America... Spying on Americans

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. . . .

No, it appears you instead believe that someone who merely talks about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is a terrorist, which -- besides being obviously nutty -- seems to fly in the face of all you've parroted in the past about how the right of free speech must be inviolate in America. Leaving me to ponder whether you are a hypocrit, incompetent, or just not on your game today.

You need to hone up on your First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not a government actor acting under the color of law attempting to impose penalties on you due to your speech. We're citizens and we're exchanging words in a debate. And, you're not "merely talking."

I never accused you of being a "government actor," nor would I need to in order to make my point.

Again, you need to study the First Amendment. It is a limitation on governmental infringements of rights. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for me to violate your right to free speech because I'm NOT a government actor acting under the color of law. I can criticize you and your ideas and your opinions. My criticism doesn't violate your right of free speech.

Again, because it has escaped your ability to comprehend, we are citizens of the United States engaged in discussion, argument, and debate about issues concerning our country. When you advocate terrorism (as defined) against Iran, then you're a terrorist at worst or no-better-than-a-terrorist at best. You're no better than the criminals who advocate terrorism against us.

You're a fear- and war-monger and you're obviously angry for having the truth thrown in your face. So what do you do? You accuse me of being a hypocrit for criticizing you. And why do you ignorantly allege that I'm a hypocrit? Because, as an advocate of free speech, I shouldn't criticize poor-poor-Tico for "merely talking." Boo hoo.

Here's a clue, Tico: When you're exercising your right of free speech, you should expect others to do the same. And when others are "merely talking," they might be talking CRITICALLY about YOU.

Quote:

You claimed I'm a terrorist because I purport to claim the authority to tell other countries what I will allow or will not allow under the threat of mass destruction. I've not threatened anybody with "mass destruction," not even you after you've made a particularly bizarre post. So to recap, I've not threatened anybody, but have stated that Iran should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, and you think I'm a terrorist because of that. Wow.

Over and over again, Tico, you have repeatedly shouted your ridiculous question in a multitude of formats, the most recent being:

Quote:

Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

Your question is based on the unsupported, fear-mongering conclusion that Iran will develop its nuclear capabilities in order to acquire WMDs for evil terroristic purposes. Your question is based on the conclusion that the US has the authority/power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities.

You have stated that diplomatic efforts through the UN are a waste of time. Since you have ruled out diplomatic efforts, how else do you propose that the United States prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities in the event it is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to ALLOW Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

It is obvious that you're advocating that the United States influence Iran's nuclear energy policies through intimidation, coercion, and the threats of a war of aggression. If Iran does not succumb to intimidation, coercion, and threats, then it is obvious that you're advocating that United States use our armed forces (and our own weapons of mass destruction) in a war of aggression against Iran. Object all you want, but it's the truth.

Quote:

And of course I'm merely talking. What the hell else am I doing?

You're advocating that the United States become a terrorist nation and threaten Iran with an unlawful war of aggression in order to intimidate and coerce the Iranian people and the Iranian government into changing its policy as dictated by the United States.

Quote:

How are you going to PREVENT Iran from developing its nuclear energy program? In order to prevent this, you're advocating the coercion and intimidation of the Iranian people and the Iranian government in order to influence Iranian policies. If Iran doesn't change its energy policy to your satisfaction, you're advocating the violent overthrow of a foreign government (using our arsenal of war weapons of mass destruction). That makes you a terrorist.

Tico wrote:

Well, I've taken no position with regard to the manner of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but have indicated military force might be necessary. I have not acted in any manner that would satisfy the definition you've put forward.

Military force might be necessary? Isn't that threatening, coercive, and intimidating?

Military force might NOT be necessary IF Iran scraps its nuclear energy program . . . but if Iran doesn't . . . well, the U.S. can't allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities, can it? Hmmmm.

It most certainly does appear that you are advocating the use of coercion and intimidation of the Iranian people and the Iranian government with the threats of a war of aggression if Iran doesn't conduct itself in the manner dictated by the United States.

Tico wrote:

I'm not even advocating coercion or intimidation of the Iranian people. I've not advocated the overthrow of Iran at all.

I see. You're merely indicating that military force against Iran might be necessary. How can that be construed as coercion or intimidation of the Iranian people or the Iranian government? Rolling Eyes

Tico wrote:

So, as I understand what you are saying, you believe that my bald assertion -- and nothing more -- makes me a terrorist. Consequently, if appears you are trying to chill my free speech rights by claiming that I'm a terrorist because of what I've said on an internet forum. You're one trippy leftist, that's for sure.

Get a clue. I can't possibly "chill your free speech rights" because I'm not a government actor acting under the color of law. When you throw around First Amendment phraseology as developed by our jurisprudence, try to use it correctly.

A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism.

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Living under the threat of an unlawful war of aggression most definitely terrorizes a civilian population.

By now, the hypocrisy of your "military force might be necessary" position should be clear. It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Iran is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. They are seeking to develop the country's energy program for peaceful use to meet the needs of the Iranian people. See my previous comments:

Bullshit. Thinking like that is another reason why your party cannot be trusted with national security. You are advocating a policy that would have the natural result of nuclear proliferation. Having the infrastructure to enrich uranium for energy means you are just a step away from making a bomb. With the knowledge they would gain from building and operating a civilian power reactor, they would be that much closer to the technologies it would need for a weapon. The IAEA brought this matter to the UN Security Council for a reason. Iran is sharply anti-semetic. The fact that Israel, its hated neighbor, has nukes is enough of an incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program. If you are naive enough to think Iran would not do so .... well, you might just be that naive.

Fear-mongering as usual.

Why don't you whip your partisan friends into a war-mongering, foam-at-the-mouth frenzy and urge our trigger-happy president to shock and awe the Iranians. Then you can amass the troops to go in and search under every rock for illusory WMDs.

Or maybe you and your ilk should allow the U.N. to do its job this time.

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?

Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?

The article states that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear energy program.

Tico wrote:

Still dodging the question I see.

Your question is invalid. It is based on your unsupported, fear-mongering conclusion that Iran will use its nuclear energy program to develop WMDs for evil terroristic purposes. You have already admitted that there is no proof that Iran is developing WMDs. Your question is based on your erroneous conclusion that the United States has the authority/power to dictate to other countries what it will allow and what it won't allow. You have already admitted that the World has not granted this authority/power to the United States.

If you can't present a valid question, you can't fault other people for refusing to play your ridiculous question game.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why does Israel deserve the right to own Nukes, while Iran doesn't?

Because they are our allies?

How does this work morally, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

It works like this: When you got nukes, who's going to tell you to get rid of them? The attitude behind your question would allow every country in the world to have nuclear weapons.

Do you think that would be adviseable to allow to happen?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Another answer to your question is .... do you remember anybody advocating Hitler attaining nuclear weapons as a matter of fairness?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Do you know any other country that was as far as Hitler's Germany re developing nuclear weapon's at that time?

okie wrote:

Perhaps not. Why?

I think it was primarily a race between Hitler and the U.S. I do not recall where Russia was at by 1945 in regard to nuclear technology.

Now you two have got me positively confused... A race between Hitler and the US to develop the bomb? That's news to me. As far as I know, to Hitler the development of a nuclear bomb wasn't that important at all. He arrived at the conclusion that developing such a device would take several years, possibly decades, and figured that by the time such a device would become available, the war would long be over.

He therefore "outsourced" the research from the military to the civilian sector, and that was it. The civilian (not as in "civilian nuclear power" today, however) program was sluggishly underway during the war, and efforts to secure various components (e.g. "heavy water" from a facility in Norway) where misinterpreted by the Allies as an effort by Hitler to develop a bomb.

The American program, at the same time, demonstrated that Hitler was right in the assessment of what an enormous effort would have been necessary: in the States, complete cities were built, and tens of thousands of people were working in secret programs, for years, in order to develop a nuclear bomb. And that demonstrated that Hitler was wrong in believing that it couldn't be done.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Again, you need to study the First Amendment. It is a limitation on governmental infringements of rights. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for me to violate your right to free speech because I'm NOT a government actor acting under the color of law. I can criticize you and your ideas and your opinions. My criticism doesn't violate your right of free speech.

I never claimed you violated my right to free speech. I merely pointed out that your preposterous claim that my actions on this thread constitute the acts of a terrorist are an affront to the right of free speech you hold so dear. Because if what you claim were true -- which it obviously isn't -- I might be arrested for acts of terrorism by the government ... not by you.

Quote:

Here's a clue, Tico: When you're exercising your right of free speech, you should expect others to do the same. And when others are "merely talking," they might be talking CRITICALLY about YOU.

Hey, you have the absolute right to post mindless drivel at this site all day long. I'm not saying you don't have that right. In fact, please continue to do so. As you know, I'm convinced that the beliefs you hold on this issue will be a death knell for the Democratic party in 2008.

Quote:

Over and over again, Tico, you have repeatedly shouted your ridiculous question in a multitude of formats, the most recent being:

Quote:
Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

And over and over again, you and all of your hippy peacenik friends (it's a term of endearment) on this thread have failed or refused to answer it. It's really a simple question.

Quote:

Your question is based on the unsupported, fear-mongering conclusion that Iran will develop its nuclear capabilities in order to acquire WMDs for evil terroristic purposes.

No, it isn't. My question does not require you to draw that conclusion in order to answer it. The question is short, plain, and simple, and you obviously don't want to commit an answer to it.

Quote:

Your question is based on the conclusion that the US has the authority/power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities.

Not really. I could ask the question this way: "Do you think it is acceptable for Canada to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?" Of course Canada has neither the power nor the inclination to do anything about Iran getting nuclear weapons, but you don't need to conclude they do in order to answer the question. But since you are not a citizen of Canada, I don't ask that question. You are a citizen of the US, and the question is certainly a legitimate one, and a real question reflective of our foreign policy in the current situation in the Middle East.

Quote:

You have stated that diplomatic efforts through the UN are a waste of time.

The UN has demonstrated itself to be an impotent body, a paper tiger at best, capable of only rattling sabres, but incapable or unwilling to take action to back up its own resolutions.

Quote:

Since you have ruled out diplomatic efforts, how else do you propose that the United States prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities in the event it is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to ALLOW Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

I've not ruled out diplomatic efforts, but the key to the success of same falls to Iran. If they insist on developing their nulcear program, we should issue an ultimatum -- alone, or with a few other countries willing to take a stand on this issue. If Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, we should bomb the nuclear program out of existencej.

Quote:

It is obvious that you're advocating that the United States influence Iran's nuclear energy policies through intimidation, coercion, and the threats of a war of aggression. If Iran does not succumb to intimidation, coercion, and threats, then it is obvious that you're advocating that United States use our armed forces (and our own weapons of mass destruction) in a war of aggression against Iran. Object all you want, but it's the truth.

I'm not advocating a war of aggression. Simply a few well-placed bombs, if the need arises.

Quote:

Quote:
And of course I'm merely talking. What the hell else am I doing?

You're advocating that the United States become a terrorist nation and threaten Iran with an unlawful war of aggression in order to intimidate and coerce the Iranian people and the Iranian government into changing its policy as dictated by the United States.

No I'm not. And it appears the world generally agrees with me, and not you Debra, that Iran should not have nukes. You obviously think a nuclear-armed Iran is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged because they are a sovereign nation, and it's only fair that Iran have nuclear weapons since Israel and the US do.

All I can say it please keep proclaiming that view at the top of your lungs. I can think of nothing that will have a greater deleterious effect on the Democrats at the polls than if they adopt that mentality.

Quote:

Quote:
How are you going to PREVENT Iran from developing its nuclear energy program? In order to prevent this, you're advocating the coercion and intimidation of the Iranian people and the Iranian government in order to influence Iranian policies. If Iran doesn't change its energy policy to your satisfaction, you're advocating the violent overthrow of a foreign government (using our arsenal of war weapons of mass destruction). That makes you a terrorist.

Tico wrote:
Well, I've taken no position with regard to the manner of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but have indicated military force might be necessary. I have not acted in any manner that would satisfy the definition you've put forward.

Military force might be necessary? Isn't that threatening, coercive, and intimidating?

Even if it is, my advocating it does not make me a terrorst. Let me know if you need help reading your definition again, Debra.

Quote:

Tico wrote:
I'm not even advocating coercion or intimidation of the Iranian people. I've not advocated the overthrow of Iran at all.

I see. You're merely indicating that military force against Iran might be necessary. How can that be construed as coercion or intimidation of the Iranian people or the Iranian government?

I'm advocating an ultimatum be given to the Iranian government. That is not coercion or intimidation of the Iranian civilian population. Read your definition again, Debra. Again, let me know if you need help with the big words.

And when you read it again, be sure you understand that I've made no acts that fit your definition. If you think my words constitute "acts," please let me know.

Quote:

Tico wrote:
So, as I understand what you are saying, you believe that my bald assertion -- and nothing more -- makes me a terrorist. Consequently, if appears you are trying to chill my free speech rights by claiming that I'm a terrorist because of what I've said on an internet forum. You're one trippy leftist, that's for sure.

Get a clue. I can't possibly "chill your free speech rights" because I'm not a government actor acting under the color of law. When you throw around First Amendment phraseology as developed by our jurisprudence, try to use it correctly.

You get a clue. You are advocating a position that would have the effect of chilling my free speech rights. It is your position that is wrong, and your blatent hypocrisy is obvious to everyone. You are advocating a "slippery slope" on this issue ... one that will likely bite you in the ass in a later debate when you flip flop.

Oh, and you should know I'm thinking of reporting you to the ACLU. They might make you turn in your ID card and badge. Be forewarned.

Quote:

A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism.

That is perhaps the only correct assertion you have made in this entire post.

Quote:

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Okay ... and I've done none of the three, yet you call me a terrorist. Why should anybody take you seriously when you make silly arguments like this?

Quote:

Living under the threat of an unlawful war of aggression most definitely terrorizes a civilian population.

And for me to engage in terrorism here, I must commit an act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Are you suggesting that my words on this forum -- clearly protected speech -- constitute acts intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population of Iran? Are you serious? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

By now, the hypocrisy of your "military force might be necessary" position should be clear. It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Okay, but is it acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Or maybe you and your ilk should allow the U.N. to do its job this time.

It would be nice if it would do its job. Unfortunately, it's shown time and again it is incapable of doing its job. Name one country that fears a UN sanction.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Or maybe you and your ilk should allow the U.N. to do its job this time.

It would be nice if it would do its job. Unfortunately, it's shown time and again it is incapable of doing its job. Name one country that fears a UN sanction.

Fear isn't what drives diplomacy. Sadaam Hussein was contained and not a threat to anyone outside. Your beloved Condie and Colin both admitted that, before they bowed to Bush's war lust. The UN inspectors were coming to the conclusion that there weren't any WMDs. Bush invaded because he wanted to, mostly. And the intelligence was manipulated to support that preconceived desire.

Now you and the other bushophiles are busy revising history in real time, as his folly becomes more and more evident.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Or maybe you and your ilk should allow the U.N. to do its job this time.

It would be nice if it would do its job. Unfortunately, it's shown time and again it is incapable of doing its job. Name one country that fears a UN sanction.

Fear isn't what drives diplomacy. Sadaam Hussein was contained and not a threat to anyone outside. Your beloved Condie and Colin both admitted that, before they bowed to Bush's war lust. The UN inspectors were coming to the conclusion that there weren't any WMDs. Bush invaded because he wanted to, mostly. And the intelligence was manipulated to support that preconceived desire.

Now you and the other bushophiles are busy revising history in real time, as his folly becomes more and more evident.

You've simply dismissed as inconsequential the tapes they've found that were made by Saddam, haven't you?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Do you think that would be adviseable to allow to happen?

I think that's a mute question, as other countries' nuclear weapons programs aren' Americas to allow or forbid. Yours is a great country, but its permission is not required in these matters. Get over it.

0 Replies

Tico's "power" has gone to his head without realizing the realities and ethics of how we are not the police of this world on subjective matters that are not ours to control.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Do you think that would be adviseable to allow to happen?

I think that's a mute question, as other countries' nuclear weapons programs aren' Americas to allow or forbid. Yours is a great country, but its permission is not required in these matters. Get over it.

It certainly is not a moot (or mute) question, Thomas. You might have similarly thought it a moot question whether we ought to allow Iraq to pursue its WMD development, but it obviously wasn't. And the US did not "get over it," and I trust attitudes like yours will not rule the day on this issue either. Iran is a state supporter of terrorism, it's leader has publicly stated Israel should be wiped off the map, and it certainly should not be permitted to acquire nukes.

Liberals and peaceniks frequently complain that Bush mentions 9/11 too often, but it appears you have all already forgotten about it. All a nuclear Iran does is skip the middleman and put nukes directly in the hands of terrorists.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Tico's "power" has gone to his head without realizing the realities and ethics of how we are not the police of this world on subjective matters that are not ours to control.

The US has had to assume the role of "world's policeman" in the past because ultra-liberal Euroweenies have refused to step up to the plate. If not us, whom? Nobody. I have no faith the UN will take appropriate action here.

0 Replies

tico wrote:
Liberals and peaceniks frequently complain that Bush mentions 9/11 too often, but it appears you have all already forgotten about it. All a nuclear Iran does is skip the middleman and put nukes directly in the hands of terrorists.

Please show evidence of this by other than your own imagination, fear-mongering and opinion.

0 Replies

Quote:

The US has had to assume the role of "world's policeman" in the past because ultra-liberal Euroweenies have refused to step up to the plate. If not us, whom? Nobody. I have no faith the UN will take appropriate action here.

That's right, Nobody. Because we aren't a 'Policeman.' That's the exact wrong way to look at the situation, because we have various levels of interest that are far removed from the 'public good' of the people of the world.

'Bully' would be a much better term these days, and that's a sad slip from our past.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Do you think that would be adviseable to allow to happen?

I think that's a mute question, as other countries' nuclear weapons programs aren' Americas to allow or forbid. Yours is a great country, but its permission is not required in these matters. Get over it.

The fascist garbage in this country think it's their duty to tell the world what they may and may not do. We're not ALL that arrogant and insolent!!

Anon

0 Replies

The "euroweenies" do not make rash judgements without evidence to take any action.

On the other hand, the US war-mongers start a war without evidence or good intelligence based on fear.

I, personally, prefer the "euroweenies" system of taking action.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

tico wrote:
Liberals and peaceniks frequently complain that Bush mentions 9/11 too often, but it appears you have all already forgotten about it. All a nuclear Iran does is skip the middleman and put nukes directly in the hands of terrorists.

Please show evidence of this by other than your own imagination, fear-mongering and opinion.

Are you serious? Try googling "hezbollah iran" and see what you find.

0 Replies

Don't need to; but you should google how many Americans die on our streets and highways.

"hezbollah iran" only fuels war-monger's brains.

BTW, also try "diplomacy" in your dictionary and google it. You might learn something valuable - although I have great doubts.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't need to; but you should google how many Americans die on our streets and highways.

"hezbollah iran" only fuels war-monger's brains.

BTW, also try "diplomacy" in your dictionary and google it. You might learn something valuable - although I have great doubts.

I'm having difficulty following your line of thought, c.i. First you demand evidence that a nuclear Iran puts nukes into the hands of terrorists, then you switch over to apparently claiming that I ought to be worried about highway safety and not international terrorism.

Diplomacy is a two-way street, requiring compromise. However, we cannot compromise to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. That needs to be the line drawn in the sand.

0 Replies

If you can put it simply, what gives the US the right to decide to "allow" it, or not?

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know