Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Claim: Phone spying foiled NYC attack. Zawahri Santa Monica shooting "familial"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152

    Claim: Phone spying foiled NYC attack. Zawahri Santa Monica shooting "familial"

    The foreign press relays the claim that terrorist attacks foiled by NSA phone spying, but the Santa Monica College shooting was a premeditated familial (can't use domestic anymore) problem.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bing-plot.html

    Here's updated Santa Monica College shooting info.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,6582879.story

    None dare call it terrorism.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The foreign press relays the claim that terrorist attacks foiled by NSA phone spying, but the Santa Monica College shooting was a premeditated familial (can't use domestic anymore) problem.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bing-plot.html

    Here's updated Santa Monica College shooting info.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,6582879.story

    None dare call it terrorism.

    I'm trying to be careful about using the words terror, terrorism, and so forth.

    For example, regarding the recent beheading of the Brit soldier, the word terrorists was used extensively. I fell right into using it myself. A little ways into the thread, a poster pointed out that it wasn't terrorism because the killers attacked a soldier--the military. Whoa! He was right. Moreover, the killers didn't attack the civilians in the immediate area. A woman was even able to stand dangerously close to one of them videoing his rant. That wasn't terrorism. If anything it was a very small scale insurgent attack.

    In the Santa Monica killings, I've not yet seen a political demand, something that is included in the definition of terrorism. And, don't let anybody claim the definition is changed--they're just looking for sensationalism or advancing an agenda. Terrorism has always included some political demand like "get out of the West Bank and Gaza."

    Slopping the meaning of terror over onto non-terror acts feeds government power. Tons of civil protections are being sacrificed in the name of preventing "terror". Also, its gotten to the point where I've read several times of people being prosecuted for making everyday threats against others as "terroristic threats."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Slopping the meaning of terror over onto non-terror acts feeds government power. Tons of civil protections are being sacrificed in the name of preventing "terror".
    It seems everything feeds government power now-a-days, except the old stand-bys of honor and independence.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    It seems everything feeds government power now-a-days, except the old stand-bys of honor and independence.
    Well, you're right.

    But, its only to be expected when the boot-heeled population itself believes ruling others without their consent is OK--majority rule. Half the populace runs around arguing and fighting with the other half because each thinks its entitled to rule others if it can just achieve a majority.

    Meanwhile, the ruling class plays the one against the other, knowing full well it can diminish civil protections (rights)--the populace already doesn't believe in the most important right of all--consent. So, its no surprise the government gets away with expansion after expansion after expansion, power-grab after power-grab after power-grab. If its OK for one bunch of people to rule another bunch of people without their consent, then its necessarily OK for a third bunch of people to rule both without either's consent. I'm hoping more people will realize something along the lines of, "Oh, wait a minute. At the moment I decided it was OK for me to rule the other fellow without his consent, I also made it OK for some third fellow to rule me! And, what if he is more devious and self-centered than me? Hold it! I take it back!!"



    It occurred to me the other day that the constitution really has no legitimacy, nor the state governments. By that I mean, I saw another angle on their illegitimacy that had escaped me previously.

    The Founders justified the legitimacy of their break with England in the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph gives the principles, the entire foundation of their argument: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...life, liberty, pursuit...to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen)

    This is all very well and good. Except for one tiny little problem. They did not then govern by consent. Tons of Torys were governed without their consent. The constitutional convention had to be instituted secretly to avoid resistance--just another word for refused consent. Rhode Island was the only state to put the constitution to a popular vote--it was defeated 11-1. Most of the rest of the states--perhaps all--created separate state conventions so the federalists could pack the conventions to improve chances for ratification. But, even then there was quite a row; lots of people were opposed to the constitution, correctly foreseeing the establishment and growth of an overpowering monster. Nobody will ever convince me that all those opponents of the constitution suddenly switched their consent on the day the last state ratified the constitution.

    So, we're left with a problem.

    First, realize that the entire legitimacy of the break with England is founded on the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The colonies signed the Declaration, each becoming a country: "That these colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states..." It wasn't the fedgov that did the break; it didn't exist yet.

    So, if the break with England was not legitimate, then the government of each new state was not legitimate, either. Nor, any state government that succeeded them. Moreover, no state government would have the legitimacy to ratify the constitution, thus making the constitution and its fedgov illegitimate.

    But, lets say the break with England, as founded on the principles in the second paragraph of the Declaration, was legitimate. Meaning, those principles are correct and legitimate. Then, the only way the succeeding governments could maintain their legitimacy is if they adhere to those principles.

    So, in a nutshell. Either, the founders illegitimately broke with England, making everything since then illegitimate. Or, their break was legitimate, and by their own words, every state government since July 5th 1776, and the fedgov, are illegitimate for not adhering to the principles in the second paragraph of the Declaration.

    People can't have it both ways. In fact, I'll argue that people trying to have it both ways is the reason the fedgov and stategovs are what they are today.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-09-2013 at 11:53 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,194
    Seems to me that unless the terrorists are wearing a sign, carry a ID card has a Koran and is shouting god is great. It can't be terrorism BS. Even then the government denied the facts. IE Fort Hood shooter and others

    Our government has adopted an unrealistic definition to do a couple of things keep the public in the dark as to the number attacks, not give the terrorist a platform for their hate. Or is actively promoting Islam to weaken this country.

    I believe that we have become so politically correct or worse complicate with the terrorists to destroy the fabric of the country that the government can't face the truth.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 06-11-2013 at 07:08 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I believe that we have become so politically correct or worse complicate [sic erat scriptum] with the terrorists to destroy the fabric of the country that the government can't face the truth.
    "Spelling" or intelligible meaning? Complicate or complicit, there is a difference and words do mean things. But I'm done being tolerant, join your peers ...
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-11-2013 at 07:26 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "Spelling" or intelligible meaning? Complicate or complicit, there is a difference and words do mean things. But I'm done being tolerant, join your peers ...
    I am so glad some one has time to find these mistakes and point them out.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  8. #8
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Of course it does.

    Giving .gov complete access to everything you do limits what you can get away with. Put GPS on cars, take DNA from all citizens, monitor all communications, cameras everywhere etc.

    Who wants to live that way?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •