Taliban leader says attack on Washington will amaze.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

it doesnt matter what the realities are today! IF YOU FIND THAT MF-ER, YOU KILL HIM! if stupid people like him want to attack where i live then i see no reason not to track his happy @ss down and put a bullet between his eyes.

 

I almost didn't open this thread because I enjoy living in ignorant bliss..That and I thought it was probably an April Fools joke.

 

I just don't think killing this individual would be effective..They'll make more.

 

It's easy to forget who threw the first stone..you just remember who touched your life personally and retaliate/escalate.

 

Even mild mannered me..(I've only been in two "fights" my whole life..An attempted carjacking, and a guy on something? my freshman year outside Nebraska Bookstore).

I don't know anyone that was killed on 9/11..Yet I could justify to myself killing this "terrorist" if I was in the same room...even though legally..he'd deserve a trial..Imagine this guys relatives or partners seeking to avenge his death of make him a martyr.

 

We need long term solutions.

 

 

You're right. Capture, detention, and intelligence gathering is always the place to start and stop when it comes to terrorists and those that threaten the United States and our interests.

[strigori]

Federal initiated wiretaps without a court order are a great thing and should be encouraged by all law abiding citizens around the world.

 

My friend, you may be the real terrorist.

 

That's funny

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Ben never knew how much information an agency can learn by listening in when others are speaking open and without code.

But Nixon did. Power corrupts, hense the need for checks and balances.

 

 

Not applicable because Nixon was doing it for personal game and NOT national secutity. National Security trumps all.

 

Trust me, warrantless eavesdropping works and you cannot nor will not change my mind because you are speaking from opinion. where I'm not.

The 'National Security' catch all. If National Security trumps all, you would be supportive of martial law? Warentless searches? Its not a matter of what might work, its a matter of when things cross the line of violating ones privacy. And that is even before we get to what all falls under the umbrella of 'National Security.'

 

Privacy concerning terrorists? Seriously????????

 

To those that know, there is no might about it.

 

Talk to me about might and violating ones "privacy" the next time "stuff" happens. You sleep better not knowing. You not knowing is evident by your attempt at justifying your stance through the post above. You want, or you should want, those that protect you, your family and your country to have have every possible advantage.

And who determines who is a 'terrorist?' An anonymous tip? Hearsay? There is far too much potential for things to slide down a McCarthyism slope. Warrantless anything gets into dangerous territory. 1984 esque. I accept that there is no absolute safety in a free society.

[HUSKER 37]

You're right. Capture, detention, and intelligence gathering is always the place to start and stop when it comes to terrorists and those that threaten the United States and our interests.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Stop".

 

I've seen that saying by Benny before, but I'm also beginning to think, he might think a little differently today.

There's more at stake now than there was for a fledgling group of independant states...The possible destruction is much more complete and on a grander scale...We almost have to concede some of our freedoms to protect the greater good...It's a very painful concession, but if we restrict how this information can be used..We might be better off.

 

 

I have a relative who likes to listen to religious fanatics..She's convinced that once all the televisions are on this digital thing they're forcing us to accept...The Government will be able to track our every move..So no more eatin' cheetos nekid in your beanbags!

[strigori]

You're right. Capture, detention, and intelligence gathering is always the place to start and stop when it comes to terrorists and those that threaten the United States and our interests.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Stop".

 

I've seen that saying by Benny before, but I'm also beginning to think, he might think a little differently today.

There's more at stake now than there was for a fledgling group of independant states...The possible destruction is much more complete and on a grander scale...We almost have to concede some of our freedoms to protect the greater good...It's a very painful concession, but if we restrict how this information can be used..We might be better off.

 

 

I have a relative who likes to listen to religious fanatics..She's convinced that once all the televisions are on this digital thing they're forcing us to accept...The Government will be able to track our every move..So no more eatin' cheetos nekid in your beanbags!

If we start surrendering our freedoms, we have already lost. I don't remember who said it but it really rings true. "Fascism will come to the United States draped in the Flag and carrying the Cross"

[Vince from ShamWOW]

Federal initiated wiretaps without a court order are a great thing and should be encouraged by all law abiding citizens around the world.

 

My friend, you may be the real terrorist.

 

That's funny

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Ben never knew how much information an agency can learn by listening in when others are speaking open and without code.

But Nixon did. Power corrupts, hense the need for checks and balances.

 

 

Not applicable because Nixon was doing it for personal game and NOT national secutity. National Security trumps all.

 

Trust me, warrantless eavesdropping works and you cannot nor will not change my mind because you are speaking from opinion. where I'm not.

The 'National Security' catch all. If National Security trumps all, you would be supportive of martial law? Warentless searches? Its not a matter of what might work, its a matter of when things cross the line of violating ones privacy. And that is even before we get to what all falls under the umbrella of 'National Security.'

 

Privacy concerning terrorists? Seriously????????

 

To those that know, there is no might about it.

 

Talk to me about might and violating ones "privacy" the next time "stuff" happens. You sleep better not knowing. You not knowing is evident by your attempt at justifying your stance through the post above. You want, or you should want, those that protect you, your family and your country to have have every possible advantage.

And who determines who is a 'terrorist?' An anonymous tip? Hearsay? There is far too much potential for things to slide down a McCarthyism slope. Warrantless anything gets into dangerous territory. 1984 esque. I accept that there is no absolute safety in a free society.

 

 

Tips and hearsay are confirmed and advanced though information..... and the best information begins when it's undetected. Total safety is impossible, however protecting those that realize this but complain when it doesn't happen is even more impossible. I'm not willing to settle for our country "kind of being safe". Are you? I want, our country and our interests, to be as safe as possible. Don't you and everybody else?

[strigori]

I'm all for safe as possible, yet the possible is going to be limited by my demands that my freedoms are protected first. I don't complain about why the gov didnt prevent something. You cant have it both ways. No one can, or should, know everything.

 

Safe as possible. This angle starts getting into things like GPS tagging everyone in the country. Just think how safe we all would be if the gov knew where everyone was at every moment. Or random searches of citizens homes. Warantless anything is just the start of the slope to these options.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

I'm all for safe as possible, yet the possible is going to be limited by my demands that my freedoms are protected first. I don't complain about why the gov didnt prevent something. You cant have it both ways. No one can, or should, know everything.

 

Safe as possible. This angle starts getting into things like GPS tagging everyone in the country. Just think how safe we all would be if the gov knew where everyone was at every moment. Or random searches of citizens homes. Warantless anything is just the start of the slope to these options.

 

 

First off, GPS is not that accurate. Now, in all seriousness and you know this, warrant-less eavesdropping is Light Years from what you are worrying about. Do you have something to hide to where warrant less eavesdropping might pick something up? If not, then don't worry about it. We're, they're, not worried about 1-800 span-kme conversations. Just conversations and intel where national security is at risk or breached. In other words you want the Gov to protect you and the country with limitations. Is that effective to the degree you are willing risk your families safety? (It's a yes or no answer)

[strigori]

I'm all for safe as possible, yet the possible is going to be limited by my demands that my freedoms are protected first. I don't complain about why the gov didnt prevent something. You cant have it both ways. No one can, or should, know everything.

 

Safe as possible. This angle starts getting into things like GPS tagging everyone in the country. Just think how safe we all would be if the gov knew where everyone was at every moment. Or random searches of citizens homes. Warantless anything is just the start of the slope to these options.

 

 

First off, GPS is not that accurate. Now, in all seriousness and you know this, warrant-less eavesdropping is Light Years from what you are worrying about. Do you have something to hide to where warrant less eavesdropping might pick something up? If not, then don't worry about it. We're, they're, not worried about 1-800 span-kme conversations. Just conversations and intel where national security is at risk or breached. In other words you want the Gov to protect you and the country with limitations. Is that effective to the degree you are willing risk your families safety? (It's a yes or no answer)

GPS is close enough, and I have seen ads from some company that will sell you a tracker to strap on your kids so you can keep track of them, so its not a large step. And warrant-less eavesdropping is a very small step from warrant-less searches. Its not a matter if I have something to hide, its a matter of if someone else thinks I have something to hide. That also tends to be the defense of warrant-less searches.

 

Yes, its worth the risk. Very little ticks me off more than the fear mongering that is this current 'save us from the boogieman' garbage. Every era has it. The Germans, the Japanese, the Nazis, the Communists. Now its the terrorists. There is no total safety. There is no total protection. Anyone who thinks there is is a fool. Anyone offering it is lying. And really, as far as I'm concerned a lot of this stuff is on par with the Simpson's bit about the rock keeping the tiger away.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

I'm all for safe as possible, yet the possible is going to be limited by my demands that my freedoms are protected first. I don't complain about why the gov didnt prevent something. You cant have it both ways. No one can, or should, know everything.

 

Safe as possible. This angle starts getting into things like GPS tagging everyone in the country. Just think how safe we all would be if the gov knew where everyone was at every moment. Or random searches of citizens homes. Warantless anything is just the start of the slope to these options.

 

 

First off, GPS is not that accurate. Now, in all seriousness and you know this, warrant-less eavesdropping is Light Years from what you are worrying about. Do you have something to hide to where warrant less eavesdropping might pick something up? If not, then don't worry about it. We're, they're, not worried about 1-800 span-kme conversations. Just conversations and intel where national security is at risk or breached. In other words you want the Gov to protect you and the country with limitations. Is that effective to the degree you are willing risk your families safety? (It's a yes or no answer)

GPS is close enough, and I have seen ads from some company that will sell you a tracker to strap on your kids so you can keep track of them, so its not a large step. And warrant-less eavesdropping is a very small step from warrant-less searches. Its not a matter if I have something to hide, its a matter of if someone else thinks I have something to hide. That also tends to be the defense of warrant-less searches.

 

Yes, its worth the risk. Very little ticks me off more than the fear mongering that is this current 'save us from the boogieman' garbage. Every era has it. The Germans, the Japanese, the Nazis, the Communists. Now its the terrorists. There is no total safety. There is no total protection. Anyone who thinks there is is a fool. Anyone offering it is lying. And really, as far as I'm concerned a lot of this stuff is on par with the Simpson's bit about the rock keeping the tiger away.

 

 

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

[HUSKER 37]

You're right. Capture, detention, and intelligence gathering is always the place to start and stop when it comes to terrorists and those that threaten the United States and our interests.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Stop".

 

I've seen that saying by Benny before, but I'm also beginning to think, he might think a little differently today.

There's more at stake now than there was for a fledgling group of independant states...The possible destruction is much more complete and on a grander scale...We almost have to concede some of our freedoms to protect the greater good...It's a very painful concession, but if we restrict how this information can be used..We might be better off.

 

 

I have a relative who likes to listen to religious fanatics..She's convinced that once all the televisions are on this digital thing they're forcing us to accept...The Government will be able to track our every move..So no more eatin' cheetos nekid in your beanbags!

If we start surrendering our freedoms, we have already lost. I don't remember who said it but it really rings true. "Fascism will come to the United States draped in the Flag and carrying the Cross"

 

I'm seeing a lot of nice bumpersticker material here...

But...

 

When have we ever been free?

 

It's been nessecery to surrender some of our freedoms as we've been evolving as a nation..New laws have been enacted and amendments to the constitution to sort of finetune what freedoms we had.

 

Used to be you were free to own slaves..Thankfully, that was corrected.

It's almost always been a "give and take" sort of thing..I suppose it's human nature to sensationalize these things and go with worse case scenarios (on both sides of this argument), but I'm confident the extremists will eventually cancel each other out and we'll be left with NaCl...

 

Now, I've got a private government trying to squeeze $150 out of me for letting some mesquite saplings grow in my front yard so I could transplant them to my barren backyard without realizing I needed their permission first...

 

It's bad enough I thought about bombing their offices after they had my then, new car towed from the curb in front of MY house 45 miles across town to an area where the police won't go to at night, and my Wife had to carry $160 cash to get my car back...

Or for the stress they caused my then Pregnant Wife less than a week after we bought the house in 2000 for not having curtains up yet.

[AR Husker Fan]

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

This is coming perilously close to a personal attack. Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

This is coming perilously close to a personal attack. Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.

 

 

This is in no way a personal attack and please do not incorrectly make assumptions. If you have a question or need to me to explain something feel free to PM me. But let's keep incorrect assumptions to non-existent.

 

In other words if I wanted to post a personal attack, I would have been perfectly clear so there is nothing left to be incorrectly assumed. I'm not trying be an a$$hole, but I don't like it when people assume incorrectly about a post of mine without taking the time to understand what's what.

 

Now, to clarify my reply. His comment was based on what little he knows about the reality behind protecting the country. He doesn't know because he has no experience. I never slammed him as much as I pointed out the obvious.

[killer cacti]

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

This is coming perilously close to a personal attack. Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.

 

 

This is in no way a personal attack and please do incorrectly make assumptions. If you have a question or need to me to explain something feel free to PM me. But let's keep incorrect assumptions to non-existent.

 

In other words if I wanted to post a personal attack, I would have perfectly clear so there is nothing left to be incorrectly assumed. I'm not trying be an a$$hole, but I don't like it when people assume incorrectly about a post of mine without taking the time to understand what's what.

Watch out AR, I heard he beat up a hooker.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

This is coming perilously close to a personal attack. Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.

 

 

This is in no way a personal attack and please do incorrectly make assumptions. If you have a question or need to me to explain something feel free to PM me. But let's keep incorrect assumptions to non-existent.

 

In other words if I wanted to post a personal attack, I would have perfectly clear so there is nothing left to be incorrectly assumed. I'm not trying be an a$$hole, but I don't like it when people assume incorrectly about a post of mine without taking the time to understand what's what.

Watch out AR, I heard he beat up a hooker.

 

 

She bit my tongue and wouldn't let go. That hurt.

[AR Husker Fan]

Not being a smart-ass, but your posts show your opinions are based on what little you know. For you and others that think like you......that's a great thing. Trust me!

This is coming perilously close to a personal attack. Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.

 

 

This is in no way a personal attack and please do not incorrectly make assumptions. If you have a question or need to me to explain something feel free to PM me. But let's keep incorrect assumptions to non-existent.

 

In other words if I wanted to post a personal attack, I would have been perfectly clear so there is nothing left to be incorrectly assumed. I'm not trying be an a$$hole, but I don't like it when people assume incorrectly about a post of mine without taking the time to understand what's what.

 

Now, to clarify my reply. His comment was based on what little he knows about the reality behind protecting the country. He doesn't know because he has no experience. I never slammed him as much as I pointed out the obvious.

Let's clarify a few points:

 

1. I did not say it was a personal attack. I said it was coming close to it. Had it been, I would have increased your warning level or told you to take it to the Woodshed.

 

2. You stated that, "I don't like it when people assume incorrectly about a post of mine without taking the time to understand what's what.". Too bad. I don't like it when someone fails to read my posts and jump to incorrect assumptions. If you have a question or need me to explain something to you, feel free to PM me.

 

3. You stated, "Now, to clarify my reply. His comment was based on what little he knows about the reality behind protecting the country. He doesn't know because he has no experience." And your proof that you possess such experience consists of nothing more than your unsubstantiated claim - in other words, utterly worthless without proof. That's the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can pretend to be anything they want. Further, at no point did you completely and fully explore his experience. Therefore, the comment, in addition to being completely without a basis in fact, is nothing more than gratuitous. So, to repeat: Try refuting his statements rather than casting aspersions. If you can't, you've lost the debate. If you can, there's no need for your statement above.