"freedom freedom freedom freedom freddom freedom"

[Gri77oN]

Originally Posted by grass roots

danger number one for who though? you?

we're a threat only to terrorist organizations

to /your governement's definition/
and
that's where lies the danger.

tomorrow your gov could very well declare that skaters all over the world are terrorist, thus from one moment to the other /remove/ the freedom skaters had until then.

(i use skaters because i could have said something much much much worse, like say... islamist)

---

and grass roots, what if the gov declares that all whom do whatever it is you do in your free time are terrorists?

go against terrorist , by all means{

NO F***ING WAY by all means: the power the us army has DEMENDS that it be
used as /last resort/, hell any mean of violence should only be used as last
resort; US gov sees using its army as a /preemtive/ mean, that is not, wise, to
say the least.


---

that is perfect example of the "axis of evil" propaganda:

"the us declares him and him and him gulty of terrorism, now submit or we will bombard your country to the ground."

but who's to say who is terrorist or not? surely not the the us Gov


please let me quote you this document:

The United Nations and International Security:
Dilemmas and Agendas for American Engagement

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?p...e/laurenti.asp


quote:


A number of American political decision-makers, however, have
expressed shock at the notion that the U.N. Charter should bar states (or at least
the United States) from threatening or using force against others, except in
self-defense, unless authorized by the Security Council. Some have labeled this
a power grab by Kofi Annan. Senators speaking at a hearing in connection with a
visit to the United Nations assailed this doctrine; one member
declared flatly that "no one in Washington believes that," and a
colleague asserted America’s right to use military force "to advance its national
interests." This is a much broader exception than the Charter-recognized right of
"self-defense [against] armed attack"—which itself has given imaginative lawyers
considerable room for expansive interpretations.




read the article, people, please.
at least admit to the fact that there is much more to this speech of investiture
then meet the eyes.

i'l quote again the revelent part:
"asserted America’s right to use military force "to advance its national
interests."

get it people?

"right to use force ... national interest"

i don't hear the word freedom there .


bush has answered: there's the counter declaration to this document:
here it is again, for those whom only listen every 30 seconds, when the word freedom was pronounced:

"we will use force if necessary"

[Gri77oN]

The International Court of Justice has ordered:
[..]
made an Order indicating provisional measures. One of these measures required
the United States immediately to cease and refrain from any action restricting
access to defendet's ports, and in particular the laying of mines.
The Court also indicated that the right to sovereignty and to political independence possessed by defendent, like any other State, should be fully respected and should not be jeopardized by activities contrary to the principle prohibiting the threat or use
of force and to the principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic
jurisdiction of a State.

reference:
ICJ Order 10 May 1984 (Reports 1984, p. 169)

usa has never followed that order, because ten years later, the defendent had to let go of the case: it was bankruspied by the usa..

and today still usa doesn't follow that order.

(did you know that US of A /has been convicted/ of terrorism by the ICJ ?)

[Gri77oN]

Just when it seemed the "anti-terror" measures had gone too far against civil
liberties, United States President George W. Bush signed a directive for military
tribunals that bypass a pillar of democracy - the process of judicial review. As
things stand, 1,000 people linger in our jails without charge or trial and 5,000
more are on the list for "questioning". Charges of terrorism will be decided upon
by the president himself and the suspect will be tried before a tribunal appointed
by - you guessed it - the president himself. If the person is convicted (and the "if"
here is rhetorical), he or she could face execution with no possibility for an
appeal. If that isn't bad enough, the public, and perhaps the accused himself,
may not be privy to the evidence against him or her.


The crowning outrage of this presidential order is that the accusation of terrorism
comes with no legal definition. In plain English, a man or a woman can be
accused of a crime which has no legal definition, convicted on evidence he or
she may or may not know and executed in total secrecy in the United States of
America and it is perfectly legal.


Defining terrorism would lend itself to analysis and scrutiny. Rather than deal with
that, the president gave himself the very awesome power subjectively to decide
who will stand accused, which could result in execution.


According to Webster's dictionary, terrorism is the "systematic use of violence,
terror and intimidation to achieve an end". Terror is defined as "violence promoted
by a group to achieve or maintain supremacy". Using these English-language
definitions, we would need to apprehend the Israeli government along with our
"friendly" Arab governments. I think we could even find a few hundred thousand
Iraqi civilians who could accuse and prove that charge against us.

ref: Attack on democracy By Susan J. Abulhawa


---

etc etc...


again, i don't mind force being used (actually, i do, but that is not the present
problem) i mind that "he whom decides" has no watcher.. (since the american
public is meant to be but doesn't ; since the congress is meant to read, but
doesn't)


---


don't go against these arguments, i don't care to debat over their value.

i ask again:

whom decides who is terrorist ?
how can we (we is Humanity) challenge that decision ?

i don't mind such power being wielded, i just wanna make sure we have
something to stop it, and it doesn't seem so.

[Gri77oN]

WE WILL USE FORCE IF NECESSARY

[grass roots]

you can't reason with monkeys that have ak 47's and explosives....

and grass roots, what if the gov declares that all whom do whatever it is you do in your free time are terrorists?

well...........

............. they're not

please, "what ifs" are pointless...

whom decides who is terrorist ?

I think websters did a good job...

but seriously, I don't think i understand your questions purpose. are you affraid that the US is going mistake innocent people for terrorists? what has made you think something like that could happen?

so far we've only gone after and destroyed the al qaeda terrorist organization. who, if you don't remember, attacked us first and killed thousands of innocent lives. i think they fit the definition pretty well...

by all means go after the terrorists, not a whole country though

i'm assuming you're referring to Afghanistan...

how are we supposed to go after "just the terrorists" when the afghan government was protecting them? we didnt take over afghanistan at all, we went it and destroyed the terrorist organization and left everyone else alone...

people love to hate the guy on top...

[Gri77oN]

i am affraid of such power (the power to point the finger and declare you are [whatever] ; submit or i'll bombard you) being uncontroled.


THE POWER IS OUT OF CONTROL


that /has/ to be scarry .

[grass roots]

^
maybe you should write to your government and tell them to invest in nuclear arms and then you too can be just as powerful as us...

[thccrystals]

Grizzon, what's up man? Why the anti-propaganda propaganda? US citizens of gc most likely didn't vote for bush, you're preaching to the quire. And Bush would never go and say all one type of people are terrorists and then start a war against, like you suggested, skaters or islamists. He could very well start a war against another country though, like iran or whichever. If a wacky gov't gets nukes on their hands, crazy shit could go down, but it's a double edged sword cause if we don't look preemptive we could get attacked for other policies(like was the case for 9/11) and when we do look preemptive we piss more people off, some being terrorists. I dunno, I have no solutions, and I don't hear you coming up with any either.

[Gri77oN]

Originally Posted by grass roots

^
maybe you should write to your government and tell them to invest in nuclear arms and then you too can be just as powerful as us...

i'm assuming that was sarcastic.

if not, go shoot yourself .



----------------------------

Originally Posted by thccrystals

Gri77on, Why the anti-propaganda propaganda? US citizens of gc most likely didn't vote for bush, you're preaching to the quire.

i realise that.
bush was elected, so i won't stop speaking out what i think is dangerous for the whole world, Earth, and Humanity.
i ust hope that our views are relayed onto those whom voted bush.


----------------

And Bush would never go

yeah sure.

5 years ago no one ever thought that a country would bombard anotehr country
AGAINST the aprooval of the United NAtions Security Council, but it did happend.


5 years ago non american thought he could be arreste without knowing what charges are held against him, yet today it is possilbe.


WAKE UP .

[thccrystals]

5 years ago people didn't expect dirty terrorist fuckers, mostly from saudi arabia, to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. 'Wake up', lol you should go to sleep.

[mooglekexin]

i am still yet to be convinced there were terrorists, gimmie some undenyable truth and i will accept that view

[thccrystals]

Whaaaaat?

[mooglekexin]

something about the whole government inquiry just doesnt add up, too many inconsistencies, i am yet to be shown good enough evidence of it NOT being a total government cover up, i remember some good threads here on the subject

[thccrystals]

Wow what about all the cell phone calls from the plane. I even heard some, they were chilling. It's not a cover up.

[mooglekexin]

http://forum.grasscity.com/showthrea...&highlight=dna is a good place to start, do a search on 9/11 fpr more