English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

security?

The reason why I said imagined is because if you LOOK at the facts the federal government is not trying to protect us from "terrorists" or they would make dam sure the border was closed. But what they DO seem to be doing is putting us in a constant police state where US citizens are under constant surveillance which is getting stronger all the time.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=82920

2007-08-18 07:19:13 · 22 answers · asked by Fedup Veteran 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Ok...then where is Bin Laden and why did we attack Iraq when they had no connection with Bin Laden? Why was Bin Laden trained VIA the CIA and on the USA's paycheck?

2007-08-18 07:39:36 · update #1

22 answers

It doesn't really amaze me, but it does surprise me. Of course the very word terrorism now brings to mind little Arabic men with bombs strapped round their waist, or the towers coming down, but this is exactly what was designed to happen via the media.
How many times did we see the images of the buildings coming down and the planes hitting them..in some instances over and over. It is the same as picture/word association we play with young children to educate their mind. How many times do you need to show a picture of a cat and repeat the word before their young mind retains the information? Same principal and concept with the adult mind, just the repitition does not need to be repeated as much.
So, when the government, or even anyone, says the word TERRORIST, we all immediately think of what happened previously and think, well no, we don't want that again so you the government can do what you want to protect us.
If people do not think they are in a police state, then they are even dumber than I thought. Why do we have to complete forms over and over? Why do we have bank transactions monitored if large enough to raise eyebrows? Why more and more are people's rights being removed? Why is new legislation passed to allow the scales to tip even more for government's to watch what we do? Think of a set of scales, and see if you can balance between surveillance, and ordinary life...REALLY think about this with the information banks and governemnts hold on you?
We are under the microscope, and are being herded toward our sheep pen, where we will ask the govt to give us electronic ID cards, or even chips, holding our information so that it's easier for us to function on a daily basis. The real reason behind this move is govt control, and most people do not even notice it, they simply place their nose up the *** of the sheep in front and keep dawdling towards the pen.
Terrorists are very real, but not as big and powerful as we are to believe, but if we were told this, there would be no reason to be in Iraq, no need for outlandish security measures on US citizens, and certainly no need for any of us to live in fear...can you imagine if this were the case?

2007-08-18 12:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by lee h 3 · 1 0

In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

2007-08-18 14:41:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Problem Reaction Solution:
"1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others
2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights
3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis"
source: http://www.indexoftheweb.com/911Why.htm

"NEW WORLD ORDER OUT OF CHAOS"

"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu: The Art of War
http://www.cremationofcare.com/the_nwo_prs.htm
http://www.cremationofcare.com/the_nwo_prs_explained.htm

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." -- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderberg meeting.
Source: http://www.cremationofcare.com/the_nwo_prs.htm

See how it works?!

2007-08-18 15:17:55 · answer #3 · answered by ♥zene purrs♥ 6 · 1 0

Franklin said something to the effect that anyone willing to give up even a small amount of their liberties wasn't worth any of them.

But Franklin never saw a nuclear weapon. His warfare was a long and drawn out affair with rudimentary weapons and a barely functional national and international communication system. In short, there was always time. Time to work diplomatically while the armies were engaged.

If he knew that in the wink of an eye the entire population of the Mass Bay Colony plus their animals could be wiped out, with no warning, and the land made unusable for 100 years, he might have thought differently.

I can't figure out the whole southern border strategy. I'm beginning to believe it is a strategy to face the mathematically inevitable Islamification of Europe. I do believe though that most of the country will give up some freedom or 'right to privacy' in order to help fight off terrorists.

2007-08-18 14:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It doesn’t surprise me at all that people are willing to relinquish cherished freedoms for a PERCEIVED increase in security. Any student of history knows that fear, especially from external agents, can cause people to do a host of absurd things that they normally would not do.

Just look at the events of the past century. Nazi Germany is a textbook example of how far people are willing to go to feel safe and secure. Anyone who knows anything about the 20th century history will tell you that the only reason Hitler was able to rise to power, and the sole reason why an otherwise civil society, would grant his immoral and grandiose plans for conquest and genocide any credence, was due to the collective insecurity of the German people, which was wrought by a languishing economy, large debt, and social upheaval that resulted from their defeat in the WWI.

If there is one thing that would cause me, and others who oppose the Republican propaganda machines, to throw their vote towards a candidate, is if that candidate calls a spade a spade by showing the American public that there sense of fear is grossly exaggerated and does not reflect reality, and furthermore that they are being manipulated into fear by the political machinations of those in power now.

2007-08-18 14:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 2 0

Does this qualify as irony? Some of the people who are shouting loudest about us losing our freedom in the name of security are quite willing to give up some of their economic freedoms in the name of economic security.

Read the article, and from what is explained in there, it doesn't really seem like something they can use to spy on people. Unless you're a large stationary object it'd be pretty hard for them to track you with those satellites.

2007-08-18 15:00:55 · answer #6 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0 1

I agree with the racist answer man. Franklin did not have to contend with tens of millions of Islamic radicals who would gladly blow up a suitcase sized nuclear weapon in any American city.

We are not in a police state, but you are being watched whenever you go shopping, on the street, and for many people at work. It's not going to change any time soon. Get used to it.

2007-08-18 15:20:11 · answer #7 · answered by Shane 7 · 0 1

Not amazed; shocked ! Our grandparents would never have stood for it, but then they were not little mindless cowardly sheep that follow. They were leaders and went through a hell of a lot more than we have.

Remember what they found written on the concentration camp walls in Nazi Germany after the war.

WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE UNIONISTS; I DIDN'T CRY OUT BECAUSE I WASN'T A UNIONIST.

WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE COMMUNISTS; I DIDN'T CRY OUT BECAUSE I WASN'T A COMMUNIST.

WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS, I DIDN'T CRY OUT BECAUSE I WASN'T A HOMOSEXUAL.

AND WHEN THEY CAME FOR ME; THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO CRY OUT.

History has a way of repeating itself, if we don't study it.

Democracy and freedom was only an experiment any way. such a shame to lose it though.

2007-08-18 14:32:48 · answer #8 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 2 1

it is amazing.

We are gonna have to change some of those songs about the land of the free and especially the ones about the home of the brave. Its beginning to look more like the home of those so scared that they P in their undies...while hiding under their beds....and sending others to facilitate genocide in distant lands so they can feel a wee bit safer.

2007-08-18 14:29:00 · answer #9 · answered by me 3 · 2 1

Lefties have been constantly attacking our 2nd amendment rights and our right to own property for decades. Why start complaining about lost liberty now?

2007-08-18 14:27:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers