It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jsobecky
I would hope that our gov't is doing everything in it's power to shut down terrorist websites. You may want to protect them, but I do not.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by jsobecky
Some here advocate giving terrorists every tool they need to destroy us,
Can I ask you to elaborate on that? An example of a statement that supports this position of yours would be very helpful.
Thanks.
from subz
Im in favour of civil liberties over all other factors. If that results in my own death, fine. I would rather die a free man than live as a prisoner of any government.
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
laissez-fairerepublic.com...
Originally posted by jsobecky
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False.
Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I've heard their song before, and witnessed how they react when the rubber meets the road. Two entirely different sacks, believe me.
Well, grimreaper is trying to throw out a red herring. And so is ceci2006. Soon there will be a racist element inserted here, judging from past threads.
What restrictions are being placed on people? Please be specific.
And who do I trust? Myself. I don't need peer approval to function, as some do.
Originally posted by niteboy82
I'd first like to see where anyone advocated giving terrorists every tool they need to destroy us. Now, I would actually like to see that said, because you have accused others already of twisting your own words, so I would think you have the knowledge not to do it in turn.
from subz
Freedom of speech is, sorry for the pun, only being given lip-service in the United States. Does anyone believe that the US government/people have any qualms about shutting US run terrorist websites down? How about sites with bomb making instructions?
I am really curious to see where this "we are willing to give the terrorists anything they need" line is going to come from.
I also find it funny that some people on here are so against the thought of terrorism being used as an excuse to take away liberties, while at the same time pulling terrorism out of their small bag of tricks to play it on others as a defense of calling for exactly that.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.
I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The proper role of gov't is
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
laissez-fairerepublic.com...
Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.
I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer. The proper role of gov't is
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
laissez-fairerepublic.com...
Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.
well if they are an american citizen, your willing to take away their rights because of their intent to harm us? That is very very dangerous.
I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.
I would do anything to protect any children, mine or some one elses. BUT that does not mean that this persons civil liberties should be thrown out the window until we can prove he is what they say. This is what they mean by "innocent til proven guilty". He is not a terrorist til a fair trial concludes that he is.
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer. The proper role of gov't is
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
laissez-fairerepublic.com...
Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.
Originally posted by jsobecky
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not advocate taking away rights, whether American citizen or not.
Do I need to repeat myself in yet another post?
Originally posted by jsobecky
I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
by your logic jsobecky we should also ban any public knowledge about the science of bomb making, we should ban the chemical reactions that have to deal with bombs because that could lead to bomb making, we should ban legal guns because a possible terrorist with a clean record could get one, we should ban people from purchasing knives because these could be used to hijack planes or kill people.
As a gun advocate, remember the saying "guns dont kill people, people do". Just because the information or tools are there, doesnt mean that it shouldnt be avalibe. Its a persons choice to commit that act, and if we have proof that they have chosen to, then its our job to prosecute them.
Originally posted by jsobecky
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not advocate taking away rights, whether American citizen or not.
Do I need to repeat myself in yet another post?
Who here is advocating throwing civil liberties out the window???
And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm.
I apologize for my fingers being slower than my brain, for the second time in this thread.
Originally posted by niteboy82
So ok, you are not taking away anyone's civil liberties, but if they're a citizen of this country and you find them to be harmful to your children, then to hell with their civil liberties.
Originally posted by subz
Ok you dont advocate taking away rights.
Where is the "terrorists" right to freedom of expression if their website is shut down? Do they still have that right?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Only if one uses your pretzel logic, grimreaper.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I disagree. I don't believe we have any responsibility to furnish them with the means to plan our destruction. Once that is proven to be their goal, I have no qualms with thwarting them at every turn.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I am up against an attitude of "do nothing until something happens." Reactive vs pro-active.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I also sense an attitude of "They mean us no harm, what is a terrorist anyway?"
Originally posted by jsobecky
I explained to SO that without definitions and guidelines, this is nothing more than academic banter. So take it from there.