U.S. starts fingerprinting program

[Timber Loftis]

Back to fingerprinting Brazilians -- I refuse to see the point. We should be actively importing their hot babes! Send us more Adrianna Lima, for heaven's sake! Rather than fingerprint, just require they all wear thongs into the country. It'll certainly weed out the extremist Muslims, and it'll certainly give us more of what we want in the way of immigrants and tourists.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: Personally, I consider asking the question "why do the terrorists want to attack the US?" and seriously addressing the answer as a far more effective (and cheap) way of tackling terrorism.

By who's standard's is it more effective? or Cheap? I can see from the forgien National traveling to the USA it would be cheap, after all they wouldn't have to do much. But the elected officals here have decided it is NOT cheap to follow that route. Effective? What are we to do change our life style, goverment policies, to suit everybody? Exactly how is that more effective? for everygroup that we have to change for there is another group that will be unhappy and we'll have to change back to satisfy them. Or is there some that are more deserving then others and they are they only ones we have to change for? Personaly I don't find running around chasing my rear end to be to effective, but to each his own I guess.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Personally, I consider asking the question "why do the terrorists want to attack the US?" and seriously addressing the answer as a far more effective (and cheap) way of tackling terrorism.

Ah.. how refreshing. The sensibility of seriously addressing the root causes of the problem rather than reacting to the symptoms.

Very nice. [/QUOTE]

Sure [img]smile.gif[/img] All we have to do is convert to Islam and pledge to become a religious ditatorship...yep seems like an easy, reasosnable and cheap solution to me... Oh , and we have to repress women, do away with civil rights and basicly agree to live like people did in the 17th century....


[ 01-08-2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by MagiK: ...do away with civil rights and basicly agree to live like people did in the 17th century....

with patriot I and II you're well on your way.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Personally, I consider asking the question "why do the terrorists want to attack the US?" and seriously addressing the answer as a far more effective (and cheap) way of tackling terrorism.

Ah.. how refreshing. The sensibility of seriously addressing the root causes of the problem rather than reacting to the symptoms.

Very nice. [/QUOTE]

Sure [img]smile.gif[/img] All we have to do is convert to Islam and pledge to become a religious ditatorship...yep seems like an easy, reasosnable and cheap solution to me... Oh , and we have to repress women, do away with civil rights and basicly agree to live like people did in the 17th century....
[/QUOTE]I was talking about the "real" root causes of terrorism, not those dodgy made-up ones born in cultural prejudice.

Root cause #1 we can examine is the neo-con policy drive to 're-mold' the Middle East in America's image, preferably by force, or threat of force it seems.

[ 01-08-2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

Yeah MagiK! Don't you know there was never a SINGLE incident of terrorism against the USA until the neo-cons came around (until a little over a year ago the term neo-con DID NOT exist). There never was a bombing of the US embassy in Beruit, or the Marine barracks in Beruit, or any of the other embassy bombings. US embassy personnel were Never Taken Hostage in Iran, No US airliners were ever Hijacked. No US servicemen that happened to be passengers on the NON Hi-jacked planes were ever killed. Pa Am never lost a airplane over Scotland, No wheelchair bound US citizen was killed when the cruise ship he was a passenger on was Hi-jacked. The twin towers weren't bombed in the early 90's when the "anti neo-cons" were in power. There weren't any of the several bombings in Saudi Arabia at our military barracks during the 90's either.The USS Cole was not bombed.

Come on MagiK, get with the program, everybody KNOWS that nothing happened until the neo-cons got into power in January of 2001. In the short 3 years they've been in power they were able to transend time/space and make-up all those incidents. I mean "HALE" they have to be able to transend time, after all they are simultaneously 're-mold' the Middle East in America's image, preferably by force, or threat of force it. While proping up corrupt gov't in the Middle East. Only somebody that has achieved the abillity to transend time/space would try to do two opposing things at the same time and place.

Boy MagiK, sometimes you really amaze me that you just don't see things the way they are.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: ...do away with civil rights and basicly agree to live like people did in the 17th century....

with patriot I and II you're well on your way. [/QUOTE]Naaa Sultan, More like the police states of most of the 20th century located in eastern Europe.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Yeah MagiK! Don't you know there was never a SINGLE incident of terrorism against the USA until the neo-cons came around (until a little over a year ago the term neo-con DID NOT exist). There never was a bombing of the US embassy in Beruit, or the Marine barracks in Beruit, or any of the other embassy bombings. US embassy personnel were Never Taken Hostage in Iran, No US airliners were ever Hijacked. No US servicemen that happened to be passengers on the NON Hi-jacked planes were ever killed. Pa Am never lost a airplane over Scotland, No wheelchair bound US citizen was killed when the cruise ship he was a passenger on was Hi-jacked. The twin towers weren't bombed in the early 90's when the "anti neo-cons" were in power. There weren't any of the several bombings in Saudi Arabia at our military barracks during the 90's either.The USS Cole was not bombed. Come on MagiK, get with the program, everybody KNOWS that nothing happened until the neo-cons got into power in January of 2001. In the short 3 years they've been in power they were able to transend time/space and make-up all those incidents. I mean "HALE" they have to be able to transend time, after all they are simultaneously 're-mold' the Middle East in America's image, preferably by force, or threat of force it. While proping up corrupt gov't in the Middle East. Only somebody that has achieved the abillity to transend time/space would try to do two opposing things at the same time and place. Boy MagiK, sometimes you really amaze me that you just don't see things the way they are.

While I appreciate your sarcasm, You obviously are either uninformed or ignoring the history of neo-conservative ideaology I refered to in my previous post. It dates further back than 2001, and the current policy makers really articulated their ideas to 'Americanize' the middle East after Gulf war I.

You also assume that would be the only root cause of terrorism I would bring to the table, as if it is the only one. It is simply the first one I mentioned, as designated by the "#1".

Funny how so far no one has decided to seriously address any real root causes of terrorsim, but instead have dodged the issue with sarcasm and sweeping cultural-degradation.

In general, I am beginning to think further disccussion on this particular topic spin-off would be a waste of time and would do nothing to further insightful discourse or exchange of ideas.

[ 01-08-2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Okay, Chewie, attacking the root causes of terrorism is important, I agree. But should we not do anything else? Should we hold off on free Iraqi elections until the root cuases of terrorism are resolved (likely waaaaay in the future)? Are there interim steps we could take to give Iraqis more control of Iraq, along a democratic means, or must we resolve EVERY issue prior to that? I think that if you advocate we must, it would be a long and diffucult road, hurting Iraqis more than you or me sitting in the US of A drinking scotch while we ... *hic*.... post.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Personally, I consider asking the question "why do the terrorists want to attack the US?" and seriously addressing the answer as a far more effective (and cheap) way of tackling terrorism.

By who's standard's is it more effective? or Cheap? I can see from the forgien National traveling to the USA it would be cheap, after all they wouldn't have to do much. But the elected officals here have decided it is NOT cheap to follow that route. Effective? What are we to do change our life style, goverment policies, to suit everybody? Exactly how is that more effective? for everygroup that we have to change for there is another group that will be unhappy and we'll have to change back to satisfy them. Or is there some that are more deserving then others and they are they only ones we have to change for? Personaly I don't find running around chasing my rear end to be to effective, but to each his own I guess. [/QUOTE]Addressing grievances (real or imagined) does not mean changing life-style or giving up freedoms - cetainly you would not have suffered anything like the loss of freedom that you have under Patriot I & II. Looking at the root causes is certainly cheaper than waging and $80billion+ war that has not (in any way at all) reduced terrorism - but instead has INCREASED anti-American feeling (even amongst the populaces of countries that formerally felt themselves to be natural allies).

Right now, all that the US government is doing IS running around chasing its rear. Fighting off insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq (with a daily death toll and high casualty list), sending back planes because the surnames of one or two passengers match suspected terrorists, and entering into diplomatic circles and discovering that former allies are now suspicious of it and are only willing to play ball in exchange for huge concessions. Meanwhile, the economy is failing, the boycott of US goods is rising, businesses are finding it more and more difficult to trade outside of the US as a result of a host of anti-terrorism legislation (not to mention the new visa restrictions to help the US tourism industry to shed jobs and deter foreign business travellers to invest in the US) and we are seeing lifestyle changes that could hardly be described as either pleasant or logical.

Consider how Chirac once served in the French army fighting the Algerians, how the Algerians hated France and planted terrorist bombs on the streets of French cities. Consider how today, after years of peaceful dialogue and admitting faults where they were due recently led to this ex-member of the most HATED army of occupationto be CHEERED by crowds of adulating Algerians on a recent visit to the country by Chirac. All this without any changes in French lifestyle. No more bombs, no more Algerian terrorists, just friendship and peaceful (and profitable) trade relations. It can be achieved - but not with a gun.

One bullet always leads to another, until one of the opponents are dead. And unless we are planning the genocide of every citizen of every non-US allied country, we will be fighting a perpetual and expensive war FOREVER - with all of the loss of freedom and changes in lifestyle that such a war suggests.