• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US Tactics On Terrorism: Have We Gone Too Far?

"I tend to agree with much that our government has done in the past
years as obviously many don't, but I certainly don't look at the measures
taken by my government as permanent and why should I? There's more
evidence to the contrary so why invest myself so much in the moment to the
degree that my emotions and particular ideological beliefs outweigh my
common sense in knowing that my and others beliefs and ideologies aren't
being wholesale compromised but being subjected to the extremes of a
period in history."


I will ask what extremes are to your mind, when I think of extremes I see Hitler, Peron, Castro, Stalin, and Saddam. These were extreme periods in history, and I am sure warning signs were put up for all to see. This reminds me of Albert Einstein who said:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
 
CaliNORML said:
"I tend to agree with much that our government has done in the past
years as obviously many don't, but I certainly don't look at the measures
taken by my government as permanent and why should I? There's more
evidence to the contrary so why invest myself so much in the moment to the
degree that my emotions and particular ideological beliefs outweigh my
common sense in knowing that my and others beliefs and ideologies aren't
being wholesale compromised but being subjected to the extremes of a
period in history."


I will ask what extremes are to your mind, when I think of extremes I see Hitler, Peron, Castro, Stalin, and Saddam. These were extreme periods in history, and I am sure warning signs were put up for all to see. This reminds me of Albert Einstein who said:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

Well extremes in my mind are relative. Extremes in the US are obviously the patriot act, domestic spying and policy of pre-emptive military intervention which I accept as extremes for our society and the current situation of world affairs.

I don't view "our" extremes as anything on the order of Stalinist Communism or Saddam's Totalitarianism thankfully. Through our own conflict and the conflict of western society through history in general I take the view that western society and government has largely "slaughtered" itself into submitting to the futility of extremes of such magnitude. I think generally, through trial and error, intellectual inquiry, and much soul searching, that we have, out of necessity in the fear of self destruction, embraced ideals, concepts and systems that have helped us to establish a "moderate equilibrium" that allows us to move forward despite our, albeit at times extreme, differences.

Only nations who have internalized the blood of their dead would concieve the United Nations, The Ganeva conventions and the principles that we and the other world powers have concieved. And even if at times the interpretation of these laws and institutions grants us license, perhaps debateable, to act in the name of those ideals and principles i don't believe those principles have or ever will be removed from the core of our impulse to act.

We shouldn't forget that it was only 50 years ago that the civil rights movement and the sweeping reforms resulting from it have all but eliminated civil rights atrocities that today we would be outraged as a society to see in out streets and are un-thinkable as 21st century situations in the US and in other modern countries. And, it was only a little over a century before that that we needed to subject our country to the worst blood in its hitory in the name of abolishing slavery.

Ultimately I think we're in a perpetual re-adjustment and refinement mode that serves to solve many of the worst problems and crops up new ones. The positive thing about our progression, i believe, is that we haven't stopped our forward momentum. We've consistently reduced, and striven to reduce the victims of "our" actions and at the same time striven to aleviate the victimization of our own people and those around the world. And despite the many mistakes we've made as any nation makes, especially one of such power and global reach, we've held to these ideals and continued to push forward and continued to "try" and make things better.
 
I understand where you are coming from, and agree that Americans still keep these core values in our hearts and our minds, it is the greatest thing about America to me, the common people.

As a member of the International community I feel less safe. I feel extremely uncomfortable with 22 of my Presidents men on the EU's Most Wanted List. We are supposed to be the good guys, yet we commit the exact same acts as those we are against. Much as my son saw and decided that they may feel equally free to do that to him. As a wise man said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Where once in a war the enemy happily surrendered to American forces knowing that they would be protected and treated in accordance to the International laws , today they are scared of the treatment they may receive at our hands. Personally I do not blame them.

The trust of other countries should be Americas goal if we are to spread the light so often discussed as a result of our actions in the political world forum. Acts such as these show us to be semi-hypocritical, untrustable, and unethical in our treatment of enemy combatants.

KMS
 
Last edited:
CaliNORML said:
I understand where you are coming from, and agree that Americans still keep these core values in our hearts and our minds, it is the greatest thing about America to me, the common people.

As a member of the International community I feel less safe. I feel extremely uncomfortable with 22 of my Presidents men on the EU's Most Wanted List. We are supposed to be the good guys, yet we commit the exact same acts as those we are against. Much as my son saw and decided that they may feel equally free to do that to him. As a wise man said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Where once in a war the enemy happily surrendered to American forces knowing that they would be protected and treated in accordance to the International laws , today they are scared of the treatment they may receive at our hands. Personally I do not blame them.

The trust of other countries should be Americas goal if we are to spread the light so often discussed as a result of our actions in the political world forum. Acts such as these show us to be semi-hypocritical, untrustable, and unethical in our treatment of enemy combatants.

KMS

Yep, I've never waivered in my faith of our country. And I'll tell ya, its not because I believe we've always made the right decisions, but, because I feel we've always made those decisions based on the right reasons.

I certainly don't think its a "good" thing to have our intelligence folks on the EU's **** list but I don't see the actions that we've taken now as remotely comparable to the behaviour demonstrated by our enemies. We are the good guys and I don't think we should mistake that. Are the 22 intelligence agents "truly" guilty of crimes? By EU law perhaps. By international law maybe. But if the EU is outraged by our behaviour then they should certainly be up in arms about the attrocities that have been commited against their people and our people throughout all of this.

The irony is that we'll be held to account for playing the game that's being played against us while the men who have published be-headings of our people bask in the glow of the internal struggles that prevent us from persuing them the way we know we can. While I don't condone torture I'm not above engaging in the schoolyard rules street fight that's being waged against us either. I believe our principles should guide us but they shouldn't inhibit us from a course of action that enables us to effectively accomplish the more important goals that conform and preserve those principles. Maybe its because i was raised in a neighborhood where street smarts was as important as book smarts.

I think part of the problem is that the 20th century has brought us to lose so much faith in our own ability to uphold our ideals that we've chosen to direct our anger, fear and skepticism inward against anything and everything that we're afraid could compromise those ideals instead of looking outward to the real threats with confidence in the conviction of those ideals. We'll never get it completely right but I know we won't and don't act to intentionally victimize people in the world either.

Having trust from other countries is important but I think other countries also should be held accountable for the circumstances under which we've had to make such controversial decisions. Isn't it as valid a question to ask why the United States, the country that founded the UN, that's contributed its military to every major conflict in the world in the modern era in order to support our allies and protect our common ideals, would see it necessary to "go it alone" at this point? And shouldn't it be the responsibility of our allies to support "us" in our time of need as we've done so faithfully in the past for them and help us keep the right course despite their opposition to certain policies we've decided to adopt? I would've thought.

We may not be the benevolent country that we've always thought we were but we've always been the ally and the idealists and ultimately always stood on the side of the right and the fair and it pains me to see so little faith in ourselves and so little support from our friends.
 
Crispy: "it pains me to see so little faith in ourselves and so little support from our friends."

Someone once said words to the effect that in diplomacy, there are no friends, only temporary convergences of self-interest.

This is an interesting thread, very thought provoking - kudos to all who have contributed.
 
Thanks, I too have learned much from this discussion and appreciate the contibutions of all.

I also have read much on Teddy Roosevelt and admire his principles greatly, I keep his quotes along with Einstiens and many other of my heros and heroines taped up on mirrors in my home. One of his jumped out at me after this debate, and as I cannot say it any better I shall end with his words.

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
 
oldreliable67 said:
Crispy: "it pains me to see so little faith in ourselves and so little support from our friends."

Someone once said words to the effect that in diplomacy, there are no friends, only temporary convergences of self-interest.

This is an interesting thread, very thought provoking - kudos to all who have contributed.

Yep, I think that's certainly a wise observation of politics. I guess the question really always is, who's interests are being served? The peoples? the leaders? the good guy? the bad guy?

I always take the stance that nobody's serving my interests so I'll just go out serve my own ;). That's why I dig this country cause that's exactly what I can do here.

Definitely some good thoughts going on here.
 
CaliNORML said:
Thanks, I too have learned much from this discussion and appreciate the contibutions of all.

I also have read much on Teddy Roosevelt and admire his principles greatly, I keep his quotes along with Einstiens and many other of my heros and heroines taped up on mirrors in my home. One of his jumped out at me after this debate, and as I cannot say it any better I shall end with his words.

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Good quote,

Teddy Roosevelt was definitely a great president. Not only did he have those principles but he was tough and stuck to them.

Honestly, I think GW does this too. Its just that too many people don't give him credit for it.
 
CaliNORML said:
Thanks, I too have learned much from this discussion and appreciate the contibutions of all.

I also have read much on Teddy Roosevelt and admire his principles greatly, I keep his quotes along with Einstiens and many other of my heros and heroines taped up on mirrors in my home. One of his jumped out at me after this debate, and as I cannot say it any better I shall end with his words.

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
-- Theodore Roosevelt


"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" - Theodore Roosevelt

Now what that means is keep quite until it's time to bash some skulls.
 
Billo_Really said:
I am not willing to give up one civil right to fight this bullshit war on terror. Not only can you not fight a war against an ideology, we do not spend any time trying to get to the causal reasons why we are so hated. It's not because they are jealous of our freedom. And it is not inherent in their religion. There are reasons that drive people to this level of hatred. We find out what those reasons are, address them as best we can without sacrificing national security, and then and only then, will we start preventing another 9/11 from occuring.

Much of the ideology stems from factors that we are changing, namely oppressive governments who bombard their people with anti-American propaganda, blaming us for their own problems. A free, successful democracy in the heart of the Middle East would be an unprescedented blow to Islamic extremism.
 
The same can be said of the West against Islam, propagandizing much in the same manner. I can not count the number of times we refer to ourselves as "civilized." Meaning that they aren't?

I find this statment proagandist as Islam saved the Greek texts and basis of our own "civilized" society today including the concept of Democracy.

What we do not understand is that as Muslims they freely chose to be governed by an Islamic law, state, and Nation, it is their own free and democratic choice. They choose non secularism as their form of Government, if left alone to do so what is so wrong with their choice as we saw in Iran by free elections? They still elected a Muslim to lead them, and we condem those actions.

Does one culture's free and democratic choice have to meet with our approval to be one?

KMS
 
Last edited:
CaliNORML said:
The same can be said of the West against Islam, propagandizing much in the same manner. I can not count the number of times we refer to ourselves as "civilized." Meaning that they aren't?

It's not the same. The difference is that we have a free press and their medias are totally owned and run by the governments. Our media regularly criticizes our government, you think those people see anything like that over there? Not a chance.



CaliNORML said:
What we do not understand is that as Muslims they freely chose to be governed by an Islamic law state and Nation, it is their own free and democratic choice.

KMS

It's NOT the religion of Islam that's the problem and that's NOT what I'm saying. Of course they welcome Islam, 90%+ of the region is Muslim... the problem is greedy, oppressive governments and rulers who squander oil wealth and keep their countries in a backward state, opressing the people while blaming the West and twisting the great religion of Islam for their own selfish reasons.

Look at Iran, their state run media broadcasts CARTOONS FOR KIDS that glorify killing Americans through suicide bombings and giving them hope to escape their opressed lives.
 
Yes some do impliment certain religious acts through government, but in their history government and religion are the same. Muhammad was a Phrophet as well as a statesman. Making it impossible in Islam to seperate Government from religion. The religion is the basis of all Islamic government.

All they ask is to keep the west out of their culture, no Sports Illustrated bikini issue billboards put in public, just a basic respect of values that seems so hard to accomplish today among the nations.

Iran is the closest Ummah to Palestine, and as such they are the major defenders of the occupation and Palestinian help, much like Alaska defending Florida, in fact these two are even closer than that, more like Mississippi defending Florida.

Can we as Americans say if this happened on our soil we would look upon any nation involved in such a move against another people with any trust, and want to follow their example?

KMS
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
Not only can you not fight a war against an ideology, we do not spend any time trying to get to the causal reasons why we are so hated.

Wrong.

Billo_Really said:
It's not because they are jealous of our freedom.

Wrong.

Billo_Really said:
And it is not inherent in their religion.

Right....when speaking on TRUE Islam..not the concrete brittle perversion in the Middle East.

Billo_Really said:
There are reasons that drive people to this level of hatred. We find out what those reasons are, address them as best we can without sacrificing national security, and then and only then, will we start preventing another 9/11 from occuring.

Where the hell have you been? You still don't know? Your government has known for two decades and so does anyone who has taken the time to study the region through experience and research.:2wave:

The contest between competing Muslim visions, between those who would turn back the clock and those who believe they must embrace the future, has already been lost in the Arab homelands. Blinded by oil and riveted by the Arab-Israeli conflict, our leaders and legislators alike have failed to reexamine their thinking for the past 40 years. The Middle East has been left behind by history and their response has been to blame everyone but themselves—and to sponsor terror (sometimes casually, but often officially). For anyone who is looking for immediate results against this civilization that continues to breed terrorism and extremism....stop wasting your time. An entire civilization's culture doesn't change over night and it doesn't change over a three year period. We are not up against terrorists. They are symptoms and are easily put down. We are up against the decay and desperation that raises them. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia are the heart problems. The fringes are Pakistan, Indonesia, India, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and North Africa. These fringe locations have not fully fallen to the Arab desease of blame. The Arab clerecs, especially, will remain guilty-in great part-for every murder committed by Muslim extremists from all over the region. They created the monsters who now dictate their version of Islam. In the Middle East, blaming others for every problem is the narcotic of choice. Much of the Arab world has withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive.

Islam certainly is not hateful in its essence—but a disproportionate number of its current adherents need to hate to avoid the agony of self-knowledge. Religious intolerance always returns in times of doubt and disorder. Fundamentalist terrorism has not arisen despite the progress the world has made, but because of it. Were it not for oil, the Middle East would have no competitive front with the world. They oil barrons have sealed their fate and married it to their depleting oil supply. In times of trouble, men and women cling to what they know. They seek simple answers to daunting complexities. And religious extremists around the world, in every major religion throughout history, have been delighted to provide those simple answers. It does not matter if those answers are true, so long as they shift blame from the believer’s shoulders and promise punishment to enemies, real or imagined. This is where terrorism has been bred. The basic problem is daunting: We face a failing civilization in the Middle East. While focusing on mundane details and political spot lighting, many completely miss the issues of the Middle Eastern reality.
 
Last edited:
"we saw in Iran by free elections?"

Someone was watching a different show than the rest of us. Free elections in Iran? Hardly. The mullahs pulled every candidate off the ballot that didn't agree with their thinking. In most areas, there was a one-candidate slate.
 
oldreliable67 said:
"we saw in Iran by free elections?"
Someone was watching a different show than the rest of us. Free elections in Iran? Hardly. The mullahs pulled every candidate off the ballot that didn't agree with their thinking. In most areas, there was a one-candidate slate.
To be an eligible candidate in Iranian elections, one must be approved by what is known as the 'Council of Guardians'. This body consists of six Shi'a clerics and six lay people steeped in Islamic jurisprudence. They are all appointed by the 'Supreme Leader'... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

This vetting process guarantees that the overwhelming preponderance of candidates for office will be neo-conservative and beholden to the clerical regime. Of the 89 Iranian women who petitioned for candidacy in the 2005 elections, all were rejected by the Council of Guardians.

PS. The president of Iran has now outlawed all 'Western' music. Shades of the Taliban... are kites next?



 
Tashah said:
To be an eligible candidate in Iranian elections, one must be approved by what is known as the 'Council of Guardians'. This body consists of six Shi'a clerics and six lay people steeped in Islamic jurisprudence. They are all appointed by the 'Supreme Leader'... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

This vetting process guarantees that the overwhelming preponderance of candidates for office will be neo-conservative and beholden to the clerical regime. Of the 89 Iranian women who petitioned for candidacy in the 2005 elections, all were rejected by the Council of Guardians.

PS. The president of Iran has now outlawed all 'Western' music. Shades of the Taliban... are kites next?




I am assuming that perhaps you may be well versed on subliminal programming. Why don't they make music of their own?

Do you actually understand their science of law?

Should we only incriminate first and understand later?

Are you calling for affirmative action?

Who is the Neo_Con?
 
Last edited:
Conflict said:
I am assuming that perhaps you may be well versed on subliminal programming. Why don't they make music of their own?
Because music is for the infidels and illegal.
Do you actually understand their science of law?
The only science and law must correspond to the Koran and if it does not it is of the infidels and illegal.
Should we only incriminate first and understand later?
No we must obey sharia law and stone those who disagree first and damn their souls to hell later any other approach is of the infidels and illegal.
Are you calling for affirmative action?
Yes action must be taken to kill the infidels and destroy the western world and prevent jahiliyya from spreading any other action is of the infidels and illegal.
Who is the Neo_Con?

{strong sarcastic emphasis on my last 4 statements.}

I'm a neo-con Republican nex ut tyrannus Democratic revolution is the starting point.


RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


**** YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREEDOM!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Yes, the way elections in Iran functioned are mimicing that of our own original Constitution where in the Senate and Congress elects a President, never the people. Yet their method is more consistant to democracy in its original concept than ours is today.

While here we view Democracy as individual rights to do and say as we please. They veiw the communities welfare over that of the individual's rights, or simply put they view the forest not the tree.

How many people in America think Rap music is not a good art form or helpfull to our young? I bet that a majority do, in Islam the rights of the overall good for the community wins.

Here we here see it as bias of Oak tress not to express thier rights in our forest if Rap music is banned.

No one who is in any Islamic state is there by force (except those we sent back) if the choose not to believe, they may leave. Well some areas at least.

KMS
 
Last edited:
WOW I can't believe you just said that Iran is closer to the Founding Father's intent than the U.S. where do you get this ****? Seriously I don't even know how to answer something like this I'm at a loss for words.

Perhaps it is that you've never read the Declaration of Indepence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
 
Last edited:
Ok yes I love that document.

Show me again where the people elect the president.

KMS
 
CaliNORML said:
Yes, the way elections in Iran functioned are mimicing that of our own original Constitution where in the Senate and Congress elects a President, never the people. Yet their method is more consistant to democracy in its original concept than ours is today.
Sorry, but I for one reject the notion that candidate exclusion based on political stance or gender is consistant with contemporary democratic ideals.

CaliNORML said:
While here we view Democracy as idividual rights to do and say as we please. They veiw the communities welfare over that of the individual's rights, or simply put they view the forest not the tree.
Indeed... very reminiscent of fascism, communism, and ba'athism.

CaliNORML said:
How many people in America think Rap music is not a good art form or helpfull to our young? I bet majority do in Islam the rights of the overall good for the community wins.
Personally, I consider gansta rap music despicable.

CaliNORML said:
Here we here see it as bias of Oak tress not to express thier rights in our forest if Rap music is banned.
I visited Iran in 2000. The young people enjoy western pop, soft rock, and 80's style disco music. Rap is not a component of the Iranian musical milleiu.

CaliNORML said:
No one is in any Islamic state is there by force (except those we sent back) if the choose not to believe, they may leave. Well some areas at least.
Surely you jest. It is very difficult to extricate oneself from the heels of authoritarianism and poverty. Perhaps you should sojourn beyond the confines of your ivory tower more often.



 
I talk to many people of the world and am a member of ummah.com where I follow many debates and had before I became a member although I am not a Muslim. I just wanted to know as much as possible.

Ivory tower? I am in the mud here my seat would be cleaner in this debate if I was on the other side of it, now wouldn't it? Maybe I am just that wench that loves to ask, "why" and take the opposite side from just the sake of what if?

KMS
 
Last edited:
War on terror is like fighting bird flu with a baseball bat.

I sometimes think the US methodology in the 'war on terror' is like fighting bird flu with a baseball bat. They don't seem to appreciate that ultimately they are fighting memes.
"To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...rk/Articles/2001-09-18misguidedmissiles.shtml
 
Last edited:
What a politically correct cover for the isms of race and religion.

FYI only 13% of Arabs are Muslim.

KMS
 
Back
Top Bottom