Terrorists:
So members of ELF do not ever participate in animal rights protests? I guess me saying that isn't proof but common sense so I'll try and stick to facts.
In Seattle what happened?
How much damage was caused there by "protesters"?
Those anarchists who set fires, attacked people wouldn't be considered terrorists?
At a recent trade talk in Miami, police immediately arrested a group of anarchists who they got tipped off to that were staying in an abandoned mansion and preparing for violent actions. Thus the only violence shown were fires, smoke bombs, etc.
Every country in the world checks the names of those entering their country. They even have a ban list - with a great deal of names of people who are self-labeled anarchists (terrorists really). Even on a very basic level, Italy will try and search for certain English citizens if there is a big football game and try to detain them even before they do anything. These people are not sitting in and simply passing out educational literature.
So there just might be violent terrorists at these protests who cause millions of damage a year, are arrested with bombs, set fires, attack police, etc.
Now the fact is that different protest streams are coming together. Miami limited the number of people who could come in but Seattle didn't and had protesters for every cause there. If you have an anti oil drilling protest, there is now a good chance that there will be people protesting for animals and against the war. The majority are level-headed but it can attract the anarchists/terrorists from this large pooled resource of protesters. The little protests help prepare you for the big protests which probably will have more anarchists.
And why do you disagree with this surveillance but not others? Why haven't you said anything about the government having full access to every phone conversation out there? Heck I have surveillance on me - the NASD and SEC would destroy me if I were to violate their rules and I have to constantly submit information for them to know I'm not. But maybe it's because you relate to this more.
So what are you disagreeing with here? You can have an opinion that you don't want the government spying on you. But you can't just say "It is my opinion that there are no terrorists at any protests". You are trying to merge fact and opinion. And while you're entitled to your opinion, maybe it's a bit better to try and offer a possible solution without just tearing it down.
And no you only call me immature and say I always think I'm right on special days. Today doesn't seem to be one of them pops.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Well, I don't recall saying anything about immature anywhere above.
There might be some terrorists in some organizations or a peace movement. You call it a fact, but I haven't seen any concrete proof of it.
If I had a solution, I'd be working for the government and making a lot more money than I am now. But I hope that any solution I might come up with wouldn't stretch the limits of any law or of the Constitution. I think some of the present practices do.
On the other hand, I'm sure you're right, because you sig used to say that, so I'll just take it on faith that you're a lot brighter than I am. Then again, I've never claimed to be right on much of anything. I present my opinions and experiences.
However, I do think I'll exercise my right to believe what I think is right, and what I think is over the line.
|