Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)

[Sprafa]

The Russians are ****ed. And we shall all follow.

4th generation warfare my ass.... This isn't war.

Terrorism is growing beyond any measure of control. The Chechen rebels, the Iraqui mujhaedin, the Basq separatists, the Palestinian "freedom fighters".... Al-Quaeda, ETA, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, IRA...

The truth is that not much people die. The effect is psychological. Terrorism isn't about killing people. It's about making them so afraid of living and give in so much of their "normal" lives, that they negotiate and settle and agreement.

and it's not with this kind of attitude we'll solve it


The truth is we have to change mentality. Terrorism isn't the way to do anything. Declaring illegal war is one thing, taking over a school full of children and shooting them down is another.

We need the Big Brother to watch for us.

 

[thehunter1320]

i thought we were going to have a discussion about kill bill vol. 1

anyway, yes this is bad... but without complete isolation of the problem places or we take away absolutely all freedom of people and search through all their personal affairs

 

[Sprafa]

anyway, yes this is bad... but without complete isolation of the problem places or we take away absolutely all freedom of people and search through all their personal affairs

What freedom do we have if we are afraid of going to the mall?

I rather lose my privacy, which I consider unimportant and useless btw, than die when I'm doing my shopping.

 

[h00dlum]

i thought we were going to have a discussion about kill bill vol. 1

anyway, yes this is bad... but without complete isolation of the problem places or we take away absolutely all freedom of people and search through all their personal affairs

more like a conversation about Nancy Sinatra :farmer:

 

[Mr-Fusion]

The truth is we have to change mentality. Terrorism isn't the way to do anything. Declaring illegal war is one thing, taking over a school full of children and shooting them down is another.

Nah, our idiotic, IDIOTIC, governments think you can defeat terrorism with guns and tanks. Most of the time it has completely the opposite effect.

For example, invading Iraq has turned the country into a haven and hotbed for every jo-schmo JIHAD group around the planet. They're flocking to that country to wage their holy war on the invading infidels.

Though many people fully support the pouring of highly flammable liquid on out of control fires.

Humans really suck.

 

[Sprafa]

Humans really suck.

Not all. The Dalai Lama is a good man.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Great to see someone else with this opinion.

The government needs to keep an eye on individuals, Big Brother would stop a shitload of crimes such as rape and robbery if there was such a thing.

I'm also for much harder punishments and more action taken against asshats around the world.

The bad guys are tough, we need to be tougher.

 

[Raxxman]

Point with the Russians is they have always been hard nosed about the situation. According to BBC however they engaged in hostilities when the rebels opened fire upon a fleeing group of hostages.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Not all. The Dalai Lama is a good man.

Ok yes, Mr Lama has certainly got his shit together !! More people like Dalai and we'd all be better off.

 

[theGreenBunny]

What good would taking away privacy do? We'll have the terrorist on camera before he blows himself up?

Governments and their security organisations are likely to use terrorism as an excuse to take away quite fundamental things like privacy and freedom of speech. It really isn't that big a leap. If they can follow where you are and what you're doing, what stops them from deciding for you (and not only 'suspected terrorists') where you can go and what you can do? And what you can or can't say? Hello 1984!

If you move away from 'western' (for lack of a better word) ideals and values like the two I mentioned, I'd say the terrorists will have succeeded.

I'm not saying fighting terrorists like in Iraq is the way to do things. Frankly I don't know if there is a correct way to 'solve' the terrorism problem without moving into the more idealistic notions. Like how the mentality of the entire human race should change and move away from violence as a means to an end.

 

[Sprafa]

What good would taking away privacy do? We'll have the terrorist on camera before he blows himself up?

Governments and their security organisations are likely to use terrorism as an excuse to take away quite fundamental things like privacy and freedom of speech. It really isn't that big a leap. If they can follow where you are and what you're doing, what stops them from deciding for you (and not only 'suspected terrorists') where you can go and what you can do? And what you can or can't say? Hello 1984!

If you move away from 'western' (for lack of a better word) ideals and values like the two I mentioned, I'd say the terrorists will have succeeded.

I'm not saying fighting terrorists like in Iraq is the way to do things. Frankly I don't know if there is a correct way to 'solve' the terrorism problem without moving into the more idealistic notions. Like how the mentality of the entire human race should change and move away from violence as a means to an end.

That's not true. 1984 is totalitarian. What would stop Governemnts from telling you what to do? You. We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about privacy. It's different.

Privacy means nothing. If the Government can see everything, the second the terrorist would touch C4 everyone would know. The second he got into the country he would be arrested.

 

[CrazyHarij]

What good would taking away privacy do? We'll have the terrorist on camera before he blows himself up?

Governments and their security organisations are likely to use terrorism as an excuse to take away quite fundamental things like privacy and freedom of speech. It really isn't that big a leap. If they can follow where you are and what you're doing, what stops them from deciding for you (and not only 'suspected terrorists') where you can go and what you can do? And what you can or can't say? Hello 1984!

If you move away from 'western' (for lack of a better word) ideals and values like the two I mentioned, I'd say the terrorists will have succeeded.

I'm not saying fighting terrorists like in Iraq is the way to do things. Frankly I don't know if there is a correct way to 'solve' the terrorism problem without moving into the more idealistic notions. Like how the mentality of the entire human race should change and move away from violence as a means to an end.

This is not only about terrorism, but crime as a whole.

Look at Singapore for instance. They've got among the lowest crime rates in the world, just because they've got REAL laws there.

If the governments would stop being afraid on step on everyones toes and take action against people, have tougher laws, keep a good eye on individuals to stop them from doing the crime before they've even done the crime, we'd have a much safer modern world.

Besides, the only privacy we have now is that the killers kill in privacy, most of the daily life stuff you do is already monitored to a degree.

 

[thehunter1320]

I rather lose my privacy, which I consider unimportant and useless btw, than die when I'm doing my shopping.

but not all people feel that, infact you are the minority in that discussion... most people like to have their privacy... what we need to ****ing do is form a full-on assault that includes all the major powers in the world and absolutely ass ram them with guns and bombs, maybe throw in a SPARTAN II or 2 in there... and show them who's ****ing boss


now, this (^^^) is what an average american asshat who has played Halo would say

what i say is that we do need to take a mental approach to this, Iraq is basically a terrorist factory now all because of what? "precious oil"... well, was it worth it? was letting Osama go to go after some oil worth it? was turning Iraq into a bigger hell hole than it was worth it? this is why my stance for the '04 election is Kerry/Edwards

 

[CrazyHarij]

"Privacy" is just an illusion. Why do you need your "privacy" if you aren't doing anything bad?

 

[thehunter1320]

"Privacy" is just an illusion. Why do you need your "privacy" if you aren't doing anything bad?

whacking off isn't bad, yet frowned upon

 

[CrazyHarij]

whacking off isn't bad, yet frowned upon

I wrote this 10 minutes ago:
CrazyHarij says:
Yeah, seriously people call me facist and all kinds of shit when I say my opinion just because they want to wank in private

 

[Sprafa]

whacking off isn't bad, yet frowned upon

I find masturbation perfectly normal.

 

[Korgoth]

No, giving up privacy isn't the way to defeat terrorism. To defeat terrorism all you need to do is be open armed and nice to the base of people from which these terrorists recruit from. If you take away the anger these people have for you, the terrorists won't be able to recruit them to do their bidding.
If a palestinian man who had been thrown from his home was offered proper refugee, medical care, food aide and employment, he would be 99% less likely to join a radical hate mongering group and end his life. Who wants to die if they have something to live for?

 

[theGreenBunny]

That's not true. 1984 is totalitarian. What would stop Governemnts from telling you what to do? You. We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about privacy. It's different.

I disagree, they're quite closely related. I won't trust any government to stay away from totalitarian policies while they can monitor everything everyone does. Seeing everything grants the user quite a bit of power, governments aren't made out of ideal people who would never abuse such power.

Privacy means nothing. If the Government can see everything, the second the terrorist would touch C4 everyone would know. The second he got into the country he would be arrested.

Allright, point taken, it would stop terrorism. I still believe it would lead to a totalitarian society, which isn't worth it. Same goes for the crime issue.

Besides, the only privacy we have now is that the killers kill in privacy, most of the daily life stuff you do is already monitored to a degree.

Because I've already lost it to an extent means I should stop wanting it altogether?

 

[Sprafa]

No, giving up privacy isn't the way to defeat terrorism. To defeat terrorism all you need to do is be open armed and nice to the base of people from which these terrorists recruit from. If you take away the anger these people have for you, the terrorists won't be able to recruit them to do their bidding.
If a palestinian man who had been thrown from his home was offered proper refugee, medical care, food aide and employment, he would be 99% less likely to join a radical hate mongering group and end his life. Who wants to die if they have something to live for?

I do.
And so will many others, as they believe that death will be tremendously better than life. You can never take all of the anger from all of the people.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Taking away privacy is only an answer to the effect, not the problem. Innvervision is right...

 

[Sprafa]

I disagree, they're quite closely related. I won't trust any government to stay away from totalitarian policies while they can monitor everything everyone does. Seeing everything grants the user quite a bit of power, governments aren't made out of ideal people who would never abuse such power.

That's true. Corruption could potentially increase, the more power man has the more he wants. But if there were an evolution of mentality along, then the risk would be reduced greatly. After all, everyone watches everyone, therefore no one really manages to get away.

Allright, point taken, it would stop terrorism. I still believe it would lead to a totalitarian society, which isn't worth it. Same goes for the crime issue.

Isn't worth it? In Israel kids are being slaugthered, doesn't matter their color or creed or their personal beliefs (there are some victims of the attacks that could support the Palestinian cause, but they were killed). Would you rather have a little camera on your shoulder and live thru the day or die ?

Because I've already lost it to an extent means I should stop wanting it altogether?

No. But the truth is you already lost a good bunch of it. It wouldn't be much of a difference.

 

[theGreenBunny]

"Privacy" is just an illusion. Why do you need your "privacy" if you aren't doing anything bad?

Why do I need to give up my privacy when I'm not doing anything bad?

I feel a comparison with outlawing guns coming up, but privacy isn't something like a gun that you can just stop using because it harms people more than it helps. Privacy is a fundamental right, a pillar of our society if you will.

edit: don't want to double post

That's true. Corruption could potentially increase, the more power man has the more he wants. But if there were an evolution of mentality along, then the risk would be reduced greatly. After all, everyone watches everyone, therefore no one really manages to get away.

Human mentality evolving to such a level is just as far away as everyone accepting that violence isn't the way to do it. I prefer the second option.

Isn't worth it? In Israel kids are being slaugthered, doesn't matter their color or creed or their personal beliefs (there are some victims of the attacks that could support the Palestinian cause, but they were killed). Would you rather have a little camera on your shoulder and live thru the day or die ?

If I have to choose between those two options, I would rather die than live in a totalitarian society (as I explained earlier I feel no privacy will lead to a totalitarian society, so I won't differentiate between the two here.)


I agree with innervision that we should solve the problem at its source instead of fighting the consequences, but I don't believe telling terrorists "hey look, we're actually your friends!!" will help. See my earlier post where I mentioned that I don't know if there is a way of solving it without a large change in everyone's mentality, ours and the terrorists'.

 

[Sprafa]

Why do I need to give up my privacy when I'm not doing anything bad?

Because there are some who do. And the sacrifice is worth it IMO.

I feel a comparison with outlawing guns coming up, but privacy isn't something like a gun that you can just stop using because it harms people more than it helps. Privacy is a fundamental right, a pillar of our society if you will.

hmm...Civilian guns really never helped anyone.

 

[Adidajs]

i think terrorism can be assuaged with education. for instance, palestinians completely lie and distort history in their schools. they condemn israelis, making up ridiculous tales like they came from monkeys and other nonsense. generations grow up in a culture of hated toward their neighbors. the US needs to take over the education system in iraq and teach children math, science, history, government, and other. only teaching them the koran isn't going to help them become productive citizens. it just means they'll blindly follow their clerics(aka rebel leaders aka Muqtada Al-Sadr). Children in Saudia Arabia aren't given a liberal(liberal meaing broad in this context) education; they're stymied.

 

[Korgoth]

Taking away privacy is only an answer to the effect, not the problem. Innvervision is right...

Thanks farrowl, I was hoping I worded that right to get the point across...
I don't, DON'T mean by my statement that we should be nice to terrorists, exactly the opposite. But if we give these "potential" terrorists a little respect, and lively hood, while repecting their way of life and not pushing something on them, I think we would find that there would be no terrorists to fight, as their recruiting base would completely dry up. Sad thing is, it only takes a handfull of these people to create extreme disaster, as seen on 9/11...
How do you stop that? One way, is intellegence, the best, and I mean BEST, intellegence we can possibly get. How do we achieve that level of perfection in the intellegence field? Well first we give incentive for the release of this information. If a poor farmer in afghanistan just happens to have a nephew who is an al qaeda operative and we offer money/food/housing/promises of a good life for information on this, he is more than likely to spread the word to us. Second, we need to destroy nation boundries when it comes to intel sharing. And also, we need to destroy the red tape that ties up our intel officers.
Our privacey must stay in tact, if not we are not free, and if we aren't free... how can we fight to spread freedom? I do nothing wrong, but I still want my privacy if there is such a thing. Opening the door to total government information awareness is a pandoras box that can best be described in the book 1984.

 

[theGreenBunny]

hmm...Civilian guns really never helped anyone.

I mentioned that to avoid this exact thing. I'm all for banning guns (in fact they are banned around here), but guns and privacy aren't comparable, is the point I tried to make.


edit:, fast moving thread

Our privacey must stay in tact, if not we are not free, and if we aren't free... how can we fight to spread freedom? I do nothing wrong, but I still want my privacy if there is such a thing. Opening the door to total government information awareness is a pandoras box that can best be described in the book 1984.

I agree.

I'm not sure about the whole intelligence thing, but elevating the standard of living in those regions could help.

 

[Sprafa]

I will from now on call my "privacy loss" of "total control of information".

I don't, DON'T mean by my statement that we should be nice to terrorists, exactly the opposite. But if we give these "potential" terrorists a little respect, and lively hood, while repecting their way of life and not pushing something on them, I think we would find that there would be no terrorists to fight, as their recruiting base would completely dry up. Sad thing is, it only takes a handfull of these people to create extreme disaster, as seen on 9/11...

They will always have a reason to fight. And I'm not talking about Muslims (which btw will always be able to claim "INFIDELS!!", I'm talking about everyone. Everyone will always hae a different view on things. And sometimes, we'll fight for it.

How do you stop that? One way, is intellegence, the best, and I mean BEST, intellegence we can possibly get. How do we achieve that level of perfection in the intellegence field? Well first we give incentive for the release of this information. If a poor farmer in afghanistan just happens to have a nephew who is an al qaeda operative and we offer money/food/housing/promises of a good life for information on this, he is more than likely to spread the word to us. Second, we need to destroy nation boundries when it comes to intel sharing. And also, we need to destroy the red tape that ties up our intel officers.

Perfect intellligence is only attained with total control of information. Countries will never give out their secrets until we have a globalized government.

Do you really think the farmer would sell himself out? He probably believes in what his nephew is doing, he remembers the bombings that killed his son, etc etc. The point is terrorism is accepted by large factions that won't sell themselves out.

Our privacy must stay in tact, if not we are not free, and if we aren't free... how can we fight to spread freedom? I do nothing wrong, but I still want my privacy if there is such a thing. Opening the door to total government information awareness is a pandoras box that can best be described in the book 1984.

Privacy isn't freedom. The top you can do is call it a complement of freedom. Western freedom.

1984 is when total control of information goes wrong. The truth is that a State with total control of information won't have to "standardize" it's citizens, or supress freedom of speech and action. In 1984 they choose to.

 

[Korgoth]

How would a globalised government do anything but make the continental boundaries thicker? First, who do you elect to oversee the global government? (GG as i'll refer to it here) An America, an African, a white man? and Arab, whoever you choose will just alienate and piss everyone else off. And if you do a board of members composed of a delegate from every nationality and every race, who holds the most "pull" in the decision making process? They will NEVER agree %100 on every issue, thus more fighting will erupt and it will collapse. I just don't think it would ever work. The U.N. is the closest you could ever get to a global community government body, and as you see, its not that effective. And usually ends up causing a lot of bickering and in fighting.

 

[Sprafa]

How would a globalised government do anything but make the continental boundaries thicker? First, who do you elect to oversee the global government? (GG as i'll refer to it here) An America, an African, a white man? and Arab, whoever you choose will just alienate and piss everyone else off. And if you do a board of members composed of a delegate from every nationality and every race, who holds the most "pull" in the decision making process? They will NEVER agree %100 on every issue, thus more fighting will erupt and it will collapse. I just don't think it would ever work. The U.N. is the closest you could ever get to a global community government body, and as you see, its not that effective. And usually ends up causing a lot of bickering and in fighting.

I know that for now Globalized Government isn't a good idea(for now), that was my point.

You talked about global intelligence cooperation, and that isn't possible without a GG or something quite near to it. There will always be uncooperating nations that will screw the system.

 

[RMachucaA]

cant we all just get along?

although, for terrorists, i say impale them... let them rot inside out.

 

[Xenome]

I was shocked by the images I saw on the news..

These are innocent kids, and these terrorists are making them pay for the mess that grown people can't solve themselves, and that's disgusting..

The world kinda needs another way to do things/think about things/eachother, because the way we have worked for the last centuries simply does NOT work.

They are problems everywhere, also in western countries.

Terrorists, Criminals, rapist, etc, all in a society wich allows people to develope these habits or feelings..

Our society is simply ****ed atm

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

The Russians are ****ed. And we shall all follow.

4th generation warfare my ass.... This isn't war.

Terrorism is growing beyond any measure of control. The Chechen rebels, the Iraqui mujhaedin, the Basq separatists, the Palestinian "freedom fighters".... Al-Quaeda, ETA, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, IRA...

The truth is that not much people die. The effect is psychological. Terrorism isn't about killing people. It's about making them so afraid of living and give in so much of their "normal" lives, that they negotiate and settle and agreement.

and it's not with this kind of attitude we'll solve it


The truth is we have to change mentality. Terrorism isn't the way to do anything. Declaring illegal war is one thing, taking over a school full of children and shooting them down is another.

We need the Big Brother to watch for us.

Its not war? What do you mean? If terrorists aim at affecting the enemy psychologically in order for the them to achieve their goals.. that is warfare. That defines warfare.

Well, youre correct in the fact that terrorism is no way to be heard but, in the spectrum of warfare, anything is game. In warfare, the trick is trying to achieve a specific aim by using an enemy's weakness to your advantage.. whether its economic, military, psychological, etc, etc. Warfare is alot more than just tanks and bombs.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

Nah, our idiotic, IDIOTIC, governments think you can defeat terrorism with guns and tanks. Most of the time it has completely the opposite effect.

For example, invading Iraq has turned the country into a haven and hotbed for every jo-schmo JIHAD group around the planet. They're flocking to that country to wage their holy war on the invading infidels.

Though many people fully support the pouring of highly flammable liquid on out of control fires.

Humans really suck.

Well if not with tanks and bombs then with what? I strongly disagree.. they need to be destroyed.

Iraq will be fine as long as we dont pull out now. We need to finish the job.. and i promise you, as long as were in Iraq, over time, the thugs like Al Sadr and Al Zarqawi will be caught or killed. Lemme tell ya, the more we drive those sadistic murdering bastards out of thier rat holes and onto the battlefield, terrorism will stay on the decline. It has no choice but to.. if we just sit back an meet their demands that only encourages them more.
Why would you even want them to get their way? You cant rationalize with them, they need to be taken out.. simple as that.

 

[Sprafa]

Well if not with tanks and bombs then with what? I strongly disagree.. they need to be destroyed.

Iraq will be fine as long as we dont pull out now. We need to finish the job.. and i promise you, as long as were in Iraq, over time, the thugs like Al Sadr and Al Zarqawi will be caught or killed. Lemme tell ya, the more we drive those sadistic murdering bastards out of thier rat holes and onto the battlefield, terrorism will stay on the decline. It has no choice but to.. if we just sit back an meet their demands that only encourages them more.
Why would you even want them to get their way? You cant rationalize with them, they need to be taken out.. simple as that.

don't even try making this a Bush debate.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

don't even try making this a Bush debate.

Why because you'll lose?

Anyway..

 

[Sprafa]

Why because you'll lose?

Anyway..

ha ha

Really, I've had enough. And drop that attitude.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

i didnt intend to make this a debate about Bush.. were talkin about Terrorism here.

 

[Sprafa]

i didnt intend to make this a debate about Bush.. were talkin about Terrorism here.

read the thread. It isn't about terrorism.

 

[blahblahblah]

Absolute knowledge is unattainable. Big Brother would never solve any problems. It would only make things worse.