Clinton: CYA?

[TheZenMan]

Sure... I'll bite... even though I AM trying not to get into it...

3,030 people died on 9/11 in the terrorist attacks
2,666 american servicemen died 'liberating' iraq
One of those was preventable.

Our government is the real threat. Checks and balances are being removed left and right in the names of expedience and 'safety'. Government power is expanded and their control over your life tightens, but are you really any safer?

I'm sure nobody wants to hear this, and I hate saying it, but I would gladly sacrifice 3,030 more lives just to reclaim the nations status(civil liberties/check and balances/economics to a lessor extent) before bush took office. Hell, if I knew that I could free the government of all the self-serving politicians by doing so, I'd gladly sacrifice 10,000 lives, mine included.

Its all a crock of shit. The government is alot like an ad agency. Think about it...
You see a commercial, and suddenly you can't live without something you didn't know existed 20 seconds ago.
Well, the government is the same thing. They most closely resemble the pharmeceutical commercials in nature, scare and prepare, with a large list of potential side effects...


They manufacture the need, and you all buy the product, and ya keep coming back for more.

Of course, I'm oversimplifying to try and make it understandable/relatable.
Anyway, like I said, I just don't care any more. It seems the people will always be fooled because they WANT to be fooled.

Hell, why not? Ignorance is bliss after all....


No biting required, I'm not here to oppose you. Just asking.

And to answer your question:
...but are you really any safer?

Yeah.

So the government is the real threat, or just the Bush administration?
Just for clarity, no set up.

[TheZenMan]

No, keep going. I want to flesh out these ghastly terms you want to use in such a sublime manner.

Are terrorists the threat to America?

If so define who/what a terrorist is.


Well what I mean by "You win!" is "Yes outsider, that is correct. I feel the terrorists are the primary threat to Americans."

What I didn't mean is: "Please define terrorists for me so I know what my own point is."

If you want my definition of terrorist: People or groups of people who seek to kill Americans (of course not just Americans, I just happen to live in America so it's relevant to me) and are not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise. Those who demand our death and nothing else.

Need any further description?

[GoodCitizenDan]

So the government is the real threat, or just the Bush administration?
Just for clarity, no set up.

Hmmmm... Neither really. Not to nitpick, but I'd say the current STATE of the government. The Democrats are just as inept and corrupt as the Republicans, they just don't have the important offices locked down(and they're less organized).

I WILL say this, though. The current bush administration is a greater threat than any other presidential administration in recent times. The simple answer as to why is 'consolidation of authority'. The republicans have control of all the major branches, and they also follow a near militaristic heirarcy. Like I said before, checks and balances are the best way to make sure one person with bad ideas/intentions doesn't fuck it up for the rest of us. Currently, with the way power has consolidated, our government more closely resembles a totalitarian structure with some provincial rule, rather than the democracy we all know/love/fought for.

...and freedom dies, not with a roar, but with a whimper.

(Btw, I'm trying to be non-combative, but I had 2 and a half hours of sleep last night, so getting things straight in my head is hard enough without trying to sound flowery about it)

[GoodCitizenDan]

If you ask me, the people who keep harping about terrorists are no better than McCarthy with the communists.

"ZOMG, theres an enemy, and it could be any one of us!"

[TheZenMan]

Hmmmm... Neither really. Not to nitpick, but I'd say the current STATE of the government. The Democrats are just as inept and corrupt as the Republicans, they just don't have the important offices locked down(and they're less organized).

I WILL say this, though. The current bush administration is a greater threat than any other presidential administration in recent times. The simple answer as to why is 'consolidation of authority'. The republicans have control of all the major branches, and they also follow a near militaristic heirarcy. Like I said before, checks and balances are the best way to make sure one person with bad ideas/intentions doesn't fuck it up for the rest of us. Currently, with the way power has consolidated, our government more closely resembles a totalitarian structure with some provincial rule, rather than the democracy we all know/love/fought for.

...and freedom dies, not with a roar, but with a whimper.

(Btw, I'm trying to be non-combative, but I had 2 and a half hours of sleep last night, so getting things straight in my head is hard enough without trying to sound flowery about it)


Hmm, I still don't really get you.

Is there a threat to us at all then?
You seem to measure threat by body count, if that's the case the American Highway system is also a threat.

I get what you're saying though, but there is a difference between those who die on the battlefield and those who die at their desk at work, or in their homes.

Personally the government is no threat to me based on what you seem to be saying, I can't be drafted and I'm not likely to enlist. However, I can be killed in an attack on American soil.

Is a threat simply something that endangers your life? If I misinterpreted you I'm sorry, just trying to see my way through it.

[GoodCitizenDan]

Hmm, I still don't really get you.

Is there a threat to us at all then?
You seem to measure threat by body count, if that's the case the American Highway system is also a threat.

I get what you're saying though, but there is a difference between those who die on the battlefield and those who die at their desk at work, or in their homes.

Personally the government is no threat to me based on what you seem to be saying, I can't be drafted and I'm not likely to enlist. However, I can be killed in an attack on American soil.

Is a threat simply something that endangers your life? If I misinterpreted you I'm sorry, just trying to see my way through it.

Living.... Dying.... People die every day. Kill my body and my mind will stay free. Thoughts of death don't impress me. Sure, I bet that right before I shit my pants in death I will wish to live longer, but I don't live in any fear of death.

How many American citizens died in 2001? I mean total, not just in the terrorist attacks. I honestly don't know, but I'm guessing that ATLEAST 100 times that 3000 number in 2001 alone.

Soooo, what? We're doing all these crazy things like secret prisons and fucking the economy and keeping prisoners without trial, and pre-emptive strikes against countries that wouldn't dare look at us sideways..... just so that you can eliminate that 0.002% chance that you die in a terrorist attack?

Where's the war on cancer?
... or is it just an ego thing? They bloody our nose so we have to break their arm? I mean, how do you kill an ideology with military force anyway? Its a crock of shit. Just like all of the proposed 'safety measures' are a crock of shit.

Invade Iraq.... RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS!
Tighten security.... CONTROL DISSENT!
Tax cuts to *laugh* spur growth.... CHECKS FOR ALL MY BUDDIES!
Its ALL a crock of shit.

I'm gonna have to stop going back and forth like this now. I'm seriously about to pass out. Every time I finish a sentence I have to go back and correct like 4-5 spelling errors in each sentence.

gah

[TheZenMan]

Well, I'll let you go then.

Plus I'm not really sure what you said, perhaps it is indeed best that you rest.

Sounds like EVERYTHING is futile now.

[GoodCitizenDan]

Sounds like EVERYTHING is futile now.
Basically, ya, it is.

I really see only 2 successfull forms of government as being possible:

-Some kind of totalitarianism with lifetime rule, yet it all depends on who you have in power. This government has the ability to do anything, yet is expected to do little. Even assuming you have some benevolent leader, though, eventually they die and someone else takes over. Besides that, its rare to have a benevolent totalitarian, considering what it usually takes to get to power.

-TRUE democracy, with a healthy layer of beurocracy to make sure almost nothing ever gets done(maybe require like a 3/4 vote to pass something). This would have to be done in some way where each individual person votes on everything themselves(having the option to sustain). Maybe ONE elected leader, mostly just an ambassador with no real power, and NO political parties allowed. Nothing much would ever get done, but something would have to be overwhelmingly correct to pass, so things wouldn't get too erratic. The main hurdle to this idea is technological in nature. How do you allow everyone to vote on anything? Assuming it's done electronically, how do you keep the line secure so that the citizenship has confidence their votes are not be tampered with? etc etc

Just my thoughts on the matter. Representative democracy is proving to be more harm than good these days...

[outsider]

Well what I mean by "You win!" is "Yes outsider, that is correct. I feel the terrorists are the primary threat to Americans."

What I didn't mean is: "Please define terrorists for me so I know what my own point is."

If you want my definition of terrorist: People or groups of people who seek to kill Americans (of course not just Americans, I just happen to live in America so it's relevant to me) and are not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise. Those who demand our death and nothing else.

Need any further description?

Then please accept my apology for my snarkiness in the first sentence. I think what you have described are serial killers or sociopaths more than just terrorists. Traditionally a terrorist is one who uses fear for coercion for political motivation.

For example if I said to vote for Badnarik or die, I would be a terrorist. If I just wanted to kill you I would be homicidal.

How have you taken a different perception of what a terrorist is than I?

[Tex]

Then please accept my apology for my snarkiness in the first sentence. I think what you have described are serial killers or sociopaths more than just terrorists. Traditionally a terrorist is one who uses fear for coercion for political motivation.

For example if I said to vote for Badnarik or die, I would be a terrorist. If I just wanted to kill you I would be homicidal.

How have you taken a different perception of what a terrorist is than I?

Now he's into the semantics game, Zen. Amazing. I'll be curious to see your response to this post, but I'm sure Outsider will find a bone to pick with it. He always does. Twist, twist, bob, weave, etc. His MO. A strange fellow indeed. Good luck.

But back on topic. I didn't get a chance to watch this show, and I haven't caught any talk shows lately. I'm wondering if anybody knows if the edits made were because they were untrue or because (like the thread is titled) Clinton is pulling a CYA. Think I'll go check up on this. I'm curious.

[TheZenMan]

Then please accept my apology for my snarkiness in the first sentence. I think what you have described are serial killers or sociopaths more than just terrorists. Traditionally a terrorist is one who uses fear for coercion for political motivation.

For example if I said to vote for Badnarik or die, I would be a terrorist. If I just wanted to kill you I would be homicidal.

How have you taken a different perception of what a terrorist is than I?


Well, I would say the sum total of the actions I described result in wielding fear more than force. They're not invading us with units on foot and conquering us. Most of us never even see them coming, yet a lot of us are scared. It is indeed their way to force us into submission. They hold people at gunpoint and scare them into converting faiths.
They tell us not who to vote for, but who to worship, and the penalty for noncompliance is death.

Everyone keeps asking if we feel safe. I'd say that's an aspect of fear as well.

And my different perception lies in the solution to the potential problem. A terrorist is a component or war, the responsibility of the military. A sociopath is a criminal component and the responsibility of law.

These aren't criminals, they're enemies of freedom.

[TheZenMan]

But back on topic. I didn't get a chance to watch this show, and I haven't caught any talk shows lately. I'm wondering if anybody knows if the edits made were because they were untrue or because (like the thread is titled) Clinton is pulling a CYA. Think I'll go check up on this. I'm curious.

What I hear is only about a minute has been cut.

That's the latest as of yesterday anyway. A scene where Sandy Berger hangs up on CIA intelligence is the only one I know of. That seen was a composite anyway and not an actual event, so no biggie.

I watched both nights, it was truly fascinating and well done in my opinion. It doesn't get nasty and it never lingers on bad decisions on more than a personal level. One actor may express frustration, say his or her piece, then it moves on. Once it makes it's point, the timeline proceeds and the next item falls into place.

It's really intense and covers a wide range of factors. My opinion of Clinton hasn't changed a bit, but my awareness of what we have stacked against us is keener.

I'll buy the DVD when it's released.

[TheZenMan]

Basically, ya, it is.

I really see only 2 successfull forms of government as being possible:

-Some kind of totalitarianism with lifetime rule, yet it all depends on who you have in power. This government has the ability to do anything, yet is expected to do little. Even assuming you have some benevolent leader, though, eventually they die and someone else takes over. Besides that, its rare to have a benevolent totalitarian, considering what it usually takes to get to power.

-TRUE democracy, with a healthy layer of beurocracy to make sure almost nothing ever gets done(maybe require like a 3/4 vote to pass something). This would have to be done in some way where each individual person votes on everything themselves(having the option to sustain). Maybe ONE elected leader, mostly just an ambassador with no real power, and NO political parties allowed. Nothing much would ever get done, but something would have to be overwhelmingly correct to pass, so things wouldn't get too erratic. The main hurdle to this idea is technological in nature. How do you allow everyone to vote on anything? Assuming it's done electronically, how do you keep the line secure so that the citizenship has confidence their votes are not be tampered with? etc etc

Just my thoughts on the matter. Representative democracy is proving to be more harm than good these days...


That must make daily life very frustrating for you no?

Anyway, that wasn't intended as a poke...but wow. I can't even relate to such a worldview, in fact I'm still not clear as to what you're getting at.

It sounds like you see the government, or all governments as the only threat to anyone.

But my original question was: Are the terrorists not a threat?

[Tex]

What I hear is only about a minute has been cut.

That's the latest as of yesterday anyway. A scene where Sandy Berger hangs up on CIA intelligence is the only one I know of. That seen was a composite anyway and not an actual event, so no biggie.

I watched both nights, it was truly fascinating and well done in my opinion. It doesn't get nasty and it never lingers on bad decisions on more than a personal level. One actor may express frustration, say his or her piece, then it moves on. Once it makes it's point, the timeline proceeds and the next item falls into place.

It's really intense and covers a wide range of factors. My opinion of Clinton hasn't changed a bit, but my awareness of what we have stacked against us is keener.

I'll buy the DVD when it's released.

It sounds interesting. I'll have to pick it up when it hits DVD.

I spent last night watching a CNN broadcast that covered from beginning to end the key times and events of 9-11 with footage, including people jumping out of the buildings who decided death by fire wasn't the way to go. I felt sorrow watching the show, but more than anything I felt a great deal of anger.

Then I watched a show where they were showing Egyptians celebrating in the streets, among other places in the Middle East, and it's pushed my tolerance for Muslims to the brink yet again. See, we have Islamic extremists who would do us harm, but even the so-called "moderates" celebrate our defeats at the hands of the radicals. It's nuts.

[BillyBobRedneck]

The average Scientologist is a much bigger threat to America than the average Muslim.

[outsider]

Well, I would say the sum total of the actions I described result in wielding fear more than force. They're not invading us with units on foot and conquering us. Most of us never even see them coming, yet a lot of us are scared. It is indeed their way to force us into submission. They hold people at gunpoint and scare them into converting faiths.
They tell us not who to vote for, but who to worship, and the penalty for noncompliance is death.

Everyone keeps asking if we feel safe. I'd say that's an aspect of fear as well.

And my different perception lies in the solution to the potential problem. A terrorist is a component or war, the responsibility of the military. A sociopath is a criminal component and the responsibility of law.

These aren't criminals, they're enemies of freedom.

So maybe your first definition of terrorism was wrong?

Here is a definition of terrorism:

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.I'd like to see you further explore your definition of what terrorism is. It's not one I'm at all familiar with.

[TheZenMan]

So maybe your first definition of terrorism was wrong?

Here is a definition of terrorism:

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.I'd like to see you further explore your definition of what terrorism is. It's not one I'm at all familiar with.


I see.

I'm wrong because I didn't match the dictionary?

If that's the case, isn't your definition also wrong?

"Traditionally a terrorist is one who uses fear for coercion for political motivation."

I think my "first" definition as you call it is this:

If you want my definition of terrorist: People or groups of people who seek to kill Americans (of course not just Americans, I just happen to live in America so it's relevant to me) and are not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise. Those who demand our death and nothing else.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And wouldn't that be: The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized?

What's the deal with all the defining here anyway? Whatever you want to call it, it's a threat. I really don't see the point to all this hair splitting.

[outsider]

No. You act as though they don't want anything and are attackign unprovoked.

who demand our death and nothing else.

That isn't terrorism. That's a sociopath or psychopath.

I want you to define it because I'm sick of hearing a constantly changing definition of what a terrorist is and is not. The words means something very specific, something other than how you seem to use it.

And yes, you are wrong for inventing a new definition of a word and expecting everyone else to just go with it.

So a terrorist just want's to kill? I mean, is that as simple a definition as you want to use? If that's all they want, then why do they do it, what do they do it for, what leads to them doing it, where does it stem from and how can we do anything about it?

Sticking your head in the sand and hoping the wolves will chase off the hyenas is a fool's game.

[TheZenMan]

No. You act as though they don't want anything and are attackign unprovoked.

who demand our death and nothing else.

That isn't terrorism. That's a sociopath or psychopath.

I want you to define it because I'm sick of hearing a constantly changing definition of what a terrorist is and is not. The words means something very specific, something other than how you seem to use it.

And yes, you are wrong for inventing a new definition of a word and expecting everyone else to just go with it.

So a terrorist just want's to kill? I mean, is that as simple a definition as you want to use? If that's all they want, then why do they do it, what do they do it for, what leads to them doing it, where does it stem from and how can we do anything about it?

Sticking your head in the sand and hoping the wolves will chase off the hyenas is a fool's game.




You want me to define it, yet you have your own definition. Why not just make your point instead of trying to figure out why I haven't memorized all the literal definitions?

You're throwing out parables and quoting ex-presidents instead of telling me what it is exactly that you disagree with. I never a said a terrorist just wants to kill, I said "and nothing else" meaning there is no room for negotiation.

So the terrorists are sociopaths as well as terrorists, psychopaths even. What is your beef with how I define things? The core of the debate is a threat, not how accurately I match your descriptions of the very same thing.

al Quida is a threat, Iraq is a threat, Iran is a threat, Korea is a threat. Call them what you want, just tell me wtf you're talking about instead of doing a semantics battle.

This isn't math, you can't tell me what my perceptions are. I'm giving you my opinion and you're telling me it's not accurately defined. Why not just say you don't agree with me, it's a lot more efficient than all this.

I still don't know what your point is once again, well other than I'm wrong.
Throw me a fucking bone here, I'm not a mind reader.

[outsider]

Yes, I want you to define a word that you seem to be just tossing around. My definition is the one from a dictionary. It is the accepted usage of the word. Using commonly accepted definitions is how we are able to speak a language and effectively communicate.

You want to paint with a very broad bush something that is pretty specific. You said exactly what you said and now you are saying it meant something different. This is why I'm hounding you to flesh out your definition of a terrorist or terrorism even. So that you don't jump around all over the place applying a word in ways that it doesn't apply.

You aren't exactly the right person to say you don't want to discuss semantics.

I'm not telling you anything other than to have a consistent usage of a word. I've directed posts at other people in here about a few more things. But here in this thread that's not what I've done with you.