boumediene cases of the SCOTUS.
 
There were some less-than-peaceful protesters in Pittsburgh (There were a few hardcore 'Anarchists'), and the presence of a **** ton of Cops I'm sure didn't make them any less likely to not try and cause trouble. Thank Goodness there was no major trouble while the Foreign Leaders were there.

Yes, there were also Cops that were CAUGHT ON FILM in 'anarchist' gear... in another thread I had mentioned an article where it was plainly stated that 'police infiltration of protest groups was a global standard practise'... yet, the only groups that ever seem to have cops caught doing anything wrong is when they've infiltrated anarchist groups... this was shown in : Geneva, London, Canada, Melbourne, Greece, etc...

Also, it's only ever the anarchists that get violent at those protests... or at least initiate / instigate the violence. if you could show me an example where it's not anarchists groups engaging in violent acts during a protest, I'd be glad to see it.

That said, the violent protestors aside, the police DID GO OVERBOARD considering the situation, the video of the university situation speaks for itself... a few dozen students just sitting in the park, not even protesting... when the sound cannons roll up with lines of cops... they chased the people through the park to the dorms, with dogs, and arrested everyone they caught... trapped students in the stairwell of the dorms and tear gassed them before eventually allowing them back to the dorms... one elderly woman was sicced by a police dog while exiting a shop, not even part of the protest.

I'm digressing... it was decided that EVERYONE outside of their homes was part of an 'illegal gathering' and treated as such. That was after even the permitted march was denied the full length of their permitted march.

I stand by my point, North America is on a slippery slope to turning into an allout police state.
 
Back
Top Bottom