Author Topic: The Patriot Act and Homeland Security  (Read 1155 times)

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2005, 09:10:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler

sounds like some of you are ok with terrorism as long as you do not lose your "freedoms" - lol


Freedom is not free. It is the risk we take.
sand

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2005, 09:10:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skydancer
Waging conventional war on nations will likely only increase terrorism.

Terrorism is the most effective method for waging war if your resources millitarily are thin on the the ground. Quite a few Partisan groups in WW2 knew that as did the British and US govts who funded equipped and trained them. Big armies and millitary responses are not the solution.

As I see it there are two options. We either begin using simmilar tactics. Kidnapping leaders assasination, covert operations etc which realy reduces us to a similar level as thosewe are trying to defeat.

Or we concentrate on a Moral victory. Not allowing ourselves to become the kinds of societies that these people come from. Controlled dictatorial dogmatic and most definately not free. If we win the Moral victory we will win that elusive battle for hearts and minds. The terrorists in the Muslim world are still the minority. If we continue our current policy there they will become a majority.

Not very sensible.

Moral victory not millitary victory that is the answer.


Win the hearts and minds of who?
This sounds slightly familiar. :)
The "hearts and minds" of the groups supporting, training and carrying out these terrorist acts will never be won over to "our" way of thinking. You are talking apples and oranges. Our beliefs, value of human life, compassion and intended goodwill means less than nothing to these people.
  If left alone they will train more, recruit more and in turn attack more.
  They must continue to be protected against. They must also continue to be sought out and destroyed at the very roots of the organizations to stem the flow of supplys , training and support.
  Sitting back , sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away is exactly what they desire. This gives them more time, money and planning for the next attack.
  They will not quit until they are  wiped out or at least put under so much loss that they cannot gain momentum.
  Focusing on other matters while not taking care of this problem and ignoring them plays right into their hands and sets us all up for more and more attacks as they gain ground, grow and glean support from other radical groups.
  In the last few years they have accomplished what their attacks set out to do. In other words, they have been allowed to grow to the point of getting history`s largest FREE advertisement campaign. This was accomplished by being ignored while they trained and garnered support and finances. If not controlled or destroyed from the very roots they will get more serious and more bold as time goes by. The attacks we have seen so far would look like a Sunday walk in the park compared to what time, funding and training will produce if not controlled.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 09:15:46 AM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18987
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2005, 09:12:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by faint
Not to be rude or anything but the attack realy wasnt that big.  

The only thing special about it, is the fact that it was a terrorist attack.  
Planes crash and kill more people than that and 911 was 100X bigger.


my hope is that you are under 15 years old .. hate to think an adult thinks in these terms...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2005, 09:17:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not for losing liberty in the faint hope that the government, given more power over citizens lives, will then be able to protect us.

lazs

Exactly. Its a false security.
Another one of those "feel good laws" As it does little to make us any more secure.

We would be far more secure if all we did was ENFORCE laws already in place.

The emphasis should not be on creating new laws giving the government more end ever increasing powers but instead emphasizing enforcement of already existing laws.

But even then we will never be totally secure.
someone that wants to do damage badly enough will do it not matter how many laws are in place or how much power we give the government

Im no chemist. But even I as I am sure many of you know how to make an IED, or poison gas out of  largely everyday items you can buy at your local supermarket and/or hardware store.
And if I wanted to do damage I could very well do so.
Fact is I have no intention on doing so but I could, and quite easily if I were so inclined.

Security is largely an illusion that no government has ever been able to successfully acheive no matter how much power its had
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2005, 09:19:18 AM »
well... to go back to the same old thing... the old soviet russia was a very safe place.  despite their less than gentle foreign and domestic policies.... they had very little crime in russia and allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities... their was a very high degree of security in that nation.

lazs

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2005, 09:22:41 AM »
"Freedom is not free. It is the risk we take."

 Yup.  Then again the myopic and partyline types cannot (or refuse to) see that.   Then the discussion gets to be like argueing cold war history with Boroda.  




"I am not for losing liberty in the faint hope that the government, given more power over citizens lives, will then be able to protect us."

Here! Here!  I'll second that.

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2005, 09:25:48 AM »
"old soviet russia was a very safe place."


eh.  On that line (very appropriate example there) uber-ultra-conservative North Korea is secure and safe. So is Cuba.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2005, 09:39:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
the gov ain't the bad guy here - it is the cheekboness whose actions reguire/allow the gov to enact the Pat Act

you hold the govs feet to the fire when an attack occurs and whine at every attempt they take to prevent it... can't have it both ways

sounds like some of you are ok with terrorism as long as you do not lose your "freedoms" - lol


Actually in some areas they are both the bad guys.

I hold their feet to the fire when an attack occurs needlessly when all that was needed to prevent it was to enforce already existing laws.
That lack of enforcement. Particularly on the immigration front allowed 9/11 to happen.
Another problem I have is with the way airport security was enforced.
I am VERY familiar with Newark Airport and there is no way they should have been able to get on those planes with boxcutters.
Prior to 9/11 I used to get half undressed just to get to the area to be able to meet my mother EXITING an aircraft to pick her up several times a year. I used to and still do carry knives or razor blades on my on a regular basis (for work) and would have to leave them with security while met her at the gate.
On 9/11 this same security failed to do the very job for and outgoing flight it did regularly with me for an incoming one.
Again. Lack of enforcement.
Lack of this enforcement of ALREADY EXISTING rules allowed people to get on airplanes with knives and hijack the planes.

In these areas I yes, hold the governments feet to the fire.
Laws were and are in place. The Government didn't enforce them and that resulted in the deaths of 2986 people.

There was no need for any loss of freedoms to prevent this. Only a need for enforcement.

So yes. you can have it both ways
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2005, 09:49:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I agree with Sandman?!  Smash the Fax Machine!!!!!

Karaya


Hmmm... I need to work on my sarcasm.
sand

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2005, 09:51:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
well... to go back to the same old thing... the old soviet russia was a very safe place.  despite their less than gentle foreign and domestic policies.... they had very little crime in russia and allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities... their was a very high degree of security in that nation.

lazs


LOL in those days there werent very many terrorism attacks anywhere.

And with the Soviet method of news media. do we know this for sure? Or is that simply the way it was reported? LMAO

then again you say "allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities"

Allmost is not all.

for that matter there has "allmost" been no terrorism on american cities either.

As for Cuba and NK.

Neither has had a history of that problem. It isnt that they've been able to stop it as much as nobody has really wanted to.

Curious though as to how many any of the 3 were able to prevent?

Probably it isnt so much because of theri security as mch as it is nobody was bothering to try. Or if it was tried. it went unreported. or reported as something else.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 09:55:22 AM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2005, 09:55:50 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL in those days there werent very many terrorism attacks anywhere.


Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.
sand

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2005, 09:59:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.


Yes but usually they just wanted a ride to cuba. So I dont count those.

Damn freeloaders LOL
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2005, 10:18:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.


Actually I threw the last post up as a source of amusment while I tried looking it up.

Turns out I'm not all that far off the mark.

But as to your claim. do you have an sources on that? I have in this breif period of time been unable to find supporting evidence.
But I will try to find some.
the closest I've found yet was along with this somewhat amusing story

"The first recorded aircraft hijack was on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards flying a Ford Tri-motor was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima"

Other then that .

The first hijack of a commercial airliner probably happened on July 16, 1948, when a failed attempt to gain control of a Cathay Pacific seaplane caused it to crash into the sea off Macao. On September 12, 1948 a Greek T.A.E Airlines plane was sucessfully hijacked by 6 pro-communist students who wanted passage to Yugoslavia. The plane landed near Skopje and returned to Thessaloniki later that evening.

Since 1947, 60% of hijackings have been refugee escapes. In 1968-69 there was a massive rise in the number of hijacking. In 1968 there were 27 hijackings and attempted hijackings to Cuba. In 1969 there were 82 recorded hijack attempts worldwide, more than twice the total attempts for the whole period 1947-67. Most were Palestinians using hijacks as a political weapon to publicise their cause and to force the Israeli government to releasing Palestinian prisoners from jail.

Airliner hijackings have declined since the peak of 385 incidents between 1967-76. In 1977-86 the total had dropped to 300 incidents and in 1987-96 this figure was reduced to 212.

Other significant hijackings include:

1958 First Cuba-to-U.S. hijacking
1960 The first US-to-Cuba hijacking
1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.
1970: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed gaurds aboard.
1971: D. B. Cooper hijacks Northwest Orient Airlines flight 305 and obtains $200,000 ransom for the release of the plane's passengers. Cooper proceeds to parachute from the rear of the Boeing 727 and is never found.
1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.
1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.
1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.
1979: Two East Germans hijacked an airplane to West Berlin; see Judgment in Berlin.
1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.
1983: Tbilisi hijacking incident
1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.
1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.
1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.
1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.
1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.
1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos (GIGN) storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.
1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet intentionally ditching into water.
1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.
1999-2000: Kashmiri militants hijack Indian Airlines Flight 814 and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage stabbed dead and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"
2001: September 11 attacks, eastern USA: 19 terrorists hijack four planes (American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175; in three cases the aircraft is used as a cruise missile in a suicide bombing of a building; they are the three most deadly of all aircraft hijackings; in the fourth case the intention is the same but the passengers, learning of the fate of the other three planes, attack the cockpit, and the hijackers crash the plane and only the people in the plane were killed. All together, about 3,000 people were killed"



(Source)
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Samiam

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2005, 10:42:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skydancer

Terrorism is the most effective method for waging war if your resources millitarily are thin on the the ground. Quite a few Partisan groups in WW2 knew that as did the British and US govts who funded equipped and trained them.


Carefull, Skydancer. You are confusing guerilla warfare with terrorism.

Partisan groups backed by the Allies focused on military targets and supply and communications lines. We did not train them to randomly kill civilians by blowing themselves up in crowds.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The Patriot Act and Homeland Security
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2005, 12:43:39 PM »
Okay... I exaggerated. I'll have to check and see how that figure got in my head. ;)
sand