|
Post by Geburah on Sept 1, 2007 8:01:19 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6973018.stmSo much for that. Before these guys started with their big brother shit i was almost a little proud vs my american friends when it came to privacy and such, now it seems that time is over... welcome, stasi 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by Cutter-DB4 on Sept 1, 2007 13:38:36 GMT -5
lol the germans owned by the germans!!! =-9
really tho...terrorism is a real threat all over the world and its the governments OBLIGATION to protect its people by any means necisary, even if that means spying on our emails and tapping our phones... If they invade a few peoples' civil liberties in the process of catching criminals and saving lives then so be it imo.
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 1, 2007 13:50:20 GMT -5
you're kidding right??ß lol the only real threat i see globally is the terror from our governments, all of them. al qaeda, taleban etc. are a joke compared to that.
|
|
|
Post by Cutter-DB4 on Sept 1, 2007 13:57:12 GMT -5
you're kidding right??ß lol the only real threat i see globally is the terror from our governments, all of them. al qaeda, taleban etc. are a joke compared to that. true but the reality is that terrorists DO exist... ppl ARE plotting to blow up day care centers and Discotheques as we speak somewhere...and it Is up to the governments to find them and stop them by any means necessary. Do I think everything the governments do is right? Hell no far from it, but THey do have a obligation to try and protect innocent lives which ARE threatened by terrorists globally. Forget about 9-11 look at what happened in the UK, spain, Iraq ever day, lots of other places too...
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 2, 2007 0:22:36 GMT -5
compare the damages/death numbers caused by terrorists to any random other death cause, let'S say, shark bites, bee stings, car accidents, and you'll learn what i mean. and please, don't try to explain that the numbers are low because our gvmts. are doing such a greta job at counter-terrorism. the measures that are beeing taken since 9/11 have exactly one reason, and you know enough about the nwo don't you?
also, if "terrorists" exist or not is a question of definition, i can remember a load of "groups" that were called something like freedom fighters 10 years ago, today they all are terrorists. it's so easy for all our gvmts. to have reasons for more surveilance, more military budgets, more security everywhere which leads only to nullifying everybodies freedom and privacy. another little example - do you really think all the security bullshit at the airports is doing anything, besides a great theater for the masses? or back to the topic, do you really think the german big brothers will catch terrorists by deploying state-trojan-horse programs ?
one last line here - the greatest thing to control the masses is to make sure THEY ARE FUCKING SCARED TO HELL, AFRAID OF %x (and setting %x to terror seems to work quite well).
I'm not afraid of nothing, kiss my ass. but if you want to line up with their sheep, they'll gladly assign your spot.
|
|
|
Post by Cutter-DB4 on Sept 2, 2007 12:58:13 GMT -5
all of that is true, but think about it this way...
Killer bees are ...well, killed. Sharks are hunted or at least studied to better understand (nets near beaches as well and such) car accidents...well cant drive here till 18, strictly regulated...
Terrorism...just another fact of life that needs to be regulated= 0
it dont matter how much is lied or how inflated the figures are... if its only .67 ppl per year killed by a terrorist even..I still say tap my phone if you think i am al-quaeda...
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 2, 2007 13:21:01 GMT -5
well, the problem here is, they aren't going to be tapping the phones of who they think is al qaeda, they are going to tap the phones (and mail, IM, any other means of communications) of friggin' EVERYBODY. see the little difference here?
|
|
|
Post by Cutter-DB4 on Sept 2, 2007 13:34:29 GMT -5
yup. they have done that in the usa since like the 1950s or so...or before then even.
I still say it is a necessary evil. Sure it sucks to have thousands of peoples civil liberty and privacy invaded...but what if in doing so they actually do catch some bad guys and manage to save a few lives...isnt it a fair trade off? \I think so.
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 3, 2007 5:11:25 GMT -5
yup. they have done that in the usa since like the 1950s or so...or before then even. I still say it is a necessary evil. Sure it sucks to have thousands of peoples civil liberty and privacy invaded...but what if in doing so they actually do catch some bad guys and manage to save a few lives...isnt it a fair trade off? \I think so. nope not thousands, hundreds of millions... nope it isnt!
|
|
|
Post by switch on Sept 3, 2007 5:25:38 GMT -5
I think we all agree, German's are evil!!
|
|
|
Post by Marari on Sept 3, 2007 16:42:56 GMT -5
So if the us government wants to listen to me give my meatloaf recipe to my sister, or listen to my mother's incessant advice about my life, fine by me, when they fall asleep listening to my boring-ass conversations it's on their heads...
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 3, 2007 19:23:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Sept 4, 2007 8:55:30 GMT -5
You are correct Geburah.
Fear controls the masses.
Not to be mean to you Geburah and just for the sake of argument, I don't understand why you fear for civil liberties but don't agree on the U.S. being in Iraq to try and implement democracy or civil liberties to Iraqis?
You are basically saying it is better for a dictator to run Iraq to put fear into the masses so less people die but the people would lose their civil liberties?
Yet, in the U.S. and Germany we cannot sacrifice any civil liberties to save any lives? Does that make sense to you?
I guess I am kind of a hypocrit myself since I truly believe in giving the Iraqis freedom and civil liberties, but I think we need to sacrifice some civil liberties in order to be safe.
As long as the people vote in the goverment, and there are limited office terms and checks and balances in other branches of goverment you should be okay.
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 4, 2007 13:41:34 GMT -5
You are correct Geburah. Fear controls the masses. nice, at least we agree to this point. easy, that's a different story. my main critic an the us invasion is based on the fact that it's reasons (OMG Saddam got WMD's, HE WILL NUKE US!!1) were all lies. period. So called evidence which was used to have reason to invade iraq was evidently faked, WoD's were never found. and for sure there was no connection between Saddam and al qaeda and 9/11. If you want to argue about that, sorry, i'm not the right person for the discussion then. b) did anybody in iraq ask the US for that "implementing democracy or civil liberty"? i highly doubt it. and, i'm no iraq specialist, but i have the feeling that the country was a lot safer for the average iraqi joe before the us invaded it and took saddam away. please note that i don't think saddam was a good man or something, i fukky acknowledge he was a bastardly tyrant. but from what i hear now about the warlords fighting each other, i come to the conclusion that it's a really really hard challenge to try democracy on a country that is ruled by dozens of warlords each with their own private army. hmm, i didn't think of that, but if i had to choose between one tyrannic strong leader who keeps violence to a relative low level and the situation we see there now, i'd probably tend to say yes to that question. Everybody has to judge for himself how many civil rights he would like to give up for a given amount of security. (like, we don't allow everybody and his dog to own firearms in europe, that's a minus of civil rights, and we gain security through not everybody and his dog pointing a gun to us on the next corner) i'd certainly choose a situation where it's unlikely to be shot in the head for the price of not beeing allowed to own a private gun. on the other hand, i would prefer risking getting killed by a terrorist bombing in the next airplane i take instead of beeing under surveillance by video cameras 24/7. there's no easy answer where to draw that line, i'm fully aware of that, but i think the key word here should be "appropriateness". If a measure involves spying on 100 million people to catch 2 terrorists, i don't want it. if it involves spying on 100 people and helps catching 10. it's probably a good thing. hope you can find the difference. see the above. the problem is, our (and probably, yours aswell) Gvmt. is going to take away ALL civil liberties, one by one, not just "any". When we find out about it, it'll be too late. don't say i didn't warn you afterwards. i think it's a major difference whether we're discussing civil liberties in a warzone or in a already democratic, relatively peaceful country like yours and mine. of course i wouldn't argue about iraqi's civil liberties of not having wiretaps on their phone when there are suicide bombings 24/7... that's a different situation. yeah, that would be a nice system, unfortunately tha game isn't played by those rules... btw, please forgive me if i have some bad wordings in that pamphlet, it's rather difficulty even for me to argue such topics in my non-native tongue ;/
|
|
|
Post by Geburah on Sept 4, 2007 13:51:14 GMT -5
|
|