OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Should Civil Liberities be suspended during a NAtional Crisis such a 9/11 or does that just show that the terrorists have won???

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Butchered quote: "A man who gives up any amount of liberty for temporary security deserves no liberty at all."

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

From wikiquote:
link.
Suspending civil liberties is a knee-jerk reaction, and one that should be resisted.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Agreed. "Protecting our way of life" by throwing away our freedom and privacy, defiles the "land of liberty" worse than any violent sneak attack.

PvK

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I am moving this topic to Shrapnel General. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Why... to protect our security? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

It is better served in an open forum where views on this subject can be more freely expressed. Having it locked away in one game forum deprives the other members of this site the chance to read it given the fact that many of them do not go into the Space Empires IV forum.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I think the terrorists have an impression of what the US is, and they seek to change that impression worldwide. As far as I can see, the most damage done to the "what is USA" as a result of 9/11 has been done by the US. So yes I think the changes did some of what the terrorists wanted.

Of course we have no idea what has been avoided by all of that. Im aware of that but not swayed by it.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

more like your liberties.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

hi one question ?

Why ask this question ?

And then one more question

What is a terrorist to you ?

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

No one comes to the open forum except when you move threads here. Even if you move all the OT threads all you're going to do is force the SE4 people to click two different forums. Oh, very helpful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Sounds good. A forum for SEIV, or Dom2, or Raging Tiger. OT discussion welcome enough, but anything way off or obviously trolling for a fight could be put where it wont spill over as bad. Up to the Moderators or developers in that forum of course. I dont think it was to bring people here as much as like a barkeeper saying "take it outside". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

This Search Link will show you the Last 100 Posts, regardless of which forum. You can do it with one page.

If you like, that's customizeable:
200 Posts
300 Posts

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I like to hit the search button and set it for all forums, 1 day, 99 Posts, and check the box that shows part of each post.
Thats a great way to keep up.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

If its obviously trolling it probably should be shut down, not moved. Right now it seems to be only threads the Moderators dislike get moved, and that's a pretty crappy thread policy..especially if you're using it as a poor man's lock.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Okay guys, keep to the subject or I will have to lock this one down. The moving of Posts issue is being discussed and we will be back to you guys on that soon.

Thanks.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Why not ask this question, i thought about this and could figure a good answer so i posted it in a few places

Terrorists are by definition a Rogue Merk (Merceneray) who uses renegade militant tactics to get his (usaully pyscotic) point across

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

To me, "terrorist" is a word that has been so heavily abused by politicians and corporate media that it no longer has a clear and well-defined meaning.

In general though, I think it means someone who intentionally causes terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect.

PvK

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

"Terrorist", "terrorism", etc. has been very greatly abused lately... but I think your classification needs a bit more refining... mainly, "someone who uses violence to intentionally cause terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect." Because otherwise, Tom Ridge and the Bush Administration could be argued to be terrorists because of continually bumping national alerts to "orange" after quietly changing it back to "yellow", while never once brining the alert level below "yellow". Not saying that they are, only that it can be argued that way.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

That's a good point. I wouldn't think the term would apply to people who cause terror without overtly meaning to have that effect. However, I would think a more appropriate argument might be made to say the US government behaved in terroristic fashion for publically test-detonating the "Mother Of All Bombs" and then using rhetoric and attacks about the "Shock And Awe" that the former Iraqi leadership would experience, followed by the corresponding strikes. Those could also be referred to assassination attempts, and be more fairly accurate. I mean those remarks just as attempts to fit definitions to examples, not as anything judgemental. Clearly the administration wanted to impress people with threats and deeds of violence. They hoped some people would think they were good for doing this, but then so do Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers. I'm not trying to vilify to US administration by saying this at all. I'm trying to point out that the label has been abused to become a label of villany, and no longer a descriptive term.

The difficulty is that the media and politicians have abused it to the point where it's a loaded term, and it loses its meaning. Not that it hasn't always been the case that one side's freedom fighter was the opposing side's outlaw murdering traitor scum, etc.

PvK

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

to me a terrorist is a poor man fighting back how ever they can.

I do not understand how people cannot understand why the middle east is very pissed off about what has happened to them over the Last few hundred years.

The Last few years has been business as usual.

Indirectely we are involved. We vote the government in power who carries through with the policy.

And we are as much an innocent bystander as a person in Iraq .

I do not know what blinds us. But it has to end.

This war will have chapeters on our soil.

So do not be shocked when it does happen again.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I disagree in a number of levels.

1- Does it include massacring civilians? How about suicide bombing an school bus, or an school for that matter?
Ghandi didn't do any of the above, and got the British out.
So the methods do count.

2- What have happened to them?
In the 7th century the Arabs spilled all over the middle east. They forced to convert entire etnic Groups, and even today there are Languages that are forbiden from the Arab schools and media, like the Tuareg dialects in Argelia. The Arabs waged and still wage a cultural asimilation war on the etnic Groups that fell under their boots. You can see this more clearly in Sudan. Yet very little of these makes the news.

3- I agree.

4- Yes, and does that justify an attack on civilians? How about nuking Mecca because of the support that the Saudis give to Al Qaeda and company? It cuts both ways.

5- ?

6- I agree. Its time we realize what a clear and present danger Islam is. We don't have to wait until a nuke goes off in New York. Then it will be too late.

7- I agree. Its almost impossible to keep terrorists away from the continental US. They will get through sooner or later. I mean with a nuke. Their cells are probably already in.

8- War is war. What shock is not the attack, but their intended target, that is, civilians, including women and children.


Yes, it will likely happen again, so I say to strike first before it happens.
Islamic terrorism is a deadly enemy that will not give up or give in, so the only way is to defeat them by using a two prongued attack:
- Destroy their ideology, by taking Mecca and Medina out of the picture. Such a destruction will show them that their god doesn't really exists, since he cannot defend their own holy places, thus demoralizing their followship.
- Support secularism in the Muslim world. Since Islam is not capable of modernizing like other religions did in the 20th century, then Islam have to be eliminated, by making the Muslim world secular, eliminating the power of the religious factions and their hold on education, culture, etc.

You have to realize that Islam will not reform by itself, because any secular or liberal muslim is chased out of his country or killed. Then they try to show us what they call "moderate muslims", which are nothing more than a couple guys they keep for western media consumption, but if you look into their ideas you see that they are more radicals than any religious fundy in the West.

Basicly, to be moderate in Islam you can't be muslim. Thus the conclusion is that there are Arab Moderates (seculars), but not Muslim Moderates (religious).
Arab and Muslim are not interchangeable terms.
So the problem is with Islam the religion, not with the etnic Groups that happen to be Muslim. You take away their religion, re-program then eliminating all those religious schools and instituing secular education like in the West, and a couple generations the so-called "clash of civilizations" will be a thing of the past.

Notice that using the term "clash of civilizations" equals recognizing Islam as an integral part of their civilization, which it is today, but it doesn't have to be tomorrow. Int he end, a Muslim from Saudi Arabia have as much in commun with a Muslim from Indonesia as a Christian from France have with a Christian from Taiwan (I.e. very little besides religion)

But they will always try to make us believe that they are an integral unity. Don't swallow that.

Then we come to the nasties part of Islam. They always say that the West discriminate them. But what they don't tell you, its how racist they are even between themselves. Despite the fact the Islam as a religion speaks against discrimination, racial discrimination its an integral part of their culture. This shouldn't surprise us, since it was the same way in the West, with Christianism speaking against discrimination, but slavery surviving all the way to the late 19th century, and racial discrimination being official until the 1960's.
In the Muslim world, the Arabs are the uber etnic group, they discriminate others Muslims, not to mention non-muslims. Within the Arabs, the Gulf Arabs are to top dogs. They believe that their god have blessed them with oil because of their rightiouness, and so they feel superiors. Then come the Irakis, Jordans, Syrians, and Egytians, in that order. Then a big jump down, and come the other North African Arabs. Another empty slot, and come the Sudanese. The Palestians are way below. Most Arabs dislike them, and only use them to fight Israel. The Iranis are not Arabs, and are not Sunnis, but they are not too far down in their "scale". The Yemenites are a Groups that I have yet to find out where they fit in the Arab picture. The Yemenites themselves think that they are the "true" Arabs, because the speak a form of Arabic closer to the the one used to write the Koran, and appearenly for this reason all the Gulf Arabs hate them, but I'm not quite sure whether they hate them because they think that the Yemenites are right, or because they think that the Yemenites are lower in the "Arab scale" and are no more than a bunch of arrogant pricks.
Anyway, I'll let you know when I find out.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

And so acted the Christians. Ask the (south american) Indians. And don't forget the horrors of the Crusades where thousands and thousands of innocent arab civilians were slaughtered by Christians because of their believes ("deus vult!"). This horror is still deeply imbedded into the arab world and that is why Bushs use of the word "crusade against evil" has caused the widespread fear that it is in reality a "crusade against the arab world" with all the horrors of the past returning. It all boils down to this: No matter what religion you believe in, if someone calls for a (holy) war against evil you should get very careful. You might just became "the evil" you are trying to fight.

Edit:
I missed the rest of your post but I have to say that I strongly reject your position. Destroy their holy sites? Unable to secularize? Pardon me? The arab world was the jewel of knowledge and culture, the area where the ancient wisdom of the greek and roman world was preserved. It was ahead in civil technologies years and years to Europe. This all changed when the crusaders invaded and raped the arab world. How far have we become to say that the world will be a better place if we just kill enough people we don't understand or like and destroy the things they believe in. You fear a nuke against the US but yet you supose to do the thing you fear to other people...

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Ghandi liked hitler too. Anything for independence. how do you think a huge violent rebellion during world war 2 and just afterwards would have been seen as and dealt with? Perhaps the financial situation had as much to do with India's independence as did the navy's mutiney and Ghandi's movement. I feel it may be the most important reason Britan let it go. They did owe India alot of money for WW2

As for 'terrorists' killing civillians. So does the military. Actually i would gather that military has killed thousands more than terrorists have over the Last few years. A school is as much a target as a shopping district. I gather you feel that one deserves more outrage than the other and one is correct where as the other is a crime. I see no difference. Both are wrong. But they happen as each side takes to fight to the other side.

As for the rest... No thanks. Final Solution answers really need to be attacked and put down before they take root.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

tesco, there is a difference being bombing a school accidently and doing the same intentionally. If you don't think so here, have a pistol..I'm 'sure' you'll be happy to execute all those manslaughter and second-degree murder convicts who now deserve the death penalty. The act is the same- the intent is not.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Most convential attacks with missles / bombs / troops etc... are based on a grid location. What happens to be located there or beside it is intentionaly included in estimates for colleratal damage.

I do not understand what your saying with the pistol and death penalty.

There is intent in every action. It is the outcomes and results that vary.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I see my debate in this thread has cost me a star.

Thank you for taking your anger out on my ideas by doing that

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I should point out that the Mongols sacked them just as badly... The entire population of Baghdad, which at the time was the center of learning of the entire world, was slaughtered because they refused to submit to Mongol rule.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

The the Mongols coverted to Islam and devasted all of the schools and temple in a good chunk of India and started killing indians that didn't submit to islam.

Go figure?

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Conquering and sacking are what the Mongols did best.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Phoenix-D

I am surprised you take offence to the dicussion of a 'soft' target.

Yet the whole statement of destroying a culture and its people does not even register or bring enough out for you to comment on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

It is not, however, intentionally targeted. Collateral damage is just that; its damage that is done in the process of destroying a target. It would certainly help if people would stop putting military installations next to (or in certain cases, ON) schools, holy sites, and the like..

There is not intent in every action. Under our legal system, to explain the pistol action better, there are three types of murder:

Third-degree (or manslaughter): You killed someone, but it wasn't intentional.

Second-degree: you killed them but didn't plan their death ahead of time, it wasn't in cold blood

First degree: You not only killed them intentionally, you planned it out ahead of time.

The difference between third and second is the difference between a 5 year prison sentence and 20 years to life; the difference between second and first is the difference between 20 years to life and the death penalty.

That's where the pistol comes in, for your view there doesn't seem to be any difference between them. The act in all cases is the same..so a third degree murderer still deserves the death penalty.

I'm not saying this fine distinction appeals all that much to people who've been hurt unjustly by US attacks, but it doesn't appeal much to families of murder victims either..

EDIT: as for your other comment I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

ok... well maybe you should because i am not going into a dicussion with you about a comment i made when you have not even read why it written.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Ok, take the same basic statement, only modify a few nouns, and see what you get:

And so I ask, your position is different from that of the radical Islamic terrorists, how? As shown above, your statement can faily easily be converted to the mission put forth by various terrorist Groups by simply changing a few words around. So sure, it is possible that your "solution" will eliminate radical Islamic terrorism... but is it really worth it? and what if it has the opposite affect of polarizing the two sides even further, launching everyone into a Third World War?

No, eliminating is not the answer. If we are to fight this "war on terror", then it must be done without ourselves turning into the very ones we are fighting.