dudescholar@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Once again, you are talking out your ear. Almost all were swept up on
> > immigration violations. The rest were swept up because they had
> personal
> > interaction with the known hijackers or with other al Qaeda
> operatives.
>
> > In a war of insurgency, as this one is, there are no front lines to
> > 'capture' prisoners on. This ain't no Stalag 13, no "Hogan's Heros",
> > lady. Wake up and smell the patchouli. The enemy has infiltrated our
> > homeland, they walk among us, dress like us, and try to act like good
> > little westernized muslims.
>
> So, someone under CIA surveillance comes up to you in an airport and
> asks the time. The operative, because of your now known contact with a
> "suspected" terrorist notes, "Round him up for questioning!" and when
> you say you don't know anything it's OK to pull out all the stops to get
> you to confess to your "knowledge"? I'm not sure I like the idea of
> sacrificing individuals on the alter of paranoia.
Well, I've never associated with any known terrorists. If I were, I'd
likely take it as such a slight on my personal honor to be associated
with such an individual as to seek to clear up any questions about the
association.
That is, of course, unless I thought the 'terrorists' were in fact
freedom fighters and that my government was a fascist tyranny. In which
case, I'd fully expect that government to treat me badly and take
measures in such a frame of mind. If apprehended, I'd likely make claims
about my civil rights being violated, being fully aware that as far as
that society was concerned, such protestations are purely for propaganda
purposes. Relative to that society, I would completely understand that I
was the enemy, and proper strategy for me would be to seek to further
undermine it by trying to push that government into behaving (or being
perceived as behaving) in a far more extremist manner than it actually
is or is preceived to be. More extremism on my enemy's part will recruit
more people to my cause, and their strategies should also be to increase
the extremism of our opponents until enough of the population is pissed
off by that government that it rises up and overthrows it.
Do you see how people like Samantha, et al, by harping on how 'bad' our
government and society are, contribute to the cause of the enemy, in
this light?
I am sure Samantha says what she does entirely from the best of motives.
I just don't think she thinks this through entirely.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT