Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-07-24 13:46:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gee any thoughts that maybe London is a prime terrorist target  because of exactly your "who gives a shit attitude" toward terrorism.
That guy was right to report that bag, and it was wrong for you to ignore it. Maybe if you got involved when you saw shit that looked out of the ordinary you might have prevented the recent bombings, or even the subway bombing JUST MAYBE!! Who really knows.


You wanna be sure what you report is worthy of reporting? Just how exactly do you plan on doing that? Wait until something happens, then you can say I saw that guy planting something. Good plan. yer a zero


Or maybe report WHEN you see something and possibly prevent an attack or rape or a kidknapping or whatever. In this case yer a hero.


Or report something that turns out to be ok, and now we know it will remain that way..yer a hero again.

You are talking about gambling, why roll the dice and hope all is well, why not go with the sure thing and KNOW all is well?
lol. Are you suggesting that those who are indifferent to terrorism in going about their daily life invite attacks whereas steaming into the middle east all guns blazing somehow deters attacks? There's a bit of a logic void somewhere in there.

lowing - I hope you realise that you cannot eliminate terrorism. It can't be done. It simply cannot be done on the home turf of the terrorists. It's a war of attrition, pure and simple. The British army and secret service - one of the most professional and technologically advanced militaries in the world - conceded a few weeks ago in a report that they did not and could not defeat the IRA. 30 years of warfare against men in masks with sniper rifles, RPGs and cemtex. 30 years and they couldn't crack them. You can't break an ideology fighting the enemy on their home turf.

You're going to have to rethink your solution to terrorism lowing. Get back to me when you come up with it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort … 276416.stm
Funny you think I am void of logic. I was thinking the same about anyone that would ignore possible signs toward any kind of attack, terrorist or otherwise. Now I know the sentiment is "I do not want to get involved".

You preach intel Cam, where in the hell do you think alot of intel comes from? People who report things they see and it gets investigated. A bit of inconsistancy in your views Cam.

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-24 13:49:23)

2007-07-24 13:48:04
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6997

lowing wrote:

Funny you think I am void of logic. I was thinking the same about anyone that would ignore possible signs toward any kind of attack, terrorist or otherwise. Now I know the sentiment is "I do not want to get involved".

You preach intel Cam, where in the hell do you think al ot of intel comes from? People who report things they see and it gets investigated. A bit of inconsistancy in your views Cam.
Funny lowing but I don't think you'll find anywhere in this thread where I opposed the OP. Personally though, in relation to the OP, I think anyone who can be demonstrably and reasonably found to be abusing the system should face jail time or a fine. Serial offenders perhaps - 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-24 13:49:59)

2007-07-24 13:53:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Funny you think I am void of logic. I was thinking the same about anyone that would ignore possible signs toward any kind of attack, terrorist or otherwise. Now I know the sentiment is "I do not want to get involved".

You preach intel Cam, where in the hell do you think al ot of intel comes from? People who report things they see and it gets investigated. A bit of inconsistancy in your views Cam.
Funny lowing but I don't think you'll find anywhere in this thread where I opposed the OP. Personally though, in relation to the OP, I think anyone who can be demonstrably and reasonably found to be abusing the system should face jail time or a fine. Serial offenders perhaps - 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'.
Equally as amusing is, I don't think I said anywhere to "go in with guns blazing" or "tackle someone for tieing his shoes".

A point that is not in the spirit of the OP but I agree with, as pointed out earlier we already have laws for filing fals statements and slander.
2007-07-24 14:05:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7023|SE London

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Funny you think I am void of logic. I was thinking the same about anyone that would ignore possible signs toward any kind of attack, terrorist or otherwise. Now I know the sentiment is "I do not want to get involved".

You preach intel Cam, where in the hell do you think al ot of intel comes from? People who report things they see and it gets investigated. A bit of inconsistancy in your views Cam.
Funny lowing but I don't think you'll find anywhere in this thread where I opposed the OP. Personally though, in relation to the OP, I think anyone who can be demonstrably and reasonably found to be abusing the system should face jail time or a fine. Serial offenders perhaps - 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'.
Equally as amusing is, I don't think I said anywhere to "go in with guns blazing" or "tackle someone for tieing his shoes".
Not quite. But you've kind of implied it:

lowing wrote:

Never implied I was a hero, I said I would be a part of any action. I did not say I would instigate the action. So to be part of any action there would have to be more than just me. Now, if THAT were the case then there would have to be a general feeling that something was definately wrong and action might be warranted. So ya see, McCLane I am not. I would simply defend myself and my family.
The "action" you speak of sounds exactly like going "in with guns blazing" or tackling "someone for tying his shoes", but it certainly sounds like you would support it.
2007-07-24 14:19:40
jonsimon
Member
+224|6937

lowing wrote:

A point that is not in the spirit of the OP but I agree with, as pointed out earlier we already have laws for filing fals statements and slander.
AND THE LAW YOU ARE SUPPOSING WOULD PROTECT THEM FROM THAT LEGAL ACTION! Stop contradicting yourself.
2007-07-24 14:26:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Funny lowing but I don't think you'll find anywhere in this thread where I opposed the OP. Personally though, in relation to the OP, I think anyone who can be demonstrably and reasonably found to be abusing the system should face jail time or a fine. Serial offenders perhaps - 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'.
Equally as amusing is, I don't think I said anywhere to "go in with guns blazing" or "tackle someone for tieing his shoes".
Not quite. But you've kind of implied it:

lowing wrote:

Never implied I was a hero, I said I would be a part of any action. I did not say I would instigate the action. So to be part of any action there would have to be more than just me. Now, if THAT were the case then there would have to be a general feeling that something was definately wrong and action might be warranted. So ya see, McCLane I am not. I would simply defend myself and my family.
The "action" you speak of sounds exactly like going "in with guns blazing" or tackling "someone for tying his shoes", but it certainly sounds like you would support it.
Nice try but no, the scenario I described is in line with what flt 93 encountered, their action probably saved hundreds of lives.


It was suggested that I endorse seeing something unusual and instantly going in and kicking the ever living shit outta the guy. I never said this or implied such action.

I am defending the notion that when you encounter strange behavior that could have an effect on the you and the people around you it is worth you getting involved and report it.
2007-07-24 15:20:40
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6997

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Equally as amusing is, I don't think I said anywhere to "go in with guns blazing" or "tackle someone for tieing his shoes".
Not quite. But you've kind of implied it:

lowing wrote:

Never implied I was a hero, I said I would be a part of any action. I did not say I would instigate the action. So to be part of any action there would have to be more than just me. Now, if THAT were the case then there would have to be a general feeling that something was definately wrong and action might be warranted. So ya see, McCLane I am not. I would simply defend myself and my family.
The "action" you speak of sounds exactly like going "in with guns blazing" or tackling "someone for tying his shoes", but it certainly sounds like you would support it.
Nice try but no, the scenario I described is in line with what flt 93 encountered, their action probably saved hundreds of lives.


It was suggested that I endorse seeing something unusual and instantly going in and kicking the ever living shit outta the guy. I never said this or implied such action.

I am defending the notion that when you encounter strange behavior that could have an effect on the you and the people around you it is worth you getting involved and report it.
There has been a misunderstanding. I was referring to lowing's advocacy of 'staying the course in Iraq' and 'fighting the terrorists over there rather than at home', etc., etc.
2007-07-24 15:30:58
PureFodder
Member
+225|6727

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

By the way, there are good Samaritan laws on the books that prevent a person from getting sued if they try and help another and that person still dies. I suppose based on your logic a family of a guy who choked to death on a ham bone should be able to sue the guy that tried and failed to deliver the Heimlich maneuver. Brilliant
In such a case the good samaritan would win the case and everything's just fine. As would people who genuinely try to report suspicious behaviour.

So you agree with a law that gives legal protection to anyone who wants to waste police time and therefore put people at risk from real terrorist threats? Does that sound like something worth supporting?

You happy to actively support terrorism and try to get you fellow countrymen killed? Damn these Rebublicans they truely are the greatest allies of Islamic terrorists. (the preceeding line was brought to you by Liberals that are tired of putting up with ignorant, baseless acusations from conservatives about how they threated the safety of everyone)
Ahhhhhhh I see, it is a waste of time and resources to check out reported strange activity but it is perfectly fine to hit a good smaritan with a frivolous lawsuit, who will probably win anyway. Yeah, I do not see any wasted time, money, effort ,not to mention the backlog on the system. Beautiful logic ya runnin with PureFodder. You do realize there is no consistancy in your argument don't ya?

I guess this is where we differ, I do not think it is a waste of time to report obviously strange behavior, this includes at the damn airport airplane, elementary schools my nieghbors house etc........ ya know the examples you are going to ignore.

As for your 3rd paragraph it was so rediculous I forgot to tell you I was gunna ignore it.
If someone thinks there is suspicious activity going on I agree you should get the authorities to check it out, I've never said otherwise, although you seem to want to endlessly accuse me of it anyway for no evident reason. In the above quote I specifically state that.

If this goes into effect there is absolutely no legal way to stop someone walking into an airport and randomly accusing loads of people of suspicious activity, thereby diverting the authorities attention to possible real terrorist threats. I don't care if the resulting law suits clog up the courts for months. This law would allow people to clog up the time of the security personnel that are trying to stop terrorism apparently you don't seem to care if this results in the lives of everyone who works for or uses air traffic being put in higher risk, just so long as the Democrats loose

I want to clog up the courts and leave the security staff trying to save lives to do their jobs.
This law would free up the courts and would clog up the time of security staff trying to save lives.

Which would you prefer?
2007-07-24 16:31:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


In such a case the good samaritan would win the case and everything's just fine. As would people who genuinely try to report suspicious behaviour.

So you agree with a law that gives legal protection to anyone who wants to waste police time and therefore put people at risk from real terrorist threats? Does that sound like something worth supporting?

You happy to actively support terrorism and try to get you fellow countrymen killed? Damn these Rebublicans they truely are the greatest allies of Islamic terrorists. (the preceeding line was brought to you by Liberals that are tired of putting up with ignorant, baseless acusations from conservatives about how they threated the safety of everyone)
Ahhhhhhh I see, it is a waste of time and resources to check out reported strange activity but it is perfectly fine to hit a good smaritan with a frivolous lawsuit, who will probably win anyway. Yeah, I do not see any wasted time, money, effort ,not to mention the backlog on the system. Beautiful logic ya runnin with PureFodder. You do realize there is no consistancy in your argument don't ya?

I guess this is where we differ, I do not think it is a waste of time to report obviously strange behavior, this includes at the damn airport airplane, elementary schools my nieghbors house etc........ ya know the examples you are going to ignore.

As for your 3rd paragraph it was so rediculous I forgot to tell you I was gunna ignore it.
If someone thinks there is suspicious activity going on I agree you should get the authorities to check it out, I've never said otherwise, although you seem to want to endlessly accuse me of it anyway for no evident reason. In the above quote I specifically state that.

If this goes into effect there is absolutely no legal way to stop someone walking into an airport and randomly accusing loads of people of suspicious activity, thereby diverting the authorities attention to possible real terrorist threats. I don't care if the resulting law suits clog up the courts for months. This law would allow people to clog up the time of the security personnel that are trying to stop terrorism apparently you don't seem to care if this results in the lives of everyone who works for or uses air traffic being put in higher risk, just so long as the Democrats loose

I want to clog up the courts and leave the security staff trying to save lives to do their jobs.
This law would free up the courts and would clog up the time of security staff trying to save lives.

Which would you prefer?
I would suggest you would be the "boy who cried wolf" as Cam suggested and I agreed with. Therefore I doubt you would get very far with your credibility or charges filed against YOU for slander and filing a false report.
2007-07-24 16:59:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Vigilence and paranoia are two very different things.
This sums it up pretty well.

On the one hand, we must be alert, and some profiling is inevitable.

On the other hand, we shouldn't go crazy with the paranoia.
2007-07-25 01:30:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vigilence and paranoia are two very different things.
This sums it up pretty well.

On the one hand, we must be alert, and some profiling is inevitable.

On the other hand, we shouldn't go crazy with the paranoia.
Yeah, in an obvious kinda way. The OP was refering to vigilence, not paranoia as the 4 pages of "what ifs" suggest.

Honestly, I think that disagreeing with me has become a force of habit by the libs on here. LOL. Seeing things the same way I do just might be more than most can bare, so they dream up all kindza crazy shit to counter my argument. .........but deep deep down, they know I am right.
2007-07-25 01:36:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7093|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

A point that is not in the spirit of the OP but I agree with, as pointed out earlier we already have laws for filing fals statements and slander.
AND THE LAW YOU ARE SUPPOSING WOULD PROTECT THEM FROM THAT LEGAL ACTION! Stop contradicting yourself.
If you can not distinguish between a "good samaritan" trying to do the right thing, and a slanderous idiot who is malevolently filing false police reports, then you.................forget it.
2007-07-25 04:02:07
PureFodder
Member
+225|6727

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

A point that is not in the spirit of the OP but I agree with, as pointed out earlier we already have laws for filing fals statements and slander.
AND THE LAW YOU ARE SUPPOSING WOULD PROTECT THEM FROM THAT LEGAL ACTION! Stop contradicting yourself.
If you can not distinguish between a "good samaritan" trying to do the right thing, and a slanderous idiot who is malevolently filing false police reports, then you.................forget it.
How do you not get this yet? I'm fairly sure my keyboard understands this concept by now.

This law will provide instant immunity to both good samaritains AND slanderous idiots who repeatedly file false police reports and that's exactly why the democrats rightfully stopped it. Their objection was specifically because it gave immunity to those who purposefully waste police time. If this law goes into effect there would be ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL REPURCUSSIONS TO IDIOTS WHO REPEATEDLY CREATE BOMB SCARES IN AIRPORTS AND ACCUSE PEOPLE AT RANDOM OF BEING A TERRORIST AS IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GRANT THEM IMMUNITY FROM ALL LAWS THAT PURTAIN TO THE FILING OF FALSE POLICE STATEMENTS AND SLANDER.
2007-07-25 05:21:49
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7283|Cologne, Germany

Skruples wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Vigilence and paranoia are two very different things.

In any case, what are the Democrats doing to undermine the efforts to stop things like this happening again?
Any steps taken that undermine existing civil liberties are playing exactly into the terrorists hands.

The general public should, on the whole, ignore terrorism. It's all just totally blown up out of all proportion by the media. That isn't to say you shouldn't notify the authorities if you have a legitimate concern - but it is just as well to be able to prosecute those who make stupid accusations, for whatever reason, that impede innocent people going about their day to day business.
ignore terrorism huh?, Ok, so you maintain if you and your family are at the gate about to get on a plane and you see someone acting wierd, nervous, or just totally against normal interaction and is about to get on the same plane, you will ignore it and get on the plane. You sir are a liar.

Also, for clarification. If you happen to report what you saw to the authorities, and he was kept off the plane, investigated, and found to be a guy who just forgot to take his pills, you feel he has the right to sue you for disrupting his life. Again, you are a liar.
I believe he was implying that the public at large should not be overly concerned with terrorism, since, as a rule, it is far more likely that you will get yourself killed in any number of stupid ways, or be killed by one of your fellow citizens or a rabid animal even, than it is for you to be killed by a terrorist. As such, giving such a large amount of your attention and worry to a problem that is statistically insignificant is illogical, and, I might add, exactly what terrorists are trying to accomplish when they blow things up. As Gunslinger pointed out, correctly, in another thread, when the Allies bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan in World War 2, the amount of damage done to the morale of the people was arguably far more significant than the actual logistical damage that was done. The same applies to terrorism, in general; the amount of damage done by any one attack pales in comparison to the mental impact it has on the general population, because the general population sees the attack on the news and spends the next 6 years wringing their hands in concern.

He was not, though I am merely inferring his meaning from what he wrote and cannot actually speak for him, implying that you shouldn't contact the police if you see a beat up van filled with large drums of chemicals with all sorts of wiring and a shifty eyed turban wearing guy driving it towards the federal building. I suspect that even you are aware of this, but chose to infer the meaning that would make Bert look like a jackass, which, I might add, doesn't help the spirit of debate much.

In addition, to my knowledge, in the few (very few, considering there are thousands of commercial flights in the United States every day, and only a few have had a problem with terrorists since 9/11. I am only including the U.S here, since that is the only area this discussion involves) incidents in which there has actually been a terrorist threat, the passengers involved did report and or detain the people involved, and weren't afraid to do so because they might get sued. Take, for instance, the infamous 'shoe bomber'. As you say, when it comes down to 'the person sitting next to me might have a bomb' and 'I might get sued for doing something about it', everyone sane will do something about it and damn the legal consequences. Again, to my knowledge, there haven't been any incidents in which people have reported someone for suspicious behavior, been wrong, and were then subsequently sued. In fact, and I admit I could be wrong, as I could not find the original article, I seem to recall an incident in which some passengers thought a man was acting suspiciously and detained him themselves, only to later find out that he was having a panic attack or something similar (if anyone has a citation for this, it would be appreciated). I don't believe any of them were sued for their actions.

In short, I don't see that people getting sued and or prosecuted for reporting suspicious activity is a humongous problem. I don't see that it's a problem at all, unless it's merely going unreported, and, as such, there is little need to put into law legislation that would protect people from something that doesn't occur. There is even less reason to get upset and start calling everyone who disagrees with you a de facto terrorist enabler, but, then, that is your prerogative.

Or, to sum that all up, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"
Skruples has my vote.

Generally, I think it is a bad idea to allow people to report anyone for "suspicious behaviour" without them having to face the consequences.
I mean, who is going to compensate the airlines, if paranoid fools start causing heavy delays, for no good reason ?

What kind of world would that be if people didn't have to face the consequences of their actions ?

It's a cynical thing to say, but statistically speaking, terrorist attacks are still so unlikely, that the costs caused by unwarranted warnings are much higher than the actual costs of an attack. At least, that's what I think.

Mind you, I am not saying people should not report behaviour that is clearly suspicious. But there is a difference between someone trying to break into a house ( which is obviously suspicious ) and someone with a beard, just trying to tie his shoelaces. There is a line here. And if you allow people to not have to face the consequences of their unwarranted reports, you'll wipe away that line. It's a carte blanche for abuse of the system.

As Skruples has said, I don't think new legislation is even necessary. Depending on the situation, there is still the possibility that no charges will be pressed, even if the warning ( and the ensuing actions ) turned out to be unwarranted.

I don't think you can generalize here. Every situation is unique, and should be dealt with individually. To say that no one will be prosecuted, no matter what the circumstances were, is just as wrong as saying that everyone will be prosecuted.
2007-07-25 05:49:01
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7023|SE London

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

A point that is not in the spirit of the OP but I agree with, as pointed out earlier we already have laws for filing fals statements and slander.
AND THE LAW YOU ARE SUPPOSING WOULD PROTECT THEM FROM THAT LEGAL ACTION! Stop contradicting yourself.
If you can not distinguish between a "good samaritan" trying to do the right thing, and a slanderous idiot who is malevolently filing false police reports, then you.................forget it.
But that is exactly what this new legislation would do. Protect slanderous idiots who are wasting peoples time and money.

That's why it's a ridiculous notion.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard