Bush says to Terrorists "You can't be totalitarian, only *I* can be totalitarian!"
 

From the president who brought you:
<ul>
<li>The lack of enron prosecutions (where is ken lay today?)</li>
<li>The patriot act</li>
<li>The blatant flaunting of the Geneva conventions in Guantanomo</li>
<li>Crackdowns on legal protest by creating "protest zones" far from the event</li>
<li>The failed war in Afghanistan, where warlords still control most of the country</li>
</ul>
And a whole host of other national problems... We now hear that we need to FIGHT TOTALITARIANISM.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...h_dc&printer=1

Please tell me you aren't really equating the Patriot Act with blowing up children on a bus...

I fail to see what the problem is in Guantanomo Bay, there aren't declared combantants, they are foriegn terrorists and criminals. Furthermore I fail to see how the Warlords are his fault in Afganistan, they were there before Bush, and they'll probably be around in that shit hole of a country when he is gone.

Actually, I see the patriot act as far more Totalitarian than blowing up people on a bus.

From m-w.com:
totalitarian: 1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy

Blowing up people on a bus is terrorism. The Patriot act is totalitarian, it's all about removing civil rights and monitoring citizens. That's why I find sad humor in Bush's statements. While I don't support the terrorism of the Palestinians, I don't believe their goals are totalitarian, they want to have a homeland. Ashcroft, on the other hand, I believe has serious totalitarian goals.

Since they have no access to lawyers or family, and their names, in many cases, have not been disclosed, you have no way of knowing that. They could have your Saudi grandmother in there and the only thing you would know is that she was missing from her home.

mmm, k.

I guess my only comment is that it seems like you have two separate issues in one post and are somehow making a comparison that I'm not seeing.

If my Saudi grandmother is there then she is probably associated with Al Qeada or the Taliban, so let the whore rot for all I care.

Hmm, I don't see it that way. Bush is accusing terrorists of having totalitarian goals, when he has several totalitarian-leaning policies himself. To me, it's ironic.

"Probably" is the keyword there. So, based on a "probably", you're willing to let someone sit for years in a jail with no access to family, lawyers, or a fair trial. I guess you and I have different opinions on what constitutes justice.

Yes, I would rather have some extremist asshole who would slit my throat or fly a plane into a building for shits and giggles rot in hell the SOB he or she is.

we're becoming what we despise.

do we have to become evil to defeat evil?


and as for the guatanamo deal, they are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. isnt that the way that dictators act?

i can remember both the UN & the US condoning acts by dictators where they practiced the guilty until proven innocent doctrine.

i quote this from a UN human rights declaration

the "plain language version" part is also on the website.

http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/hu...aration/11.asp

arent we in blatant violation of that?

EDIT : sry, i missed the part where US is allowed to violate UN declarations!

Nope, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient. Besides, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and I believe they're being held by military law or something like that so we're going around the UN declaration.

what is the purpose of the declaration then if countries can evade it by saying it's military law?

/me whispers to HarmlessRabbit: it's flouting, not flaunting. ;)

We aren't in violation of the Geneva Convention, the UN has to declare them (the terrorists) as combatants before anyone can do anything about Gitmo, which I don't think they'll do.

Without completely rehashing this topic, I'd just like to point out that that declaration would have to come from the U.N. Security Council, which the USA has a veto vote on.

Do you see a problem there?

Why do Liberals always insist on appeasing those who would destroy us? "We shouldn't stoop to their level, it isn't fair" honestly who the fuck cares. When you have fuckers like OBL running around you don't play fair, you hit them hard and hit them fast.

I can give you three reasons off the top of my head:
- The Declaration of Independence.
- The Constitution.
- The inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

And I can give you one that directly appeals to your interests:

It's more along the lines of "why do liberals always try to minimize the damage we might do to those not already opposed to us?"

We aren't arguing to appease the terrorists--we're worried that our actions are creating more of them.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution only apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS.

My god, you don't really believe that do you? You're like a caricature of my dream conservative to debate against. :)

I do believe that, why would our country grant the same rights to those who aren't citizens??? If it is otherwise please be so kind as to inform me. It's like me being able to shop at Sam's Club even though I am not a member.

*Good discussion guys, keep it going*

Wow!

The Declaration of Independence was a treatise arguing for unaliable rights that humankind possessed to be free from political tyranny. Just so you know, it was written before there were, what we now conceive of as, "American Citizens." The notion of "citizenship" (that one had certain, unencroachable rights by basis of one's place of birth) was a marvelous construction--and by all accounts I've read--a gift we gave to the world.

So because it says that, it automatically applies to everyone across the world?

Yes.

Oops, I didn't mean to turn that into merely quoting the document.

Here's how it relates:

This document illustrates the beliefs the framers held in regards to the role governments should have with their populations--or citizens. This document shows that, at the very least, the writers viewed governments as being responsive to their citizens and that the people had a right to institute political structures for their benefit.

This indicates they would be loathe to step into the foreign affairs of a sovereign nation--one in which the people would be required as a matter of duty to overthrow a despot. In our current scenario, however, one might argue that we reluctantly engaged in the affairs of a foreign nation to protect the interests of our own nation. Even in this case, however, the framers would have been very explicit to limit the amount of unalienable rights we might take from people we simply detained.

And just to put a bee in your bonnet: the framers might have even supported the terrorists. They might have viewed our historical actions against the middle east as usurping the rights of a local population to govern itself. They definately would have argued (as they did in the quoted document) that a people has a fundamental duty to overthrow and dismantle a political party it viewed as unresponsive to its best interests.

They argued that exact point to the government on the other side of the pond and claimed that no foreign entity (an entity unresponsive to the needs and desires of the people it tried to govern) should have a stake in its affairs.

edit: A peopl, LOL, I'm leaving it. "People do it all the time; and you're a people, too."

You don't do anything, and the terrorists kill people. You do something, and terrorists kill people. You don't do anything, and terrorists recruit more terrorists. You do something, and you might create more terrorists.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. So it bascially boils down to two options:

1) Don't kill the assholes
2) Kill the assholes

I prefer the second option.

Your statement would be correct if we were, in fact, "doing nothing." But terrorists do not exist because we did "nothing." They have specific complaints and legitimate claims (not to say that all of them are); refusing to address such things is to our detriment precisely because such attitudes place us in this untenable situation.

You can't make everyone happy. Someone's going to hate you no matter what.

Wrong Jimmy4.

Terrorists do their actions FOR A REASON.

They do not go around killing people as a psycho might.

They do this for political gain - and terror is used as a tactic often in DESPERATION.

For instance, in the 70's, palestinian hijackers exploited situations in Israel with hostage situations to get the release of political prisoners.

now for instance, it is the actions of israel vs. palestine that have sparked revenge bombings

You people are getting blured between psychos and terrorists. A terrorist to one man can be a patriot to another. The British saw the Minutemen as being terrorists. THey saw George Washington as a terrorist, a rebel, a traitor. We see him as a patriot, a hero, a founding father.

They do these in desperation for a reason - now i'm not defending their actions, because they're using their zeal in the wrong fashion.

its true you cant make everyone happy but its wrong to say someone will always hate you - they won't if you put them at a parity or left them alone to solve their own issues.


America would never have been hit in the WTC if Osama didn't hate the U.S. - and why does he hate the U.S.? Obviously something we did that he felt we wronged him. Be it support of Israel or being anti-fundamentalist.

Iran had a wave of fundamentalism at the closing years of the 70's - why? They resented our support of the Shah of Iran.

They do these for reasons. If the U.S. was not involved in the Middle East, we wouldn't have these problems.

IMo the fact is, the U.S. doesn't like to admit its actions in the Middle East.

Think of hte 80's and the numerous U.S. involvements in countries they still deny to this day yet people have long come forth saying we were there. Actions to support dictators in Chile against the communists, actions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and what not. Our own special forces were there telling people to execute "liberals."

Face it though, people don't like to admit we're wrong. Americans still see us as the country that has never lost a war or battle when it has.

Yawn. Same bs posted different day..

Bush, yada yada yada

evil, yada yada yada

tyrant, yada yada yada

fascism, yada yada yada

whine, yada yada yada

I offer no solutions, yada yada yada

USA's fault, yada yada yada

I dunno onetime2.

Ignoring the subject is fine, but hey, ignoring the subject is how people expoit the situation.

Its easy for people to say "bah i don't care same bullshit" - then later when it affects you, you care, but its too late.

Ignorance - ah how it makes the world go round.

Yet you are reading it?

I noticed.


It's not about offering solutions. It's a quest to understand what is happening in the world. Some of us are interested in this sort of thing. If you're not, why are you here wasting our time.

I guess you say it all in "It's not about offering solutions." I read it because I choose to and find it entertaining that you can claim that it's about understanding what's happening in the world when it's really about preaching what you think is happening in the world.

If I'm wasting your time then why don't you stop reading my posts?

Not ignoring the subject at all. If someone wants to discuss the war on terror let's go, wanna discuss Enron alright. If someone just wants to blast the President because he is from the "other" party and throw in a whole bunch of unrelated matters rather than offer up concrete examples of what they would do then I submit that it is not me that's ignoring the subject.

But hey, enjoy the thread. Blast Bush. Claim he's a dictator, ignore the methods that are available to oust him, insult his character or intelligence, whatever. While you are doing that he is laughing all the way to re election.

This thread was to discuss the implications of the article. If you want to start a thread about solutions, or Enron, or whatnot, why don't you start one instead of hijacking the discussion?

My comments were directed at Harmless Rabbit's thoughts on the article as well as the other things (including Enron) that he/she threw in. Sorry if you think it's off topic but the original post seems to be more about claiming Bush and his actions are totalitarian. I won't bother to comment anymore since I wouldn't want to hijack such a wonderfully productive discussion.

So what are your thoughts on Bush, onetime2?

Do you like him? Hate him? Think he's ok? Do you like his record on terrorism? Support the war?

Negation is easy. Putting up an opinion and defending it can be difficult.

To the extent that this isn't a discussion, it's because people aren't discussing. I've put forth an opinion that bush/ashcroft's policies are more totalitarian in spirit and in action than random acts of terrorism, which Bush brand's as "totalitarian".

What do you think?

you have as much right as him to start a discussion on this board. feel free

So, to stop the attack, we had to make one guy like us. We need to go out of our way and make sure one guy approves of everything we do, otherwise, he'll fund terrorists acts against us?

Fuck that. Kill his ass.

Well I can't tell if you're being facetious since Al-Qaeda has cells in over 60 countries; regardless, at least we have come full circle to the original subject of the thread.

After all, killing political dissidents forms the core of totalitarianism.

I don't even need to comment on how ludicrous statements are these days.

Just not worth the time. This is doomed shit.