board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Terror/Police States

Post Reply   Page 5 of 39  [ 768 posts ]
Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 739 »
Author Message
Whistler
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 1:25 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 2:52 pm
Location: At the center of all that matters
Contact: Website
 
Iavas_Saar wrote:
Quote:
So your saying things should stay the way they are?
Things should never have been the way they are. This is the most advanced nation in the world that has been facing natural disasters for decades, and this one in particular was easily foreseen.

IMO FEMA botched the relief on purpose, in order to provoke lawlessness and make it necessary for armed forces to control the city, setting the stage for martial law in future crises.
Iavas, please reassure us again that you aren't...spooky.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 1:32 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Whistler, are you saying you aren't at all worried about the further steps towards martial law being taken in the wake of Katrina? Do you not think that US society is turning into something it shouldn't, dictated by the need for security?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Whistler
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 2:39 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 2:52 pm
Location: At the center of all that matters
Contact: Website
 
Sorry, I don't engage in political debate here. It upsets my stomach and is invariably unproductive.

All I know is that the anti-government crowd screamed bloody murder when the feds did not take immediate and drastic action. And when they did, the same crowd screamed bloody murder again and continue to do so.

I find them as tiresome in the second case as I did in the first.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 4:33 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Iavas_Saar wrote:
IMO FEMA botched the relief on purpose, in order to provoke lawlessness and make it necessary for armed forces to control the city, setting the stage for martial law in future crises.
I am less diplomatic than almost anyone here, so...

Enough.

Nick, enough.

Now you've crossed the line.

Sit back and in the calm light of day, forgetting what must be your mind-numbing job, look cool, calm, and collectively at what you've just written. You have crossed from conspiracy theorist to pure pananoia.

There's a little thing called incompetence. It's endemic. Look it up.

Enough.

Everyone else knows just how ill you are. You are the one person who doesn't. I guess Mr. Diplomatic

I will say it again. And again. Please seek help, Nick.

Fuck, I'll pay for it. You're a friend.

Steve

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 14 Sep , 2005 5:14 am, edited 5 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 4:44 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Iavas_Saar wrote:
IMO FEMA botched the relief on purpose, in order to provoke lawlessness and make it necessary for armed forces to control the city, setting the stage for martial law in future crises.
Now I'm insulted.

Enough is right. My dad spent 22 years in the military in order to protect the right to speak our minds - what you are doing right now Iavas. I cannot tell you how many times I have disagreed with my father, and how many times he has told me how proud he is that I can do that.

I have a friend who didn't support the Iraq war, but he was in the reserves, and he when he was called he went, and got both his legs blown off for it. Why? because he had honor.

The people who serve in the military, from the lowest rank to the highest, are there to protect and serve, and they all hope to God that the government telling them what to do is right in what they tell them. NONE of the people in the military, however, would do something as base and horrible as you suggest. They are not interested in politics or power. They are dying for the people in this country, whether or not you agree what they are dying for.

You are insulting the honour and intelligence of every single person who serves in the military with your statement.

I have never heard so low an insult in my life. Yes, Bush bungled things, both with Iraq and Katrina, but if you imagine, for even one second that the people who serve in the military have as little honour as you say, then I have nothing more to say to you.





As a peace loving, pot smoking, environmentalist, Bush hating, Nader voting, War protesting liberal, I have one thing to say to you at this point....



BACK OFF

Last edited by Estel on Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 5:17 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Right, that was too much Estel. Sorry, but it was.

I fail to find in that statement were Iavas was accusing the average military person of committing these acts. :scratch: To me, it would seem like he's targeting the head guys like he always does....you know...like Brown who was fired? This also isn't the first time Iavas has accused the government of doing something purposely that caused the death of Americans, so I'm not sure why his most recent accusation illicited such a harsh reaction.

When Iavas talks about something being purposely done, he's talking about the New World Order, the Illuminati, the guys in charge of everything. I think he believes the military to be one of their pawns or in other words, the guys on the ground aren't the one making decisions.

I sincerely hope your post was caused by what you are warning people of in your sig.

edit: Also, how was he to know about your dad or friend. It's not like he was trying to attack them directly and personally so I don't think he deserved such a post.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 5:27 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Eru, he said it was so the armed forces could control the city - ala the Police State that he talked about before. The armed forces are the military. To me, it sounds very much like he was insulting people in uniform. To me, it sounds like he was saying that the U.S. military supports a police state. This post, after so many others, was just too much. Straw that broke the camels back and all that jazz.

I used my father and friend as examples of the type of people you find in the military - I never said that he was personally attacking them.

If he didn't mean the military, then he can come in and say so. Until then, I stand by my words. Yes, it may have been an OTT reaction, but by God, it was an OTT post.

If Iavas comes and makes his post clear, I will edit the more strong language out of my post.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 5:34 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Estel wrote:
Eru, he said it was so the armed forces could control the city - ala the Police State that he talked about before.
Right and it's the guys in charge (the Illuminati members, NWO) that would send them in there...not the guys in the military deciding to go in themselves and lord over everyone. Again, the military is a pawn...unknowingly being used for more sinister motives. That's what he's always getting at.
Quote:
Yes, it may have been an OTT reaction, but by God, it was an OTT post.
No, I'm sorry. The reaction does not match the offending post. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. Besides, if someone came up and yelled at you "BACK THE FUCK OFF" especially when you hadn't even been paying attention to that person, would you back off? Personally, it would piss me off royally. It just makes the situation even worse.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 5:56 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I've got to back up Eru here. I agree that Estel's post stepped over the line, and that there was nothing in Iavas's post that justified it.

I also thought that Lidless' post was inappropriate. Its one thing to say that you disagree with someone's views. Its another thing altogether to say publicly that you think that someone needs professional help for holding those views. And using the person's real life name makes it worse (and itself is a potential violation of the Charter). That's the type of thing that should be done privately, if at all.

All IMHO, of course.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:05 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Nick needs professional help for holding those views.

Be a friend, V-man. And I don't mean to me. To him.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:25 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I'm with both Estel and Steve here.

Yeah, Iavas was talking about his Illuminati theories, but he was also sayint that the military would allow itself to be manipuated into enforcing a police state. This is not true. This is the idea that Estel was protesting.

FEMA did not fail on purpose, FEMA failed because it was run by an idiot who didn't know what he was doing (not to mention an incompetant Governor).

Bush is taking heavy flak now because he didn't act enough, while Iavas is saying he was trying to set up a situation where he would be acting too much.

It never ends Iavas. No matter what happens, there will always be something that benefits the "major power behind the scenes." Every single situation and action by the government can always result in some theory arising about "why they did it that way."

To imply that any action is to further a goal of a militarily controled police state is to imply that the ENTIRE military would support such a state. I also think such an implication is way over the line.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:30 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
It's very important to be able to critisize military operations without critisizing military people personally. For the most part, when you're in the armed forces, you do what your told. Personnel can't be held responsible for the decisions made by their superiors except in extreme cases where their orders are obviously wrong and they have a duty to refuse them. The above comes too close to "if you're against the war, it means you don't support the troops", which is nothing more than an attempt to bully the other person into silence.

But I don't think the response is part of a plan to implement a police state. If anything, it's convinced me that the government couldn't do it even if it wanted to. Also, I've heard more than one soldier say that he's not quite comfortable doing what he's doing, and that's just in reaction to the "soft" police-state actions that are being taken. I believe most of them would refuse to comply if they were overtly ordered to act against the Constitution. Couple a newly framented, rebellious army with general administrative incompetence, and it seems pretty clear that it would never work.

Last edited by Dave_LF on Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:34 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
of course they couldn't do it. Not only would virtually NO ONE in the country support it, but that's why we have a right to bear arms... no government run military is so powerful it can control the entire country rebelling against it.

If you see the government start taking away guns from civilians, THEN you'll see me start to worry about what the government might have in mind for control.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:36 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
halplm wrote:
If you see the government start taking away guns from civilians, THEN you'll see me start to worry about what the government might have in mind for control.
They are doing that in New Orleans, though. They're claiming extreme circumstances and they're right, but to play devil's advocate, what if someone up there declares a state of permanent emergency in response to (eg) a terrorist attack?


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:41 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
It can't work that way. People won't surrender their Guns in such a case, it would raise red flags for every person in the country.

New Orleans was in a state of total chaos. It was safer for all involved to remove the civilians guns. There was no need for guns if people were leaving like they were supposed to.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 6:55 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Lidless wrote:
Nick needs professional help for holding those views.

Be a friend, V-man. And I don't mean to me. To him.
Lidless, I've already shared my views with my friend Iavas, about his posts in this forum.

Privately.

As it happens I don't agree with you that anything that Iavas has posted shows an indication that he is need of any professional help, but if I did believe so, I would never say so to him in a public forum. Think about this way. In real life, if you were concerned about a friend, you wouldn't talk to him about it in the middle of a crowded room in front of of bunch of other people. You would take him aside and talk to him privately.

Its just a matter of common courtesy.

And btw, while I don't put much credence in most of the websites that Iavas has been citing recently, I do share his basic distrust of the current American government, and believe that the people in power are capable of doing things beyond our imagination. I guess that means I should get professional help too (along with most of the rest of the people who live here in Santa Cruz).


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 7:10 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
You're a lawyer. You are beyond salvation.

:devil:

I posted it publically for the reasons I stated.

Dammit, Nick is a friend. A friend I've met on four occasions. You think I would do that to a friend without a reason for this particular approach? A good reason.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 8:55 am
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
I've debated, and disagreed with Iavas, on many occasions. And here again, I happen to disagree with him.

However, to say that he needs professional help is silly and condescending, especially when posted publicly on a board. It is an overreaction. Iavas is simply stubborn and will stick to his guns in a conversation, no matter what. But he is also capable of changing his mind when the conversation is over. Saying that he needs professional help can only cause him not to change his mind on the subjet at hand. As a friend of Iavas, Lidless, you'd better try, again and again, to convince him with sound arguments that he is wrong, if you believe that this is of such importance. I have a friend who is a communist, a real one (he thinks that the psychological violence of capitalism imposed through advertisement and the necessity to work to earn one's life is equivalent to physical violence!). Needless to say, I strongly disagree with his political views, but I have never said to him to seek professional advice (I would not even say that to a PJ lover, although I have a hard time understanding how one can find his films to be masterpieces of cinema. :) ). And you know what? I have seen my friend mellowed as of late. We each have different views of the world. Hey, some of the great thinkers in the history of humanity had extremely strange views of the world and were considered as mad outsiders in their time.

Regarding the subject at hand: I think that the Bush administration is incompetent and is in general not interested in the plight of poor people (This looks like a strict application of a calvinist moto: the community formed by the people chosen by God should not welcome the poor people, seemingly damned by God; I personally find it a horrible and arrogant principle). That could explain (in part, for as for all imprevisible events, the N.O. disaster had many causes) what happened at N.O. with the poor left behind.

Foremost, Katrina could be a turning point in the perception of neo-conservatism in the US, as some have observed. In a way, it reveals how much Bush's policy is conducted at the expense of the poor people in the US. It shows how much Bush's views of the world are directed towards the wealthy and neglect poor people who did not have the chance to be born in a wealthy family like Bush. What happens at N.O. sheds a bleak light on Bush's internal policy, on the fact that 37% of the people of N.O. were below the poverty level, on the consequences of a policy obsessed by security and wealth. Bush currently has its lowest approval ratings. Katrina may thus prevent the "fascist" regime apparently feared by Iavas from happening in the US. It is thus extremely unlikely that what happened at N.O. was done on purpose, unless Iavas considers plausible that the neo-cons wished to commit a political suicide, which I find even more unlikely.

I think it was Camus who said that the most dangerous weapons in the world were stupidity and ignorance. In that respect, Bush is a heck of a WMD. Stupidity and ignorance will always be more destructive than any conspiracy led by Men. History shows that Men cannot really control the remote consequences of their acts, of their plans. There is an inherent imprevisibility factor attached to all the acts carried out by Men. Due to this factor, many of the acts that we believe were perfectly controlled or planned in hindsight were in fact less controlled than we thought. Imprevisibility and the absence of a rational explanation, are a part, and among the many charms, of life. When Men try to control History, as the philosophies of History have shown, it sometimes turns into a catastrophy. IMO, there is no God, therefore it is for us to give a meaning, a sense, to our life, despite its inherent imprevisibility.

Finally, men will never really learn to control Nature; the closest thing from control Men will learn in respect of Nature is the ability to destroy it, to mess with it. Katrina is a lesson to those who believed that you can mess with the environment without damage.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 11:31 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Well, I'm not sure how I managed to get away with saying 9/11 was allowed to happen and the towers demolished, but get this sort of reaction to saying the anarchy in NOLA was also allowed to happen.
Quote:
The people who serve in the military, from the lowest rank to the highest, are there to protect and serve
What about those in the military that commit acts of torture so bad that the evidence would cause riots if it was released? (This is not a slight on every soldier, but you can't say that all of them are nice people).

I wanted to say thank you to Eru, Voronwe, Dave and Semprini. :)
Quote:
"We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines.""

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
10FTTALL
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 14 Sep , 2005 11:43 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun 01 May , 2005 3:41 pm
Location: In a van down by the river
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
What about those in the military that commit acts of torture so bad that the evidence would cause riots if it was released?
Is this another hypothetical question or do you have some evidence that soldiers went to New Orleans and tortured people? :roll: And I'm not talking about somebody who has a friend whose cousin was deployed to New Orleans.

_________________

[ img ]

Loyal subject to the Crown


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 39  [ 768 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 739 »
Jump to: