Patriot Act!!!





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Patriot Act!!!
By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Craigk10 was respectful enough not to flame the Minimum wage thread, so I thought I would make a new conversation to debate the Patriot Act. Here is why it is good and has made America safer:

-Broke wall between FBI and CIA.
Before the Patriot Act, the FBI and CIA could not share intelligance, the Patriot Act allows them to share intelligence so that they can work together on fighting terrorism.
-Give Police more terrorism fighting abilities.
The Patriot Act allows police to do many things to get information about a person. Before anyone screams CIVIL LIBERTIES, I'll tell you what it does. It allows police to tap phone wires of suspected terrorists (and look at library records) with a COURT ORDER. It basically gives the Police the powers to fight terrorism that THEY ALREADY HAVE TO FIGHT THE MAFIA.
-People can sue federal government if they believe that their civil liberties have been infringed upon.
Basically, if anyone feels that they have lost liberties to the Patriot Act, they are free to bring a case against it to court. To this point there have been no lawsuits.
-Permanent Detentions
Basically this allows the government to hold enemy combatants indefinately. This is a good thing, and let me explain. If you are an American citizen and take up arms against this country with a terrorist organization, I'm not going to be in a hurry to read you your rights. Also, these terrorists that we hold in Guantanamo from Afghanistan and Iraq are being held because they are enemy combatants (read: POWs). We have never given POWs lawyers, so why should we now? This would overwhelm the US Justice System, and the Justice system fail too often to trust with terrorist cases (remember OJ?)
-Redefines the way we fight terror.
Basically, liberals want to treat terrorism as a criminal justice issue. They want us to arrest all suspected terrorists, give them trials, and put them in jail if found guilty. Fighting terrorism is a war, and must be fought as such.

Remember, this argument is based a lot on personal beliefs. If you personally want to be free and safe, you support the Patriot Act, if you want to be free and in danger, you don't support the Patriot Act. Sorry if I don't seem objective here, but I have never heard a good argument against the Patriot Act, and I don't think there is one. Prove me wrong.

PS: I'm sorry for the UPPERCASE, I'm not screaming, I just want to add emphasis and don't know how to italicize or bold.

PPS: No hypotheticals here, let's stay in the realm of reality, okay?

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

*applauds* very nice

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Let me just ask you a simple question -- do you think it's fair for people to be detained for an unspecified amount of time (indefinitely) for something that you may or may not have done (b/c there does not have to be proof)?

How would this person sue the government?

"If you are an American citizen and take up arms against this country with a terrorist organization, I'm not going to be in a hurry to read you your rights."

Hmmm, that allows people to arrested and detained indiscriminately without any civil rights. That violates everything America is supposed to stand for -- if that is what you want, fine, but it is not my America. There has to be a burden of proof. This is when it gets very, very slippery -- what's to stop the government from taking you into custody?

"If you personally want to be free and safe, you support the Patriot Act, if you want to be free and in danger, you don't support the Patriot Act."

That's just stupid -- apparently I want to be in danger. There are other solutions to this problem (policy maybe -- these people are angry for a reason remember). Oh, and take the free part out of the first one -- I don't think a society in which the government can detain people without proof forever is a free one.

You can highlight the beneficial parts of the Patriot Act like the sharing of intelligence (which I wholeheartedly support), but it does not make up for the injustices done. These can be done under separate acts quite easily.

The Patriot Act does make it easier to arrest former leaders who fled their countries after taking a lot of money so it is good for something.

My last comment is that I am going to read the 9/11 Commission Report soon and from what I know now about it, the only aspect of the Patriot Act that would've prevented the attacks according to that report is a better sharing of intelligence. Besides that the problems and mistakes lie elsewhere.

In summation, it was a hasty, emotional answer to this problem that does not represent American values.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

You fail to give a reason for why permanent detentions are a good thing. It just doesn't seem like a good idea. So what if our system isn't great? What good does it do to let them rot there using up tax dollars? Some of them are not terrorists but were rounded up by locals and sold for a bounty.

I don't really care about the government seeing what books I read and what I'm talking about on the phone. It keeps me safer. That part and the rest, I do agree with. In general, I think it's done well, but nothings perfect.

You seem to have an iron-hand when it comes to terrorists. I personally don't see how this will help solve the problem at all. There are economic and political solutions that would work alot better.

BTW, How do you underline/bold?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Look, there was proof that these Americans were fighting with a terrorist organization, THEY WERE FOUND WITH THEM. The fact of the matter is, what they did was an act of war, and they are being held as Prisoners of War for what they did, until the War on terror is over (and it may never be).

Also, the 9/11 Commission was a joke. Jamie Gorelick, the DA before Reno, was the one who made that intelligence wall (which may have been the biggest factor in Sept. 11 --- Why didn't she testify??)

Also, the Patriot Act IS a policy that makes us safer. Was it rushed after Sept. 11, absolutely. I would agree with parts of it being rewritten, but on the whole it is a good act.

The way you sue the federal government is by taking tha matter to court and making the lawsuit against a certain branch of the fed gov't (FBI, for example). This has been done a lot at local lvls and even at federal lvls. I see your point though, it probably is hard to win a suit against the federal government. The fact remains, though, that no one has hard evidence (that could be used in court) of their civil liberties being infringed upon.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Oh and about that court order you were talking about -- the FBI just has to "assert that the records or personal belongings are 'sought for' an ongoing foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism investigation." (ACLU lawsuit)

So there needs to be a court order, but the court order does not require probably cause.

Another part of the Patriot Act allows "sneak and peek" searches in which the owner is not told until afterwards. This is no longer allowed thankfully.

Here's another question that goes beyond your opinion of the Patriot Act even if you agree with it -- is it constitutional?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

This comment to Skiowad:

First of all, we have been trying to "reach-out" to terrorists for WAY too long. They don't want to reach out to us, they want to KILL US. We need to start treating them as people who want to KILL US, and not as people with different opinions than us.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit

But no proof has to be presented -- do you understand the difference. What keeps the government from making assumptions or even outright lying? Absolutely nothing.

Don't just dismiss the 9/11 Commission summarily because of this one mistake -- it's just about all we've got right now. By the way, you couldn't have read it/seen all of it so how can you make that judgement?

I have a feeling this one is going to be intense, but it's one of my favorites so I'm up for it.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit

The problem with probable cause is that it is tough to find probable cause in a terrorist case w/out looking in phone records, etc. See, the ACLU sees this as a matter of criminal investigations; it is not. It is a WAR. We do not look for enemy combatants in the county like we look for a shoplifter. We need stronger-handed methods.

Also, I support sneak and peak because it allows the police to see something without letting the terrorist suspect hide his tracks (at least as I understand it, you can explain it if im wrong, thats just what i had taken it to understand)

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Look, Jamie Gorelick, IMO, is the one person that the 9/11 Commission NEEDED to question. IMO she was most responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of the wall.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

"First of all, we have been trying to "reach-out" to terrorists for WAY too long. They don't want to reach out to us, they want to KILL US. We need to start treating them as people who want to KILL US, and not as people with different opinions than us. "

What the hell are you talking about? Reaching out to these people -- are you kidding? Read more about the past ten years. I'm sort of tired of fatalists who believe that we have no part in their anger. Let's look at why Osama Bin Laden has chosen to attack the west:
Bin Laden hates the present Arab governments especially the ruling Sauds. Getting rid of these oppressive regimes is very difficult from within. The United States aids the Sauds in every way possible -- without US support (oil), the Sauds could very well crumble. That means if Bin Laden scares the hell out of the United States to stop dealing with the Middle East then Saudi Arabia could be overthrown.

They're also pretty pissed that we are diehard Israeli supporters who have committed their fair share of atrocities. Recently in some international court, the wall that Israel wants to put up was challenged. The vote was something like 150 something to 6. Guess who the 6 were? Israel, the United States, and countries like Micronesia. Anyway, I'm done rambling.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

There were a whole list of mistakes and that was one of them -- it's still valuable for other insights.

"The problem with probable cause is that it is tough to find probable cause in a terrorist case w/out looking in phone records, etc. See, the ACLU sees this as a matter of criminal investigations; it is not. It is a WAR. We do not look for enemy combatants in the county like we look for a shoplifter. We need stronger-handed methods. "

So you agree that the court order aspect is pure bs?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Am I the only one who has a problem that the government can simply say you are of interest in international intelligence and get whatever they want? That's freaking scary.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Oh, it's unconstitutional too.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

That wall is a SELF-DEFENSE MECHANISM. Isreali civilians are getting killed by psycho suicide bombers. BTW, the Israeli wall is on ISRAEL'S TERRITORY. The are protecting themselves.

Osama bin Laden hates America because we believe in freedom. He hates us because everyone has equal rights. He hates us because we don't have facist regimes. The US supports Israel because it is the only DEMOCRACY IN THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST. Also, Saudi Arabia is the most moderate government in the Middle East, and deserves our support for there help with the War on Terror.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

How have we been "reaching-out" to them? We support their dictator leaders which impose brutal oppression upon their people. They keep their people from overthrowing them by supporting radical religion which preaches hatred towards the West.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Well, the court could not grant the court order if they didn't believe the wire tap to be vital to an investigation.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Whoa, hold on a second. Saudi Arabia oppress their people? Maybe by our standards, but by Middle East standards, Arabia is heaven. We need Saudi Arabia for AirForce, Navy, etc. bases, so we need to support them. They are a lesser of many evils in the Middle East.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Jesus this is moving fast.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

I don't think he wants fascism in the Middle East. I think he wants theocracy. wow. How can you get *that* wrong????

Am I the only one who has a problem that the government can simply say you are of interest in international intelligence and get whatever they want? That's freaking scary.- Don't worry, I'm with you.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Look at the damn vote totals -- the entire world disagrees with you. It's a violates the Palestinian population in every way. That's the type of logical that allowed the Israeli sanctioned slaughter by Lebanese Christians in the '80s -- who knows maybe one of those poor children could've grown up to be a suicide bomber.

"Osama bin Laden hates America because we believe in freedom. He hates us because everyone has equal rights. He hates us because we don't have facist regimes. The US supports Israel because it is the only DEMOCRACY IN THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST. Also, Saudi Arabia is the most moderate government in the Middle East, and deserves our support for there help with the War on Terror."

There are so many things wrong with that that I do not know where to start. Think about it logically for a second -- what you just said makes no sense. Why would Bin Laden care about a country it were living in freedom? He wouldn't -- it's all about policy.

Even if you agree with the policy you MUST understand that that is the reason for terrorism.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

I don't support the Saudi-government, but what else can we do? They are vital supporters in the war on terror. Look at Iraq, is that a theocracy? It may be if we leave, that is why we are staying. I would like to see the entire Middle East (the world for that matter) in American-style democracy. The fact is, we can't have that yet, but we are fighting the War on Terror for that. Saudi Arabia is not as bad as most Middle East countries that we have to deal with first. The are a lesser of many evils that can be dealt with later.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

The entire fence plan also includes checkpoints and barriers inside Palestine to restrict their movements. O yeah, freedom, right? The kind of freedom you want since you'll be locked in a jail without a lawyer for no reason.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

"Well, the court could not grant the court order if they didn't believe the wire tap to be vital to an investigation."

But all they have to say is that it is vital -- they don't have to prove it.

"They are a lesser of many evils in the Middle East."

Do you have any knowledge at all of the Saudi ruling family? Sure they might not be as bad as Iran, but that doesn't mean that the United States should support it. That's a really ridiculous argument.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit

The Palestinian people violate the Israeli people when the bomb their busses. You might say that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, but the fact is, its Israeli civilians that die and Palestinian militants who die.

Reason to kill innocent people (read: terrorism)? I don't see ANY reason. We have done nothing to harm Osama bin Ladin.

BTW, I don't care what France, Russia, Germany, or any other of the countries that votes against the wall thinks. Israel is trying to protect itself RIGHT NOW. If they don't build the wall, more Israeli civilians will be killed.

When all Palestinian terror attacks stop, I will care about the Palestinians.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

How is it ridiculous? The Saudi's are a big supporter of the War on terror, and help with intelligence. Again, they are a bad regime, but without their help we would have very little power in the Middle East.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Damn, you are really arrogant telling how people of other nations should be governed.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

"Again, they are a bad regime, but without their help we would have very little power in the Middle East."

So if Hitler and Stalin were needed for regional support and power, you'd support them?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

You never answered when killing innocent civilians (read: terrorism) is okay.

Also, the entire Middle East hates America because we are free, and they hate freedom (the islamofacists, at least)

For example, we give Egypt $2 billion a year, but do they like us? No, they see America as evil.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit

The Saudis are a big supporter of the war on terror ... right. Remind me, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Where does the majority of terrorist funding come from? Oh, Saudi Arabia -- that's right. They've been doing a really good job so far.

It's not just France, Russia, Germany, etc. -- it's 150 freaking countries. Many of these have reason to try to please the US in any way possible and yet they still vote against it.

So you don't care about the Palestinians -- good b/c they are all crazy suicide bombers (note saracasm). In my affluent neighborhood there were some thefts by Mexican immigrants -- I better start pressing the government to get the neighborhood where they live walled in.

If you actually read some of the things people like Ariel Sharon have done without any bias, you would want to have them locked up in Cuba in an indefinite time for terrorism.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Saudi Arabia is not even close to as evil as Hitler or Stalin. And America DID use Stalin's support (and we helped him) in WW2. We are helping one (very minor) evil to destroy evils of governments that KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (maybe millions) OF PEOPLE. The Saudi goverment doesnt do this.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

The Palestinian people violate the Israeli people when the bomb their busses. You might say that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, but the fact is, its Israeli civilians that die and Palestinian militants who die.

The Israeli military will send a rocket into a street to kill ONE teorrist but will also kill a dozen others( HEY, GUESS WHAT THIS IS??? TERRORISM). Do you think those dozen families would just sit back while they watch their neighbors, their friends, their family being killed by collateral damage? Would you?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

"Also, the entire Middle East hates America because we are free, and they hate freedom (the islamofacists, at least) "

People hate people because of what they do to them. You had no problem with Islamic fundamentalists until the 9/11 attack. I don't understand how you can believe what you are saying -- it's just illogical.

Killing civilians is never ok, but that doesn't matter. Still the ends never, never justify the means.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Ariel Sharon is doing everything he can to keep his people free and safe. He has little tact, he says what he means, unlike most politicians today. The vast majority of Mexicans don't steal. The vast majority of Palistinians DO hate Israel.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Oh, for you diehard Israeli supporters, go read From Beirut to Jerusalem (by an American Jew by the way) or more specifically the slaughter at Sabra and Shantila (edited -- you'll see) in Lebanon.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Skiowad, let's see evidence. Also, Israel TARGETS militants, NOT CIVILIANS, like the Palestinians do. In war, civilians are killed, but that is what Israel is waging, a war of protection.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

"Also, the entire Middle East hates America because we are free, and they hate freedom (the islamofacists, at least) "

Yeah, that's why Arabs come to America by the thousands every month, right? Because they hate us and hate our freedom.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:20 pm: Edit

The vast majority of Palestinians DON'T do anything to Israel. Ariel Sharon kills people without any mercy. Those people are called ruthless. There are no distinctions between him and the rest of the leaders of the Middle East -- they play by the same rules.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Oh, for you diehard Palestinian supporters, go read the news anyday of the week. The Palestinians will have bombed a bunch of civilians and the Israelis would have attacked Militant Hamas

BTW, I DO NOT support when Israel bulldozes suicide-bombers homes.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

" Skiowad, let's see evidence. Also, Israel TARGETS militants, NOT CIVILIANS, like the Palestinians do. In war, civilians are killed, but that is what Israel is waging, a war of protection."

It's idiotic to send missiles when you can use a freaking SNIPER, so no civilians are killed. !!!!! If you target someone with a missile in a street, you're as good as targeting the civilians aroudn the terrorist.

Read the newspaper and you'll read of atrocities.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

You are really sheltered in your opinion of Israel by the way. Read about the Sabra and Shantila (edited -- you'll see) massacre -- those people were civilians and Israel sure wanted it to happen, but just didn't want to have their hands bloody.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Almost every Palestinian male (as well as most Middle Easter Arabs) hate Israel. Sharon attacks without mercy? How about Arafat? His Hamas does WORSE by targetting civilians.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Anyone in Hamas (a terrorist organization set on killing Israelis) deserve to be killed. it's that simple

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:24 pm: Edit

"Oh, for you diehard Palestinian supporters, go read the news anyday of the week."

Both peoples are subjected to terrible leadership -- since when was I or anyone else here a diehard Palestinian supporter. I don't condone Hamas but the Palestinian people shouldn't suffer because of the actions of a few.

By Sticksandstones (Sticksandstones) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:24 pm: Edit

I actually did my sophmore end-of-the-year research paper on the Patriot Act.I argued and defended a lot of points but for this post i will only argue one. The Patriot Act didn't have to be passed for the CIA and FBI could "share information". It's not like the two departments spoke completely different languages or had no means of communication. The sharing of info between the FBI and CIA should have been going on long before the 9/11 attacks.
I do agree that the wire tapping of phones can be useful if it is used against suspected terrorists but i do think that holding someone in detention indefinately was going to far.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Well, whatever, we've gotten off the topic -- the vote was still 150-6 so the rest of the world sure thinks you're wrong.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

The Palestinian people suffer much less than the Israeli people do.

Also, Israel allows the Palestinians to live in ISRAEL'S COUNTRY. If the Palestinians controlled Israel, all the Israelis would be forced to leave.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

"Anyone in Hamas (a terrorist organization set on killing Israelis) deserve to be killed. it's that simple"

Anyone in Israeli military (set on killing Palestinians) deserve to be killed. it's that simple.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Well, seriously, the reason America is the greatest country on Earth is because we never listen to the "world community"

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

You have no idea what the Sabra and Shantila (edited -- you'll see) massacre is do you?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Skiowad, the Israeli military tries to kill PALESTINIAN MILITANTS. Hamas tries to kill ISRAELI CIVILIANS. There IS a difference.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Its when Syria went in and destroyed at town of people killing everyone. America did nothing.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

"The Palestinian people suffer much less than the Israeli people do."

That's just wrong, sorry.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

"The Palestinian people suffer much less than the Israeli people do."

Yes, they die, but they're not tortured, restricted and humiliated like the Palestinians. Theres no way to compare the two really.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Okay, we disagree there, im tired of this actually, im going to do something else, bye, and thanks for the debate, it really was good

Of course, i leave believing i have won

You probably do the same.

Seriously it was fun though, i g2g, bye guys

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I am amazingly sorry -- I mixed Hama with Sabra and Shatila -- hope that doesn't confuse anyone. It's sad that there are so many Middle Eastern massacres that they can be confused. Anyway -- what's your opinion of that?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Before I go, dieing is MUCH worse than being humiliated or restricted or tortured. (IMO, of course)

BTW, Israel doesn't "tourture", but i g2g

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

" Skiowad, the Israeli military tries to kill PALESTINIAN MILITANTS. Hamas tries to kill ISRAELI CIVILIANS. There IS a difference."

They use missiles instead of others ways to prevent collateral damage. They don't think about the civilians. They know innocents will die and they don't care.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Palestinians also die, but they don't humiliate, torture or restrice Israelis. Those are the differences.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Ya, and an israeli commission found that they were indirectly responsible and the guilty were punished.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

"BTW, Israel doesn't "tourture", but i g2g"

You're as good for a debate as you are for a laugh.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

"It's sad that there are so many Middle Eastern massacres that they can be confused."

All regions have had their share. Sad.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Congratulations -- 2,800 people were still killed because of the Israelis.

Once again, I really want to apologize for the mix up.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Good work Skiowad -- I still don't understand the thought process behind opinions like Ejpowers. Some people on this board I disagree with, but I at least understand why. It seems like he's been fed that "the Arab world hates freedom" bs and it's really distorted his picture of the world.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Sorry, I had to come back!

Do you seriously think that Osama bin Laden really wants to spread freedom through the Middle East?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

He kills because he wants to make Islamic governments that will take away all freedoms of people. Many Arabs want freedom, but they wont get it through people like Osama bin Laden

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

He wants to rid the Middle East of it's current leaders and replace it with a theocracy. He doesn't care about the United States and it's level of freedom -- that's not why there were attacks.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I think you are giving Saudi Arabia (and the rest of the Arab world) far too much credit to say that it is interested in the freedom of it's citizens. There aren't even real elections (well, until recently, but I am still doubting how long that'll last).

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

He hates us also because we support Israel. But if we didn't support Israel they would be overtaken and destroyed by Islamic militants. We support them because they are the only democracy in the Middle East. See, the Palestinians would destroy Israel if they could, Israel CAN destroy the Palestinians, but they don't

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Ya I know Saudi Arabia is not a domocracy (or anything close to it). When I say Arab people want freedom, I mean the citizens, not the governments.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Are you serious? Israel is more than capable to take care of itself. Way more than capable. Look what they've done in every war with the rest of the Arab world.

Only democracy in the Middle East. I don't consider a nation that walls in people a democracy, but that's just me.

You have a screwy way of justifying atrocities by allowing Israel to play the victim?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

So what's the difference between what Bin Laden wants and what is all ready there? Really nothing for the citizens, but everything for the United States -- get it now.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:53 pm: Edit

They wall OUT people (the Palestinians).
They have elections
They have freedoms
They have a government that works to protect them.

Also, we give and sell Israel a lot of money and weapons. They would be in a fight for their life if we didn't help them. The fact that American military isnt there doesnt mean that we don't help them.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Israel no longer has to play the victim -- they really can support themselves. They are capable of supplying themselves. It is not necessary for the United States to aid them in anything they want to do in order for Israel to continue to exist.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Craig, what do you mean in the "get it now" post?

Bin Laden hates America because we support Israel.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I disagree with the Israel statement. Israel doesn't have the military manufacturing capabilities that America does. Also, they do not have enough money to buy these weapons. They do need our support.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Oh, thank you.
You finally understand that Bin Laden has a problem with the US because of policy -- not the most important policy -- but policy nonetheless.

If Israel had to, it is more than capable to produce their own military manufacturers.

Why should the US support Israeli without any question to begin with?

Out of curiousity, where did you get your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What books, sources, etc.? Are you Jewish? I'm just curious because I'd like to hear how you developed a different perspective.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Oh, Bin Laden is really concerned with Saudi Arabia for the most part. The rest of the Middle East is secondary and the rest of the world is in a very, very distant third.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I'd like to hear some other opinions if anyone is out there.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

The fact is I support Israel because of the war they are in now. They are facing an enemy that hates Israel more than they love life. To me, supporting Isreal is the best way that we can promote democracy in the Middle East. Is Israel a perfect country? No. Neither is America. Israel may be able to support itself on its own, but as an ally, we must support them.

My opinions from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not that uncommon (actually, the belief is shared by almost all conservatives and almost all republicans). I support them because they are in the right (self-protection) and no one else will help them. Also, as an ally, we cannot leave them out to dry (like many of America's "allys" did in the War in Iraq). Obviously, we have to examine what Israel has done, and is doing, but in all the problems there, I see Israel's motives as self-defence, and Palestine's as killing Jews.

I'm not Jewish either, I'm Roman Catholic.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

The Palestinian people want a sovereign nation -- they don't want to just kill Israelis. Part of the reason for your knowledge of that is because of Palestinian leadership that has been terrible. So that mistake is excusable.

I am asking you what you have read, etc. that has caused you to think as you do. Is it just based on knowledge of attacks, etc. or is it more expansive? I'm really just curious; don't take it the wrong way.

Should the United States do as Israel does and block all Arabs and all Muslims from entering?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Ejpowers, I actually agree with you on something (your israel view!)
yay!

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

I just read the paper. I haven't delved into a book about the topic. From what I have read from history (mainly history book and BBC and Encarta articles) I do see Israel using, shall we say, heavy handed tactics, but I see them as legitimately trying to protect themselves anf their nation.

Yes, the palestinians just want a nation. There are 2 problems with this though. First, Israel already has a nation there, and second, they are using terroism to get the nation.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit

The Palestinian leadership is terrible, but so are the scores of Palestinian terrorist organizations. Look, many palestinian people want peace, and I support that, but the fact is the leadership and terrorist groups that control the Palestinians cannot be given their own country.

If the Palestinians get real leadership and crack down on terror attacks, i believe that they should certainly be given some land for their own (not all of Israel, mind you)

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

I tried to read all the posts here...but god there are 80+now in a period of a few hours. Personally I am in support of the Patriot Act, but i have some reasons of my own that influence my reasoning but if i get going here, it will eat up too much of my time.

The Israel/Palestinian Conflict is much more hazy. I don't know much about it, excpet for the continued violence and the foundation of Israel, and as a result i can't really comment on it.

Well i guess we'll just have to wait until the world governments hand over their reigns to me in about 8 years as i control the world so that international rivalries are much less under the true world government. Not a UN type government, that is of no use. A actual controlling body. then again...maybe be a little bit of a stretch...I guess i'll say 16 years. That should give me enough time.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Haha, we really needed to lighten this conversation up. Thanks steve, and if you rin for Ruler of the Universe, I will vote for you. (we can vote on that, right?)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

So the ends justify the means in your mind.

The majority of Palestinians would take the West Bank and be fine with it -- don't be fooled by the leadership. I think you can tell how much real Palestinians don't like Arafat by their reaction a week ago. I have no sympathy for or defending Hamas or Arafat, but the Palestinian people should be treated better by the Israelis.

The whole Israel was there first is a flawed argument because you can go back and say the Palestinians were there first -- it really doesn't solve anything.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Do you realize that that country used to be the Palestinians but the Israelis took it from them? The Palestinians are just trying to regain they're homeland that they were forced from. They are just acting in SELF-DEFENSE from invaders in a war that has lasted more than fifty years. In their eyes, and many others, it's still their land, but they were just forced off of it and are continuing to fight.

"Look, many palestinian people want peace"
But didn't you just say an hour ago that ALL Palestinians want war with Israel?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Well, the Israelis were there back before 1 AD. I don't think the ends justify the means, if they did, I would support terrorist acts to get land.

Basically, right now, the Palestinians don't have a right to a country. If they can clean up their act, they certainly have a case.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Also, Israel is a country NOW, which is really all that matters in terms of sovereignty (ugh, I cant spell, that looks wrong)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

You did say the ends justify the means: you supported a country's right to "defend" itself through heavy handed means. That's ends justifying the means if I've ever seen it.

"the Palestinians don't have a right to a country"

That's just unfair -- its punishing many for the atrocities of a few.

Like I said the who was there argument was ridiculous. I think everyone agrees that the Israeli was there back in the day argument is bogus.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

How would you like it if some country, France for example, invaded the US and took over your state. They forced you into a refugee camp, then walled you in so you couldn't go anywhere. Would you be so freaking happy then?


"Basically, right now, the Palestinians don't have a right to a country. If they can clean up their act, they certainly have a case."
But the Germans sure as hell got a country with alot of money along with it, didn't they? And they acted A WHOLE LOT WORSE.

But I thought you said that most Palestinians wanted peace? So shouldn't they get peace then, if it's only such a small group of spoilers?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Look, if we were to give the Palestinians a country now, the leadership would ruin it. When Arafat dies, and new leadership can take hold, I see the Palestinians as getting a state, but only as much as Israel wants to give them, because, after all, it is Isreal's country.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

All of Germany's leader were dead. They had no one to run the country. Maybe if we put as much money and effort to keep that state up and running as we do with Israel, then it probably would work.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Ya, the Germans got a country because we changed their leadership to a peaceful one.

Skiowad, in your example the French are the Palestinians and the Israelis are the Americans. (at least thats how I see it)

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

It's not Israel's country. They're invading Palestinian territory (West Bank, and Gaza Strip). They have no right.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Look, you really cannot compare Israel and Germany. They are on totally different levels. The Germans werent using self defense, they were conquering. The Israelis are using self defense and the Palestinians are trying to conquer Israel.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

That's a bogus argument -- by that logic we shouldn't let the Israelis govern themselves as Sharon is as big of a problem as anyone.

Sure it's Israel's country (via takeover I might add), but if they have any interest in peace they would compromise a little more. Not that the Palestinian leadership would accept the offer (they probably wouldn't b/c of a refusal to recognize Israel, which is a huge problem), but it still should be on the table.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Israel won that territory in war, that makes it pary of Israel.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

You can't give an offer like that to people who want to kill you (arafat)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

I think you might want to read a little more on the origins of Israel. I don't see the bearing to the conflict today because what's done is done, but you seem to be ... off.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Why can't you make that offer? Because it might actually pacify the conflict? That's ridiculous.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

The Israelis conquered Palestine. Isn't that what you're saying? The Palestinians are just using self-defense. They are being invaded. You just admitted this, that they won it in a war, which means that they invaded. OMG. I can't believe what you're saying.

By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Didn't the US help create Israel?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Yes, after WW2

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

You never responded to this one and I am particularly interested:
You did say the ends justify the means: you supported a country's right to "defend" itself through heavy handed means. That's ends justifying the means if I've ever seen it.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

The UN created Israel, the same UN that's saying it's illegal to build the wall!!!!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Largely because of guilty of doing nothing to prevent the Holocaust and not knowing what to do with the remaining Jewish population.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Ironic isn't it Skiowad.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Yep, Great Idea UN. Thanks a Bunch from everyone

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit

I really recommend reading From Beirut to Israel by the way. It's basically about someone who had a similar view of Israel as you do and is a very solid history of the region. Thomas Friedman is really well-known and it's arguably the best book on the Middle East period. It's just a good read also.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

It's not the same UN. The 1947 UN was a real international body that cared about human rights. The new UN is a buearocratic, socialist organization that condemns israel and america every chance they get.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

From Beirut to Israel is by Friedman?

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

EJ, yeah, I know. I was just kidding about that.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Yeah, his best book -- it's what he really knows about. Personally I really disagree with his globalization views, but he really knows the Middle East. It's a little dated but to understand this you need to know about the past problems.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

That's a really rash thing to say Ejpowers. Really the new UN just doesn't have a backbone and cannot really do anything nor stop anything -- that's the difference. The reason the UN doesn't do anything about human rights now is because countries like the US don't let it.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit

I watched his documentary on the Discover Times Channel. It's about this. He has alot of connections and goes on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya and stuff like that. He's Jewish, i'm pretty sure. I trust him alot with the conflict. I'll be sure to pick that one up.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Look, this debate has turned into Left Wing Loopy Land. I'm out, bye.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:55 pm: Edit

That's a weak way of ending.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Just cuz your losing is no reason to leave. If you can't defend your thoughts, then you probably don't have any faith in your thoughts.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Yeah, he is Jewish -- it's a really good read -- I'm into the Israel part now. Considering I didn't know anything about Lebanon before, I feel pretty confident about it now.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

121 in three hours. Not bad at all.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

123 in three hours. Not bad at all. lol oops

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit

And only 3 people.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

Skiowad, I do have faith in my beliefs but i dont want to get into debating all night. Also, its really annoying debating two of the most liberal people i have ever met (or posted with? haha). really it was fun for a bit but it really got annoying towards the end. its not that i dont like you guys, it just seems like we are all at eachothers throats, and i dont want to be. g2g to bed, its 12:00 in the east

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

I have nothing against you either. Why is being called liberal a bad thing by the way? Never really understood that. But anyway, it was fun -- nice working with you Skiowad.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:06 am: Edit

I wasn't saying it as a bad thing, you guys just are liberal, and I disagree with you, thats all.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

Anyway -- I'm out.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit

Not completely liberal. Against abortion, gay marriage...oh, we have so much to fight about. I can't wait for the morning.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:58 am: Edit

Although unrelated (I didn't want to make a whole new thread), I wanted to share that Congress/Bush have finally called the atrocities in Darfur (Sudan) what they are -- genocide. Now that means the US is obligated by international law to stop it. Finally there is good news in something.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page