Pakistan fury as CIA airstrike on village kills 18 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/15/wpak15.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/15/ixnewstop.html)
Angry Pakistani officials have condemned an American airstrike on a remote village near the Afghan border which the US said was aimed at Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command.
US intel sources must of been smoking Grade A Taliban opium again , because the US strike killed only innocent civilians again .

This has a familiar pattern of deliberate US mass murder to it , remember that The Wedding Party Massacre (http://rwor.org/a/v24/1151-1160/1158/afghanistan.htm) in Afghanistan which came under massive US air attack ? Followed by an exact similar Wedding party massacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html) in Iraq that killed 40 . Each attack was said to be done to root out Al qaeda or insurgents . This case the US said they were after an Al Qaeda # 2 man .

Thing was the Pakistanis say we didn't take out the second highest Al-Qaeda guy after all (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pakistanis-say-we-didnt-take-out.html) . I say what has transpired here is an atrocity by US servicemen and this is the cover up story again .

How the hell would they know if we got him or not? I'm sure they haven't recovered or identified all the bodies (some will be totally unidentifyable anyway) and the locals would say he wasn't there even if he was. Its the ass end of the world, filled to the brim with tribalism and islamist fanaticism.

Yeah, it's a sad story. The U.S. must stop blindly bombing civilians thinking that they are harboring terrorists. They have been wrong so many times so it looks like ignorant massacres. Pakistan is claiming that the U.S. was acting on incorrect intelligence, however keep in mind all the bodies haven't been identified yet. It could turn up that he was killed, but it doesn't excuse the deaths of women and children. The Bush Administration needs a new tactic, quick. Pakistan is a strong ally, we can't afford to lose them.

How the hell would they know if we got him or not? I'm sure they haven't recovered or identified all the bodies (some will be totally unidentifyable anyway) and the locals would say he wasn't there even if he was. Its the ass end of the world, filled to the brim with tribalism and islamist fanaticism.


It doesn't justify the deaths of children, which has been confirmed. Blindly bombing civilians to kill a single man is not the way to win this struggle.

It could turn up that he was killed, but it doesn't excuse the deaths of women and children.
Oh, it would be totally worth it. Look at the old WW2 style of warfare. You sent every bomber you had over the biggest enemy you could find and firebomb every square inch of the place. Then you turn around and firebomb it again to make sure you didn't miss anything. Anything and everything to defeat and utterly crush the enemy, preventing them from ever bothering you again.

Its war. People die. You try to find ways around killing civilians, but not so hard that you risk losing your own men. A military leader, if he wishes to win, must believe that one american soldier's life is worth a hundred non-american ones.

Why are innocent civilians hanging around with the #2 man in Al-Queda?

Its war. People die. You try to find ways around killing civilians, but not so hard that you risk losing your own men. A military leader, if he wishes to win, must believe that one american soldier's life is worth a hundred non-american ones.


As much as Bush supporters want it to be so, this is NOT World War II. Not even close. And what American soldiers were in danger in that remote village? Who did the children endanger? Blindly bombing civilians is a despicable act and is not justified, especially in this war.

Why are innocent civilians hanging around with the #2 man in Al-Queda?
Were they ?
And was he actually their ?
Or maybe this is some bullshit con job to pull the wool over the eyes of people and cover up a deliberate atrocity ?

Why are innocent civilians hanging around with the #2 man in Al-Queda?

What part of "faulty intelligence" do you not understand? If it's faulty intelligence then no innocent civilians were hanging around the #2 man of Al Qaeda which is why only innocent civilians were killed and which is why people are calling this another U.S. mass murder.

Now hey, if all these bombings that have happened all to capture these heads of Al Qaeda resulted in the deaths of some actual Al Qaeda leaders, then those would be innocents hanging around bad guys so their deaths are excused, but so far we've been wrong every single time hence the bashing of all our mass murderous airstrikes.

- N

Thing was the Pakistanis say we didn't take out the second highest Al-Qaeda guy after all (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pakistanis-say-we-didnt-take-out.html) . I say what has transpired here is an atrocity by US servicemen and this is the cover up story again .
The strike was prosecuted by a RQ-1A Predator, an unmanned drone aircraft. No servicemen were involved.

The strike was prosecuted by a RQ-1A Predator, an unmanned drone aircraft. No servicemen were involved.

Wow, I didn't know we had drones that could operate off of pure artificial intelligence! That sounds about right though as the government/military is usually 25+ years ahead of everyone..

:rolleyes:

- N

The strike was prosecuted by a RQ-1A Predator, an unmanned drone aircraft. No servicemen were involved.
Terror chief targeted in US missile strike on Pakistan (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article338636.ece)
The CIA is believed to have fired missiles from Predator aircraft at Damadola village in the tribal area of Bajaur, near the border with Afghanistan.
It was launched by servicemen from an airbase , and shadowed by military aircraft , guided by service men and its payload fired by servicemen .

Wow, I didn't know we had drones that could operate off of pure artificial intelligence! That sounds about right though as the government/military is usually 25+ years ahead of everyone..

:rolleyes:

- N
Its another argument they will use to distance themselves from this incident .

Its another argument they will use to distance themselves from this incident .


That some rogue AI fired the missles? LOL, how about this, I will send you $100 USD through Paypal if the U.S. uses that argument. Deal?

That some rogue AI fired the missles? LOL, how about this, I will send you $100 USD through Paypal if the U.S. uses that argument. Deal?
No the missiles are manually targeted and fired from a base by people . The craft is just a delivery system .

Conspiracy bores me.

No the missiles are manually targeted and fired from a base by people . The craft is just a delivery system .

Weak argument, I don't see the U.S. using it. The argument will most likely be that they thought the intelligence was reliable.

Conspiracy bores me.
No I believe this is a logical conclusion , in light of the LIE's told over Iraq .Weak argument, I don't see the U.S. using it. The argument will most likely be that they thought the intelligence was reliable.
No its not a weak argument , this attack happened in Pakistan and Pakistan say that this man was not on their soil . Why didnt America act in conjunction with Pakistani intel on this , that would be the logical tactic , seeing this is inside Pakistan and Pakistan is an ally . The perpertrators of this attack would of known they were in Pakistan , the CIA was behind this so who were they bombing ?

No I believe this is a logical conclusion , in light of the LIE's told over Iraq .
No its not a weak argument , this attack happened in Pakistan and Pakistan say that this man was not on their soil . Why didnt America act in conjunction with Pakistani intel on this , that would be the logical tactic , seeing this is inside Pakistan and Pakistan is an ally . The perpertrators of this attack would of known they were in Pakistan , the CIA was behind this so who were they bombing ?

Pakistan is not that close of an ally. The only other intelligence besides the CIA provided intelligence the U.S. will use is maybe the United Kingdom. Other than that, the U.S. will always use U.S. intelligence. And if the U.S. intelligence said he was there, they will act on it, faulty or not. That's why I'm so against blind bombing such as this. There is no way to be sure, and even if they were right, they took out children as well. That is never justified under any circumstances in my book.

Pakistan is not that close of an ally.
Says you , Pakistan is a close ally , Pakistan actively co-opearted with America in the invasion of Afghanisatn and was pivotal in the US supply to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion .
The only other intelligence besides the CIA provided intelligence the U.S. will use is maybe the United Kingdom. Other than that, the U.S. will always use U.S. intelligence. And if the U.S. intelligence said he was there, they will act on it, faulty or not.
Israel is a main factor in supplying the US .

Says you , Pakistan is a close ally , Pakistan actively co-opearted with America in the invasion of Afghanisatn and was pivotal in the US supply to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion .

Israel is a main factor in supplying the US .

Ah yes, forgot about Israel. My mistake. As for the first part, that all may be true, but the U.S. does not operate solely on Pakistani intelligence.

The problem with America... is democracy.

lol

this bodes bad for the hunta in Pakistan...

if i was pakistani... osama or not... i would not except these types of bombings.


if they were sure he was there...

they should of closed off the enitre region.. no one in or out..

and systematicaly search...

not bomb...

road blocks and check points could do better.

and it would maintain the respect of the people.


-MT

I say this.. cause pakistan was not part of the war...

and if bombing is to be done.. it should be the pakistani airforce that does it.

but the U.S. does not operate solely on Pakistani intelligence.
If America is going to conduct military opeartions inside Pakistan , dont you think ideally it would be logical for America to
a ) Rely heavily on Pakistani intel
b ) Clearly identify the target
b ) Ask Pakistan permission to carry out an incursion on their territory
The problem with America... is democracy.
Thats true America with the PATRIOT ACT coupled with the HOMELAND SECURITY BILL has no democracy .

they should of closed off the enitre region.. no one in or out..

and systematicaly search...

not bomb...

road blocks and check points could do better.

and it would maintain the respect of the people.
That is correct , this is what is usually and logically done , this proves this was some clandestine operation carried out without Pakistani knowledge this could of been an agent provocateur exercise by the CIA .

As much as Bush supporters want it to be so, this is NOT World War II. Not even close. And what American soldiers were in danger in that remote village? Who did the children endanger? Blindly bombing civilians is a despicable act and is not justified, especially in this war.
We had intelligence saying that one of our greatest enemies was in that village. We had three options: Do nothing, send in troops, or bomb the living snot out of it. If we do nothing, the man will continue to work against us and it will likely result in many more american deaths. If we send in troops, there will be a firefight and many of our men are going to die. If we bomb it into dust, we lose only a couple of bombs out of our inventory plus the price of gas.

It may or may not have payed off. We do not yet know which. In either case, it was a gamble that at worst lost us nothing and at best twisted a dagger deep into the belly of our enemy. We did not want civillians dead but we certainly aren't going to value them over our own lives. If you live in close proximity to an al queda member and know it, the best way to ensure your safety is to bring us their head.

it is never exceptable to gamble with innocent lives....

-MT

we want him dead... but bombing assures nothing.

especialy since it destoys remains....

We gamble with innocent lives whenever war is made. Everyone does. If we sent in troops, someone will probably shoot at them... then we shoot back. Innocents will die in the crossfire. War can not be fought in any sense without risk to civilians.

but to bomb civilians in a nuetral friendly country.... only inrages in the people there...

and justifys the hatred of Americans....

we are supposed to be the good guys.

not the bad guys.

-MT

Enrages the people there? We are already called the Great Satan, thought to be the worshipers of evil manifest come to exterminate all Islam. Nothing we do will ever make us one ounce less hated. Even when we don't do anything nasty, even when we perform great acts of charity, we are still condemned.

Good guys, bad guys. I want to be one of the guys still breathing at the end of the day. Honor does a dead man no good.

point is... a good guy.. a paladin... doesnt turn to evil acts just because its acceptable...


he acts as a good guy... because he is a good guy...

if we act evil.. we prove ourselves to be evil.


what we dont need is evidense... that suggest we are evil.

-MT

I am not one to believe in things such as good or evil. Nearly everyone who ever lived believed themselves to be doing what is right or necessary or excused. Nearly everyone pointed at the next man over and said that he was evil because they weren't the same.

Would a man ever know if he was evil? Why should a man know if another man is?
I don't believe there is any set right and wrong set by a bearded man on a cloud. Its subjective, all up to us.

only men can be evil....

historically... all acts of evil... are commited by men.

thus it is up to men... to try and be better than that.

-MT

only men can be evil....

historically... all acts of evil... are commited by men.

thus it is up to men... to try and be better than that.

-MT
What about the moors murders in the uk, myra hyndley was a woman who abducted young kids & killed them for kicks, women can be very evil too, dont give men all the credit.

What about the moors murders in the uk, myra hyndley was a woman who abducted young kids & killed them for kicks, women can be very evil too, dont give men all the credit.


He was talking about "man" as in Human Beings, not just males.

road blocks and check points could do better.
That is correct , this is what is usually and logically done

Wait a second, isn't that what Israel does? Doesn't exactly garner them respect :confused:

Says you , Pakistan is a close ally , Pakistan actively co-opearted with America in the invasion of Afghanisatn and was pivotal in the US supply to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion .

Sorry, gotta disagree with ya there. Pakistan isn't a close ally. The only reason why they help us is pressure from us. Mushareff is walking a fine tight rope balancing us with the 50%+ radical Muslims that exist in their country. Hell man, he gained power by a coup. He has assassination attempts on his life all the time. The biggest threat in the world, besides Israel, is Pakistan. I'd hate to see what happens if Mushareff loses power and the majority of the radical Muslims gain power there. THAT is when you'll be having looney Arabs trying to nuke us as they're already a nuclear power who's majority of the population are radical Muslims. It's not Iran you gotta worry about nukes from, it's them. It's always our allies that screw us the most. 9/11 were our friends the Saudis, and future nuclear attacks will be from our allies the Pakistanis once a whacko is in power. Remember, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. That's the only reason why those nutty countries are our "friends".

road blocks and check points could do better.

That is correct , this is what is usually and logically done

Wait a second, isn't that what Israel does? Doesn't exactly garner them respect

The big difference is that Israel makes all those road blocks and check points permanent for the sake of keeping all Palestinians inside an area, not to search for bad guys. Then they build walls and increase the depth of the road blocks to further steal more land. Those only serve as borders to grab more land, nothing more.

If we did road blocks and whatnot, it'd only be to corner in an Al Qaeda rat which we'd have operations going on in that area as well to seek him out. Once he's tracked down and killed or seems to have escaped, those road blocks would be gone. Israel's remain though.

- N

Clockwood,

I guess you wouldn't mind if Pakistan sent in some helicopters to bomb your home town, killing a few of your family - as long as they had "intelligence" that an enemy of Pakistan lived near your home.

Right?

The Pakastani President is taking the "friend of the U.S." charade pretty far. Basically he blamed the bombing on his own citizens, saying that if they continue to harbor terrorist, things will not be good for them. He's saying the U.S. will continue to drop bombs in that country as long as terrorists are being welcomed by the citizens.

I have to agree with him, but he should have a little more spine than that. He should require the U.S. to at least confer with Pakistan before they bomb a Pakastani village.

I still don't think he is 100% with the U.S., he's probably just trying to please us. He also knows that the U.S. would not risk losing him as president with all those nukes so they will protect him.

James R: Its their right to try, its our right to stop them.

Zephyr:

Wait a second, isn't that what Israel does? Doesn't exactly garner them respect

You're neglecting to consider the bulldozing, land theft, economic crippling, and terrorism committed by settlers and the IDF.

James R: Its their right to try, its our right to stop them.

They certainly had a jolly good try bringing those tall towers down in New York.

Jolly good effort from those chaps wouldn't you say?

They certainly had a jolly good try bringing those tall towers down in New York.

Jolly good effort from those chaps wouldn't you say?

They brought two towers down killing 3,000 + 2,500 soldiers, we invaded Afghanistan killing tens of thousands of them and continue to kill tens of thousands in Iraq as they flood the country.

Nothing to brag about from either side because the killings have proven nothing except that the U.S. isn't afraid to kill civilians and niether are the terrorists, but you can't really compare the death tolls. Honestly, what has this entire conflict, from 9/11 to today, proven? It's all just pointless bloodshed to me.

Don't be so modest with the achievements of the terrorists. They also brought the US six steps closer to a pure facist state. Bloody brilliant some might say. Took your freedom away by means of manipulating your own government. And, oh my, weren't they an eager bunch to do so.

Don't be so modest with the achievements of the terrorists. They also brought the US six steps closer to a pure facist state. Bloody brilliant some might say. Took your freedom away by means of manipulating your own government. And, oh my, weren't they an eager bunch to do so.


They have? What freedom have they taken away from me? My life hasn't changed in the slightest. Well, except now I have to take my shoes off when I go through an airport security gate. Oh no, how the mighty have fallen! :bugeye:

Acutally i don't know what the stink is about. For all we kno those people were far from innocent. and before you even say "Well, there were kids." the kids in those countries use automtic weapons to kill anyone their parents tell them to. So shut up and wait it out.

What freedom have they taken away from me?
USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)


Again, what freedom was taken away from me? The Patriot Act hasn't affected me at all. The only freedoms the terrorists took away was the freedoms of suspicious individuals, mainly people who talk with terrorists or hint at it. No sweat off my back.

Again, what freedom was taken away from me? The Patriot Act hasn't affected me at all.
Read it , its the actual bill , you no longer have a right to privacy , you can be placed under surveillance at anytime . The US law can now legally search and seize your property without a serach warrant , the US law can now legally access your bank accounts , the US law can now legally break in to yopur home and take files from your computer etc , etc , etc read it , and whats more its a unilateral law which encompasses the entire US population .

THE PROBLEM IS WE WANT PEOPLE TO LIKE US... and stop hating us.

bombing villages where we think bad guys MAY be... is not how we win the love of the world.... it will only piss them off.

-MT

Read it , its the actual bill , you no longer have a right to privacy , you can be placed under surveillance at anytime . The US law can now legally search and seize your property without a serach warrant , the US law can now legally access your bank accounts , the US law can now legally break in to yopur home and take files from your computer etc , etc , etc read it , and whats more its a unilateral law which encompasses the entire US population .


And again, if I have no ties to terrorists, than what freedoms have I lost? All of those things were done before the Patriot Act, which is why my life has not changed in the slightest. So, unless you can point out how the terrorists have affected my life and freedoms personally, your argument is shot. I can still say Bush is a flaming fucktard who should be impeached and than jailed, so I'm happy.

Mosheh: We can and will never be liked in the forseeable future. That path is denied to us.
I would be content with respect in any sense of the word. Even the respect given to a worthy enemy.

peace through superior firepower eh???

doesnt work... but it does earn respect and fear...

question is.. is that what we want??
and should we promote it?

no.

-MT

Zephyr:

You're neglecting to consider the bulldozing, land theft, economic crippling, and terrorism committed by settlers and the IDF.
"economic crippling of palestine"

So who is responsible for the economic crippling of all muslim countries, who do not have oil, the jews as well i suppose, there is not one sucessfull muslim country out there, that does not have oil wells. Why simple they embrace the past & religon, we embrace the future & various if not no religon, basically we have freedom of thought, sadly lacking in muslim counrties, freedom to pick our religon, our lifestyle.

>
Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.

Mosheh: Peace. There are dozens of possible meanings for that word.

There is the peace that comes when all sides are too busy rearming themselves to fight at the moment. There is the peace that comes when all sides are afraid to make the first move, such as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is the peace that can be found in the center of a great empire such as Rome when it is forcing all battles to be fought beyond its borders. There is the peace from when all sides have been beaten so bloody that they no longer have the strength to fight. The different types of peace are immense in number.

Rarest of all is the peace that comes when people sincerely do not want to fight.

peace through superior firepower eh???

doesnt work... but it does earn respect and fear...

question is.. is that what we want??
and should we promote it?

no.

-MT

Of course it earns respect and fear. Fear is a form of respect, in case you were wondering. Superior firepower steals the fight from the enemy. Of course we want superior firepower! What sense does it make to have the goal of inferior firepower in the middle of a war?

There are no credible sources for truth on the attack. There is no reason why anybody should believe anything the US government, the Pakistani government and the villagers of Damadola say. The media's information all flows from those unreliable sources.

The agreed upon facts are that three houses were destroyed and some people including women and chidren died. Beyond that, all other alledged facts are in dispute.

Some unnamed source says eight foreigners were removed from the bomb site and buried elsewhere. If somebody knows that, then why can't the graves be dug up? Some villagers say no foreingers where in the village.

Whether the houses destroyed were the intended targets is not known. I have not seen how the targets were aquired; which is a good thing because it means the CIA does not leak it's methods as soon as it gets criticized. The media speculation about following Zawahiri's video tape couriers does not sound very credible to me. There are probably many paid informants on the ground, but can you trust their information?

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Pakistan+%26+Sub-Continent&month=January2006&file=World_News2006011722638.xml
"English-language newspaper the Daily Times, in an editorial headlined “Pantomime about Al Zawahiri”, asked: “If the ‘intelligence’ was faulty, whose intelligence was it? What the Musharraf government faces is the deaths of 18, mostly women and children. It also faces the fallout of the intelligence botch-up — not the first when it comes to the Pakistani and American snoops.”

Another leading daily, The News, reminded readers that eight civilians on the Afghan border were killed in another apparent US missile attack earlier this month."

There are no credible sources for truth on the attack. The is no reason why anybody should believe anything the US government, the Pakistani government and the villagers of Damadola say.


So you are saying the eyewitnesses in Pakistan are lying?

And that the USA, which lied about WMD, the evidence for WMD, kidnapping people around the world and countless other things, all within the last 3 years, have more veracity. The USA is more likely to be telling the truth that shocked people whose village was just attacked without warning?

You really want us to believe that?

In the court of law, the USA would be found to lack credibility because of being caught in the act of perjury before the court. It is only when you own the courts, like George Bush owns the courts, that you can get away with that stuff.

IF WE WANTED FEAR AND RESPECT... WE HAVE IT.. AFTER INVADING IRAQ...

WHICH HAD A LARGE ARMY... MUCH LARGER THAN OURS...

AND WE KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF THEM....


BOMBING PAKISTAN VILLAGES... ISNT NEEDED.

and it earns us nothing... in fact its just another bad thing they will remember.

-MT

So you are saying the eyewitnesses in Pakistan are lying?

And that the USA, which lied about WMD, the evidence for WMD, kidnapping people around the world and countless other things, all within the last 3 years, have more veracity. The USA is more likely to be telling the truth that shocked people whose village was just attacked without warning?

You really want us to believe that?

In the court of law, the USA would be found to lack credibility because of being caught in the act of perjury before the court. It is only when you own the courts, like George Bush owns the courts, that you can get away with that stuff.

I don't know who is telling the truth.

Just because the US government usually lies does not mean that they are lying this time. Just because the villagers are contradicting the US government does not mean that the villagers are telling the truth. If one of your neighbors was holding a dinner for Al qaeda, and your local tribal ruler was allied with Al qaeda, and the US bombs fall from the sky and kill the family of a different neighbor, then would you tell the Pakistani government and media the truth about what happened? Your local tribal government and many members of the Pakistani government feel more sympathy for Al Qaeda than they do for the USA. Isn't saying that the village had no connection to foreigners the wisest thing to do in that situation?

On the other hand, the USA may have had bad intelligence and the village may have had no connection to Al qaeda. Surely the USA did not attack the village just for sport. Somebody thought they knew something. I know what it feels like to be an American in South Asia. I would not want the responsibility of figuring out whether my informants are telling me lies that I want to believe just so they can get paid.

IF WE WANTED FEAR AND RESPECT... WE HAVE IT.. AFTER INVADING IRAQ...

I think you are giving too much credit here.

It was more contempt and confirmation that the US has become the selfappointed dictator of the world.

Maybe you got respect and fear from US citizens. Not from the world. Does Iran fear you? Does China fear you? Does Pakistan fear you? Who is respecting you? The people of the world? Doubt it very much. Some foreign politicians? Maybe.

The hatred was already there before Iraq.

THE PEOPLE WE WANTED TO PUT FEAR INTO WITH BOTH WARS...

was IRAN....

BUT WE DIDNT INVADE IRAN... cause they dont hate their GOVT, and it would be a hard country to invade...

-MT

And again, if I have no ties to terrorists, than what freedoms have I lost?
You’re a fool if you think that merely because you have no ties to terrorism that you are immune from the loss of civil liberties that have occurred in the US. Take the “no fly list” as an example. That list has included five year old children and US Senators. People have been stopped from boarding planes simply because their name is similar to a name on the list. With 300 million people in the US, it’s unlikely that you personally will ever be inconvenienced. But innocent people are being targeted.

And again, if I have no ties to terrorists, than what freedoms have I lost?
The Patriot act is applicable to all Americans whether they have ties to Terrorists or not .As I pointed out it is a uniltateral act under which all Americans are covered . Nowhere does the Patriot act gives a legal definition or description as to what a terrorist or terrorist group is .
So, unless you can point out how the terrorists have affected my life and freedoms personally, your argument is shot.
Sure here is a couple of instances .
Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security, by David Cole and James X. Dempsey (The New Press, 2002) (http://www.fepproject.org/reviews/coledempsey.html)

Perhaps most troubling for the free expression and privacy protected by the First Amendment is Section 215 of the Act, which authorizes the government to seize records or other tangible things relevant to its investigation of terrorist activities.

Under prior law, the FBI could get library borrowing records only by complying with state law, and always had to ask for the records of a specific patron. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI can go into a public library and ask for the public records on everybody who ever used the library, or who used it on a certain day, or who checked out certain kinds of books. It can do the same at any bank, telephone company, hotel or motel, hospital or university -- merely upon the claim that the information is "sought for" an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Your freedom is Fucked !
I can still say Bush is a flaming fucktard who should be impeached and than jailed, so I'm happy.
You sure about that ?
Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as "disruptors" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/11/212726/954)
A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics." Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.

The Patriot act is applicable to all Americans whether they have ties to Terrorists or not .As I pointed out it is a uniltateral act under which all Americans are covered . Nowhere does the Patriot act gives a legal definition or description as to what a terrorist or terrorist group is .

Sure here is a couple of instances .

Your freedom is Fucked !

You sure about that ?


Well, of course the Patriot Act is applicable to all citizens. What I'm saying is if I have no ties to terrorism, why should I care? The fact is, I don't like the Patriot Act, but if there is someone talking to terrorist groups in this country, I hope their freedoms are squashed and disregarded, they are the scum of the Earth.

And the provision you pointed out is to stop protests close to the President, or at public events where it can cause panic or heated exchanges (many fights have started over protests between members of both sides). So I have no problem with that. It has nothing to do with me saying right here on this forum that I hope Bush gets life in prison for crimes against humanity, illegal spying, fabricating intelligence, and not being able to speak English properly. They can't stop me from saying that. ;)

What I'm saying is if I have no ties to terrorism, why should I care?
But you do not have to have any ties to any terrorist or terrorist group to affected cant you see . You are just trying to now justify the act , when confronted with obvious sections of the act which counter your claim of immunity .

But you do not have to have any ties to any terrorist or terrorist group to affected cant you see . You are just trying to now justify the act , when confronted with obvious sections of the act which counter your claim of immunity .

Yes, by mistake. It can only affect me by mistake, they can not hold you in jail or search your house because they don't like your taste in music. And if it's a mistake, I don't mind, because no system, no matter how much preperation was made, can be free of mistakes. It sucks to the people who get mistakenly put on the no fly list, but to tell you the truth, I'm glad the list is there because it keeps known dangerous people off my plane.

As I've said though, I'm against the majority of the Act. I think there could have been a better way to go about it, and that's why the provision that it has to be voted on and renewed was an essential safeguard, because now the senate and congress can review it and make necessary changes.

Yes, by mistake. It can only affect me by mistake, they can not hold you in jail or search your house because they don't like your taste in music. And if it's a mistake, I don't mind, because no system, no matter how much preperation was made, can be free of mistakes. It sucks to the people who get mistakenly put on the no fly list, but to tell you the truth, I'm glad the list is there because it keeps known dangerous people off my plane.

As I've said though, I'm against the majority of the Act. I think there could have been a better way to go about it, and that's why the provision that it has to be voted on and renewed was an essential safeguard, because now the senate and congress can review it and make necessary changes.
You are an Ostrich with your head in the sand , you realise that this act was first brought before the senate in 1985 by the Reagan junta , dont you . It faled because they saw through its anti-human sections , terrorism didnt bring about this act . This act is the first step on the road to a dictatorship , read the 1933 Nuremburg laws .

You are an Ostrich with your head in the sand , you realise that this act was first brought before the senate in 1985 by the Reagan junta , dont you . It faled because they saw through its anti-human sections , terrorism didnt bring about this act . This act is the first step on the road to a dictatorship , read the 1933 Nuremburg laws .


LOL, and you have just revealed yourself as as anti-American conspiracy nutcase. That was my intention all along. Now go run along and continue to believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchastrated by the Bush Administration. :rolleyes:

LOL, and you have just revealed yourself as as anti-American conspiracy nutcase.
What conspuiracy have I laid out here ? I provided 2 previous examples of US mis targeting and connected it to the third and latest .
That was my intention all along.
No it wasnt your intention you have been backtracking on everything you have said that is what you have been doing.
Now go run along and continue to believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchastrated by the Bush Administration. :rolleyes:
I can take it you have exhausted yourself , game over .

"This act is the first step on the road to a dictatorship"
That's your conspiracy. Your anti-American view is easily observed just by counting how many anti-American threads you've created lately. People like you do not deserve to be engaged, now continue to believe that the latest bombing in Pakastan was not a mistake but instead a clandestine CIA operation to kill us some Muslims (another conspiracy theory from you)!

"This act is the first step on the road to a dictatorship"
That's your conspiracy.
A theory which you seem to be having a hard time trying to disprove .
Your anti-American view is easily observed just by counting how many anti-American threads you've created lately.
right so I criticize Israel Im a anti-semite and if I post thraeds which are pro-Iranian I am anti-American .
People like you do not deserve to be engaged,
This is a public forum for open discussion and debate if you feel you cannot particiapte in these debates you are free to leave .

Hey guys, watch out, the invasion of Iraq was a secret operation to wipe out Muslims!
Hey guys, did you know that Israel is not actually a nation, but Hell on Earth?!

I love conspiracy nuts, it's fun to read what they've thought of next, ha.

Hey guys, watch out, the invasion of Iraq was a secret operation to wipe out Muslims!
Hey guys, did you know that Israel is not actually a nation, but Hell on Earth?!

I love conspiracy nuts, it's fun to read what they've thought of next, ha.
Shit you forgot the sasquatch files !

right so I criticize Israel Im a anti-semite and if I post thraeds which are pro-Iranian I am anti-American .

Brian Foley
Resisting reality (1,177 rants)


Walnut you hate america, the jews, the brits for there occupation of N.ireland, yet you love the palestine terroists, the ira terroists, the iranian terroists, does that not say something about you walnut, you seem to like terroists a hell of a lot.
It begs the question are you a terroist too walnut, because other terroists are wll known for there support of terroists in other countries, the ira has trained terroists abroad in columbia, there have also been muslim terroist links with the ira too.


>
Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.

Well, of course the Patriot Act is applicable to all citizens. What I'm saying is if I have no ties to terrorism, why should I care?

I posted this somewhere else, but it refers for instance to you:

And I thought all americans were idiots! Not too shabby speech.

My eyes fell on this:


“
On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped—one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period.
”


Reminds me of the standard statement the american sheep make on this forum to defend the patriot act and other 'facist' regulations.

'Show me where the patriot act oppresses me. My life hasn't changed at all since the patriot act'

No shit? Really. You mean the government hasn't been interested in abusing the rights of sheep. Why should they? You are a sheep. They already have you in the bag.

But what could they do today to a man like Martin Luther King. You all know dam well what they could do and will do.

No sheep, nobody is going to mess with your rights. Because you don't count. But people that make a difference to the world we live in are under threat and can be/are oppressed. People that actually believe in freedom, equality and civilization.

Were they ?
And was he actually their ?
Or maybe this is some bullshit con job to pull the wool over the eyes of people and cover up a deliberate atrocity ?

For what purpose?

I posted this somewhere else, but it refers for instance to you:


And as soon as you can give me an example of American citizens who "make a difference" and "actually believe in freedom, equality and civilization" that are being oppressed, I will concede. Just one.

Haha, you got me there. You are all brainwashed morons.
;)

"This act is the first step on the road to a dictatorship"

That's your conspiracy.

Then what is the need for such laws that put our freedoms in jeopardy and turn us towards a dictatorship where officials can act without any unchecked laws? Nobodly has a problem with the FISA courts as there are steps that need to be made where someone cannot go unchecked with wiretaps. Unfortunately the President doesn't want to use the FISA courts very lenient methods where one doesn't need apply for a warrant until 3 days later. That speaks for itself along with a few other shady doings by the adminstration. Is terrorism working? Are the chickenhawk leaders of this country and brainwashed civilian populace SCARED of terrorists? You bunch of disgraceful, unAmerican pussies.

Here, let me be like Spuriousmonkey and quote Al Gore's speech a couple days ago as he says it much more eloquently than myself:

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march—when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens’ right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President’s apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.”

Sadly, people of today have no problem giving up our rights when we come across a threat. Those types of people don't deserve to live in this country. Those types of people are the reason what is wrong with this country and is why everyone around the world hates us. We give up our rights and allow our leaders to act above the law and don't hold them accountable.

Those types of people are also the reason why terrorism in the Middle East exists today because we allow our leaders and corporations to fuck over weaker countries, and heck, even the poor populations of our own country, so that the oppressed people over there, and here, have no other means to fight back except use terrorism against us. You reap what you sow.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

- N