Sunday, November 04, 2007

The Ultimate Suicide Bomb


[test of a small, portable nuclear bomb May 25, 1953 in Nevada]

There is no question that the most dangerous weapons ever created by man are nuclear bombs. One bomb placed in the trunk of a car would be capable of destroying a city. The Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions produced by the United States during the Cold War weighed 400 pounds and were approximately as powerful as the weapon which destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. An MADM in Manhattan would kill an estimated 100,000 people.

Since 1945, thousands of nuclear weapons have been produced by many nations, however in fact none have ever been used other than the two which the United States dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War. A liberal democracy would never use them in a first strike because of humanitarian concerns and even a dictator such as Stalin did not use them because of the fear of reprisal. Therefore about 26,000 nuclear weapons sit and gather dust. From a practical military point of view, they are nearly worthless.

The question arises, however, what if someone completely irrational were to possess nuclear weapons? What if someone would want to use them not for any practical benefit, but rather because of an imagined spiritual benefit?

What about a suicide bomber?

Suicide bombing is a method of killing commonly used by Islamic terrorists since 1981. There are today millions of Muslims who consider murdering non-Muslims to be more important than their own lives. They are certainly not held back by any humanitarian considerations. They also may not be concerned about any retaliation, however certain and devastating. They will gladly sacrifice themselves and other Muslims for the sake of killing non-Muslims whom they feel threaten Islam. Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West documents this in brutal and revolting detail.

Where would a suicide bomber obtain the nuclear weapon? This is not something you can order online or make in your garage.

There are a few possibilities:

- Bombs or bomb material may be purchased from corrupt Russian military officers .

- Pakistan now has dozens of nuclear weapons and many Pakistanis support a holy war against non-Muslims. The political instability in Pakistan as of this writing does not bode well for Western countries.

- Iran may produce nuclear weapons within the next decade and the Iranians at some point might share these with Hezbollah terrorists which it sponsors .

In a new book, The Day of Islam , journalist Paul L. Williams argues that Islamic terrorists in fact already have nuclear weapons positioned in Western countries. It may well be that no nuclear holocaust has yet occurred due to the intensive efforts of the intelligence services together with bad luck. After all, many planned conventional suicide bombings are unsuccessful. Alternatively, Islamic terrorists may be busy putting in place enough nuclear weapons to cause a single, massive blow to the United States at one time. They may realize that they will not have a second chance to use nuclear bombs, considering the reprisals and security crackdowns which would certainly follow it, and therefore they will wait for the opportunity to make one devastating attack on America.

So what are we to do?

In my humble opinion we must of course support any efforts governments are making to stop nuclear terrorism. This is not merely an issue of national security, but of national survival. International and American law, if necessary, must be set aside to deal with this threat.

However, the most important thing we must do is repent and hope for God’s mercy. We must take our example from the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah . Nineveh was destined to be overturned in forty days; however through sincere repentance they were saved. We in New York, Tel Aviv, London and any other large city may be in the same situation at this moment. We no longer have prophets to warn us, however we can learn valuable lessons from the words of the prophets in previous times.

In particular I believe that we must be kind and considerate to other people, especially those closest to us. "He Who is merciful to others, mercy is shown to him by Heaven, while he who is not merciful to others, mercy is not shown to him by Heaven" (Talmud Tractate Shabbat 151b).

This is our best and surest defense.

32 comments:

LakewoodShmuck said...

very important points you raise.

A said...

JP, I came to share the article below with you, but you surprised me with this not-so-intellegent article.

If you buy propaganda, you can have plenty, all free of charge..

with due respect to you, you are not logical or reasonable, this type of old fashined thinking means you are buying take-away thoughts for your blog.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_vernon/2007/11/god_is_back.html

jewish philosopher said...

a, thank you for the article. Flew seems to agree with all the main points which I constantly repeat in my blog. Of course, for an atheist, determined to live a life free of any restrictions, nothing could be convincing. Even a divine revelation I suppose would be shrugged off as an illusion.

I'm not sure which part of this post you find inaccurate. Do you deny the existence of suicide bombers or the existence of nuclear bombs? If both indeed exist, and they seem to plentifully, then I think we have a major problem.

SJ said...

>> However, the most important thing we must do is repent and hope for God’s mercy.

The most important thing is for the United States and allied nations to put these dangerous poeople to justice.

Cameron said...

JP: In my humble opinion we must of course support any efforts governments are making to stop nuclear terrorism. This is not merely an issue of national security, but of national survival. International and American law, if necessary, must be set aside to deal with this threat.

CH: Typical American cowardice. Whenever you someone comes along with a new boogeyman the first thing you do is crap your pants and shred your constitutional protections. Rule of law? Habeas Corpus? Geneva Conventions? Who needs 'em, we have terrorists to torture!

It's pathetic. One of the freest countries to ever exist in history and Bin Laden has you water-boarding each other and attaching electrodes to peoples genitals after only one co-ordinated attack. Rather than stand up and defend what American stood for, you traded it for a banana republic and colour coded terror alerts.

JP: However, the most important thing we must do is repent and hope for God’s mercy.

CH: Sure because the righteous never die, suffer disease, or fall under the boot of the Romans, right?

jewish philosopher said...

Cameron, if you want to sacrifice your life rather than violate the United Nations Charter, go right ahead. In fact, you can go to Iran right now and start preaching atheism. See what happens.

About repentance and God’s mercy, just don’t say no one warned you.

Cameron said...

JP: if you want to sacrifice your life rather than violate the United Nations Charter, go right ahead.

CH: Now there is a false choice! Despite there never having been a single nuclear terrorist incident, we should all give up our rights immediately for the greater good. Awesome! Why worry about being conquered by fascists when people like you will invite them to take over from inside!

JP: In fact, you can go to Iran right now and start preaching atheism. See what happens.

CH: I prefer to live in a democratic society that respects the rule of law and upholds a liberal consitution and charter of rights. Of course, I don't mean the US - which is acting to encourage the ongoing craven abdication of your freedoms and rights, but rather, a nation that is still free and insistent on remaining so - I speak of course, of Canada.

jewish philosopher said...

I know, Canada, the terrorist haven.

A said...

JP; The article was based on propaganda, not facts. I don't mind if you want to believe it.

badrabbi said...

JP says "repent!"
LOL, in order for me to repent, I would have to recognize the God that I repenting to! After that, I have to find him, and start talking with him. But I would first have to identify the God. Is it Jehovah? Jesus? Allah?

Let's say that Osama crawled out of his cave one day and said to Americans: "Listen, if you only recognize Allah, repent, and become Muslims, then I would leave you alone". Well, then, to protect ourselves, I suppose we should repent to Allah and convert into Islam!

What I want to know, at least in the sense that it is the Muslim terrorists who are threatening us, would it not make more sense for us to put our tails between our legs and convert to Islam rather than convert to Orthodox Judaism and repent to Hashem?

What sense is there to repent to Hashem and turn USA into a orthodox Jewish nation? If we did this, ALL the Muslims would then come after us!

I say, let's convert to Islam! Let's repent to the prophet Mohammad. Any one know which direction to Mecca?

badrabbi said...

Cameron,

I totally agree with you. With the destruction of the twin towers, the terrorists were aiming to change our (American) way of life. The irony is that after 9/11, other than killing 3000 people, the terrorists were unable to accomplish this goal. Instead, our people and government grossly over-reacted, and accomplished for the terrorists what the latter could never accomplish for themselves.

The Bush administration is guilty of fulfilling the wishes of the Muslim terrorists. Bush did for Osama what Mohammad Atta could never do!

jewish philosopher said...

Bad, I have a few posts demonstrating that Judaism is the true religion. Have you had a chance to look them over? Check out "Primary Posts" on the right margin of my blog's first page.

Frankly I'm also not thrilled with the current president. I didn't vote for him the second time. We should have nuked Mecca and Medina the day after 9/11. That would have sent a message to Muslims that attacking America will lead to the destruction of Islam, not the spread of Islam.

Josh said...

What rights have I given up? How many innocent American citizens have been detained as enemy combatants? No one. Have they wire tapped my calls? Who cares. I don't. They use racial profiling now as they should because newsflash, 99% of terrorists are arabs. All these liberals screaming about their free speech being impeded upon yet everywhere you turn what do you see? Bush sucks. Bush = Hitler. Bush = Osama Bin Laden. Condy Rice is a murderer. All within ten feet of politicians and other secure places and events. How many of them have been arrested and tried in secret military tribunals as enemy combatants? How many of you have read the entire patriot act word for word and have a J.D. so you actually understand what it is talking about and the precedents it builds upon? Right. Has the Bush administration put you behind bars for you disparaging remarks on this blog? Have they added you to some secret list now? Please keep your useless conspiracy theories in Canada where you can overpay for crappy socialized medicine and wait on a seven year list to get medical treatment for cancer or other terrible diseases. Over reacting? Watch as the concept of the nation-state turns on it's head in Europe as the historically majorities there become the minorities to Arabs within 50 years. I guess it's easier to criticize from Canada than it would be if you lived in London or Paris where the Arab issue is quickly getting out of hand.

badrabbi said...

“What rights have I given up?”
1. You can no longer board a flight unimpeded, without showing your true identity
2. You can no longer take reasonable things, such as drinks, food items, make up, shampoo, etc., with you on the plane
3. You can no longer speak on the telephone with the knowledge that your conversation in private
4. You can no longer perform private financial transactions
5. You can no longer purchase expensive products, such as diamonds, etc., without the government’s explicit knowledge
6. You can no longer expect not to be tortured upon the government’s suspicion of wrong doing
7. You can no longer count on the writ of habeas corpus.
8. You can no longer boast that you live in a society that respects foreigners, as the latter can be taken, without a due process, and held indefinitely



“How many innocent American citizens have been detained as enemy combatants?”

It is not clear! The government has reserved the right to do so, and has refused to say how many, if any, of American citizens it is holding. What is clear is that a number of non-Americans are being held.

Have they wire tapped my calls? Who cares. I don't.

You may not, but I do. Go look up the meaning of privacy and of freedom. I need not abide by your standards. Suppose you did not care if the government took pictures of you mating with your wife. You may not, dear sir, but I do!

“They use racial profiling now as they should because newsflash, 99% of terrorists are arabs.”

I do not have a problem, in principle, with profiling. However, to profile “arabs” while ignoring others is foolhardy. There are many Muslims, such as Pakistanis and Iranians, for example, who would slit your throat at their leisure, and yet are not Arabs.

“All these liberals screaming about their free speech being impeded upon yet everywhere you turn what do you see? Bush sucks… All within ten feet of politicians and other secure places and events. How many of them have been arrested and tried in secret military tribunals as enemy combatants?”

Free speech, thankfully, has not yet qualified for the designation of “combat” and those who speak their minds are not yet “enemy combatants”. However, given the trends, we, unfortunately, are going in that direction.
How many of you have read the entire patriot act word for word and have a J.D. so you actually understand what it is talking about and the precedents it builds upon?

Not me, and I wager not you either. On that topic though, how many of us have ever read any law in its entirety. Are you saying that we are required to do so in order to render a meaningful opinion?

“Has the Bush administration put you behind bars for you disparaging remarks on this blog?”

No, but you are now arguing against the straw man of free speech. As I mentioned, free speech in the sense of criticizing the administration is not yet an offense. However, that is not what we are talking about.


Please keep your useless conspiracy theories in Canada where you can overpay for crappy socialized medicine

The merits and hazards of Canadian health system not withstanding, no one is arguing a conspiracy theory.

“Watch as the concept of the nation-state turns on it's head in Europe as the historically majorities there become the minorities to Arabs within 50 years.”

Now you are talking about immigration policy! I am having trouble dancing to your tunes!


“I guess it's easier to criticize from Canada than it would be if you lived in London or Paris where the Arab issue is quickly getting out of hand.”

What are you proposing?

Josh said...

1. You can no longer board a flight unimpeded, without showing your true identity

WOW. You mean I have to show them my drivers license to prove that I am who I claim to be? Oh the humanity of the three seconds it takes to hand over my license with my boarding pass. Whatever will I do with myself!

2. You can no longer take reasonable things, such as drinks, food items, make up, shampoo, etc., with you on the plane

These things have proven not to be reasonable thanks to multiple attempts by terrorists to use them to bring down a plane. And you can bring food items on a plane, not sure who you've been flying. Plus many liquids can be stowed away in approved containers.

3. You can no longer speak on the telephone with the knowledge that your conversation in private

Who cares? Honestly? Did the government just listen to my conversation to my friend about my fantasy basketball team? The government is far to inept to listen to the millions upon millions of hours a day of phone conversations. They screen calls from people who they have tagged as suspected terrorists. I'm not one of them, therefore I don't care. Don't flatter yourself and think that Uncle Sam gives a lick what you're talking to your grandmother about.

4. You can no longer perform private financial transactions

I'm not sure in what context this has been stated. No transaction is truly private because it's subject to taxes.

5. You can no longer purchase expensive products, such as diamonds, etc., without the government’s explicit knowledge

This is a newsflash to me. Documentation? And if it is true why do I care that the government knows I bought my wife a diamond ring? But again documentation please.

6. You can no longer expect not to be tortured upon the government’s suspicion of wrong doing

I have never been tortured. None of my friends have been tortured. None of my friends friends friends friends have been tortured. In fact there hasn't been a single case of an American citizen tortured by our government. So I can therefore expect with 99.9999% certainty that I will not be tortured. And again the changes to the definition of torture apply to non-us citizens.

7. You can no longer count on the writ of habeas corpus.

The scope of this is so detailed and lengthy, I just have no desire to go through the numerous changes over the last three years to the military tribunals and multiple supreme court decisions on this topic etc.

8. You can no longer boast that you live in a society that respects foreigners, as the latter can be taken, without a due process, and held indefinitely

You don't judge a society by it's laws but rather how they are practiced. I.e. the ben sorer u morer. It's on the books but it never happened. How many foreigners have come to this country to be detained as enemy combatants? The answer is zero. Is it really thousands upon thousands stored away in some secret military bunker in Utah? If this was the case we'd already know about it as headlines would be in every paper about how XXX Millionaire goes missing after attending business meeting in NYC. But yet we don't see those headlines. Centralized government is sloppy and inefficient. You give them way, way, wayyyyyy too much credit. The non-american's being held are those detained captured in Iraq/Afghanistan. Some of them turned out to be unjustly handed over by Afghan warlords for hefty rewards. Sucks to be them I guess.

As far as racial profiling, don't worry, they're on the look out for paki's and iranian's as well.

Yes, I have read the patriot act and possess a J.D. And yes, knowing how the law actually works in practice rather than quoting obscure confusing passages to advance one's agenda is usually how these sorts of things should work.

Finally I'm not debating immigration policy. I'm merely commenting that some of you seem to think this whole terrorism arab thing is blown out of proportion and my response is, you'll see the results of non-action on the issue in fifty years. (P.S. there will still be winter and snow in fifty years also, but that's a whole different discussion)

Cameron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cameron said...

2. You can no longer take reasonable things, such as drinks, food items, make up, shampoo, etc., with you on the plane

Josh: These things have proven not to be reasonable thanks to multiple attempts by terrorists to use them to bring down a plane.

CH: Pure BS. Nobody has tried to take a plane down with shampoo.

badrabbi: 3. You can no longer speak on the telephone with the knowledge that your conversation in private

Josh: Who cares? Honestly?

CH: I for one. Anybody who cares about the right to privacy for a few million. If you wish to live in a police state where every utterance of a private conversation is available to government scrutiny than you invite exactly the kind of tyranny that America was supposed to be in opposition to.

Josh: Did the government just listen to my conversation to my friend about my fantasy basketball team? The government is far to inept to listen to the millions upon millions of hours a day of phone conversations.

CH: If they are so inept, why give them this power? If anything this proven ineptitude sounds like a perfectly good argument to not hand them the authority to wiretap conversations without a warrant.

Josh: They screen calls from people who they have tagged as suspected terrorists. I'm not one of them,

CH: Are you sure Josh? How would you ever know?

Josh:...therefore I don't care.

CH: Ah, because you should be the baseline for determining all of our rights. Awesome. Not.

6. You can no longer expect not to be tortured upon the government’s suspicion of wrong doing

Josh: I have never been tortured.

CH: Well now that's a convincing argument! Badrabbi points out that contrary to centuries of precedent the US government has abandoned the high ground of moral conduct and engaged in the torture of captives (with less than dubious results), and you respond with the above. Simply devastating argument Josh. I'm literally speechless with how you deftly countered badrabbi.

For the record, that is what we call 'sarcasm'.

Josh: In fact there hasn't been a single case of an American citizen tortured by our government.

CH: I'm a Canadian and even I can name one off the top of my head; 'Jose Padilla'. But the point isn't that Americans are tortured (though that is obviously a corollary) it's that the US tortures anyone.

Josh: So I can therefore expect with 99.9999% certainty that I will not be tortured. And again the changes to the definition of torture apply to non-us citizens.

CH: That's right because somehow under the Bush regime what counts as torture if applied to Americans doesn't count when applied to those less human like foreigners.

Badrabbi: 7. You can no longer count on the writ of habeas corpus.

Josh: The scope of this is so detailed and lengthy, I just have no desire to go through the numerous changes over the last three years to the military tribunals and multiple supreme court decisions on this topic etc.

CH: Yeah, why bother trying to make the case that habeas corpus still exists contra to Badrabbi - when it's easier to simply change the subject. Again, centuries of tradition and moral high-ground tossed away all because it got in the way of 'doing what was necessary' in your war on terror.

Badrabbi: 8. You can no longer boast that you live in a society that respects foreigners, as the latter can be taken, without a due process, and held indefinitely

Josh: You don't judge a society by it's laws but rather how they are practiced.

CH: You mean like they are at Guantanamo Bay? Or the former gulags that the US turned into 'black' sites where they practice the same torture techniques used by the Soviets (and how ironic is that?). Somewhere Reagan is spinning in his grave.

Josh: It's on the books but it never happened.

CH: Sure, thats the ticket. Bush wanted immunity for any torture practiced because...well just because. Certainly not because they actually, you know, tortured anyone. Google 'Arar' and 'torture' and get back to me.

Josh: How many foreigners have come to this country to be detained as enemy combatants? The answer is zero.

CH: Incorrect (see the above Arar).

Josh: The non-american's being held are those detained captured in Iraq/Afghanistan. Some of them turned out to be unjustly handed over by Afghan warlords for hefty rewards. Sucks to be them I guess.

CH: Yeah, bummer your fascist government decided to violate the Geneva conventions and torture them eh? But it's not just a bummer for them, it's a bummer for the US reputation abroad, it's a bummer for any hope of moral seriousness when negotiating with ME nations in the future, and it's a bummer for any American serviceman capture in the field expecting to be treated humanely.

Josh: I'm merely commenting that some of you seem to think this whole terrorism arab thing is blown out of proportion and my response is, you'll see the results of non-action on the issue in fifty years.

CH: That's just slightly better than the promise of heaven after death. Forgive me for not being impressed. The US didn't need torture to defeat the Japanese, didn't need to repeal habeas corpus to beat the Soviets and didn't need to repudiate the Geneva conventions to defeat the Germans. But a handful of religiously motivated Saudi Arabians kill a few thousand US citizens and you piss on your constitution. Well done sir, well done.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

Josh said...

It is clear from your post that you lack any knowledge of the facts in any of these cases and it is therefore useless for me to educate you.

1) You need to re read the Jose Padilla case thoroughly including the Supreme Court decisions and the Circuit Court decision, upholding the Bush Administration's ruling. A final Supreme Court hearing has yet to happen and is scheduled for October of 2007. At any rate he has been convicted by a federal jury on four counts including conspiracy to maim and kill civilians over seas. If this is the type of person being detained as an enemy combatant I don't have any sympathy. But again it has been ruled constitutional and as such any opinion you have about it is moot as the Supreme Court has agreed the suspension of habeus corpus in this scenario is legal for a variety of reasons contained within the Court responses. Therefore any opinion you have that such action is unconstitutional is wrong since the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review in this country has decided it isn't unconstitutional.

2) Shampoo's and other liquids are legal to bring onto planes as of a while ago. Please go to tsa.gov for more information. The reason they were not allowed to be brought onto planes for a period of time was because of a plot to bring liquid nitrogen on a plane using one of these containers. This has been documented. Therefore you are incorrect.

3) Please research the definition of fascism. I'll give you one for starters, "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." The President does not have absolute power, example: part of his enemy combatant stance that those in Guantanamo Bay were not allowed a trial has been ruled unconstitutional and the administration has been giving them trials or letting them free. The reason so many of them are still in custody is because they refuse to be extradited for fear of being killed when they reach their home countries. If Bush was a dictator the judicial review power of the Supreme Court would be meaningless. We see this is not the case. The wire-tapping was brought to Congress and has been redone significantly. Therefore Congress checked the power of the Executive. Hence not a dictator since his power was checked. America is not a nationalistic country. It does not share any of the nationalist, fascist policies that were undertaken in Germany and Italy. America is a country of immigrants. It couldn't be anything farther from a fascist country. You are 100%, beyond 100% wrong in using the word fascism. Thank you. (This is not even touching the fact that free speech has not been encroached upon one iota in this country, something that could NEVER, EVER, EVER, happen in a fascist country)

4) No comparison can be made between World War 2, the Cold War and the War on Terror. World War 2 was against countries. There were leaders to negotiate with who were the clear generals and political heads, and people wore uniforms. Fighting took place on battle fields. (For the most part, obviously there were horrific civilian losses, but they went hand in hand with the war) The War on Terror is against an enemy who does not wear uniforms. He has no clear leaders one can negotiate with. He looks like any next door neighbor and lives in terrorist cells throughout the free world. It requires a different type of fighting, one that relies upon intelligence; knowing what your enemy plans to do and preemptively stopping him. The Russians defeated themselves in the Cold War. The terrorists are not Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, Iranians, they can be anyone who subscribe to the dangerous teachings of radical Islam. Terrible, terrible, comparison with no value to it.

5) I'm hardly trying to escape the discussion of habeus corpus. It just happens to be that there have been hundreds of hundreds of even thousands of pages of court opinions on this topic, and a final definitive ruling by the Supreme Court has yet to be given as there are cases waiting to be heard when the court convenes in October. How can either of us comment on something that is still in the process of being decided?

6) America's high road when it comes to torture has nothing to do with how the enemy will treat us. This is pure B.S. The Korean's didn't treat us nicely and give us fluffy pillows because we listened to international law on torture. The same with Vietnam, WW2, WW1 etc. etc. etc. None of the world does. That's the world which we live in today, but thank G-d it's a lot better than it was a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago. To point to America as the sole bully is ludicrous. The entire world is guilty of gross torture and human right violations. Does this make it right? Of course not. The torture in question happens to be waterboarding which leaves no physical damage. Is it really torture? I think it is, but it's something that's being debated now.

Please research facts before posting in the future. Thank you.

badrabbi said...

Josh,

There is so much you have said that it is impossible to respond to it all. Just a few observations, though.

First, you write, “It is clear from your post that you lack any knowledge of the facts in any of these cases and it is therefore useless for me to educate you.”

I am assuming that you are directing this to Cameron and myself. Ad homonym attacks like this are useless. It is funny that you say it is useless to educate us, but you proceed to a lengthy reply anyway!

”2) Shampoo's and other liquids are legal to bring onto planes as of a while ago. Please go to tsa.gov for more information.”

I actually did go to tsa.gov web site as you suggested, and it confirmed my experiences at the airport. They have the so-called “3-1-1” rule, limiting any container to 3 OZ or less! You write that this was implemented because a terrorist had tried to blow up a plane with liquids. If you read Cameron’s and my posts above, you would note that this is just the sort of thing that we were objecting to. A terrorist tries to use a liquid to blow up a plane. We then panic (“crap in our pants” as Cameron puts it) and over-react. I always joke that if a terrorist tried to smuggle explosives in his shorts, we would then be made to take off our underwear at check points in the airport!

The objective of a terrorist is not just to blow things up. What a terrorist wants to do is to alter our way of life – to reduce our freedoms and to mess with our sensibilities. To require that millions of passengers not carry liquids on the airplane because some guy tried something a while ago is to be stupid.

I was once waiting to get on a plane from Mexico City to NYC. I watched the Mexican authorities confiscate the liquids of passengers as they were boarding the plane. After the passengers were embarked, I watched the authorities divide the wines and soft drinks and perfumes amongst themselves! I am sure the same sort of things happen here in USA.


”3) Please research the definition of fascism”
I have not accused the government of the US of being fascistic. On the contrary, USA is still a relatively free country. However, it is trending toward an erosion of freedoms. It is, in other words, trending toward tyranny, or fascism. I admit it has a long way to go, thankfully, to get there.

”4) No comparison can be made between World War 2, the Cold War and the War on Terror.”

It is true that the nature of the threat is different. I argue, however, that the Terrorist threat is not nearly as acute as, say, the threat to us from the Germans during WWII. The worst that the terrorists have done to us is to blow up planes and buildings. In contrast, whole countries were destroyed in WWII by nations. So, lets take a deep breath here. I am not minimizing the threat of terrorism, but you are crazy if you think that somehow this menace of terrorism is the greatest threat since wwII.

You wrote: “To point to America as the sole bully is ludicrous.”

Again, Josh, you are grasping at a straw man! America is not the “sole bully”. There are many bully nations, many tyrannical and abhorrent nations out there. To say that we are not the only bully nation is hardly an effective defense of the USA, though. Remember, we were once a model country. To descend from “a light upon nations” to just another “bully nation” is sad. I do not think that we have sunk that low, but we are going in that direction.

Josh said...

I'm really, really, tired so I'm going to make a short post and hopefully follow up later. Fascism is based on race and extreme nationalism. Some how people and the media have begun misusing this term.

Cameron said...

Josh: It is clear from your post that you lack any knowledge of the facts in any of these cases and it is therefore useless for me to educate you.

CH: Oh? That sounds like a challenge.

Josh: 1)At any rate he has been convicted by a federal jury on four counts including conspiracy to maim and kill civilians over seas.

CH: The US government tried to have Padilla declared 'an illegal combatant' despite the fact he is a US citizen. Why? So he wouldn't get a trial by a jury of his peers, have legal representation, and so they could torture him. Let me point out Josh that it is irrelevant whether he is actually guilty or not - since your government tortured him first and then brought him to trial. He was detained in early 2002 and was first granted access to lawyer in 2004, and before then was subjected to torture that has effectively rendered him insane - does that sound like he was given the rights of a US citizen to you?

Josh: If this is the type of person being detained as an enemy combatant I don't have any sympathy.

CH: Fortunately Josh, it isn't with your limited capability of sympathy in mind that the rights of the US constitution were created. They were meant to protect even the least American, not just those we like.

Josh: Therefore any opinion you have that such action is unconstitutional is wrong since the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review in this country has decided it isn't unconstitutional.

CH: As you note earlier this case is still to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It was however ratified by the 4th Circuit of appeal. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference though.

Josh: The reason they were not allowed to be brought onto planes for a period of time was because of a plot to bring liquid nitrogen on a plane using one of these containers. This has been documented. Therefore you are incorrect.

CH: If you research the details of that plot you'll find that it was scientifically impossible to create an explosive from the liquids the suspected plotters were supposedly using. Nevertheless its useful (politically) to keep the sheep scared so airports immediately lept on the chance to confiscate liquids. Much like the manufacture of terror alerts as a political tool, the scare over liquids is wildly overblown.

3) Please research the definition of fascism. I'll give you one for starters, "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

CH: Works for me.

Josh: The President does not have absolute power, example: part of his enemy combatant stance that those in Guantanamo Bay were not allowed a trial has been ruled unconstitutional and the administration has been giving them trials or letting them free.

CH: In other words he tried to claim absolute power and after 6 years was finally slapped on the wrist.

Josh: If Bush was a dictator the judicial review power of the Supreme Court would be meaningless.

CH: Have you read the Bush signing statements where he declares that his is the only branch of government required to wage war?

Josh: We see this is not the case. The wire-tapping was brought to Congress and has been redone significantly.

CH: Once congress fell into Democratic control you mean. Until then it was 1984.

Josh: America is not a nationalistic country.

CH: HA! Barrack Obama was just exorciated on Fox News for an entire news cycle for not wearing an American flag pin!

Josh: It couldn't be anything farther from a fascist country.

CH: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis.

Josh: 4)The War on Terror is against an enemy who does not wear uniforms.

CH: The war on terror is a complete fiction. 'War' is a state of conflict between states, and you admit that in Bush's war on terror there are no states involved - ergo, there is no 'war'. There is only Bush and his inner cabal making war on nations pre-emptively as part of securing America's energy future.

The one place where I have supported Bush is his interest in Afghanistan, unfortunately he saw fit to devote US resources to invading Iraq rather than finishing the job.

Josh...It requires a different type of fighting, one that relies upon intelligence; knowing what your enemy plans to do and preemptively stopping him.

CH: Yeah, and where reasonable people come from this is called 'police work', not 'war on terror'. You will no doubt be shocked to discover that Europe has a long history of dealing with terrorists, from the Basque in Spain, to Anarchists in France, to the IRA in England and Ireland, to Canada and the FLQ crisis. Yet, while each nation sought out more power to combat 'the menace' none of them thought it necessary to overturn habeas corpus, or use torture.

Josh: The terrorists are not Saudi Arabians...

CH: Actually, yes they were.

Josh: 5) I'm hardly trying to escape the discussion of habeus corpus.

CH: Josh, you can't even spell Habeas Corpus.

Josh: 6) America's high road when it comes to torture has nothing to do with how the enemy will treat us. This is pure B.S.

CH: Really? Ask Senator John McCain. He was quite specific in speaking about how important it is to repudiate torture as a way of protecting Americans from similar harm, and how knowing that (at the time) the US didn't torture gave him the strength to resist.

Josh: The Korean's didn't treat us nicely and give us fluffy pillows because we listened to international law on torture. The same with Vietnam, WW2, WW1 etc. etc. etc. None of the world does.

CH: Oh it's the 'the rest of the world are ruthless barbarians who don't care about human life or suffering, so why should we?' argument. You again make my point for me. The US has never stood as a nation that would willingly lower itself to the same level as it's enemies. It used to understand that there is a difference between us and them and that it was a difference worth preserving. You Josh, don't see any difference between how your nation behaves and say thugs like the Khmer Rouge.

Josh: To point to America as the sole bully is ludicrous.

CH: Nobody has singled out the US - you are inventing a straw man.

Josh: The entire world is guilty of gross torture and human right violations.

CH: False. Canada doesn't. And the US didn't always.

Josh: Does this make it right? Of course not. The torture in question happens to be waterboarding which leaves no physical damage.

CH: Neither does hypothermia, sensory deprivation, prolonged hunger, prolonged sleep deprivation, etc. All techniques mastered by the Nazi's and Soviets as means of torture specifically designed not to leave permanent marks.


Josh: Is it really torture? I think it is, but it's something that's being debated now.

CH: The fact your nation even has to have a debate on whether forcibly strapping someone to a table and pouring water down their mouth, nose and throat to induce the sensation of drowning and imminent death is actually torture, speaks for how far off the moral rails the US has driven itself. Even the Khmer Rouge thought it was torture, but then we've already seen how willing you are to lower yourself to their level.

Josh said...

The Supreme Court decided to not grant cert to listen to the case and the ruling of the 4th circuit court stood. Their opinion on our consititution is > yours. Thanks.

You brining Spain's fight against the Basque is hilarious considering the effective non-existance of habeas corpus in that country. Therefore, Spain - No Habeas Corpus.

Please read up on Britain's Anti-Terrorism act which effectively suspends Habeas Corpus against terrorists and their long history of suspending habeas corpus against the IRA, detaining hundreds of them at a time indefinitely.

France is notorious for detaining people for years at end without bringing charges.

Any other countries you'd like to bring up who are habitual violators against the grant of habeas corpus?

Jose Padilla was tried by a jury of american citizens. Not a military tribunal. Average american's found him guilty of his disgusting plot to kill. That beast is now behind bars where he belongs.

Your quote of the Obama interview has nothing to do with the concept of nationalism espoused by a fascist regime. It is even legal to burn an American Flag. Please, please, please, learn about the history of Italy and Germany to understand what a nationalist, fascist country looks like. Thanks

Until then it was 1984? Do you not know that the FISA act has been on the books for much longer than that and has always served as a rubber stamp? The courts ALWAYS agree to wire-tapping warrants. Bush wanted to just make it even quicker.

By the way, you know who suspended Habeas Corpus? President Abraham Lincoln.

Cameron said...

Let's go back to where we started shall we?

- Jose Padilla, an American citizen was held without access to a lawyer for over two years and tortured.

That's a violation of your constitution anyway you want to cut it.

Your best defense ;

- The Supreme Court (actually $th Circuit) said it was ok!

Merely spreads the illness from the President's office to the 4th Circuit for not overturning it, and to the Supreme Court for not agreeing to hear the case.

- Other nations suspend their civil liberties too!

And the search for a lower moral ground for Josh to occupy begins in earnest. The 'we aren't any worse than France when they occupied Algeria defense! Brilliant.

- Other nations routinely torture

Puts you on par with Kyrgystan and the Khmer Rouge. And here we begin to wonder, 'is it possible you have a lower moral ground to occupy?'

- Waterboarding is still not definitely torture.

And we find one! The complete abdication of morality, and the US constitution. Well done Josh, well done. Tyranny looks good on you.

Joebaum said...

How is that that ateists are always loony left wingers?
Propebly must be something to it...

Cameron said...

Atheists are loony left wingers?

I'm in favour of the mission in Afghanistan.

I'm in favour of pursuing OBL to the ends of the Earth (including the mountains of Pakistan).

I'm in favour of low taxes, and having the government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom.

I believe in decentralized governments.

So...where do you see the loony left wing element? That I oppose torture? That I believe 'radical Islam' makes about as much sense as 'radical Catholicism' would have in describing the IRA?

What concerns me is how people who are supposedly right wing and conservative can be so eager to destroy the traditional constitutional balances that made their country great, invade nations pre-emptively, and hand power over to a charismatic president who claims to speak to God.

It may not be left wing, but that strikes me as totally loony.

Joebaum said...

You sound to good to be true

badrabbi said...

Cameron;

You had me with you until you mentioned "charismatic president"! Charismatic president? Bush? He has about as much charisma as my two day old bagel. As much charisma as intelligence.

Joebaum, I too am bascially a conservative/liberatarian. I do not know the mix of agnostic/atheists who lean to the right or left. Does it really matter, though what we are?

A while ago, Bush senior used the term "liberal" to describe his opponent with some success. Now, everytime someone has no substance with which to counter a logical argument, he uses the non-sequitur "liberal" label. Get off it!

Joebaum said...

Wow, you guys can't even admit that you are liberals.

Cameron said...

Joebaum, Perhaps we don't admit that we are liberals because we aren't actually liberals. Unless you mean liberal in the classic Adam Smith sense of the word.

Badrabbi, I meant 'charismatic' in the religious /preacher / fire-brimstone/ cult of personality sense of the word. Otherwise I agree with you, he's about as exciting to watch as JoeBaum's razor sharp political analysis is to read.

Joebaum said...

ouch!

badrabbi said...

LOL, Cameron!

Third Rail said...

Call in and check out our interview tonight at 8PM EST with Dr. Paul L. Williams, author of The Day of Islam at thirdrailradio.com