[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but assuming something and then claiming that because someone else agrees with your *opinion* it becomes a *fact* is most certainly a fallacy.

I never said it was a fact. Being as i've never spoken to Ms Phillips, I don't even know if i'm right. I merely expressed an opinion as to what she meant. Because the idea came to me readily, it therefore seemed obvious to me. Whatever you thought about it is your own lookout.

Originally Posted by Graham

See what happens when you make assumptions that aren't based on facts?!

Actually as you read the Guardian in electronic form, it wasn't an assumption at all, it was a fact that you told us.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but claiming that the hypothetical scenario you presented is a *justification* for murder because it will *prevent* another September 11th, is.

Killing a suicide bomber before he can detonate a bomb, is wishful thinking in stopping a terrorist attack is it? Don't think so. I'd say that would pretty much put an end to it.

Originally Posted by Graham

And I agree entirely. However shooting someone on the *assumption* that they're a terrorist and about to commit an atrocity without *extremely* good reasons for that assumption, is *not* going to convince their country-folk of the rightness of your cause.

I think most reasonable muslims, regardless of location, would come to the same conclusions as us; it makes more sense to kill 2 muslims that are planning on killing 500 innocents. The other set, that are convinced America deserves nothing but death, nothing will convince them America is doing the right thing.

Originally Posted by Graham

ROFLALALAL!! Pardon me, but am I still talking to the person who wants *ME* to say what *I* would do if *I* were the US President?? Surely that's not *MY* job...!!!

I never said it was your job. Nor have I ever said you had to do anything. I merely asked your opinion. Like I said before, this is a forum, for an open exchange of opinions.

Originally Posted by Graham

Do tell me if you were right...

Actually your response was more muted that I thought you would of came back with.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, they just give them severe hassle when they want to get on aeroplanes...!

I'm white, british and I get enough hassle at airports. Arabic people aren't solely targetted. The actual parameters that America looks for are basically: 18-35 single male, and even then I've seen older and younger women get hassled, it's not exclusively Arabic people. Besides, if the US "hassled" Atta a bit, then maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

Originally Posted by Graham

Iraqi's are *STARTING* to find out...??? Sorry, did the details of Saddam Hussein's reign pass you buy? The Secret Police? The Tortures? The Internments? The Executions? The Bombings and Gassings of Kurds and Marsh Arabs? The fear that people lived in that was one of the *justifications* for invasion??

Oh, I got the impression from the anti-war brigade, that the true evil was the Zionist Imperialist oil-hungry texan, who invaded a poor country with an frustrated president trying to do his best with sanctions, that the evil imperialist government helped to place on him. You make it sound like it was worth going in there to get rid of him. Oh yeah, it was.

Anyway, it's a different kettle of fish. We are talking about civillian on civillian terrorism. Specifically Al Qaeda *points to topic*. There are more than enough dictators around to fill up many threads.

Originally Posted by Graham

September 11th was when the *Americans* got the chance to feel what a large proportion of the rest of the world (including the UK) has felt!

I don't know of many terrorist attacks yielding 3000 deaths that has happened around the world. Most people at this point will come back with "sanctions kill thousands of iraqi children a day". You mean the sanctions that were put in place by the UN to allow a dictator remain in place? Well that evil zionistic imperialist government has removed him, along with the sanctions. A bit OT, but anyway.

Originally Posted by Graham

Except that when that sprat has *caught* the makerel, will the security services go "ah well, it's all right now, we'll stop the surveillance"? Or will they say "ah, but there's *always* another threat around the corner, so we'll keep the surveillance going, after all, everyone's used to it now"?

*This* is exactly the sort of thing that Ben Franklin (and I) were talking about.

Something that Bush hasn't understood yet, is the war on terror will never end. Regardless of what the west do, terrorists will always breed more terrorists. Or more generally, there will always be an enemy for the states. The security services have been for many decades fighting to stop all their enemies from doing what Al Qaeda did. The enemies might change over the years, but the fact the US still have to defend themselves, doesn't.

Originally Posted by Graham

Nor do I, if that is *ALL* that they are doing. However...

That is not all they are doing. It's all a bit hush-hush, so keep it to yourself. The cameras at Tescos video you buying Pepsi, and the boys from Coca-Cola, snatch you off the street and take you off to to a room to convince you to make a better choice next time, by conditioning you to associate Pepsi with your worst fears.

Originally Posted by Graham

... Well pardon me, but I *DO* mind. And, regrettably, your attitude here is one of the ostrich. You decide you can't see a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist.

Except it *does* exist. *WHY* should the security services be monitoring your, my or anyone else's e-mails "just in case"? If they have a *reason* to suspect you or me, fine, let them, just as they have to do with phone taps and post interceptions, present their case to the Home Secretary and get *authorisation* (and a verifiable paper trail) for their actions.

But to give them carte blanche to spy on *everyone* and *anyone* just because there *might* be a "threat" is a foolish and short-sighted policy.

*Pardons Graham*. You do mind, and that's your choice. Incidently, i'm not the ostrich, for realising that MI-5 are powerless to stop anything, without infringing our civil liberties. I'm the one that can see the problem in the future. It is a very big problem, and it's one that means the security services will need to keep on doing these type of things to remain on the heels of terrorists.

And why should they monitor me? Because tomorrow, I could meet a mulism guy, he converts me, and I go to the Finsbury Park mosque, (or any by the sound of it), become radicalised and brainwashed and decide to turn England into a islamic theocracy by bombing the countries leaders. If noone tells them i'm going to, how else would they know I would?

Originally Posted by Graham

It is not just *my* perogative. If you are one of my customers, do you want anyone else knowing that you've just bought a "Macho Big Boy Bondage Harness"? Do you think that the security services or anyone else have a *right* or a *need* to read that information??

Do you honestly think that MI-5 have so much time on their hands that they can sit in their offices giggling that Mr X has purchased a bondage toy? Don't you think they would be more interested in the next e-mail which is an invoice for bomb making materials, and working out wether he we have a legitimate use for them? MI-5 are currently on an urgent recrutment drive because they are overworked with intelligence as it is. Worryingly it has even be suggested that intelligence whiuch could be vital, isn't even being examing through lack of resources.

And the security services have to suspect everybody, because there is no checklist, or specific profile that every terrorist fits into. They dont all have 1' long black-grey beards with long flowing robes and a turban. The don't even have to be arabic descent. Anyone can convert, and become brainwashed.

Originally Posted by Graham

I won't have to. Given that I have spoken and written at length about such subjects, I have little doubt that I'm already listed in their books as a "dangerous subversive" and if I find a way of acheiving this, they will read it from my messages on forums such as these.

I doubt you are subverting anyone. You may be pretty aggressive and intense in your beliefs, but you are hardly in the same bracket as Arthur Scargill, Enoch Powell and Abu Hamza.

Originally Posted by Graham

And yet again you make assumptions which aren't based on facts.

I didn't assume anything. You said I don't know what i'm talking about, so that is calling me an idiot. Besides, there are no wrong answers when it comes to opinions.

Originally Posted by Graham

Pedanting spelling errors is not foolish, it's just childish and petty and not the sort of thing that someone who is interested in reasoned debate would engage it.

But for someone to call me an idiot, but not be able to spell at a GCSE-pass level, is a bit hypocritical? Still, as you said it is not a point for debate.

Originally Posted by Graham

Public opinion affects what politicians do. It does not affect what Judges do, otherwise they would make their decisions on what the Tabloids write, rather than the Rule of Law.

It is my fervant hope, however, that those who administer the law in this country do not allow the politicians to change the law simply to garner votes according to their perceptions of public opinion

Public opinion won't change by supporting judges and hoping for the best, unfortunately. As you said, politicians react to public opinion, and it the public that want to lynch sex offenders before they have had a fair trial.

Originally Posted by Graham

So was I!!

Your source said:

United States: Tolerance for religious intolerance. The U.S. State Department's new list of countries that deny religious freedom left three conspicuous violators off the list - Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - for no obvious reason other than the fact the trio are all allies in Washington's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The State Department list released 5 March, named six countries, Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan as "Countries of Particular Concern" under the US International Religious Freedom Act. The list was last updated in 2001.

Where does it mention the rights of Americans? It merely points out that outside America some countries don't have the religious protection that America has.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, 70 years *IS* recent! It's in living memory of a lot of people! And I'm glad that American has progressed (at least in *some* areas, whilst seemingly going backwards in others!), however to expect that *other* countries should change their ways according to that time-table is naiive.

Anyone old enough to remember what life was like pre-1934 would have to be 85 at least. How many 85+ year old native Americans are there? I bet it is not a lot. It is going back 3 generations. If certainly not expecting any of the above countries to change their ways at all, let alone within a defined timescale.

Originally Posted by Graham

It is not "no education", it is "diminished education".

Says who? And more to the point, where does it say the government is forcing this to happen? It is the public that are doing this. Races naturally feel more comfortable amongst their own, and feel they can learn better that way.

Incidently the Supreme Court descisions it mention aren't explained very well, but it sounds like they are enforcing the catchment-area-style schooling we have here, which has nothing to do with race, but geographic positioning.

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you look at this article: http://www.libchrist.com/sexed/abstinance.html

This is hardly supressing education, but rather educating schoolchildren, sensitively with regard to their surroundings. Parents in the bible belt don't want their children to be taught in schools they can have sex with contraception. They are suppressing it, the government is just trying to be tolerant. Also, the government isn't suppressing education outside schools, unlike other governments.

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh! It's only violated *one* basic right. Well *that's* ok then...

Yeah, and hopefully it will mean terrorist to violate my right to be able to live in a city without being blown apart.

Originally Posted by Graham

There is no "have to" about it.

Until we find a better of finding and catching terrorists without infringing on everyone's civil liberties, then yes there is a "have to" about it.

Originally Posted by Graham

Why? Because broadening the scope will undermine your arguments?

No, because it is off-topic for starters, but more because you can't really debate something if you keep descending into generalities, otherwise it escalates, and the point gets missed.

Originally Posted by Graham

So it's OK to support a Freedom Fighter when he's convenient to your cause, but when he doesn't do what you want, then he becomes a Terrorist?

No, he becomes a terrorist when he tries to kill you. I really don't think the CIA would of cared so much if bin Laden would of refused to fight the Russians, but they did when he starting bombing embassies in Africa.

Originally Posted by Graham

Now you're really reaching. Yes, this *is* a forum. Yes this *IS* a place where people can voice their opinions.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Now you can stop chastising me for voicing one.

Originally Posted by Graham

However *WHEN* someone says "Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath." that is *NOT* stating an opinion, that is, seemingly, claiming a *FACT*.

Yet again you make assumptions...

Sorry, I forgot to add: "I believe that" in front of that previous sentence. Incidently, If they did believe that, then they would be right, as I posted earlier.

Originally Posted by Graham

Did someone pedant my spelling a few lines back up? (Oops, slapped wrist, *bad* Graham...!!! )

There is a bit of a difference between a typo and not being able to spell, (whilst calling someone that can an idiot.)

Originally Posted by Graham

And, once again, I point out, if you "don't do something" you will be "held to account". And who will be doing that holding? Why the Good Ol' US of A, of course!

Like, say, starting a war...? Yep, that's *guaranteed* to make the world a better place...

Because it is the US that will feel the repercussions if country-X doesn't do anything, if terrorists are active within its borders. Also, you are STILL obsessed with war. There are many ways to aid the war on terror without any kind of violence. Freezing accounts, voting, etc.