I'll bring it up.... Options

[Silver]

so then define american?

[realdeal]

For sheer length, that's an impressive list Real, but again, I ask you so what?

I'm pretty sure everybody in this forum realizes that terrorism is a modern invention of the militant Islamists. So what, how does that justify arbitrarily locking up all the arab-AERICANS on the grounds that they didn't voice their opposition to YOUR satisfaction? Who are you to set the standards, and since when did good arab-americans become beholden to citizen RealDeal's standards of 'patriotism'?

You see, I mentioned Timothy McVeigh as an example of insanity, but if you paid attention to my arguments, you would have seen the ridiculousness of your own positions. And you sidestepped the question entire question, as if the US can only have 1 enemy at a time (that being arabs). Shall I be more specific? Shall I provide a long list of militia activities in the US, actively campaigning against the government? If we can lock up all the arabs, then surely we can lock up the whites too. Only seems fair in the protection of the US. Let's lock em all up Real. Let's nuke everything.

After 9/11, it doesn't make sense why a group of AMERICANS, as an ethnic block, should have to coordinate themselves and demonstrate their loyalty just because You can't accept the fact that they are as American as you and I. You're not above anyone else here.

Frosty hits it right on the head.

nice job.

Good lord. WTF are you talking about? MY standards? I offered, as a suggestion to the Arab community that they should come out and condemn the attacks. That's all. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. However, if they're allegedly SOOOO concerned about it, you would think they would speak out against it. It's a fact that most Muslims are silent when it comes to terrorism, yet it's these same Muslims that don't want to be associated with it. Muslim leaders should come out and speak out against the radicals... it is their religion that will be marred and doomed forever, if it's not too late already.

For example, I am a Roman Catholic. If some Cardinals began organizing terror attacks on the basis that God wants us to rid the world of non-catholics, you can be damn sure that I and others would speak out loud and let people know that we do not support that type of behavior.

That's what the terrorists tell us right? They kill in the name of Allah and that their interpretation of the Koran is that it is good to kill the so-called infidels (US- You and me). That when they die they will go to heaven and be surrounded by virgins.

If a group of catholics came out with that same interpretation of the bible, rest assured the good catholics would speak out against it.


As far as internment goes, it doesn't mean lock up all the Arabs and throw away the key. The idea of internment is not to lock up all of the Arabs for the rest of their life. Do some research on it and come back to me. The idea is that when we are threatened, we lock up those of from the same background as those threaten us which enables us to try and get some control over the situation and weed out those that have "less than desirable" intentions.

We are still threatened. We are told here in NY that it's not a matter of IF we get attacked, it's a matter of WHEN. So yeah, I'd rather not sit back until we get attacked again. If there's anything we can do to prevent it, then I say let's do it.

Currently, the US has no real "recipe" for dealing with terrorism of this nature. We currently stand in a mostly reactionary poise and are told that we WILL be hit again.

How can you stand this? We're supposed to sit here and wait to be attacked? Where are you from? Are you Muslim?

You can bring up all the militia examples you want. True, not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims. If you can't face that fact than I don't know what to tell you.

[holden_caulfield]

Good lord.  WTF are you talking about?  MY standards?  I offered, as a suggestion to the Arab community that they should come out and condemn the attacks.  That's all.  They don't have to do anything they don't want to. However, if they're allegedly SOOOO concerned about it, you would think they would speak out against it.

They already have.

It's a fact that most Muslims are silent when it comes to terrorism,

A fact? Or an assertion by RD.

yet it's these same Muslims that don't want to be associated with it.  Muslim leaders should come out and speak out against the radicals... it is their religion that will be marred and doomed forever, if it's not too late already.

Many leaders have condemned it.

For example, I am a Roman Catholic.  If the some Cardinals began organizing terror attacks on the basis that God wants us to rid the world of non-catholics, you can be damn sure that I and others would speak out loud and let people know that we do not support that type of behavior.

Good, but again, this is all beside the point. Open support for or against something shouldn't be a litmus test as to whether you can enjoy your consitutional rights. If Muslims don't wanna come out against it publicly for whatever reason, that's their problem. As you said, it's their religion which gets marred. What's it to you?

That's what the terrorists tell us right?  They kill in the name of Allah and that their interpretation of the Koran is that it is good to kill the so-called infidels (US- You and me).  That when they die they will go to heaven and be surrounded by virgins.

If a group of catholics came out with that same interpretation of the bible, rest assured the good catholics would speak out against it.

Bravo RD. And is that another "fact" or an RD assertion?

As far as internment goes, it doesn't mean lock up all the Arabs and throw away the key. The idea of internment is not to lock up all of the Arabs for the rest of their life.  Do some research on it and come back to me.

Nobody said anything about keys or locking people up. Pay attention. We're not debating HOW to intern people, we're debating the merits of interning in the first place.

The idea is that when we are threatened, we lock up those of from the same background as those threaten us which enables us to try and get some control over the situation and weed out those that have "less than desirable" intentions.

Sounds like fear running amok. We're afraid that something bad will happen, let's lash out and get some "control" over arbitrary peoplel, most of whom have nothing to do with terrorism. Pretty drastic solution just so you can feel 'secure.'

We are still threatened.  We are told here in NY that it's not a matter of IF we get attacked, it's a matter of WHEN.  So yeah, I'd rather not sit back until we get attacked again.

There's a difference between not sitting back and taking preventing/non-racist measures.

If there's anything we can do to prevent it, then I say let's do it.

I agree, but we can't just go around and do ANYTHING. There are priorities and ideas to preserve. Killing every single person on the planet would make RD a pretty safe guy. Sound good to you? Some innoncents will suffer, but it's better than sitting back and being 'reactionary.'

Currently, the US has no real "recipe" for dealing with terrorism of this nature.  We currently stand in a mostly reactionary poise and are told that we WILL be hit again. 

How can you stand this?  We're supposed to sit here and wait to be attacked?

No, we're supposed to kill terrorists without betraying the principles that make up who we are.

[holden_caulfield]

Where are you from?  Are you Muslim?

Yea RD. I'm posting from Palestine as we speak. Hold on a sec, my turban is faling off. Jesus. More racism. And you had the righteousness to reign in theGhost on Noobian's thread.

You can bring up all the militia examples you want.  True, not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims.  If you can't face that fact than I don't know what to tell you.

Most terrorists are also men. Let's go kill all the men! If you've ever taken a basic course in logic, you'd see how ludicrous your argument is here.

Follow me for a minute. Suppose we have a big circle, we'll call it group M for muslims, and it'll represent the Muslim population at large. And we have a little circle, a tiny fraction of the big circle, and we'll call it group T for terrorists. Now group T is a subset of group M (as you lucidly stated), which means that, graphically, group T can be placed withinn the boundaries of group M--that is, the tiny circle goes inside the big circle. Now, what you are saying is... let's destroy the big circle, a large entity of innocent people, just so we can get the itty bitty speck that resides within it. But let's not forget. Group M itself is part of much larger abstractions. Group M is involved in slightly more complex unions and whatnot with other groups. And so is group T. Killing people is serious business. By which arbitrary criteria are you going to judge who gets killed and who doesn't?

[holden_caulfield]

I think you should switch to the axis side every once in a while when you play mohaa RD, you would fit right in with them.

[realdeal]

Your last post proves one thing. You are the type of person that is contributing in the ruination of this country. For any point that I made that you couldn't reply to, you ask if that's a fact or assertion. Then you continue on to call me racist. Hmmm.. let's see.. if 95% of the terrorist attacks in the world are carried out by Muslim men, it would make perfect sense to you to start investigating Japanese men for possible terrorism links.

I bet your the guy who thinks that racial profiling in this instance is wrong too. I'm sure to you it makes perfect sense for airport security to strip seach a 90 year old lady in a wheel chair right? We know what the enemy looks like, so why do pretend that we don't? Because it's not politically correct? PLEASE. This isn't the time to be politically correct.

Wake up and smell the roses.

Sounds like fear running amok. We're afraid that something bad will happen, let's lash out and get some "control" over arbitrary peoplel, most of whom have nothing to do with terrorism. Pretty drastic solution just so you can feel 'secure.'

Fear running amok? We're afraid something bad will happen? 9/11 was a wake up call. You're damn right I am afraid. These terrorists would love nothing more than to kill everyone in the U.S. and they don't hide this fact. They continually threaten the U.S. every chance they get. We're not supposed to be afraid? What then shall we do? Ahh yes, let's sit and wait to be killed. Awesome idea.

There are priorities and ideas to preserve.

Yes there are. But it is times like these where we may need to re-evalutate some of our ideas and priorities.

Yea RD. I'm posting from Palestine as we speak. Hold on a sec, my turban is faling off. Jesus. More racism. And you had the righteousness to reign in theGhost on Noobian's thread.

Oh jeez... from California... That explains alot

What preventive measures would you suggest? You seem to disagree with most of my ideas, so let's hear yours.

What are some of your ideas and suggestions?

[holden_caulfield]

Nobody said not to be afraid. I said fear running AMOK--a phrase which means that we are letting our fears get the better of us, cloud our judgment, etc. As in, cold reason should dictate policy, not your fears.

So calling a racist a racist is... destructive? I don't know, you sidestepped that one again. You're pretty nimble.

Racial profiling and internment are two different things. It is well within the law to investigate suspicious people. Ninety year old Japanese ladies don't arouse suspicion, so I don't know why you suggested we go and search them. Terrorists are Muslim men around 20-30 years of age. Generally, the people we investigate will fall under that category. I see no problem with that. If that's racial profiling, then so be it. It's pragmatic.

Pragmatic is not interning the entire arab population or nuking entire regions of the world.

Real, you have a twisetd sense of "this country", and if I happen to be destructive to such an image, then I'm making this world a better place.

[holden_caulfield]

I'll be honest with you Real. I don't have the answers you are looking for. No great policy from me. You, on the other hand--it's like you look at this complex equation and you produce some solution that's so far out of this world it's laughable.

And all I'm doing is pointing this out.

Remember, we're discussing the merits of your solutions, not mine.

[realdeal]

So calling a racist a racist is... destructive? I don't know, you sidestepped that one again. You're pretty nimble.

Does what I posted in this thread make me a racist in your mind?

Is it racism to identify who our enemy is and to try and combat it? Has this country gotten so politically correct that this thread offends certain people to the point where they need to call others racist?

Was President Truman a racist for dropping the nuclear bombs? Sure we were at war with Japan, but certainly not EVERY Japanese citizen agreed with the war, yet they were killed by the bombs. They were victims of the unfortunate thing called "collateral damage" -- yup, I said the "C" word. Enough to send shivers down the spine of any good Liberal. Yet, collateral damage is a fact of war. That's one reason that makes war so serious. If my loved ones were killed in Japan during the bombings would I be happy having their deaths termed "collateral damage" no I wouldn't, but that's what they would have been. That's what it's called when innocents are killed in war. Like it or not.


So you have no idea on how to deal with terrorism yet you call my ideas laughable. Okay.

[holden_caulfield]

Yes, making a distinction between two equally legal groups of citizens based on race and then segregating them is racist. Somehow, the fact that arab-americans are arabs means that their rights will be stripped from them.

I'm not offended by your racism. Be as racist as you want, nobody is going to stop you.

Once again, pay attention to my post. The bulk of this debate concerns American citizens, not foreign civilians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Your ideas are laughable, and I have no qualms calling them such. Whether I have an answer of my own or not doesn't make your ideas any less laughable.

[ReJecT]

i am with RD on this one all the way... i think i may have stated this somewhere else but after 9/11 when they killed all of our innocent civilians and when we bombed iraq we killed innocent civilians but that's what happens when your in war...always remember we didn't start this thing we just need to finish it before they attack again

[Druid]

A little off the current topic but I wanted to reply

holden_caulfield
And flag burning, it seems that the only kind of people who get incited are people like you, who get so riled up when they see the US flag on fire that they want to change the constitution. What's the point in banning it? Why shouldn't it be covered by the first amendment? Who is being harmed?

Laws regarding the flag was left up to the states. 48 states had laws prohibiting the desecration of our national symbol. In 1968 the 1st federal law was also passed.
The reason people are seeking a constitutional amendment is because that is the only way to over turn the 1989 Supreme Court 5/4 split decision classifying the ACT of Flag Burning as a type of speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
I will ask you the same question I ask everybody when this subject comes up.
Is burning a flag speech?
My answer would be no. Pretty simple I think.
There is no other action someone can do and claim it as protected under free speech so why this one thing. The freedoms protected by the Constitution are not absolute, nor where they meant to be, ie.. libel, slander, perjury, etc....
The Court was wrong to override the Texas law in the 1998.
What most people don't know about the law as it relates to flag burning is the underlying purpose was to restrict whats called "breach of peace"
I'm sure most people have heard the example of you can't falsely yell fire in a crowed theater. The underling reason behind that example is crying fire in a crowded theater would be a "breach of peace".
The only reason behind a person burning a flag would be to incite the people around him, which is probably the intention of the person doing it in the 1st place.
There is no reasonable expression of ideas from someone burning a flag which is whats the 1st amendment is about, it's simply an act done to incite.

Here is another example, if you want to condone burning the flag as a protected form of expression, what would you consider someones actions if they defaced the Washington Monument. If someone can deface one symbol of America as a form of protected expression why not the other?

Now for the real reason why this court ruling was beyond stupid.
The case was Texas vs. Johnson
Johnson was involved in a protest at the 1984 Dallas RNC.
Throughout the day, he and other protesters gave speeches, handed out pamphlets expressing their views protesting policies of the Reagan administration.
No one questioned his right to do this.
Then they marched to city hall where he douses a flag with kerosene and lights it on fire.
Out of the 100+ protesters he was the only one arrested. He wasn't arrested for what he said only for violating the law regarding desecrating the flag.
Johnson claimed the act was speech the court didn't agree and found him guilty.
Next the case is moved to the appeals court where his conviction is upheld.
Then finally it comes before the Supreme Court where they on a split decision classify his act as a form of protected expression.

If thats not insane here's one better.
Guess where he got the flag that he burned. He stole it from a building during the march to city hall.

holden you asked the question who is being harmed by someone burning the flag.
I guess the answer would be different for different people but for me the answer is easy.
Me
I consider it a offensive act of vandalism to a symbol of something I hold near and dear.

[holden_caulfield]

7
I will ask you the same question I ask everybody when this subject comes up.
Is burning a flag speech?
My answer would be no. Pretty simple I think.

Speech CAN be equated to actions. Sign language = speech. So why can't other symbolic actions be understood as an expression of one's opinion? I understand the breach of peace, and I had your fire example in mind, but that's a far cry thinking that burning a flag will incite rioters. Usually people are already rioting before they light up. *shrug. In any case, the people who get incited are the people who want to beat the shit out of those who are doing the burning. And in that case, the flag is no longer the issue.

In any case, you mentioned that you find it offensive. Well, I find it offensive too. I find lots of things offensive. When people give other people the finger ("fuck you!"), that's pretty damn offensive, so why don't we ban that too? We can't just ban things because we don't like them.

Your example of defacing the Washington Monument is completely different. Anyone who defaces the Washington Monument would be charged with the destruction of public property--i.e. breaking shit that doesn't belong to them. They wouldn't be charged with "destroying a national symbol." If, however, someone bought their own flag, or hell, fashioned their own flag out of felt and then burned it... that's their own private property and they can do as they wish with it whether it offends you or not.

You mentioned something about people vandalizing something you hold dear to your heart. Well, someone can't vandalize something that they own. They can't legally vandalize their own house. They can fuck it up, but hey, that's their business, whether you like it or not, whether it offends you or not.

That's just how I look at things.

[TheGhost]

7
I will ask you the same question I ask everybody when this subject comes up.
Is burning a flag speech?
My answer would be no. Pretty simple I think.

Speech CAN be equated to actions. Sign language = speech. So why can't other symbolic actions be understood as an expression of one's opinion? I understand the breach of peace, and I had your fire example in mind, but that's a far cry thinking that burning a flag will incite rioters. Usually people are already rioting before they light up. *shrug. In any case, the people who get incited are the people who want to beat the shit out of those who are doing the burning. And in that case, the flag is no longer the issue.

In any case, you mentioned that you find it offensive. Well, I find it offensive too. I find lots of things offensive. When people give other people the finger ("fuck you!"), that's pretty damn offensive, so why don't we ban that too? We can't just ban things because we don't like them.

Your example of defacing the Washington Monument is completely different. Anyone who defaces the Washington Monument would be charged with the destruction of public property--i.e. breaking shit that doesn't belong to them. They wouldn't be charged with "destroying a national symbol." If, however, someone bought their own flag, or hell, fashioned their own flag out of felt and then burned it... that's their own private property and they can do as they wish with it whether it offends you or not.

You mentioned something about people vandalizing something you hold dear to your heart. Well, someone can't vandalize something that they own. They can't legally vandalize their own house. They can fuck it up, but hey, that's their business, whether you like it or not, whether it offends you or not.

That's just how I look at things.

Holden, your such a fucktard, you know that? If you think burning the AMERICAN FLAG in the U.S. should be legal, then you have a very very disturbed view. Hey, if you got the right to burn this country's flag on US soil, then I also have the right to kick your ass.

Hey, who wants to come with me up to washington to burn a Iraqi or Saudi Flag in protest?

You wouldn't be able to because that would hurt our killers feelings. You'd go to jail so fast you wouldn't know what the fuck happened.

And that, my friend, is whats screwin this country over. What we need is another Revolution, we really do. And when it does break out, Holden, youll be the first one i look for.

This post has been edited by TheGhost: 07/09/05 8:16am

[holden_caulfield]

Holden, your such a fucktard, you know that? If you think burning the AMERICAN FLAG in the U.S. should be legal, then you have a very very disturbed view. Hey, if you got the right to burn this country's flag on US soil, then I also have the right to kick your ass.

Umm. No. But you're welcome to try.

Hey, who wants to come with me up to washington to burn a Iraqi or Saudi Flag in protest?

Anyone?

You wouldn't be able to because that would hurt our killers feelings. You'd go to jail so fast you wouldn't know what the fuck happened.

No, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to without fear of any jail time. Don't know where you grew up or who taught you about the legal system, but you've been misinformed. If you can burn a US flag, I'm pretty sure you can burn an Iraq flag. Think about it.

And that, my friend, is whats screwin this country over. What we need is another Revolution, we really do. And when it does break out, Holden, youll be the first one i look for.

Yeah! Power to the people! Hey when you're old enough to drive, come on over and look for me!