If the end of terrorism could be guaranteed... - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

If the end of terrorism could be guaranteed...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

If the end of terrorism could be guaranteed...

Postby Baseballer02 » Wed May 19, 2004 12:01 am

but you had to lose all of your rights for one day? Would you do it? One week? One month? One year? Ten years? Forever?

This question is brought up because this is what the HBO Movie I just watched asked. The name of the movie is STRIP SEARCH, and it really shed some light on the government's response to the September 11th attacks, being able to see it from two points of view. Did anyone else see it?
Baseballer02
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2006
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pitching from the left side.

Postby jeffc_76 » Wed May 19, 2004 12:30 am

Did not see it but I would definitely say NO. I don't know what kind of irreversible damage could be done in a day/week/month/year/etc. of freedom forfeiture and I don't want to find out. In general (real life), we should not give in one inch to terrorism, even if it does at times seem to be easier.

That reminds me of another hypothetical question a friend posed to me: If it could be guaranteed with absolute certainty that there would never be another terrorist attack against the United States and the only condition was that we would have to allow bin Laden to come out of hiding and live as a free man (we couldn't touch him), would I do that. I say absolutely not. It is a matter of principle. The terrorists have to be wiped out for what they did to us. Anything less is an insult to the Americans that died at their hands and those that have sacrificed in the fight against them. A nation that gives in to terrorists is a nation of cowards.
Image
jeffc_76
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 663
Joined: 1 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby Arlo » Wed May 19, 2004 6:20 am

But what if the question is changed from "all of your rights" to "some of your rights"...?
Arlo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8847
Joined: 4 Jan 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Cheap Seats

Postby matmat » Wed May 19, 2004 7:54 am

i dunno... I feel kinda attached to my right little finger.


seriously though... some rights, maybe, depends which ones and for how long. . . I certainly wouldn't if it were not known ahead of time.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]
matmat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4120
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: North cross down

Postby SaintsOfTheDiamond » Wed May 19, 2004 10:56 am

I would say no. Even if we could guarantee the end of terrorism, which I see as doubtful given the current sitution/methods, why would you want to live under 'organized terrorism' of the government or whoever is responsible for the so called peace 24/7? I think this question assumes a very narrow defenition of 'rights' because rights in my mind encompasses all aspects of life, not just the high standards of living we enjoy in America. I would much rather have the hit and miss (although seemingly ever increasing :-/) terrorism in its current form than the absolute rule of a government where we would have no rights and/or the ability to change it if we wanted too - because we have no rights remember? :*) Just my $.02.
Image
Member #4 of the Inaugural Yadier Molina Fan Club!!!
SaintsOfTheDiamond
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 6480
Joined: 6 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Swiping second

Postby Mookie4ever » Wed May 19, 2004 11:17 am

jeffc_76 wrote:That reminds me of another hypothetical question a friend posed to me: If it could be guaranteed with absolute certainty that there would never be another terrorist attack against the United States and the only condition was that we would have to allow bin Laden to come out of hiding and live as a free man (we couldn't touch him), would I do that. I say absolutely not. It is a matter of principle. The terrorists have to be wiped out for what they did to us. Anything less is an insult to the Americans that died at their hands and those that have sacrificed in the fight against them. A nation that gives in to terrorists is a nation of cowards.


Wow, you are very hawkish. What exactly does "wiped out" mean?

Bin Laden can't go free - how about his family? After 9/11 the US government allowed 2 dozen members of bin Laden's family and 140 of his supporters to flee the US on 4 separate flights to Saudi Arabia at a time when air travel was restricted and they were allowed to leave without ever being questioned.

Colin Powell has confirmed that the US government not only knew about this but that they coordinated the flights!! Here is the link to the MSNBC transcript of his interview. It is little over halfway down the transcript.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080245/

Isn't this an "insult to the Americans that died at their hands and those that have sacrificed in the fight against them"? I think so.

What should you do to the government that allowed this?
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19542
(Past Year: 281)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby jeffc_76 » Wed May 19, 2004 11:45 am

from the transcript wrote:MR. RUSSERT: The cover of Time magazine tomorrow, headlined, The Saudis: Whose Side Are They On in the War on Terror? — in this release from Vanity Fair magazine, “Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke tells Vanity Fair that the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of the U.S. just after September 11 — at a time when access to U.S. airspace was still restricted and required special government approval. According to other sources at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week — without even being interviewed or interrogated by the F.B.I.”

Why was that allowed?

SEC’Y POWELL: Well, I don’t know that that’s accurate. I don’t know the details of what happened. But my understanding is that there was no sneaking out of the country; that the flights were well-known, and it was coordinated within the government. But I don’t have the details about what the FBI’s role in it might or might not have been.



Colin Powell doesn't exactly confirm anything and he certainly isn't indicating anything shady as the anti-Bush liberals would like to believe. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with flying people out of the country post-911 but one thing you should know is that bin Laden is from a large wealthy family and he (supposedly) is a renegade, disowned member of it. It really isn't any more fair to pass guilt on that family for his crimes than it is to do the same for family members of murderers here.

As far as the wiped out comment, it means exactly what it implies. I want the terrorists gone, dead prefarably....captured would be OK too. I don't consider that a "hawkish" mentality. It's the right mentality for an American that is still every bit as angry about what was done to us as I was 2.5 years ago. While many think Bush may go to far at times to protect this country from terrorism, I don't think he has done enough. Too often, our policy is overly concerned with how our actions will be perceived abroad instead of simply doing what is necessary to get the job done.
Image
jeffc_76
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 663
Joined: 1 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby Mookie4ever » Wed May 19, 2004 12:05 pm

jeffc_76 wrote:I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with flying people out of the country post-911 but one thing you should know is that bin Laden is from a large wealthy family


What does their being wealthy have to do with anything?

jeffc_76 wrote:As far as the wiped out comment, it means exactly what it implies. I want the terrorists gone, dead prefarably....captured would be OK too. I don't consider that a "hawkish" mentality. It's the right mentality for an American that is still every bit as angry about what was done to us as I was 2.5 years ago. While many think Bush may go to far at times to protect this country from terrorism, I don't think he has done enough. Too often, our policy is overly concerned with how our actions will be perceived abroad instead of simply doing what is necessary to get the job done.


That is exactly what "hawkish" means. I would be careful about wanting to do whatever is necessary to get rid of terrorism. This same mentality arose after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. What did the US do? Well the CIA trained and funded Osama Bin Laden to do these exact same things to the Russians. I'm sure that you know about this but this is a good MSNBC piece on it to refresh your memory.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

Americans must be the first ones to stop using terrorism. Do you agree?

Lastly, when did Liberal become a bad word?

This is the definition from dictionary.com:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

In Canada we have a Liberal Party. They have led our country more than any other party in our history. Many people will tell you that they are too right leaning for their tastes.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19542
(Past Year: 281)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Wed May 19, 2004 12:21 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:
jeffc_76 wrote:I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with flying people out of the country post-911 but one thing you should know is that bin Laden is from a large wealthy family


What does their being wealthy have to do with anything?

jeffc_76 wrote:As far as the wiped out comment, it means exactly what it implies. I want the terrorists gone, dead prefarably....captured would be OK too. I don't consider that a "hawkish" mentality. It's the right mentality for an American that is still every bit as angry about what was done to us as I was 2.5 years ago. While many think Bush may go to far at times to protect this country from terrorism, I don't think he has done enough. Too often, our policy is overly concerned with how our actions will be perceived abroad instead of simply doing what is necessary to get the job done.


That is exactly what "hawkish" means. I would be careful about wanting to do whatever is necessary to get rid of terrorism. This same mentality arose after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. What did the US do? Well the CIA trained and funded Osama Bin Laden to do these exact same things to the Russians. I'm sure that you know about this but this is a good MSNBC piece on it to refresh your memory.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

Americans must be the first ones to stop using terrorism. Do you agree?

Lastly, when did Liberal become a bad word?

This is the definition from dictionary.com:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

In Canada we have a Liberal Party. They have led our country more than any other party in our history. Many people will tell you that they are too right leaning for their tastes.


"Wealthy" has nothing to do with it other than an adjective used to describe a family. Hecould just as easily wrote "smelly" and it would have meant the same thing.

As for when "liberal" became a bad word - about the same time communists and socialists started using it to describe themselves. The definition of the word hasnt changed, Mook, but the monicker has expanded to encompass a political belief that is extremely bad IMO.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Madison » Wed May 19, 2004 12:23 pm

jeffc_76 wrote:While many think Bush may go to far at times to protect this country from terrorism, I don't think he has done enough. Too often, our policy is overly concerned with how our actions will be perceived abroad instead of simply doing what is necessary to get the job done.


While I don't discuss politics on the boards, I have to show my support for that statement since I completely agree. ;-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Next

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Jul. 31
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi White Sox at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Colorado at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
St. Louis at San Diego
(3:40 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
LA Angels at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Atlanta at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact