EnviroLink Forum

Actually, fodder.

Howard Zinn cuts through this curricular fog: "War is terrorism ... Terrorism is the willingness to kill large numbers of people for some presumably good cause. That's what terrorists are about." Zinn demands that we reexamine the premise that war is necessary, a proposition not taken seriously in any high school history textbook I've ever seen. Instead, wars get sold to Americans -- especially to the young people who fight those wars -- as efforts to spread liberty and democracy.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/23-6[/quote]



This is circuitously scrambled. Terrorists don't care about killing people? Of course they do and they do because it is very intimidating. Killing people, as you say, is one way of intimidating them (populations). Killing people is VERY intimidating. If terrorists want to intimidate people they will threaten them with killing or kill them.



The minority are often considered the "terrorists", .... the opposing faction in Syria were the minority, and thus "terrorists" until they became a force to be reckoned with. And now there is civil war in Syria and the government on the brink of collapse. But I don't want to get into definitions of what a terrorist is ..... there are fringe groups with fringe ideals, and these are what we might call terrorists. Fine. But a government force can certainly terrorize. Because government forces who have collected resources from their citizens in the form of taxes to pay for military and who have coerced these citizens through propaganda and coercion to join in on the terorization, are the ones with bigger guns and more equipment ..... means a government cannot terrorize and therefore be called terrorists?

Governments of many, many nations have terrorized their people and the people of other nations. I think it is reasonable to call them terrorists. Even moreso when they have compiled resources in the form of weaponary and propoganized and coerced citizens to do their bidding.

[/quote]

If terrorists, as you say .... "do not primarily attack those forces because those forces are able to inflict losses on the terrorists. Terrorists are the minority and cannot take the extended losses without major damage to their cause" ..... is true, (and it is!) then why wage war upon the citizens of the countries they come from? If these terrorists cannot take the extended losses because they cannot possibly match the damage done by governments who are armed by enormous weaponary ......

Governments also want to get their way. Individuals can be insane and so can entire societies and definitely governments. They make it seem that the populations are frothing at the bit to get to war. But that is simply not true. Nobody really wants to enter war unless they are, in fact, insane. So I agree with you that no sane person wants war. How then, do governments manage to get young, thriving men (mostly) who are just about to enter their adult lives, full of promise ..... education, career, road trips, swimming in lakes, romance, sex, buying a new car ... or an old one .... to give that up and enter the hell that is war? How do they do it?

It's unfortunately quite simple. They throw their war rhetoric around quite liberally. They propagandize and they seduce individuals with a "good" and "noble" cause. If populations wanted war, why have a draft? Coercion is necessary to get these young men to give up their lives. And nowadays as historically, they aim their sights on the mostly disenfranchised with promises of a good wage and even education. But it is not only the disenfranchised who are won over by "trades" of wages and education; it is also those who have bought the propaganda.

"Fighting for freedom" is an expression not heard anywhere more than in the US.

Ahhhh, I am so glad those people have sacrificed their own lives as well as the lives of their children, so that I can now sit here and freely express my opinion! I can even buy "freedom fries" if I want. Nobody should ever sacrifice their lives or their children's lives for terrorist causes, including that of governemnts, even when that government is justly and nobely fighting the "axis of evil".

I don't questionm their service. I question the government that is in charge of putting them in harms way. A government that thinks it has a right to nation build in order to protect oil supplies. A government that spends three times the amount of money in defense than does number two, China. A government that has 1,000 military installations outside of the continental United States. I question a government that thinks it has a right to kill innocent people of other nations and call it "collateral damage". A government that lies to its people in order to whip up patriotism and go to war against a country that really poses no threat to us. A government that is slowly eroding the freedoms and rights we used to have. Did you know that the government now has the right to detain a US citizen without charging them with a crime? I question a gov't that gropes old women and children before allowing them on a plane. Do you think the government should have the right to kill a US citizen without due process of law?

Maybe you should question your government more rather than blindly waving a flag and believing they have your best interest at heart.

Siber D ... your voice is reasonable and rational.

Wayne, I don't care how you cut it, being detained without your permission for any type of evaluation for more than 24hrs, is an arrest.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Not according to the law and not when trying to determine the extent of someone's threat to themselves or others. If you are mentally unstable you cannot give legal consent and even if you did agree, legal consent is not binding if you decide to withdrawl it. There are people who are a threat to themselves and others and society demands a means to protect the innocents from them.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Witch hunt. Folks posts this crap every day and are ignored. You're familiar enough with the internet to know that.



We all know how perfect and infallible that is, don't we?

_________________
TANG SOO!

I do not think they are ignored IF the posts are reported. Those who read them may ignore them and do not report them, but since 9/11 I believe more and more emphasis is placed on prevention.



Yes, and the people ignoring the post is far different from the authorities ignoring the post if it has been reported.



No less so than assumptions and probably more so. I have yet to hear someone speak of a murderer without showing some level of surprise at the action.

Besides calling something a legally defined term that does not match the description is false. In that case the legal definition would be perfect and infallible because it is a definition.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Right, but that doesn't answer my question. What's being done to prevent instances like what spurred this discussion?

[/quote]

Yep, it does alot of good when something is stated, reported, and we end up freeing the guy huh?



It would appear as if the law made the incorrect assumption in this case.



Definition? You're way off target now. Tell me about how interpretation and in turn, enforcement, led to a waste of time and a violation of one's first amendment rights.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I have no idea what could be done to prevent such an instance, do you? Someone off center enough to make the statements he made may be off center enough to act on them. If there is no check out of a report, which would be the only way to prevent such an instance, we are left with an instance where someone actually does something like they did in Colorado or elsewhere.



Yep, it does alot of good when something is stated, reported, and we end up freeing the guy huh? [/quote]

More good than something is stated, reported, and not investigated when it should be. Unless you have a better idea on how to prevent false alrms and catch all of the real alarms that would be great.



No, there was a difference of opinion with the judges involved, but the law made no assumptions I can see.



The definition was of what is and is not an arrest. His first amendment rights were notviolated which is one of the pet peeves I have with such cases. The first amendment prevents Congress from making laws to silence people. There was no such laws involved. There were some statements allowed that seemed to have concerned people who knew him enough to report to the authorities if his lawyer is correct about the location of the posts.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, but apparently we’ve learned what not to do to prevent nothing.



May be?



Maybe, huh? Or maybe nothing, as is most often the case with folks saying stuff on the internet.



I do have a better idea—establishing that what was done here significantly lowers the rate of occurrence. If it doesn’t, we don’t do it, despite oh so how good it feels.



When one judge trumps another, just as well. It’s waste no matter what you call it.



Oh, right, they didn’t actually tape his mouth shut or remove his tongue.



A lot of good that does when folks are punished after the fact anyway, eh?



Here’s my beef—he was freed. That means the evidence was BS and someone made a mistake. Who's going to answer for it?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Huh?



Yes, unless you have some way to prevent people from doing something crazy or sounding like they will do something crazy, telling the difference beforehand will always be a maybe.



So how do you propose they determine whether this is an "often" case or an "unusual" case without an evaluation?



How do you determine whether it significantly lowers the rate or not? How do you determine whether he was on the path to doing something and this may have derailed that track or not? How do you accurately predict who is unstable and who is not? Then how do you predict who is sufficiently unstable and who is not at any given time?



So you want perfection? That seems more than a little wrong in application given we have had litigation overturned on appeal at every level of the judicial system, including evidence to overturn convictions judges and juries have supported.



No, they didn't even charge him with a crime, they just held him for observation.



Determining whether someone it a threat to themselves or others is punishment how? Have you ever dealt with someone who was having mental issues?



No it didn't and to make the statement indicates a high level of ignorance of the system.




For what? Not being omniscient?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Let me get the opinion on a current situtation. A family bought a house in a nice neighborhood from another family which had moved out of state. After moving in they discovered their only neighbor had issues. The husband had early onset dementia and was being treated. The wife suffered from paranoia and some delusions surrounding that. The husband had been hospitalized during the buying process because he had wandered into another neighborhood and started removing his clothing in the street to cool off. The woman watched the neighborhood and often pulled her car into the driveway and opened all of the doors to let the poison out that was being put into the car to kill her. The new neighbors had several incidents where they were sure someone had been in the house when they were gone, which they quickly corrected by changing the locks. Their neighbor was suspected but with nothing missing there was no evidence to do anything. The neighbor has accused the family on the other side of her of killing her dog, which would be hard to do as she never had a dog at this house. She has also accused several of the neighbors of beign terrorist supporters. She has piled rocks against the crawl space access of her neighbors to prevent the terrorists spying on her from getting out. There have been some concerns that she might try to do away with those terrorists at some point by locking them in and setting fire to a neighbor's house. It is uncertain whether she would do something of that nature, but clearly it is a concern for the neighbors. The point at which they contact the authorities is the big question in everyone's mind. Too often and it is akin to crying "wolf" but not often enough and someone may be injured or killed. The authorities have set up for the Dept. of Social Services to chceck on them both on a regular basis, but the interim periods are still a question. What do they do about the concerns? What does the police department do when they are called? A lot of questions and very few answers because the people involved may not act logically at any given time and can do somehting to cause injury to themselves or others.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

There was never anything to worry about in the first place.



No, those reacting to the maybe, locking folks up involuntarily, had damn well better have a way, not me.



I don’t. I’m inquiring to those in support of a system with faults to tell me what they’re doing to correct its faults. If you’re not concerned or are simply complacent with how it is, to each his/her own I guess.



You observe the rate over time as you change factors that potentially affect the rate.



Exactly. You have no idea what he was going to do nor what he will do from now on…and now he’s free. You do know now much even a mere 3 day observation costs, right? You willing to fork out that much for mights and maybes?



Facebook posts, apparently.



No, I seek correction. You can chase perfection, but you’ll never catch it. I don’t expect folks to sit on their asses and become complacent knowing they never will, however.



$$$ for nothing and chicks for free. We're batting .500 at least.


When it is unnecessary, it becomes false imprisonment.



I have, it involving involuntarily hospitalization on more than one occasion.



No it didn't…[/quote]

It didn’t what? What’s “it”?



So, you’re okay with the additional costs incurred to do what we did? Comfortable now, at least?



For wasting time and money on a non-threat.

_________________
TANG SOO!

[quote="Wayne Stollings"]Let me get the opinion on a current situtation. [quote]

Do either have history of harming themselves or others?

_________________
TANG SOO!

That is not correct. One judge seems to believe that and others did not.



If you disagree with how it works you can provide a better alternative or stop complaining.



I am not as concerned as you are since I know I have nearly none of the information used to make the determination.



You realize the changes you may be looking at are the Oklahoma City or Colorado type?



No, I would rather fork out a few funerals and ER hospital bills. They are cheaper in the long term .... really they are.



That is one aspect ... public statements. Were there others involved? You have decided the peopel involved were foolish based on a very little information.



Sure sounds like it. What should these people have done when notified of the concerns? Ignored them until there was a history of violence?




How was it unnecessary? How do you know beforehend whether it is or is not necessary? Unless you can give some clear criteria that works for all cases you are blowing smoke.



So how exactly was the first case determined to be necessary? Does that work for all cases?



It didn’t what? What’s “it”?[/quote]

Sorry, it should have been "no, it wasn't and no they didn't" The one judge did not bleieve there was sufficient evidence but that still does not mean it was BS.



Compared to the gamble for not doing anything? Yes. The other option is to remove all acess to ranged weapons for all of us.



If they were not omniscient how do they know it was a non-threat?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not at this time, but there is that first case for everyone.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein