muslim blows up marriot

[KMAN]

Lander - igetps2 is right. Instead of ignoring terrorism we need to battle it with whatever means available. I just don't see how doing nothing helps anything.

The middle east bombings take place because there are many more than a handful of extremists in that part of the world and these small countries don't have the resources to handle these groups. I would also say that the leadership in these countries don't want to oppose them for fear of being labled a racist against Muslims. We all know that is not true however people in the middle east belive what they are told, they are not allowed to have their own opinions.

This reminds me of another point I brought up a few months back. If you see a husband/father abusing his wife and children are you going to ignore it or help. I know several people said they would just ignore it. I won't, I am going to help. That's just me.

KMAN

 

[lander]

Lander - I'm not sure where you live (US or not)
Yes, actually in NY - so I have a first hand experience well beyond the likes of many.

but it sounds like you are saying that we should do nothing and just live with it. Is that correct?
Absolutely NOT. What I said is we cannot sacrifice our liberties and/or freedoms because of fear. That is not the American way. I suggest we live our lives normally - let's be honest we have a 1,000,000+ X's greater chance dying in car accident driving to work than we have dying in a terrorist attack.

However, the Government NEEDS to do something - and they did/are. I fully supported Afghanistan - I believe Iraq to be smoke cloud - and I think it's time we open our fuking eyes & got on the Saudis (like we should have done the second we learned 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi). This is mostly transparent - as it should be.

We have the mightest army, the most capable inteligence & we are *surely* (I'm not any more informed than any other average Joe) do all we can. I do not believe this is a war that can be won, but it is a war that must be fought.

Don't get me wrong, I am not really fearing for my life everyday but it sucks that I have to be afraid of going to other countries just because I am a Christian or just because I am an American. Anyone in the world can come to America and not have to be afraid of being murdered because they are a certain nationality or belive a different religion.
Yeah, I can't argue that, but our very own foreign policy is to blame for most of that. Remember post 9/11 99% of the world was on our side, but the debacle between Bush, Powell & the UN regarding the war in Iraq made so many hate us again - thus further compromising our safety over an enemey that frankly, couldn't have *most likely* hurt us.

You talk about war veterans fighting for our right of privacy and not wanting to give that up, well, I'm talking about protecting all of our other rights. These terrorists are not going to stop trying to kill Americans until they or we are all dead. If we do nothing and the terrorists continue to kill Americans how does that help?
3,000 Americans have died because of terrorism. Millions have died in wars defending our rights .. you do the math.

You say you're not afraid, but it seems (at least subconsiously) that you are ... you talk of terrorist killing ALL Americans. That is simply not realistic - our government is too intelligent & powerful for that to happen (with or without the PATRIOT ACT).


KMAN[/QUOTE]

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
And I would estimate at least 98% of the world's terrorist are muslim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRA, Columbia?

 

[WildBill]

Lander is right, the only way to confront terror is to shove it in their face that life won't change. I get constant fire from people but I insist saying it, too many Americans are flat out pussies. No easy way around it. Think of how many people said "I ain't going to ever get on a plane again" after 9/11. Oh how brave. And plane travel is still down 2 years later because of fear. Its a goddamn shame. Think of how many people fly on planes a year and then how many on planes died on 9/11. Less people died in those planes of 9/11 than died in the one mechanical failure crash of American Airlines a couple months after the attacks, but that never seemed to get anyone's attention. Nope it was all about how "unsafe" the world has become. Fact of life is that your chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist are so miniscule, worry more about the drunk drivers if you are really out to protect yourself. Yes unfortunately in some ways I think the terrorists won the first stages of the battle. Bush talks about fighting terror, but his administration never seems to understand that the best battle is when we all stand up and say its not going to change our lives, nor will we live in fear of you. Then go out and arrest them and take all their money, but not before you make that statement.

I just wish the American people could make me look bad on this and that we all show not only a united front against terrorism, but of the fear it tries to inflict.

 

[Igetp2s]

I agree Bill that terrorism actually kills much fewer people than other problems. That does not mean that the problem is not becoming much more frequent, with much greater potential to inflict harm than before.

"Bush talks about fighting terror, but his administration never seems to understand that the best battle is when we all stand up and say its not going to change our lives, nor will we live in fear of you."

He has said that pretty often.

"Then go out and arrest them and take all their money, but not before you make that statement."

Most of them cannot be arrested by us. They don't reside here.

 

[sphincter]

my point is that the rest of the member nations (over 2/3)don`t even care enough to submit a report on terrorrist activities...or ANY INFORMATION pertaining to terrorist activities or their steps to identify and deal with terrorism....Only 64 of the 191 U.N. member states — barely 30 percent — have submitted reports on what they have done to implement sanctions against al-Qaida and Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s former Taliban rulers....."Individuals or entities associated with al-Qaida are believed to be active in some way in a significant number of states that have not yet submitted a report,"....hector munoz...chilean ambassador and head of the committee handling the reports..



"Recognition of the possible presence of al-Qaida or those associated with the network within its territory appears to be a stigma to some states," he said. "Consequently, detailed information concerning the activities of the al-Qaida network and about al-Qaida operatives and supporters, many of whom were trained in Afghanistan or in other al-Qaida associated or run activities, is not being presented to the committee."


Munoz stressed that every country was required to submit a report by April 17 — and he expressed hope that before his year-end report to the council all 191 nations would comply.


approximately $135 million in terrorist assets has been frozen since the Sept. 11 attacks but 39 countries — which Negroponte didn't name — have not yet introduced domestic legislation enabling terrorist-linked assets to be blocked.

is it intimidation?.....sloth?......what`s the problem with the rest of the world?

this problem directly affects the united states...i,for one,hope that the bush administration keeps the pressure on the rest of these countries tthat are either to lazy to act or are complicit with the terrorists by their actions or lack thereof..







Email Story
Post/Read Msgs
Print Story

Ratings: Would you recommend this story?
Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly

[This message was edited by sphincter on August 06, 2003 at 05:13 PM.]

[This message was edited by sphincter on August 06, 2003 at 05:17 PM.]

 

[WildBill]

The problem with the types of legislation you ask for is that the way the US goes about it many countries are afraid to comply. The US has standards like the drug war for seizing or freezing money, basically if we suspect you of terrorism we really don't have to prove it, we are going to get that money. A total lack of due process is what it is and much of the world is refusing to condone that. I don't blame them for that. Also the US is trying to pursue a policy where the get the money condemned here or in a third country and then seize it with any related business that operates in the US, completely subverting a chance for the victim to defend themselves. What they do is say Bank A holds XXX's money and we are sure he is a terrorist funder, but we won't reveal much evidence because it would hurt our intelligence. XXX lives in say France, but since France hasn't made this deal with us (I am not sure if they have or not, just picking a country) they go to Spain where there are also branches of Bank A and pursue the case there. After Spain, a friendly country to us issues a seizure judgement we don't go to France and ask for the money, no that would be too tough because XXX would actually defend himself there. No we go after Bank B, a bank that is owned by Bank A. Bank B has an office in New York. We go to Bank B and take the judgement amount and say its in regards to the case against XXX. XXX has no account with Bank B, but since they are connected to Bank A the US government says it has the right to make the seizure and that Bank B has to cover the money by getting Bank A to send it to them. What the US did is completely subvert the due process system and stole money because we say XXX is a bad person. Does this sound like something you would condone???

 

[Igetp2s]

"A total lack of due process is what it is and much of the world is refusing to condone that."

For most of these countries in the UN, that is how they operate. I would think the dictators of the world would love this policy, not refuse to condone it.

 

[sphincter]

bill...the amounts of money that you are talking about would have to be substantial.....there would have to be probable cause to initiate the seizure....and if this money,these accounts are scattered all over the world,in different banks and these alleged terrorist sympathizers are innocent,why wouldn`t they initiate action to defend themselves and retrieve this illegally confiscated or frozen money?.....if you are talking millions of dollars,which you most assuredly are,why would they not go to another country to pursue the matter?..because you are definitely talking exorbitant amounts of money......if it was my money,i would certainly pursue the matter...unless i was actually involved in funding terrorism...

"Also the US is "trying" to pursue a policy where the get the money condemned here or in a third country and then seize it with any related business that operates in the US, completely subverting a chance for the victim to defend themselves. What they do is say Bank A holds XXX's money and we are sure he is a terrorist funder, but we won't reveal much evidence because it would hurt our intelligence."

we are " trying" to pursue this policy?....so you say we seize this money and there is no recourse for the person or organization involved...


do you have specific examples or is this just theory ?

 

[WildBill]

Its still early, the low-hanging fruit is what the US has hit. The thing is that never is a good time to pass a bad law, whether its being enforced inappropriately now or not. The drug seizure rules are exactly the same. Those rules were so poorly written and so abused in many areas that they went back and changed them. There were cases where someone would be out of town and their son would take the car out with some buddies and buy some drugs. They would get caught with the drugs and next thing you know the car would be taken. The man comes back in a week and finds he has a horrendous court case on his hands to get the car back. Sometimes they would get it back, but other times they would bring up things like "Mr. A had a drug conviction 10 years ago, this crime shows a pattern of potential drug trafficking." Bye bye car. Due process means due process, not well you can get sort of due process because we deem this issue to be more important. The potential for abuse is extreme and that is why a lot of countries balked at these restrictions. Many that are on board aren't necessarily because they saw much of a need, but that they saw the havoc that would come to them if they didn't join in.

 

[sphincter]

i do know for a fact that there is due process....we don`t want to blur the line between seizure and forfeiture.....

i agree with some of what you say....and some of the patriot act is somewhat scary....we probably disagree on what is and isn`t kosher....but that`s okay

i appreciate the intelligent conversation...thanks for not name-calling(sometimes it can be difficult to engage different opinions on here without the ad hominem attacks)....

thanks and g.l.