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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 73
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]<strong>Perhaps he didnt mean it this way, but the litteral meaning of what he said is, for lack of better terms, disgusting. It rules out neutrality and passive attitudes.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Neutrality is a myth.

    There are degrees of involvement, but there is no such thing as neutrality, especially in this case.



    Describe a passive attitude to me. What would, say, a passive France do with known terrorists? Nothing?



    [quote]<strong>Now Im the first to admit that intent is what should be followed, not litteral speech, but when you in diplomatic ties with the rest of the world you need to show more disgresion in your speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In diplomatic terms, who has been off-put by the words?

    Support for the U.S. in this instance is nearly universal, is it not?



    A lesson from an armchair diplomat, eh?



    [quote]<strong>However for strategic reasons they are not going to tell any one their evidence</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Is it a massive conspiracy involving dozens of nations?



    That Ogden thing is hilarious, a hippie thinking she is way more important than she really is. I remember talking with my fellow Greens about this on campus, hilarious conspiracy theories. She caused a ruckus and she got held, it happened to my brother last week who nearly missed his flight because he neglected to tell them about the TiBook in his backpack and they searched and questioned him.



    They were obviously after him because he, uhh, has. . . umm, facial hair! CONSPIRACY!
  • Reply 42 of 73
    [quote]



    Uh, Rick... check out the second post in this thread. I'm surprised you missed it.



    <hr></blockquote>



    OK you got me on that one.
  • Reply 43 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>



    Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.



    I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)



    Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sorry but that is the least that can happen. There are other situations that can occur. I will not deny that I'm sceptic of this because of my own experience and because of the way the British have used their version very recklessly.



    I could not give a flying hoot if MI5 or MI6 had my info either. Jeez, they could give it to the Queen herself for reading on the little queen's room. But when they start dragging me in and questioning me over a tatoo because they're totally paranoid caused by a situation that THEY created, then I will be p*ssed off. Now if it had only happened to me it would have been a mistake. Sad thing is, plenty of my friends have gone through similar things in England.



    We're young, we're Irish and we love our country and we want it back. That's all the excuse they need.



    I sincerely hope the U.S will make use of this a little better although the nature of such law does not provide a good foundation.
  • Reply 44 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>I guess no one is bothered by the fact that macoracle got the quote wrong? macoracle? Try not to misquote the President. Okay?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.
  • Reply 45 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

    <strong>



    Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yea well you got the quote wrong in as way that's important. Don't bother to correct your mistake.
  • Reply 46 of 73
    That's was the quote published by CNN.
  • Reply 47 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

    <strong>That's was the quote published by CNN.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Then CNN is wrong. Is it in quotes or a paraphrase?
  • Reply 48 of 73
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    People like some of those on this thread really piss me off. What some people fail to realize is that people are getting locked up and then released. They have been arrested on charges of immigration violation. Nothing illegal is being done. Human rights violations my ass. George Bush (though he can't speak worth shit) is doing a great job and he is doing everything to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. What people seem to forget is that all of these things are being done to keep you safe! Without putting some of these people in jail, there might have already been another 9-11. As for the "you're with us or against us," it makes perfect sense. Some people say it is terrible or inappropriate or whatever but when something like this happens, we need to know who our friends are! Also, to the persron with the Irish tatoo, I truly am sorry for what happened to you at customs but in my oppinion it was understandable, but perhaps a bit excessive. Let's say that someone walked into the airport with something like a "Down with America" tatoo. That guy should be searched! Or if an arab guy with a long beard and a black turban (the official uniform of the taliban) walks in, he should at least be questioned and probably be searched. No human rights are being broken, they have been searched for a reason. They need to do this kind of searching to keep the attacks from happening again. I don't know why it is hard for people to understand this.

    Then there is the bombing of Afganistan which people whine about. They talk about the civilian casualties and how it as all terrible and when is enough enough. Well let me tell you one thing, if our last president hadn't diverted so much money from the military, we would probably have bombs that didn't screw up as much. Also what people have to remember is civialian casualties are unfortunately, a part of war. If people want us to catch Osama Bin Laden, then we gotta fight. I hate it when people say that there must be a diplomatic solution. We tried, don't forget that. You can't "smoke out" a terrorist with words. "Oh mister Bin Laden, come out, we won't hurt you." It doesn't work that way. I won't say any more because many people are most likely mad at me already.



    God Bless America!
  • Reply 49 of 73
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

    <strong>

    Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Just because he whispers "what's my name bitch" in your ear doesn't mean he doesn't really know what his own name is.



  • Reply 50 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>People like some of those on this thread really piss me off. What some people fail to realize is that people are getting locked up and then released. They have been arrested on charges of immigration violation. Nothing illegal is being done. Human rights violations my ass. George Bush (though he can't speak worth shit) is doing a great job and he is doing everything to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. What people seem to forget is that all of these things are being done to keep you safe! Without putting some of these people in jail, there might have already been another 9-11. As for the "you're with us or against us," it makes perfect sense. Some people say it is terrible or inappropriate or whatever but when something like this happens, we need to know who our friends are! Also, to the persron with the Irish tatoo, I truly am sorry for what happened to you at customs but in my oppinion it was understandable, but perhaps a bit excessive. Let's say that someone walked into the airport with something like a "Down with America" tatoo. That guy should be searched! Or if an arab guy with a long beard and a black turban (the official uniform of the taliban) walks in, he should at least be questioned and probably be searched. No human rights are being broken, they have been searched for a reason. They need to do this kind of searching to keep the attacks from happening again. I don't know why it is hard for people to understand this.

    Then there is the bombing of Afganistan which people whine about. They talk about the civilian casualties and how it as all terrible and when is enough enough. Well let me tell you one thing, if our last president hadn't diverted so much money from the military, we would probably have bombs that didn't screw up as much. Also what people have to remember is civialian casualties are unfortunately, a part of war. If people want us to catch Osama Bin Laden, then we gotta fight. I hate it when people say that there must be a diplomatic solution. We tried, don't forget that. You can't "smoke out" a terrorist with words. "Oh mister Bin Laden, come out, we won't hurt you." It doesn't work that way. I won't say any more because many people are most likely mad at me already.



    God Bless America! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't think you have to worry about people being mad. At least you're trying to be reasonable without giving in too much.



    Make note that no one, myself included, has said in this thread that it's bad too go after Bin Laden and his crew. My initial point was that saying this kind of stuff makes no sense.



    People are angry, justified. But when you're going to create a vacuum with that anger you're creating a very dangerous situation. Now everyone is pointing at everyone for being wrong and not supporting the cause etc. Like you can see very well in this thread. People are not willing to give in an inch because "if you're not with us, you're against us."



    For example, I say that I think it's bull to say something like that and automatically people assume that I am anti-US. Why? Because I point out that I don't agree with all of it. That's the kind of effect these words have.



    As for me and my tatoo. It means "Soldiers are We" Now I would like to ask you two things:



    If I had intentions to bomb London do you think I would be stupid enough to openly walk around with a tatoo like that? Or that I would actually tell them exactly what it means? I don't think there will be many English customs officers that can tell me I'm bullshedding when I tell them it means "flowers are nice". They don't speak Irish!



    Other than that I was picked out because I'm Irish. That's the only reason. Forgive me, but that is not good enough. Being Irish doesn't make us all possible terrorists just like believing in Islam doesn't make everyone that does a possible terrorist either.



    Furthermore, when someone approaches me in a hostile voice and calls me Paddy there's not much more too expect from him either.



    It's not as much the fact that it happened that is the point anyway, it's the fact that they have a law that actually allows this to happen.



    FYI, searching someone is one thing. Intimidating and physically abusing someone during interogation is another.
  • Reply 51 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>



    Just because he whispers "what's my name bitch" in your ear doesn't mean he doesn't really know what his own name is.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well at least that was funny



    I still prefer your momma though...
  • Reply 52 of 73
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    macoracle, you make some good points, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I didn't mean to say that people in this thread were saying we shouldn't go after Bin Laden. I just meant to say that there are these people around.
  • Reply 53 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>macoracle, you make some good points, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I didn't mean to say that people in this thread were saying we shouldn't go after Bin Laden. I just meant to say that there are these people around.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The voice of reason



    I know there are these people around. I disagree with them and I can understand enough is enough.



    But it's exactly when world leaders go around saying things like this that people are not able to tell the difference between wrong and right. They will label everyone that disagrees in the slightest way as "against us"
  • Reply 54 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

    <strong>But it's exactly when world leaders go around saying things like this that people are not able to tell the difference between wrong and right. They will label everyone that disagrees in the slightest way as "against us"</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I can't agree with you. You know when Reagan went to the Berlin wall and said "tear down this wall" people said it was too bold and provoking. Not the language of diplomacy. Guess what? The wall came down.



    Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist.



    BTW you still haven't corrected the quote.
  • Reply 55 of 73
    Scott H said:



    [quote]Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist. <hr></blockquote>



    Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.



    This puts us in a very awkward spot, since we are on first name terms with some countries and parties who most definitely sponsor, harbor and use methods that fit very neatly with any definition of terrorism. The only way around this is yet more double standards. But duplicity is one of the evils of the world that causes so many of the problems in the first place, and will only undermine our cause in the longterm.



    Perhaps a lazy, complicit (and increasingly centralized and controlled/propagandized) media that refuses to report or acknowledge duplicities and allows certain selected items of terrorism to escape attention will be our savior (regarding public opinion here?)



    What's a superpower to do? :o
  • Reply 56 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>

    Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh yes. Nothing more important than the coalition. The administration has already been specific about what they mean and about their intention to follow this thing through. We are going after terrorist organizations (and countries that harbor them) of global reach.

    This is not a judgement in favor of those terrorist organizations that don't fall under that heading. It's just that the job is already big enough and complicated enough. One has to draw the line somewhere.
  • Reply 57 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>Scott H said:







    Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The misquote goes on. Will anyone correct it or do I have to?
  • Reply 58 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>

    Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree. Which makes me wonder when will we cut ties to Saudi Arabia.



    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>This puts us in a very awkward spot, since we are on first name terms with some countries and parties who most definitely sponsor, harbor and use methods that fit very neatly with any definition of terrorism. The only way around this is yet more double standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well no. Another way around it is play some very hard ball with those countries. They need us more than we need them. If they don't want to play nice they can take their deflated ball and go home.



    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>But duplicity is one of the evils of the world that causes so many of the problems in the first place, and will only undermine our cause in the longterm.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Maybe but this is not time to go around saying "your with us or with the terrorist unless the internal political situation in your country doesn't allow you close down the terrorist camps in your country. We'll understand. Hope we didn't offended you at all. Here some $$ aid for you"



    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>Perhaps a lazy, complicit (and increasingly centralized and controlled/propagandized) media that refuses to report or acknowledge duplicities and allows certain selected items of terrorism to escape attention will be our savior (regarding public opinion here?)



    What's a superpower to do? :o </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You must be reading the wrong media. Everyday I read about terrorist countries the US continues to glad hand day after day at <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>. Anything at starts with "Our Friends the ...." is a sarcastic jab at the terrorist counties that we still glad hand. I put Pakistan and Saudi Arabia top the list.



    Bush did say the right thing. This is no time for limp wristed diplomacy. But like you say we need to stay the course. If the gutting of the Taliban isn't enough to turn those countries around then we need to move forward in the war. Might I suggest we do some house cleaning in the State Department to get rid of the people that make apologizes for the countries that are not "with us" even though they say they are.
  • Reply 59 of 73
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>



    I can't agree with you. You know when Reagan went to the Berlin wall and said "tear down this wall" people said it was too bold and provoking. Not the language of diplomacy. Guess what? The wall came down.



    Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist.



    BTW you still haven't corrected the quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well since this is the quote I read I'm not quite sure what you want me to replace it with?



    Also, I'm not sure that it was Reagan's words that brought the wall down or the fact that people revolted and risked their lives doing so. I doubt they did it because Reagan told them so. Since I wasn't there and asked them I can't deny it though. I still doubt it.
  • Reply 60 of 73
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    SamJoOll, I'm choking on your idealism and I feel I may die.



    1) You don't have to be perfect to defend yourself.



    We have done naughty things, especially in Central/South America.



    My question to you: How does this negate our actions in Afghanistan?



    Pakistan practices terrorism on India. That's terrible, but it's not against us.



    What you prescribe are the actions of a nation acting as if it runs the world as some kind of disciplinarian mother.



    Where is the responsibility of the U.N. which is full of nations (besides the U.S.) that endorse and practice terrorism.



    Using the dictionary definition, what nation HASN'T practiced terrorism?

    And when you find the answer to that is "there isn't one" then I must ask again: Should all nations simply lock themselves in the closet beat themselves with leather straps for redemption.



    They fostered a terrorist organization that killed 4k+ of our people. They are dead now or are on the road to death.



    Israel hasn't organized terrorism against the U.S., so we haven't gotten involved against them militarily. If our military DID get involved and started bombing Israeli positions you would scream bloody murder, and you know it.



    A little less idealistic sanctimony, please, and a little more common sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.