"If you're not with us, you're against us!"

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I've taken the pee out of that in several threads now. I just felt it deserved one of it's own. :cool:
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 73
    gregggregg Posts: 261member
    Well, I can't find a 'p' in that, but I remember some famous guy who was for peace on earth, and goodwill toward men who said pretty much the same thing.
  • Reply 2 of 73
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Is there a point to this thread?



    Content is the key to not being labelled a troll.
  • Reply 3 of 73
    The point to it is that it's a load of bull.



    If anything a man saying stuff like that shows total intolerance to what ever is different.



    It's like saying "You better swing our way or you may be next"



    It's inciting and a world leader should refrain from phrases like those.
  • Reply 4 of 73
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]<strong>It's like saying "You better swing our way or you may be next"</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, yes, of course, what exactly is wrong with that?



    [quote]<strong>It's inciting and a world leader should refrain from phrases like those.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And world leaders should be cowardly and impotent?



    "We are not happy that thousands of our civilians were murdered, we would entreat those responsible to be nice."
  • Reply 5 of 73
    beerbeer Posts: 58member
    Bush was talking about the war on terrorism with that statement. The only people who "aren't with us" are the people who support using passanger jets as guided missiles for taking out massive amounts of civilians.



    And all that the statement revealed was the incredible myopia of the people who use it to push their anti-American agenda.
  • Reply 6 of 73
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm with the 'rat and beer on this. The statement was (and is) clearly aimed at a particular cause/situation.



    As far as I'm concerned, with the situation what it is and with what happened two months ago, Bush can say whatever the hell he wants regarding terrorists and our efforts to root them out and eradicate as many as we can.



    Nobody woke up September 11 hoping or asking "gee, may we PLEASE get into a war?".







    It was brought to us, in the worst way possible. And some of these other weaker countries around the world SHOULD be shaking in their boots, because if it can happen here and cause such a disruption and upheaval, than it sure as hell can happen elsewhere.



    These people SHOULD be "with us or against us". It's a common cause, if I've ever seen one.



    It should be crystal clear: right and wrong, good and bad. Only politicians and college students can manage to gray what only a few decades ago would've been the clearest example of black and white that has ever existed.



  • Reply 7 of 73
    [quote]These people SHOULD be "with us or against us". It's a common cause, if I've ever seen one.<hr></blockquote>



    I wholeheartedly agree with that. But what exactly is "for us" or "against us"? Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found. How would you feel about your Government if your front door came smashing in early one morning without warning or a search warrant, if you got dragged out of bed and slung in jail by a bunch of heavily armed agents? I can see a long string of very expensive and highly justified lawsuits for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the future.



    Yes I am wholeheartedly in favor of finding those maniacs responsible, but in a means that befit the character of the most civilized and free nation on Earth; to alienate entire communities and engender fear, hatred and distrust here at home is not a very productive type of response, this type of action being more typical of rogue nations like Myannmar, Iraq or Afghanistan under the Taliban. What's next? Compulsory tattoos or markings for Muslims? Special clothing to be worn at all times by resident aliens? Pink Triangles for gay people?



    When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.
  • Reply 8 of 73
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Allow me to say this. As much as I know this is not an honorable or very American thing to say or do in principle, if we have to "break a few eggs to make an omlette", sobeit. I'm that angry and hurt by what's happened. Talk is cheap anyway. Deconstruct as you please, but I'm looking for some real resolution to this mess.



    Frankly, as much as people claim that we're no better than terrorists when we use more extreme measures to protect ourselves (and serve justice, thank you) at some point you have to answer to the lowest common denominator in kind. Sad but true. The choice to me after 9/11 was this: fight (and many may die) or roll over (and we will surely die). If these freaks are going to make it an us vs. them scenario then it's going to be them. Sorry folks. See you in hell I guess.
  • Reply 9 of 73
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw him say that. IIRC, it was in response to a question about Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect saying something about the terrorists having more courage than Americans.



    I hope Fleishcer wishes he hadn't said it, but in light of the executive order on military trials and the PATRIOT act, the bill of rights doesn't seem to be a real high priority for them right now.
  • Reply 10 of 73
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Well, I'm not a fan of innocent people getting rounded up and detained. Don't get me wrong on that.



    If there is a legitimate need or question about a particular person, fine. But if they have been cleared or there's nothing there to connect them to anything, they should be freed immediately.



    No, I wouldn't like it if some agents stormed my apartment and hauled me in. And you're right...there are probably gonna be a TON of lawsuits and bad feelings about this.



    I feel sorry for the innocents wrapped up in this because of one thing: the government, with so much red tape, bureaucracy, layers or management and procedure and a severe case of the left hand having no clue that a right hand even exists, some of those people are going to be detained for longer than should ever be necessary.



    The wheel of justice - and the Federal government - turn mighty, mightly slow.



    Hell, I'd be looking to sue the hell out of someone too, if I was wrongfully detained!
  • Reply 11 of 73
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.
  • Reply 12 of 73
    sinewave again:



    [quote]Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.<hr></blockquote>



    What are you saying? That that visitors and resident aliens can break the law with impunity? Or that visitors and resident aliens have no rights under our system and constitution?



    Sheesh!
  • Reply 13 of 73
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    Actually SOME visitors DO have diplomatic rules that make them NOT accountable for some actions they participate in that are illegal.



    And no .. the rights we have are only for the citizens of the US, You know.. that is why they can do what they are doing.
  • Reply 14 of 73
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>Constitutional protections apply to residents, including non-citizens.
  • Reply 15 of 73
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    I personally liked the bush "Resistance is Futile" quote...



    E PLURIBUS UNIX

    -----------------------------

  • Reply 16 of 73
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>Constitutional protections apply to residents, including non-citizens.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh so illegal aliens have the rights to a fair trial before they get sent back?



    Could you please show me where this is written. Seriously.. I thought they didn't. I may be wrong.
  • Reply 17 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>

    I wholeheartedly agree with that. But what exactly is "for us" or "against us"? Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found. How would you feel about your Government if your front door came smashing in early one morning without warning or a search warrant, if you got dragged out of bed and slung in jail by a bunch of heavily armed agents? I can see a long string of very expensive and highly justified lawsuits for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the future </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You don't know half how right you are.



    I have a tatoo on my forearm of a green flag with a golden harp, Ireland's flag before the green white gold one, and above it it says "Sinne Fianna Faill" which means "Soldiers are We" It's also the first line of the Irish national anthem. During the Canary Wharf bombing campaign in 1996 I was in London to spend the weekend with my girlfriend at the time, who was incidently English. Walking through customs an officer noticed my tatoo and wanted to know "What does that mean Paddy?", so I answered him. I was escorted to a backroom, my luggage was turned upside down, strip searched, interogated and held for 6 hours under the "Prevention of Terrorism act". I was not allowed to contact my girlfriend, nor did anyone else inform her or any of my family that I was being held.



    See, I have this tatoo. I'm not with them. Therefore I must be against them and thus a terrorist.



    Maybe you would all like to read





    <a href="http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal-canada.com/pta.htm"; target="_blank">this</a>



    P.S My reason earlier for pointing out my former girlfriend is English is to emphasise that even though I do not agree with the English government I have nothing against English people. Some of my friends are English but no, I don't introduce them as "my English friend"
  • Reply 18 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Well, yes, of course, what exactly is wrong with that?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What is wrong with that? Come on, you make sense most of the time but that's beneath you. There are still such things as human rights, the ones that we're always harping on about when we think about China or Turkey? We can "swing" what ever way we want and to even suggest that there will be consequences if we don't "swing the right way" is in violation of them.



    [quote]And world leaders should be cowardly and impotent?



    "We are not happy that thousands of our civilians were murdered, we would entreat those responsible to be nice."<hr></blockquote>



    No. World leaders should be sensible.



    "We demand you give us what we want or we will bomb you to kingdom come" is not sensible. It's emotional, understandable but not sensible. So, acceptable for you to think that way, unacceptable from a world leader.



    I do not like someone who can start WWIII acting on instinct and emotions rather than inteligence.
  • Reply 19 of 73
    ac2cac2c Posts: 60member
    Consdering that President Bush had the means at his disposal to retaliate immediately to this threat to the peace and welfare of the American people and he didn't, shows a great deal of restraint. That he went to the United Nations, NATO, all countries in the region including the Taliban shows restraint. That he demanded that a known criminal be turned over by the Taliban (Bin Laden has been charged with previous terrorist attacks in American courts) shows restraint. Considering the attitude of the American people on 9/11, he could have dropped a nuclear device on Afghanistan and not many would have blinked an eye - but he didn't. That is showing a great deal of restraint. Overall I think that President Bush showed a great deal of restraint.



    As far as his statement that you are with us or you are against us...well, you are either with us or you are against us!



    [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: ac2c ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 73
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>Could you please show me where this is written. Seriously.. I thought they didn't. I may be wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/31.html"; target="_blank">This page on findlaw</a> has an overview of that issue.



    [quote]''It has long been settled . . . that the term 'person' [in the equal protection clause] encompasses lawfully admitted resident aliens as well as citizens of the United States and entitles both citizens and aliens to the equal protection of the laws of the State in which they reside.''<hr></blockquote>If non-citizens didn't have due process rights in the first place, why would Bush have to sign an order taking them away?



    What's troubling is that a foreign student, for example, legally in the US, could be tried and executed for aiding terrorists, in a matter of days, without a unanimous verdict, and without even knowing what evidence the prosecution had (kept secret for national security reasons).



    I really doubt that would happen. I think the order is supposed to apply to bin Laden and Al Qaeda members found in Aghanistan. But as I understand this order, it could happen.



    [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.