Today's Terrorists

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the fact that these guys were arrested in august, held since then, and finally charged today. (obviously I'm just restating what I think I heard on the news today.

 

Can you fill in those of us that seem to have no coverage of what you are talking about?

 

Ahh... sorry. Apparently a few guys were casing out some financial institutions under Osama's orders. They were discovered and arrested last august. The FBI announced that they are charging them today. Here's a link at cnn... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/12/terror.indictment/index.html

I've got no love for these guys at all, and I realize they were originally arrested in London, but the fact that we have gone from "we must charge you in 24 hours or release you" to "we'll hold you indefinitely and maybe charge you" scares me. I realize this is a special terrorist only thing, but if you look at other things - like the no-fly list that you can't see unless you are on it (which non-terrorists are on), and the fact that we now have laws that we have to follow, but aren't allowed to read because of national security really bothers me.

 

Oh, boy... I hear AC coming around with 58 posts under his arm...

 

LOL... Oh well. I didn't mean to start a tyrade here. Just spitting out what's in my head. Take it for what it is worth AC.

/me DUCKS!

 

I agree with you nevetS....problem is constitutional laws only protect american citizens, which is how they can make laws to get around that type of thing. Lord knows how complicated they get with international law, most of which is still hazy at best.

 

I agree wendydettmer!! Same is the case in India!!

 

What really worries me is the definition of a terrorist.

 

There are a few important issues missing in the CNN article (as usual). They were arrested in Britain, but how long were they held there? When were they extradited to the US?

The problem with the current breed of terrorists is that if you follow due process and give them the benefit of the doubt and release them, they immediately go back to planning other attacks. A good percentage of the Gitmo detainees that were released were arrested again because they went right back to what they were doing before.

I don't know where we should draw the line between protecting the rights of terrorists and protecting the rights of citizens. If they actually have the right guys and they were doing what is alleged, I would not shed one tear about their rights.

Whose rights are more important? Those of inoccent civilians or those of the criminals?

Okay, Anthony, let's hear your perspective about how this is all a Bush plot to control the planet.

 

The same can be said for most criminals though, the only difference is that terrorist tend to hit larger numbers of people. btw, i believe they were held since august of 2004.

Release someone who steals, they aren't going to wait until they are charged to resume their habits.

I'm all for arresting and charging criminals, but the arrests shouldn't' happen unless you have proof of the crime. I know it's a lot more complicated then that, but the ramifications can be so dangerous.

it's a tricky issue.

 

It is real simple, these nations hate America because of our support of "what men call Israel" which was an ancient nation of God's that consisted of 13 different tribes, Judah was only one of those tribes.

After WW2 in 1948 those folks fleeing Eastern Europe seized Palestine and took God's name of Israel and put it on a man made state with the support of America.

America is hated for turning this small country into a nuclear powered 51st state of America and that is why these nations hate us.

Really Simple Syndication if you are willing to understand history.

 

we are hated for more then that. we helped keep evil people in power to benefit us, while the people of those countries suffered. Iran is a great example.

 

WARNING: This post contains content of an opinionated and speculative nature.
The statements and opinions of this post do not necesarrily reflect the position
of the DP forum owners/management, nor the original poster
- enjoy

I have NO love for terrorist - or even 'demonstrators' who feel that violence will forward their 'cause'.

That being said the definition of terrorist is being revisited almost daily - I fear (as a conspiritous person) that the definition will remain fluid, and become a umbrella for the jusification of gross governmental involvement in more and more aspects of daily life.

The conspiritorial influence further proposes that eventually this will lead to complete empirical governmental domination of the American (and dare I say global) citizenry.

Further it can be speculated that this empirical force would be utilized to force the days flavor of 'democracy' down the throats of every person on the face of the earth creating 'Terrorists' out of anyone who fails to comply with the socio-political leanings of the empowered regime.

But then again...I have watched the Matrix, and read Revelations (KJV Bible) no less than 50 times each (j/k)

 

I agree with some of your concerns AzAkers, but not all I'm not worried that everyone who does not agree with pure democracy will be deemed a terrorist, but I have seen a lot of racial profiling in the US as a result of 9/11. I lived in florida at the time, about 15 miles away from where the terrorists learned to fly planes, and I knew a lot of arab individuals. They were treated horribly, pulled over by cops, arrested, abused for no reason, etc etc.

a lot of people didn't care, saying it was 'natioanl security', but that's just ridiculious. to say that because a person is of a certain race or cultural automatically makes them a terrorist (or other negative thing) is just plain stupid, yet people in a panic will talk themselves into anything.

 

hah - I don't even believe all the stuff I said - just putting some kindling on the fire

You're right though - Unfortunaely society is ignorant (not stupid mind you)

Individuals are smart, but matched with ignorance and fear a crowd makes poor decisions.

Historically the politically empowered have used the 'national security' blanket to promote fear and ignorance in their constituants in order to mask the real underlaying efforts.

But I digress (been doing that all day)

Terrorism HAS to be a realative term or else they will just develop new (not listed as a terrorist act) methods of destroying life in their 'twistedly justified' manner.

So what IS a good definition for "Terrorist.".?

 

I agree, I have been to Europe before 1990 and the French and Germans hated us back then as well.

 

Lock em up, throw away the key. No virgins for these terrorists.

As far as "these nations" hate us, they hate us because we are infidels. Non-believers.

 

lol ... is gonna be a long thread, I gotta log off before it's too late

 

Not everyone in 'those nations' are as radical as that. And we have given them reasons to hate us beyond that over the years.

dont' get me wrong, hate terrorists, love america - but we have overstepped our bounds on several occasions in the world, and many hate us for it. not an excuse for their actions by ANY means, but it's the truth nonetheless.

and if they are guilty, i agree, throw away the key.

 

well aren't you evil lol