Terrorism

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
MKFaizi

Re: Guess Who

Post by MKFaizi »

American woman, stay away from me American woman, mama let me be Don't come hare hanging around my door I don't want to see your face no more I got more important things to do Than spend my time growin' old with you Now woman
What in God's name does this bullshit have to do with Terrorism or anything else?

Damned pussiest song I ever heard.

I can kind of deal with the Lenny Kravitz version but the original Guess Who version just sucks.

I encountered the members of Guess Who once in the late Sixties. Old dried up men even then.

Faizi
Last edited by MKFaizi on Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
MKFaizi

Re: Terrorism

Post by MKFaizi »

I am not sure that I can duplicate my post that I deleted accidentally last night but I will give it a try. I think I can yet access the passion.

Kevin,
Yes, it's always been illegal, in the sense that murder has always been illegal. But Australia, at least, seems to be introducing a whole raft of special anti-terrorism laws.
What I am beginning to sense in my rural area is that the laws -- or more precisely, the law enforcement -- is becoming more and more perverse. Even though I have always been an optimist, I am being forced into being far less trustful of anyone.

I endeavor to keep "reality checks" because I do not want to fall into paranoia. I often check things with my more mainstream sister who is a bank investigator. Sometimes, I have some difficulty convincing her that a cop is a total jackass or criminal but she is learning. There are a lot of cops who are jackasses and criminals and, due to my experiences and the experiences of my daughter and some of her friends, my sister has had some enlightening experiences in justice.

Back in the days of Solomon, when wise men were entrusted to make judgments and decisions, there may have been such a thing as justice.

Not now. Administration of justice is not different from a check out lane at Walmart. All about ka-ching. Perjury is perfectly acceptable -- wanted. It is expected and considered a good thing for people to swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God and lie their balls off. The better liar you are, the more likely you are to be believed.

Because I have been stupid and naive, I erroneously thought that, when you took an oath to tell the truth, that was a very serious thing. Because I have been extremely stupid, I have told the truth in court before a judge and before God.

Am I an asshole or what?

No wonder God is dead. Fucker must have died of a heart attack from listening to so many lies. I reckon God must weigh at least a hundred tons or so and have a heart and brain the size of mountains. But the fucker's dead. Killed by lies. One by one.

The filth of hypocrisy is the dung heap funeral pyre of God. Such shame. I would be truly ashamed to call myself a worshipper of God. A whore is better than a worshipper of God.

Better to worship harlotry than to worship the dung heap called God that man has made.

You can say that I am bitter but bitterness does not begin to describe it. I am far worse than bitter. I am truthful. Made truthful by the fires of hypocrisy.

Because I am writing a long post, I will post this before continuing.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Re: Terrorism

Post by MKFaizi »

Continuing writing to Kevin:
In London, for example, police are now allowed to shoot to kill on sight before they have even detained a person, let alone given them a fair trial and found them guilty.
I am still deeply appalled by this thing. The Brazilian national was going to work and gunned down. Tackled and shot dead.

I have heard a lot of people say, "Why did he run? Why did he not stop running and talk to the cops?"

Here is what recently happened to some teenagers here in Buchanan.

They were out driving in a very rural area rather late at night. They had heard that there were some ghosts to see out there in the woods. They wanted so see these things. Out on a narrow, rural road, a man in a small car started chasing them. He came so close on their bumper that the kids were very afraid. They thought of calling the so called cops but their cell phones were out of range.

On this very narrow road, the man pulled beside them and came very close to hitting their car. The kids swerved to avoid wrecking and slowed down to let the mad man pass. The mad man pulled into a rural driveway and spun around on the grass and came out on the driveway after them again.

At another turn around place, he turned and ran into them head long. They had a collision and took out the head light of the kids' car. The kids took off and headed back to civilization.

They were at a gas station buying gas when two Botetourt County cops swarmed at them and a Roanoke County copstress and a state cop. Made them get out of their car and questioned them roughly and accused them of many things.

Shined lights in their pupils. No sobriety tests were given because the kids were not drunk.

They were accused of "hit and run."

When they tried to tell how they had been chased by this man, their stories were completely discounted and they were accused of lying.

The kid driver has now been charged with hit and run and has to go to court.

Coincidentally, I heard of a tale of a young girl coming home from her job who was also chased on a rural road close to here by a single man in a car. This incident occured a day before the kids were chased.

No charges in her case. She managed to make it home before he turned around and hit her.

The cops asked the kids, "Why did you not stop your car and get out and talk to this man?"

So, if this terrorist had had a gun and killed these kids, would that have made the kids' story more believable?

Probably not. Justifiable homicide. "That boy and those two girls were trying to rape me."

Why did the Brazilian national run from the London cops?

That was the only thing that made sense. I would have done the same thing. The minute they "made" him, he was a dead duck. His only chance was to run. His skin was brown and he had on a heavy coat.

Fuck that. He could have been white and wearing a sun suit. It did not matter.
They are probably doing the right thing, since individual bombers are yielding more and more power - but it's a hell of a world to live in.
I agree with you that it is a hell of a world to live in. I do not agree that they are doing the right thing. They are not doing the right thing. They are thugs.

Recently, I had to go to court about my daughter's dog, Cato.

Cato got out and ran up to my neighbor's house. She nipped a ten year old girl on her shoe -- did not even penetrate the shoe, let alone the skin. Late that night, there came a dog catcher to my door. Long before that, I had tied the dog up and promised to keep her tied up. Cato is an Australian cattle dog with a strong herding instinct. The girl was riding a bicycle.

The so called dog catcher declared her to be a dangerous dog. He told me that if I cooperated, he would not take the dog. I told him what happened and nicely did not behead him. I thought I was cooperative.

Then, he said that he had to take the dog to the pound. My daughter put him into his truck. The pound cost me about two hundred dollars.

In the meantime, I spoke to my neighbor and asked him if he thought that my dog was dangerous. He said that he did not think so and that he and his girlfriend would testify in court that she is not dangerous, that she is a puppy and that the child was not hurt. I told him that I would keep the dog inside or on a line in my yard. He said that it was his sister in law who insisted on charges and that his sister in law was "trailer trash."

A couple of weeks later, I called the bitten girl's mom and asked her again if she was willing to say that Cato is not dangerous in court. She assured me that she would.

At any point, had anyone said that he or she considered Cato to be dangerous, I would not have gone to court. I was assured otherwise. I should have recorded the conversations.

Needless to say, I went to court and the girl's mother testified under oath that Cato not only bit her daughter's shoe but also bit her and her sister in law and attempted to bite everyone else in sight.

This whole matter has cost me about five hundred dollars that I do not have. I am behind in my house payments. I may lose my house. It is nearly paid for.

Because the dog catcher was ignorant of the law, I had to pay two hundred dollars to the pound when I could have gotten the dog out the same day she was charged.

He did not know that.

When I was finally allowed to get her from the pound, the staff brought her out and played with her while I wrote my check for two hundred dollars. That is how dangerous she is.

I had to put signs on my property stating, "Dangerous Dog on Premises." The dog had to have a microchip injected into her. I had to pay for fifty dollar dog tags. Plus court costs. The microchip cost seventy dollars. I cannot even tie her outside. If I take her off my property, she must wear a muzzle. I intend to order her a rhinestone and emerald muzzle.

My kids grew up with this asshole's kids. They have been together since they were babies. My best friend was the asshole's wife who was killed seven years ago. I used to baby sit these kids for days.

His boys and my son have still been close up until the time their so called father fucked me over about Cato. They had not called Buster until today. They called him today to tell me that someone had lobbed a rock through one of their bedroom windows.

I reckon I will be in court again soon.

It was hard to get down but I swallowed their lies. I never said a nasty word toward them. I certainly would never have broken one of their windows with a rock or anything else. Neither of my kids did that either.

I will not go to court over his stinking window. The cops will have to shoot me first.

Dramatic? I don't think so.

If I had it all to do over again, this is what I would do:

When the dog catcher came, I would have thrown myself on the dog and screamed, "YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOOT ME BEFORE YOU TAKE MY DOG!!"

He would have called for back up and every cop in the county would have shown up. They could not have talked me off my dog.

As soon as one of them had laid a hand on me, I would have resisted arrest forcibly. At the first touch, I would have flung myself onto the hard gravel and made sure that I bruised my head. I would have also beaten myself in the head to cause as much bruising as possible. Then, I would have beaten my head and shoulders against my car and their cars and hard dirt. I would have bloodied my own nose.

From jail, I would have called a woman's advocacy group and accused all the cops of rape. I would have called the ACLU and accused them of police brutality. I would have used my imagination most convincingly.

Think I would now have a dangerous dog?

I doubt it.

I hate to have to resort to terrorist tactics but I will. Law enforcement do not understand reason. They don't want reason. They hate it. They like drama. I've got drama. The very last thing they want is truth.

Truth is not cost effective.

Last week, when my daughter and I were asleep, someone tried to break into my house. Very intimidating. Stupidly, I dialed 911. Took them forty minutes to get here. About four a.m.

Cop asked, "Well, didn't you have an idea who it was?"

Well, no, we did not. We had no idea who was trying to get in our back door; banging hard on the glass and rattling the door knob.

He said, "Well, if you could tell us who it was, that would make our job easier."

So, next time someone tries to break into our house, I will just open the door and yell, "Come on in. We know you, I reckon. Come on in 'cause you can rape us and everything 'cause we know you. The cops say we must know you. So whatever you do is all right because the cops say we must know you. It's all right with them if you kill us and what not because we must know you."
It is important to remember that at some time we will probably need to become terrorists ourselves in order to survive.
When, Kevin? When will we need to become terrorists? Will we need to become terrorists against the alien invaders or will we need to become terrorists against the law enforcement that we pay to protect us?

I have no faith whatsoever in law enforcement. I have no faith in law. I have no faith in oaths taken for truth. I have no faith in judges.

Conversely, I have no faith in lawlessness.

The matter is fast becoming one of survival.

How?

Since you are a very wise sage, I think you must have some answers.

Faizi
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrorism

Post by Dan Rowden »

I don't believe people were being executed in the streets at the height of IRA activity. I don't believe it happened when England was at war with entire nations. What makes this circumstance so different? Is the threat actually greater than those other circumstances? I don't really see how.

In hindsight one cannot help but be amazed at how utterly self-aggrandizing and disingenuous were the statements made post Sept 11 about how if we changed our way of life the terrorists would win.

I think they should step forward and claim their winner's trophy.


Dan Rowden
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Dan,

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the terrorists have won. In my area, at least, I know with certainty that 1984 has come. I can believe that people could be executed in the streets.

Things have changed big time. The terrorists -- and, by terrorists, I do not necessarily mean the robed and bearded ones -- I also mean the ones with badges and authority to arrest.

I have always doubted justice but I know absolutely now that there is no such thing as justice -- unless you can buy it -- and justice purchased is justice denied.

The notion is a full blown joke. Not even as good as a one act play; not even a skit. Justice is a cash register on the backs of the poor or on the backs of those who yet have the audacity to desire it.

If I was just a little more insane, I would disguise myself as Jesus Christ and chase the moneychangers from the courthouse.

No, people were not executed in the streets during IRA activity.

I listened to Tony Blair on television this morning. Fucking disgusting display of idiocy. I never want to hear that Americans are the only stupid people in the world. Blair's press conference was disgusting. Filth.

Personally, I am tired of having no rights in the eyes of the so called law. I don't know what I am going to do about it but I am doing a little something right now -- just by writing about it.

Coincidentally, as I am writing this, CNN is reporting about the power of the government since 9/11. They conducted a poll asking if viewers think it is all right for the government to know what library books a person is checking out. The overwhelming majority of people answered negatively.

Yet, the government has the right to know what library books one reads. The government can come into your home and go through your house without permission. It can tap your phone.

Damn. Now, CNN is talking about "1984."

Thank God I am not paranoid.

I have had enough, I know that. I would never kill another human being. But, next time a cop comes to my house for any pretense -- dog damn catcher -- whoever -- he/she will not find a reasonable person in me. I may be a little slow but I have learned.

Next time, I'm throwing myself off my porch and beating myself up.

Police brutality.

I hate to say it but I do not see how the damage that has been done to individual rights can be reversed. Too late.

Strikes me as funny when I hear talk about trading certain freedoms and privacy for safetly.

What safety?

I called the police because someone was breaking into my house at three in the morning and it took forty minutes for them to get here and, when they did finally come, they accused my daughter and myself of obstructing justice by not telling them who was breaking into the house.

I will never make that mistake again. If it ever happens again, I will just go outside and kill the motherfucker myself. Eliminate the middleman. How will I do it? Cast iron skillet, I reckon.

If I was someone in the upper income ranges, the story would be very different.

The matter of a national ID. A few months back, I may not have objected to it. I do now. I goddamn resent it and I will not comply with it. If I am stopped for any reason, I will refuse to show my ID -- not even my drivers' license.

Fuck bin Laden. Our balless society needs one heavy dose of Henry David Thoreau. We are far too soft.

Freedom is not the freedom to show your butt in public. Freedom is the dignity of human rights. We are fast losing ours.

This summer, I am becoming radicalized. It's time to get radical.

Buddhism-schmuddism. Karma, my ass.

Faizi
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

DEMOCRATIC TOTALITARIANISM

Post by Leyla Shen »

Please, Marsha, don't exclude Australia.

http://www.whitlam.org/its_time/23/head.html

Exploring the myths behind anti-terrorism laws
Detainees did not need to be suspected of a terrorist offence, or any other criminal offence. The Attorney-General can certify that their interrogation would 'substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence,' even if no act of terrorism has occurred. This power can potentially be used to detain journalists and political activists, as well as the children, relatives or acquaintances of supposed terrorism suspects. Even university lecturers and teachers could be rounded up.

Those detained have no right to know why they are being taken off for interrogation.

If they resist, violence can be used against them. Section 34JB of the ASIO Act permits police officers to use 'such force as is necessary and reasonable' in breaking into premises and taking people into custody. Under the section, police may cause death or 'grievous bodily harm' if they believe it necessary to protect themselves or others from death or injury. If anyone refuses to answer any question or produce any material that ASIO alleges they possess, they face five years jail. In a significant departure from established law, the Act effectively reverses the burden of proof, overturning a basic protection against police frame-up. If ASIO alleges a person has information or material, the onus is on the individual to prove otherwise. If detainees know the name of a lawyer, they can contact them for legal advice, but only if the prescribed detention authority, acting on ASIO's advice, does not object to the lawyer. Even if ASIO accepts a detainee's choice of lawyer, questioning can commence without the lawyer being present. In any case, the lawyer cannot object or intervene during questioning--if they do, they can be ejected for 'unduly disrupting' the questioning.
But neither the government nor Labor had any popular mandate to violate fundamental democratic rights. On the contrary, the majority of Senators were elected to oppose the Howard government. Instead, they legitimised the police state measures.

Now that the government has obtained a majority in the Senate, these protestations are even more pitiful and politically bankrupt. Surely it is time for all those looking for a way to fight the bipartisan program of war, social reversal and the tearing up of basic democratic rights to break free of illusions in the official parliamentary framework. A different road must be taken - that of pursuing the independent interests of working people.

The very concept of democratic rights must be extended beyond formal equality before the law, which masks ever-greater social and economic inequality. Access to courts and the right to vote every three years mean little when a financial plutocracy prevails over every aspect of daily life, dictating who will work, and under what conditions, as well as who will have access to basic social facilities, such as education, health care, child care and aged care.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

A few paragraphs from the Law Institute of Victoria submission.

https://www.liv.asn.au/members/sections ... %20Act.pdf
Presumably the rationale for incommunicado detention is based on the reasons for detention as specified in section 34F(3)(a) – to prevent the detained person from alerting a person involved in a terrorism offence that the offence is being investigated.

Habeas corpus is dependent on application by the detained person. A person in incommunicado detention would obviously not be able to exercise this right, even if did exist
pursuant to the ASIO Act.

Given the importance of judicial review as to the lawfulness of detention, the fact that a person in detention under the ASIO Act is, in effect, incapable of lodging and application for
habeas corpus, it is submitted this should be remedied to enable the ASIO Act to accord with the prohibition against arbitrary arrest and detention in international law.
Nice try, "ASIO." Wake up, Australia -- the barby's ablaze.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Faizi, since you asked: I live in the Netherworlds, one of those faded trade empires from the Age of Plunder. It's too flat and tempered to qualify for either heaven or hell, in every aspect.
"1984" happened in 1976, by the way. I remember it precisely.

Where do you live? It is still trickling down. It is only beginning to take hold in my area in the last year or so. Just imagine Orwellian hillbillies. We got 'em. (...)

No wonder God is dead (...)
Actually in 1976, or was it 1876 - I forget - humanity itself seems to have died. Only the realization hasn't set in yet.

Looking around we have constructed huge graveyards and funeral processions and call it advanced standards of living.

Nothing can be done or thought anymore without extensive and expensive artificial support in the background and we call it progress. How optimistic thinking from that corpse in the wheelchair!

The night of the living dead is slowly setting in and knowing we have no right to be anymore, we need to devour some flesh, drink some blood just to get through the night! We know it's better to be gone and spending all our fortunes on constructing bigger machines of destruction (portable cremation ovens) might just do the trick.

The question remaining is what will come next? Which conscious living creature can humans bring forth that can inherit the earth. Machines, aliens, AI, the overmen?

Your gloom is contagious, Faizi, you know that.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Diebert,

I am not a gloomy person. How much marijuana do you smoke anyway? I mean, you live in the Netherlands and everything :)

What do you want? Happy talk or something?

In the Seventies, I had a friend who believed emphatically that the world had ended in 1901. He had a point, I reckon, but I think it was wishful thinking. Purely optimist dude.

I calculate 1976 as the beginning of Orwellian times because that was the first time I went to New York City. Quite a culture shock.

I do think Orwell time has taken hold in that information provides no information and help does not help. Justice is a cash register and medicine is a business. We pay a lot of money for inferior goods and think that they are superior -- or do not know the difference.

I called my bank today to rescind an unauthorized payment. I was told by a humanoid that my bank account would be restricted for the weekend.

When I asked how my account would be restricted, I was told, "Well, no checks can be posted. But no checks can be posted on a weekend anyway."

"Then, how will my account be restricted and why is it that I will be restricted for something that someone unauthorized has done to my account?"

"Well, you have to contact the fraud department on Monday."

"So, my account will be restricted from posting checks when no checks are posted on weekends anyway?"

"That's right."

"Then, how will my account be restricted?"

"It won't"

"You said that I will have a restricted account over the weekend."

"All accounts are restricted over the weekend."

Obviously, I have a language problem. I have difficulty with doublespeak.

As in the case with the dog catcher, if I was truly aware and thinking, I may have said, "In that case, please deposit one million dollars to my account and, then, restrict it" or I may have said, "M67H4112JI44."

Same thing.

In fact, the next time I have to call my bank, I am going to demand to speak with an android. A real android, not a Sears android.

I deeply regret that I did not major in robo-speak in college.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Leyla,

I do not discount Australia. Thanks for providing examples of the law.

A lot of people -- probably most people -- cannot imagine that such technicalities could affect them. But they can.

You do not have to be a terrorist or a would be terrorist or an Islamist or a criminal of any sort. You do not have to break the law. The law is flexible enough to include anything. You may only have to look cross eyed to be arrested for something or other. Discretion is completely up to law enforcement.

"Regular" people feel safe.

It's the "irregulars"-- most of us -- that's got a problem.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Good lord!

I hope someone has the balls to respond to this post.

Faizi
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Terrorism

Post by Kevin Solway »

MKFaizi wrote:I agree with you that it is a hell of a world to live in. I do not agree that they are doing the right thing. They are not doing the right thing. They are thugs.
The problem is, we are approaching an age where suicide bombers might have a nuclear bomb strapped to them, and exploding it would take out perhaps tens of thousands of people, or more.

Shooting them in the leg to disable them wouldn't be effective, which is why a head shot would be required.

This whole process is an absolute mess.

One partial solution would be to destroy all fundamentalists of all religions before they do any more damage. But there probably wouldn't be many people left.

Our prime minister here in Australia is saying that we should not be concerned about the loss of personal freedoms, so long as we have the personal freedom of being alive. Some life!

It might be preferable to lose tens of thousands of people to mad bombers (eg, fundamentalists) than to have everything under lock and key, and under video surveillance.

I recently had my bicycle stolen from outside my door, but if I had to lock it up all the time . . . what's the point? I'd spend more time locking it up than riding it.

If I purchased an expensive lock for my bike, someone might want to steal the lock. Then I'd need to purchase another lock to protect the first lock, which would be even more expensive, so I'd need to take out insurance to protect the whole locking mechanism. But the insurance company might go broke, or it's owners might run off with all the money, so I'd need to be insured against that happening as well . . . etc. Spiralling into total madness.

People get credit cards as a kind of insurance for when they need money and don't have it. But then people take out further insurance for when they can't afford to pay off their credit card debt!
Kevin Solway wrote:It is important to remember that at some time we will probably need to become terrorists ourselves in order to survive.
When, Kevin? When will we need to become terrorists? Will we need to become terrorists against the alien invaders or will we need to become terrorists against the law enforcement that we pay to protect us?
Maybe both.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Terrorism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Already we can hear discussions about how to spot extremist 'anti-Western' thoughts and their spreading on schools or Internet boards. For now the focus is on Muslim variants but how long before they'll cast a wider net?

What if a regular poster from this board would get involved in a bombing or other action of extreme nature in the future?

Laws are already being made to ban people from a country if they sympathize in some way with terrorist attacks or encouraging the motives underlying them. Blair wants to "try to take concerted action across the world to try to root out this type of extremist teaching". These teachers talk of course about the Islamic Law and how it conflicts with the foreign policy as well as the 'universal' norms and values the West wants to spread and enforce around the world.

What will happen in a future where an (hopefully) increasing amount of Westerners will start to reject the things the West has been teaching as 'universal ideal' and start calling them perversions with good Reason? What if a few misguided extremists among them will resort to violent action?

For example how will a future paranoid society on the edge of collapse think of what David Quinn wrote in Woman, An Exposition for the Advanced Mind?
The world is gradually becoming one vast homogeneous culture, a Western culture. This is giving rise to a form of tolerance whereby those values shared by the different cultures are emphasized and the differences ignored. This is unfortunate, for it can only be that the values shared by all cultures are the basest - namely the feminine values.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Terrorism

Post by DHodges »

ksolway wrote:But the insurance company might go broke, or it's owners might run off with all the money, so I'd need to be insured against that happening as well . . . etc. Spiralling into total madness.
I work at an insurance company that is in liquidation (i.e., it went broke). It had an elaborate system of reinsurance contracts.

I don't really have a point here, other than... you don't know the half of it.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Terrorism vs. masculinity

Post by DHodges »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: For example how will a future paranoid society on the edge of collapse think of what David Quinn wrote in Woman, An Exposition for the Advanced Mind?
The world is gradually becoming one vast homogeneous culture, a Western culture. This is giving rise to a form of tolerance whereby those values shared by the different cultures are emphasized and the differences ignored. This is unfortunate, for it can only be that the values shared by all cultures are the basest - namely the feminine values.
If David Quinn is correct, then terrorism will be used for increasing feminism. Terrorism will be portrayed as a "male" activity (it's mostly guys blowing themselves up, right?), and used as a justification for further feminization of society.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Motherfucking bunch of comedians.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 433929.htm

Senate to debate China uranium sales
It insists any deal would include safeguards to ensure Australian uranium is used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Hail the machine.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Thanks for the reply, Kevin. Sorry about the loss of your bike. Were you able to tell the cops who stole it?

There is no way that I can think that the gunning down by cops of an innocent person is all right. The guy was a kid on his way to work. He had nothing to do with a bomb.

That's Thug Life. When an innocent person can be tackled in the streets by cops and shot point blank in the head, that's Thug Life. That kid in London could have been my son. He could have been anyone's son. He was someone's son.

The very next day after 9/11/01, I got out of my car at work and was approached by three Arab looking men in a car asking me the way to the courthouse.

My first thought, "Oh, Gawd. They are terrorists and they are on the way to blow up the Christianity courthouse."

Since the day before, Arab terrorists had taken down the World Trade Centers, would I have been justified in pulling out an AK and taking off their heads?

What if I was a coptress and I did that? Would that be all right? Would it still be all right if I did that and it turned out the dudes were Mexicans; if it turned out they were just some Pakis or Indians or Iranian students who had nothing to do with terrorism?

They simply were looking to show up in Christianity court to pay a Christian parking ticket.

But, according to you, had I been a coptress, it would have been acceptable -- if not quite right -- to have shot them all because they looked like terrorists.

The justification for such action would be that there is a problem now with terrorists.

I cannot see that. I do know the problem but I do not think that the problem justifies wrong action.

I do realize the problem in cities like London and New York -- the fear of bombers after 9/11 and the July subway incidents. I understand that fear.

But when we fear that much; when we fear so much that we think it is all right for police to shoot down innocent people, then, the terrorists have won. The army and the police become the terrorists.

It is terrorism upon terrorism.

Those in gated communities or even upper middle class neighborhoods can feel safe. Rich people do not HAVE to ride the tube or the subway. The relatively rich can feel pretty safe against terrorists from both sides. It is completely doubtful that a rich suburban kid will be gunned down on suspicion of terrorism by terrorists.

If they gunned down rich kids, there would be a stink. But this kid was just a poor Brazilian national.

Thug Life.

Sucks.

The irony of such terrorist tactics is that it creates more terrorism. Hate breeds hate.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I think this thread deserves some replies.

Faizi
avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca »

Kevin wrote:
People get credit cards as a kind of insurance for when they need money and don't have it. But then people take out further insurance for when they can't afford to pay off their credit card debt!
People get away from the truth all the time, in a lot of ways. Like a series of progressive mistakes that becomes a truth in itself but really is, as you pointed out, a huge fat lie.

This reminds me of David Gilmour from Pink Floyd who recently sold his collection of Ferraris and donated a million dollars to a new accommodation center in London for 400 homeless people. He said that having the Ferraris meant you needed to pay people to look after them, buildings to keep them in, and then people to look after the buildings. It wasn't worth it.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

avidaloca wrote:This reminds me of David Gilmour from Pink Floyd who recently sold his collection of Ferraris and donated a million dollars to a new accommodation center in London for 400 homeless people. He said that having the Ferraris meant you needed to pay people to look after them, buildings to keep them in, and then people to look after the buildings. It wasn't worth it.
Not to mention the insurance on all the cars and buildings.

Mind you, it probably got him some attractive women, making it all worth it.
Locked