Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers
Academiphiliac writes to mention the BBC reported in an article this morning that the Malaysian government may start using tough anti-terror laws to censor bloggers who insult either Islam or the country's king. "The move comes as one of Malaysia's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party. The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial. But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom."
-coming just as Gordon Brown is considering strengthening UK terror laws....
if I post a cartoon of me fucking Mohammed up the arse, that makes me a terrorist? what is this world coming to?
Yeah, that'll stop terror alright. Blasphemy laws.
Radical Islam will be the death of freedom.
I support the voice against the king and against radical Islam (and all her sympathizers).
The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial.
But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom.
"religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky, and he has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these things he will send you to a place full of fire, and smoke, and burn and torture forever and ever 'till the end of time.... but he loves you. And he needs money." G. Carlin.
So the new rules can get you detained indefinitely, citizen. But don't you forget to pay taxes.
All countries are full of shit.
You can't handle the truth.
Considering that most terrorists are Muslim, somewhat ironic that anti-terrorism laws are being used to silence those who "insult Islam." How else is Islam going to be civilized and reformed from within if criticism and debate on the state of Islam in the modern world is crushed in a major Muslim nation, Malaysia, keeping in mind most of the world's Muslims live in Asia?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
According to his latest blog entry, he has been released after 8 hrs, and the reason for his temp detention was comments made on the website
The Islamic terrorists are going to have a tough time figuring out where they stand on this: are they in favor because it punishes people who insult Islam or are they opposed because it's part of an anti-terrorism effort?
For that matter, the right-wing conservatives are also going to have a tough time with this: are they opposed because it punishes people who insult Islam (a favorite pastime of right-wing conservatives) or are they in favor because they reflexively support anything that falls under the guise of anti-terrorism?
The intent of the law doesn't matter one iota. What matters is what it allows. If it can be abused, then its very likely that it will be at some point. Even if the guys currently in charge use it responsibly, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way when leadership changes hands.
Of course, it's always disheartening to see things like this:
"I was alleged to have insulted the king, and also Islam and incite racial hatred, so I am going in there to reply to all these charges. I promise I'm going to give them a hell of a tough time," he told the BBC before he turned himself in.Freedom of speech, except for the speech we don't like. Somehow their assurances concerning the intent of the law don't give me much confidence.
Think so? Let's test it out. Islam sucks! The Malaysian king sicks! Now come and get me.
I support the King and the censoring of all anti-Islam speech in Malaysia. If Malaysians don't like it, then they need to get up off their asses and do something about it.
Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, but I'm really getting tired of seeing governments screw people over, and the people don't do anything about it. Maybe we all deserve to live in misery, being oppressed by bad rulers, since we're not willing to do what it takes to retain our freedom.
The problem with insulting Islam is...
That it's far too easy to do!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Everything you find will look like a terrorist to you.
... sure ...
Just think of our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - daily we hear reports that 70 terrorists were killed - and yet up to 50 percent of those terrorists are in fact younger than 10 years old.
The same will be true of Malaysia's looking for terrorist blogs. Lots of innocent people, upset at their government or a cop who copped a feel while "searching" their sister, will be declared to be terrorists.
And, since they will be said to be so, they won't be given adequate legal trials or lawyers or able to see their accuser or hear the evidence.
Evidence like: "Sometimes I feel like pouncing on cops and beating them up." Which could be said by someone who had a cop ignore their stolen bike.
But they'll be terrorists
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That alone should get the parent modded TROLL -1.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Hippie chicks are easy, if you can stand the smell.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It requires blood. Reading past Slashdot comments, most of us pastey basement dwellers rather vote with our Diebolds and not our Colts.
captcha:obeyed
Funny, if America sets the example then I could not say the following:
George Bush sucks, Hillary Clinton is a whore. Our troops kill babies (I do not think this).
I think you need to understand what Freedoms Americans have. Also I think you need to rethink what you are saying. Yes America detains terrorist indefinitely some people think this is wrong others do not. How do you punish someone who does not have a problem with blowing themselves up? If you are American please be happy for the freedoms you have, if you are not please move to Iran or some other country in the middle east and rethink your life. Maybe then you will figure out that you are mistaken. You know they say "You do not know what you have till it is gone".
You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.
By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).
I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.
*Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).
*Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.
*Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.
Anyway, yeah, pipe dream.
Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I'm conservative, male, white, rich (top 5% of the world), christian and anti-radical islam.
:)
+ lawsuit)
Am I evil yet? Hope not
I would imagine the dumb terrorists will just keep doing dumb stuff. The smart ones, like the Imams attacking America via lawsuits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=imams+plane
As for me, see above creds, I will oppose anti-freedom laws. All men are *created* equal and should be treated as such. There are those who attack others, both with violence and unjust laws. They should be stop. It is unjust to say I can't practice my religion (whatever it may be) just because you disagree. As long as the religion is peaceful and not violent, abusive, etc.
I support freedom beyond getting upset about people who (constantly) insult Jesus, Christianity. Why? It allows ME to pratice my faith without restriction.
Yeah, I'm sure that this thread will now be flooded with right-wing conservatives offering personal testimonials about how they have never in their lives said anything even remotely critical of Islam and that the very thought of doing such a thing makes them ill.
I'm sure any sane person would rather vote for a new government than take up arms and shoot people (and get shot at) to achieve a new government. It's just a matter of when "enough is enough", and enough people have decided it's time for the latter.
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
And we still have things like freedom of speech, for the most part. There's some bad things, like the government being able to see which books I check out from the library without a warrant, but that's really nothing like being jailed indefinitely just for insulting a stupid religion.
In these other countries, things aren't like this. Not only can they be jailed for insulting a stupid religion, their government is a monarchy, so they can't ever change it.
Islam used to be a peaceful and pretty advanced religion. The arabs came up with a number of scienfitic advances under islam and until recently islam co-existed peacefully with other religions. However it seems to increasingly have been taken over by the stupid, the mentally deranged and the oppresive sadists who seem to want sharia law (otherwise known as hell on earth for anyone who values freedom, particularly women) for reasons personally I can't fathom other than they're so totally fixated on their Koran that they've lost touch with reality (mind you , doesn't that sum up most religious people). Its about time average muslims did something about this , not just pay lip service to it. Perhaps if they see their religion being insulted they might try and eviscerate the cancer thats currently spreading through it.
"unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator".
That is the problem. It seems to me that American people have nothing prepared for that type scenario.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
So anyone who disagrees with the notion that all Hindus, atheists, and Buddhists should be killed is a right wing conservative?
OK. If that make me a right wing conservative, so be it.
But you are surely not in agreement with the principles of Sharia law? As in, everyone who doesn't believe in the correct magical superman is murdered by the State? You wouldn't want that in your own country, right?
Sharia law is evil in exactly the same sense that Communism and Nazism are evil. Exchange worship of a Stalin/Mao figure for a deity, and change a few economic policies, and you have exactly the same thing. People are required to think certain thoughts and adopt certain lifestyles, and punished by death if they do not. Any thinking person should be strongly opposed to such an idea. But then, all religions know how to brainwash people so that they cannot think critically about their own faith.
We criticise and challenge Christians about silly beliefs like Creationism, and Christians ignore us and go on believing what they want. Fine. We should criticise and challenge Muslims about their silly beliefs too. But (at least in my country) no-one dares to do that, because the Muslims won't just ignore it.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Actually, what I meant was changing all the leaders. You don't need to abolish the system of government to change the government itself. It happens here in America every 4 years, at least for the Executive Branch. Even with the same system in place (parliamentary in your case), all-new leaders can cancel old, bad laws and institute new, better laws (in theory anyway).
We do, actually.
I assure you that no US military unit would follow the orders of a president that refused to turn over power unilaterally. And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
More likely the scenario would be just like it has been in past Republics, the Senate/Congress would proclaim a dictator with the SCOTUS approving it, or a constitutional convention would simply change the rules completely and allow for a dictator.
That would be soemwhat more problematic because you would have some ligitimacy.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Huh? Sure we do, at least a lot more than most other countries.
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.
Headline: "Malaysia Uses..."
/.
Article: "The Malaysian government may..."
TF(BBC)A: "The Malaysian government has warned that it could..."
When I had to listen to it on shortwave, BBC was a great alternative to the then already groupthink polluted US media. Now it's Fox News with British accents. Despite their Reynolds Wrap hard hats, some people think this happens on purpose, forced by some shadowy puppet governments or government puppets. This example shows how it happens due only to inattention to detail, and desire to make a point, even here on
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
It's not confusing at all. You assume that anyone except the die-hard nerds even has such broad and inflexible terms as "anti-terrorism is always bad".
For starters, I doubt that anyone would seriously define themselves as a "terrorist". (This isn't D&D and people cheerfully proclaiming themselves -- or their whole race -- to be chaotic evil.) The terrorists consider themselves more along the lines of "freedom fighters". You don't go blow yourself up just for the sake of making others panic a little. You need to believe in a much nobler goal for that. And more importantly the terrorist stuff isn't the goal, it's a means to an end. They want to achieve their own goals. I'm not saying they're necessarily sane or good goals, but they're nevertheless goals, and blowing shit up is just the means.
So if, for example, the goal is spreading the Islam or instituting a fundamentalist sharia regime or just showing the "evil" western world the middle finger, there's nothing confusing there. Laws forbidding people to speak against the Islam, are, essentially, just defending the territory they gain by the terrorist actions.
Note that I'm not accusing Malaysia of condoning terrorism. I'm just saying that from a terrorist's point of view, there'll be nothing confusing there. It'll be just a case of "Malayisia == good muslim state, more should follow that example, <insert secular state aligned with the west> == bad state, we should bomb them until they see the light and become like Malayisia."
Second, from another point of view, both the fundamentalist islamists and the fundamentalist christians just think whatever the imam or respectively preacher tells them to think. And we already know that A) the leaders of both are perfectly capable of being hypocritical, and B) they have no problem with presenting vague and hypocritical point of view to their followers. So basically they won't think in terms of "is terrorism good or bad?", they'll just think in terms of, "whatever serves _my_ cause or point of view is good, whatever serves an oposing point of view is bad".
The far right will have no problem taking a stance along the lines of "bombing the arabs just because they're muslims is damn good, and someone should get to it already, arabs bombing stuff for religion is bad and should be stopped", much as it both condones _and_ condemns religious terrorism in the same sentence. It's good when we do it, it's bad when our enemies do it. Duh.
In this particular example, my guess is that they can pick either side, and noone will find it confusing. You can always present it as just half, and deny the other half. E.g., either (A) phbt, that's not an anti-terror law, that's just evil muslim stuff to keep their people from seeing the light, or (B) yay, our good friends the malayisians are on our side in the war against terror, and of course they'll _never_ use such a vaguely defined and unchecked law against dissidents.
Which of them, might well depend on the interests in the area. If the good people of Malaysia are doing cheap work for the american corporations, or have any resources they're selling to the USA cheaply, it will be B. If not at all, it will be A.
And on yet another hand, when most people think of Malaysia, they think "asians" not "arabs". I don't think the extreme right has figured out what stance it needs to take about asians and their religions, and it doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to. And, frankly, you only need one enemy to keep people scared and rallied around a (bogus) battle banner. There's no real need to manufacture a _second_ bogeyman. Which is what the muslim arabs really are to the bible-thumping right: the bogeyman to keep the congregation scared and together with.
So the religious far right, even if it picks one or the other point of view, probably won't be _too_ vocal about it. It will at most issue the occasional protest or fiery sermon, then go back to playing the "auugh, scary muslim arabs" card.
Again, please don't read all the ab
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
when you wade through mohameds BS about islam being against terrorism and murder, you have to remember that this doesnt apply to cattle, infidels or the dhimmi people (subjufated by islam) who have less rights than livestock.
but then again, we dont want to insult muslims so we just mile like morons (or brits)
making ourselves believe that we muslims can evolve like other who have shed their beliefs for 21st century logic.
Of course we cant insult their beliefs, just like we cant say diddly about the other brain dead morons who consider themselves 'chosen people'. Brilliant.
Saying something remotely critical of Islam doesn't make you right wing or conservative. And saying that all right wing conservatives do X because that is your fucked up world view is just as stupid.
The vast majority of right wing conservatives don't care what religion you are. I will give you a hint, they aren't the ones in government prefacing every American with a descriptive word like African in order to separate them from clean white crackers either. I think you have the roles backwards, confused and in general, all fucked up. Maybe you should step back and look around a little more.
... I'd better not go to Malaysia. Ever. But I believe in free speech, damnit.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
That is the problem. It seems to me that American people have nothing prepared for that type scenario. We have ammunition, lots of ammunition. Though I think the first thing we would have to do is have an immediate and hopefully nonviolent takeover of the media - tv, radio, and print. Those assholes are too complacent and have stopped being relevant to real news for years. Personally I would place everyone from the homeless to hippy college professors to be on boards running such things as a television station.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Thank god we can trust governments not to abuse absolute power.
By not letting yourself be perpetually terrified.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If the people that I know in the military are any indication, then the day a President unilaterally declares himself king/emperor/dictator for life is the day that some missiles are "accidentally" launched at said dictator. There are a lot of military folks who take that "uphold the Constitution" part of their duty very very seriously.
Missiles are overkill. Some guy with a deer rifle can cover the president for life scenario.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I'm sure any sane person would rather vote for a new government than take up arms and shoot people
I think it's important to realize that no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. (If somebody can point to a solid example, I'd be very interested in knowing.) All instances of true reduction of power have been forced by either outside powers, civil war, or economic collapse.
With that, we can see that government power only expands, or at best remains constant over the long term. In the case of the US, expansion of power and revenue (especially federal) has occurred nearly exponentially over certain periods, with the past century being most notable.
Citing history, I belive we can only conclude that it is the destiny of every government to consolidate (centralize) power and increase revenue over its lifetime. After all, the US -- which is now the most expensive, most powerful government that has ever existed -- was originally designed with strict limits on the expansion of power.
I am a peaceful individual; I am not interested in war or coercion at all. So no, I do not have a solution to any of this. But again, I think it's important to realize this inherent trait of centralized power: there is a reason why governments expand their powers and revenue over time, and it's certainly not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.
The Malaysian king is a joke and this new law proves it. He must have eaten some bad mushrooms or had sex with too many goats. He's flipped his wig . . . twisted his noodle.
"Actually that is only true in the western world."
The Barbary pirates were Muslim.
Religions at their best work as social glue and when not under threat the business of civilization can proceed. Also since the Islamic empire of those days stretched far and wide, and trade thrived, such advances came about quite naturally. Currently with that empire broken up (often in terrible ways due to former European empires carving them up unnaturally), terrible inequality magnified by western interests in oil and ultimately threats (real or perceived) from non-Islamic forces radicalized religious figures gain support. Moderation thrives best when security exists. Why don't more most fundamentalist Christians blow up abortion clinics. Likely because they have a good life and when it comes down to it it's more important than God.
The Iraqi insurgents may not have much compared to our military, but they still have a damn sight more than us American civilians do! For example, go try to buy an AK-47 with an intact receiver (which I'm sure the Iraqis have plenty of) and see how far you get.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
But you are surely not in agreement with the principles of Sharia law? As in, everyone who doesn't believe in the correct magical superman is murdered by the State? You wouldn't want that in your own country, right?
Of course I don't agree with Sharia Law, and I certainly wouldn't want it in my country. But if it did become law in my country, I'd be getting my guns out and shooting people who enforce it, just like I'd be willing to shoot anyone who tried to get millions of people to board trains destined for death camps.
I'm just starting to think that if the people of Malaysia are willing to subject themselves to Sharia Law, then maybe they deserve it. Same goes for other countries. If people aren't willing to demand freedom, then maybe they simply don't deserve it.
I don't know. It seems like they may be looking at where we're headed, and are looking to get there before us.
At the very least I'm not sure you can say we aren't on the same path, with the numerous signing statements and exuctive orders the current adminstration has signed allowing the government to do exactly that to anyone who is a terrorist, proof be damned.
I live in Arizona so buying class 3 weapons is no problem as long as I have no criminal record, am at least 21, and pay the tax stamp on it. Also I would take a bolt-action .50 over any 50 year old Russian guns they have over there (which is also legal for purchase).
Creative Demolition
"The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial."
It's a good thing America doesn't do anything like that, right?
Oh, wait.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
"Islam used to be a peaceful and pretty advanced religion."
Oh rly?
You idiot.
www.prophetofdoom.net
Likely because they have a good life and when it comes down to it it's more important than God.
Hmmm.. Not being a Christian myself can you quote me where their God demanded that they kill themselves in His name?
Or are you just making up rules on how you think their religion should work instead of going to the source?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This is what is depressing about modern life.
At one point, if someone was a racist, or religious bigot, or a tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, they said so and were up front about it.
These days it seems like everyone lies so freely and easily and without guilt that you can't make a rational decision since you can't trust anyone.
Islam out and out says it is okay to lie to non-believers (I think judiasm does in the torah too).
But lots of government officials in the US these days lie constantly. Corporate types lie as well.
"officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom" while right in front of you they are strangling internet freedom.
It's like the sid ceasor skit where the wife catches him in bed with his lover and he denies it constantly until the bed is made and the lover has left the room and then the wife is not even sure if it happened any more.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Or just cancel old, bad laws, new laws be damned. It's not like they HAVE to replace every shitty restriction imposed on the public with another, perhaps slightly less shitty, restriction.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
That's oh, so true. Some of the things I miss having are:
Now, I don't believe that we are at the point of being a police state. I agree that we are far from being at the point where someone who makes a suitably-public remark that is governmentally-insensitive will find themselves in a attitudinal-modification facility.
But can you honestly say that we aren't closer to that than we used to be?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
...fuck Malaysia & fuck whoever their king is.
Seriously.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Islam is bad
http://www.prophetofdoom.net
I've no quote at all to give, and blowing up a clinic does not require killing yourself, just making yourself highly susceptible to arrest. It was more a comment on the willingness of believers to be attracted to radical leaders based on their own radical interpretation of text. The bible is not without it's own terrible examples of death endorsed by God and can easily be emphasized if the follower is uneducated/unread, pissed off (or convinced he should be) and thus gullible. I guess my main point is that when there is security in life, outside forces that are not a direct threat become less important. That breeds more moderate thought on religion and makes radicalism less attractive.
1.) 'Terrorism' is the same as 'Communism' used to be. Provides the same tool to those who actually use it.
and 2.) Mohammedism is Christianity's cousin. Some centuries Christianity is the bad boy kicking the Jews around or picking an attention-whore fight over religion. Keeps the atheism at bay. Think about it. This century it's Mohammedism that has stagnated. So they're the tough ethnic cousin on call in online tough guy conversations. = every forum online lately
Not only can they be jailed for insulting a stupid religion, their government is a monarchy, so they can't ever change it.
:|
Malaysia is a democracy.
iqu
Well, no. Islam got its big start when the Prophet began to conquer pretty much everything he could reach. It continued in that vein till it met something that could stop it. It was rolled up and subsumed by various flavours of Mongol conquerors, which resulted in the destruction of that "enlghtened" Islam you seem to think existed from the beginning. Remember that Sharia Law applied from the very beginning of Islam.
A frequently made assumption by Americans and (some) Europeans is that "Freedom" is desired by virtually all people everywhere. History does not seem to support that contention, really. Sharia Law worked quite well for centuries in the Islamic world. In many ways, it still does. Personally, I'm none too fond of the parts of Sharia that reduce to Dress Codes, but then we must remember that Sumptuary Laws (AKA Dress Codes) existed in many societies throughout History, including most European countries during the Renaissance. Prostitutes must wear red shoes is not, after all, a Muslim idea.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well for starters, they're not really focused on the Koran, they're focused on particular interpretations of things someone claimed to hear from Muhammad. They're called Hadith
Secondly the reason the radical Islamists chose the specific oppressive Hadith they do is that Arabia has been marginalized by centuries of poor colonial rule. First came the Ottomans, then the British/French. Now (post WWII) the Arabs are (not entirely unreasonably) anticipating a third period of colonialism, either by Jews under the guise of Americans, or Americans under the guise of Jews.
The minority ethnic Chinese population operates large parts of Malaysia's economy. Naturally, this means it is difficult for ethnic Malays to move up in the economy as it stands. However, thanks to democracy, the political power lies in the hands of the Malays... who gladly elect populists.
These populists write affirmative action laws to control hiring and to limit government contracts with non-Malay companies. It's vaguely reminiscent of South Africa's populist ethnopolitics, but with the bizarre addition of a law outlawing the criticism of their affirmative action amendment.
If this was a game of SimCountry, you'd just have to move the "Prosperity" slider a few notches down to turn the country into another Uganda...
Yeah, but turning inward and isolating ourselves didn't work out so well in WWII, whats to make you think that it'll work this time?
We do. It is the Second Amendment, which enshrines a right that many people take very seriously. It would be bloody, however, so, except for a few radical wingnuts of either political extreme, all hope and pray it is never necessary to fully exercise that right.
Blogger goes to jail. Country remains strangled in the death grip of Islam and Monarchy.
Blow some shit up and kill some government types. Monarchy over thrown. Reference: American Revolution.
allah is the devil
Stop fucking the middle east.
History has clearly shown that the Middle East is a dom, not a sub.
Why buy an AK when you can purchase an AR-15?
You can easily obtain a working AK also, many for under 500 dollars. Plenty of people use them in 3 gun competitions because the 223 ammo for their ARs is getting too expensive.
Now, getting one thats fully automatic is a different story.
I think the greatest asset we have in the US to prevent the creation of a dictatorship is inertia. Can you imagine how much work it would be to restructure the Federal government into a fully top-down model. Think of the practical implications of cutting out the representative channels. Who would answer to whom? How would federal administrative law function? Who would fill the non-representative duties of today's congressmen?
A dictatorship would be laughed out of Washington if it wasn't preceded by enormous amounts of planning. If we couldn't manage a state of emergency in a single city after Katrina, how could we manage a state of emergency in an entire layer of government--let alone the country.
"Why don't more most fundamentalist Christians blow up abortion clinics."
How about because it would be a contradiction in beliefs? One can't talk about the sanctity of life on one hand, and take it away with the other. Besides if you actually read the Bible you'd not only know the correct answer, but you'd also know it's not necessary, not desired.
We are closer to a totalitarian state; more so now, but we were under Clinton as well. And my point is not Clinton versus Bush, it is to note that technological capabilities really bloomed for the Government under Clinton and have only increased. Due to enhanced technology, it is no longer as labor or resource intensive to listen on your calls, monitor your surfing, or fly over and determine your ambient energy output. (And by your, I mean YOU or ME. Not all of us collectively but each individual in the collective whole. Kinda scary, actually.)
The US really needs to have a frank dialog and discussion to decide how much permission we want to give our Government to observe and control us under the guise of the public good. Any approach to the subject has, so far, been based too much in partisan politics and too little in addressing the foundational issue of what kind of society we want given the capabilities of enhanced technology.
I believe that things will only get increasingly repressive until this discussion occurs and politicians have impressed upon their consciousness the difference between can and should where technology exists.
Personally I think of Islam as currently being in the place where Christianity was hundreds of years ago. You know - crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and all that other neat stuff.
And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
Probably because they're too chicken.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Well, I hope you don't count yourself as a right-wing conservative because in your other post on this article you said:
Muslims have been blowing innocent people up for quite a while...
Maybe I missed the post where you also said that Christians have been blowing up innocent people for quite a while, or the post where you said that atheists have been blowing up innocent people for quite a while, or even the post where you said that people of all religious backgrounds have been blowing up innocent people for quite a while - but commenting that Muslims, specifically, have been blowing up innocent people for quite a while would be a strange thing for someone to say who doesn't think that it matters what religious beliefs a person has.
Right, and that's exactly the problem I was referring to. In order to make the claim that American citizens could equal Iraqi insurgents, it would be necessary for them to have access to fully-automatic weapons.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
I thought that the US Marine Corps was more the Praetorian Guard? Aren't they the only US military unit which the president can command directly?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
*Updated as of Tuesday, 25 July 2007. Malaysia Today Editor YM Raja Petra Kamarudin was asked to go to Dang Wangi IPD, for his statements being recorded at 11.00 am. After a long interview, he walked out of the Police HQ at 7.10pm.
That's like saying Kansans are now an entire distinct people. (Granted they are a strange bunch.)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You kill them as an example to others. Don't fuck with us.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We do have access to fully-automatic weapons. Have you seen the streets of the urban areas of this country? Good luck against some of the more well armed mafia, gangs, and ex-military.
As a lamentable but unavoidable side-effect of their brave and glorious duties, your troops might not but your pilots sure as hell do.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
President Bush has declared himself dictator. He's had his people say that they are beyond any oversight by Congress, and that any attempt by Congress to prosecute them for contempt of Congress when they fail to testify or produce materials that Congress deems it requires for its Constitutionally-mandated oversight duties will be blocked when it's referred on to the Justice Department for enforcement. That's all a dictatorship is - authority in a single office and individual without check.
Okay, he hasn't said his dictatorship is for life yet. No need to do that until shortly before he's supposed to hand over power to the next president. Who knows, if by miracle a Republican is elected, maybe he'll go ahead and pass on the dictatorship. Will that make your military friends happy enough?
Even if Hillary steps into office after him, in a smooth transition, as things stand she'll be inheriting the dictatorial powers his people have seized for the office. Will your military friends be content to let her march them off to ill-conceived wars on the far side of nowhere, absent any power left to our Senators and Congresspersons to oversee or check her schemes?
No offense to the military, but if they're patriots, they're working out detailed plans to "accidentally" launch something in the very near future. Dictatorships are no more "declared" these days than wars are. Instead, we just slip into them like something comfortable.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Whereas in America, you can only get jailed for insulting non-stupid religions? No need to answer that one.
I missed the post where you defended your point of view. Islamic attacks THIS WEEK : 88 (in case you didn't notice it's wednesday evening, it *will* be over 100 before sunday, don't you worry).
...
659 people have died this week under islamic guns. 777 are wounded.
Care to see the list ?
7/25/07 ( Kandahar, Afghanistan ) - The Taliban shoot a Christian man to death.
7/24/07 ( Mogadishu, Somalia ) - A pregnant woman is among three civilians killed when Islamists toss a grenade into a market.
7/24/07 ( Bannu, Pakistan ) - Muslim terrorists fire rockets into a village, killing ten civilians.
7/24/07 ( Dattakhel, Pakistan ) - Islamic militants attack a security post, killing four members.
7/23/07 ( Kagai, Pakistan ) - Two men are abducted by al-Qaeda militants and executed by having their throats slit.
Note that this DOES NOT INCLUDE IRAQ
( source : www.thereligionofpeace.com )
Please tell me, how many people have been killed by Christians this week in the name of Jesus ? Any chance that'll change before Sunday ? Oh and why don't you act completely unfair and include Iraq terrorist casualties (who are not casualties of Christianity, but of the paedophile's* religion in any reasonable mind). Trust me, you won't get anywhere near 700.
* anybody who fucks a 9 year old girl is a paedophile. Even if he started a religion. No it is NOT disrespectful to say this, especially if the asshole in question boasted about it in "holy" texts.
Can you please explain ... how can the governments approval rating in a totalitarian state be ANY lower than 100% ?
There is an old Joke.
The election official comes to Assad (yes he's a muslim)
"Congratulations you have 99,9% of the vote"
Assad promply cuts off the head of the election official
Terrified, another official steps forward, knowing that if he doesn't placate the Syrian dictator he'll die soon enough anyway
"What could you want more ? Only 0.1% of the people voted against you. What else do we need to give you ?"
Assad replies : "Their names"
THAT is totalitarianism.
I've been to Malaysia. It's a shame, and scary for everyone, to see it descend into "Islamist" dictatorship. Because it was a "Muslim country" mostly in heritage and meaningless rhetoric until recently. It was almost, but not quite, as officially "Muslim" as, say, Canada is "officially Christian". Canada's still got a queen, too, but she's mostly reduced to a bust on coins. Malaysia's king was more powerful (and more local) than that, but not a whole hell of a lot, especially compared to the secular/elected government. And monarchy was steadily decreasing in any legal influence at all.
But now, Malaysia has the excuse to wield tyrannical powers by working with the terrorists in escalating terror supposedly "to stop terrorists" - by joining them in terrorizing the population. That's the excuse of the powermongers, mainly because terrorized people often accept it. For a while, at least, until it's too late to go back. Even the "Muslim" pretext is just another popular excuse. The authorities don't care about any of that. They care about only power. And the money that power brings, and the power that money brings to stay in power to get more money.
I just hope Canada can hold out longer.
--
make install -not war
re:"but officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom."
And then I'll ram by ovapositer down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest - but I'm not an alien!
That'd be nice, but government almost never works that way unfortunately.
I wonder where `in islam' is...
This is too easy.
It's simple: Muslim nations aren't threatening us in any credible way. Except for Afghanistan with OBL/Al Qaeda; but we took care of that to a good extent with a relatively small amount of military force, and we had been attacked, so there was obvious justification. It didn't take a gigantic invasion to topple the Taliban, since they were little more than a rag-tag terrorist organization posing as a government.
Turning inward is the correct and moral way to deal with outsiders, unless they specifically threaten you. If you hear your neighbors fighting, and it sounds like the husband is beating the wife, do you run over there with your guns brandished to "fix" the problem? Of course not. Call the police maybe if it sounds too bad, but otherwise mind your own business. Now if one of your neighbors is running around threatening to kill everyone on the block who doesn't pay him tribute, then it might be time to make him "disappear", but that's a different situation. Attempting to get involved in other peoples' situations generally just makes them (victim included) hate you, as any cop who's responded to a domestic call will tell you.
It's the same with countries. If you don't like the way other countries operate, that's just too bad. Only the citizens of that country have any say in the internal workings of their country. Now if they start threatening you (and perhaps your allies), then it's time to do something, but this really doesn't happen that often. WWII was an exceptional time. Germany and Japan were aggressors, attempting to build empires and force other countries to their will. Obviously, standing by and watching isn't a good idea because their demonstrated lust for power isn't going to stop at your country's border, so you have to take out the threat when it's still small enough to be manageable.
We haven't seen many actions like those in WWII in a long time, except by the US. And at least Japan and Germany were brutally honest about their power-seeking aspirations, unlike the US which makes up BS stories about "liberation" and "WMD" when it really just wants control over oil.
That didn't prevent the attack in the first place, though. If you have to resort to guerrilla insurgency, in the modern world it's quite questionable how much there is left to gain by the action. If you have to go guerrilla the opposing force is probably controlling all the economical and industrial assets already, as well as most of the significant infrastructure. You may be able to prevent them from using those assets, but that won't bring you the win, because you won't be able to use them either, and the modern western world pretty much runs on economy. If you lose the economy and the infrastructure, you lose the society we want to live in. If you look at Iraq, you'll also see exactly why there's no win in guerrilla warfare: nobody is winning anything, everybody is losing.
What guerrilla insurgency could do is to make the attack (or takeover) so expensive (in whatever terms that are relevant) that the attack isn't a good idea in the first place. Maybe some day somewhere it will actually prevent the attack that way, so yeah. I guess.
Boy do I love the ins and outs and twists and turns of Malaysian politics ;)
The modern way is to make all up sorts of ludicrous excuses (that are just about believable) why the constitution doesn't apply to you (uhh...Bush wouldn't..oh...ye...nevermind) and rig the election (but I really can't see anyone being audacious enough to rig an election to get Bush in...oh...ye...nevermind).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Republicans are aware of this possibility too. That's why they've spent the last twenty years busily corrupting the US military to a pro-Republican viewpoint.
Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
or something like that...
If some large military force is attacking or subjugating you, then you probably have nothing left to lose, unless you actually want to live under someone else's reign that you have no say in. It doesn't matter if all the infrastructure is destroyed by the insurgency, because it's not worth living under the oppressors' rule anyway.
I don't think it's safe to apply isolationist principles that may have worked perfectly well 200 years ago to today's situation when things are so different. If a growing number of *people* within a country are pushing for their governments to be less friendly to America, and support attacks on America (terrorist or military), that's a legitimate problem.
If you live in a country that is trying to censor everything you say, then could you somehow email your stories/blog entries to someone in another country so that they could post it to a blog for all the world to read? Of course, I am sure the government of the censored person's country would then try to trace emails, IP addresses, etc. of people reading the blog, emailing to other countries, etc. Also, I think countries like China have some way to block what goes in and out of the internet there. Is that right? Anyway, it seems like you could get your message to someone in another country somehow, and they could blog it for the world to read. Mark p.s. Sorry if an idea like this has already been posted. I can't read through the tons of comments above me.
One that only holds a grudge for seven generations.
Spoils of war. They will no more get back their land then the Indians (casino Indians) will get back north America.
After a generation or two a rational people will move on. Granted the Irish didn't but that kind of makes my point about rational people.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But in the countries we're talking about, it's the opposite: Governments try to keep a lid on their people, who are out in the streets chanting "Death to America."
I don't think it's safe to apply isolationist principles that may have worked perfectly well 200 years ago to today's situation when things are so different. If a growing number of *people* within a country are pushing for their governments to be less friendly to America, and support attacks on America (terrorist or military), that's a legitimate problem.
I don't entirely agree. The average joes on the streets of cities in Saudi Arabia and other such places may hate America and Americans, but that doesn't mean they can just come over here and attack us. If I didn't like Mongolia, what could I, a single person, do to them? I might have a gun or two, but I don't have a boat or plane capable of crossing the Pacific Ocean with any small arms I may have. Therefore, I'm not a credible threat.
It's the same with these people. The only thing they can possibly do is terrorism, and that can guarded against just like any other criminal activity. If terrorism from a single country became a problem, we could simply bomb them into submission just like we did with Afghanistan; after all, once a group of people has demonstrated themselves to be an ongoing threat, then there's justification for military action. But I don't think we have any business getting involved in their internal affairs before that point.
Besides, the main reason they're all pissed at us now is because we keep getting involved in their internal affairs (overthrowing regimes, propping up brutal dictators, etc.). Maybe if we stopped that, they'd focus their energy on something else.
If the people that I know in the military are any indication, then the day a President unilaterally declares himself king/emperor/dictator for life is the day that some missiles are "accidentally" launched at said dictator. There are a lot of military folks who take that "uphold the Constitution" part of their duty very very seriously.
The trick is to cut those military folk in on it and convince them el presidente is just safe gaurding the constitution in a dangerous uncertain world.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.,/i>
A group of gun nuts vs a professional military/police force.. hmm I remember vaguely of this happening a few times int he US and the gun nuts didn't fare too well.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
Picture this;
"My fellow americans. In light of the pressing terrorists threat I cannot in good conciounce convene a election. I have recived an agreement from the various legislative and judicial branches (that I had either appointed, bribed, or blackmailed) to to approve a temporary emergency term exstension of 8 additional years. I assure you elections will be as soon as we deal with this terrorist threat. I know it is a hard job but I must shoulder on for our childrens sake. Why wont' you think of the children. The generals of the various armed forces (close cousins) will ensure order is kept in the oncoming exstended term."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
A group of gun nuts? If you're referring to Waco and Ruby Ridge, you're being pretty stupid.
There's a lot of gun nuts in Iraq and they seem to be winning against our professional military force. A military can't win against an armed populace that completely opposes them.
Comparing an entire population that opposes a military force to a small group of extremists is just stupid.
A group of gun nuts? If you're referring to Waco and Ruby Ridge, you're being pretty stupid.
There's a lot of gun nuts in Iraq and they seem to be winning against our professional military force. A military can't win against an armed populace that completely opposes them.
Comparing an entire population that opposes a military force to a small group of extremists is just stupid.
Sure you can. How do you think most middle eastern powers stay in power. Most of the populations there are armed and oppose the rulers but through bribery, violence, and supurior firepower they have kept the lid on the seathing armed underclass for some time. Remember Saddam had few friends in the religious majority in iraq. Iraq mostly hated him.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yeah, right. The 400+ members of Congress wouldn't agree to that, and would very noisily oppose it. And there likely would be an armed insurrection if it didn't look like the other branches of government would do anything about it. And as others have pointed out, good luck getting the military (i.e., the guys on the ground with boots and rifles, not the ones with fancy hats and medals) to actually go along with this.
Are you trolling, or do you really believe the gibberish you write? This is the second trollish comment from you in 20 minutes.
This is one of the articles that caused it all
i d=6714#c
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?item
Censor that, fuckwits.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive."
Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998) Historian and author
Yeah, right. The 400+ members of Congress wouldn't agree to that, and would very noisily oppose it. And there likely would be an armed insurrection if it didn't look like the other branches of government would do anything about it. And as others have pointed out, good luck getting the military (i.e., the guys on the ground with boots and rifles, not the ones with fancy hats and medals) to actually go along with this.
Are you trolling, or do you really believe the gibberish you write? This is the second trollish comment from you in 20 minutes.
The point isn't that it's goign to happen with bush. The point is it's goign to happen if enough of you consider it to be such a ludicrous possibility. It happened to a Germany, Happened to italy etc.. A recession/depression and something like a major terrorist event and you exactly the conditions that would allow it to happen. Is pointing out a scenario trollish? America is nto seperate fromt he rest of humanity. It maintains the same foilables as the rest of the world and with the right pre-conditions bad shit can happen. In the past 8 years your personal freedoms have been diminshed and there hasn't been a very big repsonse. If you slide it in slow enough would they notice?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
EOM
Now, that I'll agree with. If it were already a totalitarian state, discussions like this would be taking place via PGP encryption on private out-of-country host machines.
And I also agree that this isn't a Republican-vs.-Democrat issue. However, these two parties have the most to gain by using the latest technological advances to ensure that the U.S. remains a two-party political system.
Historically, when a third party (such as Temperance, Reform, Bull Moose, what have you) shows itself to resonate with the voters, that's when one of the two parties usually starts to embrace the concept espoused by that third party, although not as whole-heartedly.
The problem at this point is that the public is too evenly divided for one party to take a (pardon the expression) radical idea in such a way as to ensure that the voters agree enough to put it into power. And meanwhile, the established party members find that it's easier to apply these newly available tools than to take risks.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
No, not exactly. Saddam was very well-liked among the Sunnis in the middle of the country. They were a minority, true, but they were still a very large group of people. Without that base of power (which is why the military was loyal to him too; they were part of that group), he wouldn't have stayed in power. It also helped that he (and his military) was brutally violent towards anyone who threatened him. Hundreds of thousands of Shias were killed during their failed uprising.
Somehow, I don't think American soldiers would commit atrocities like that against their fellow Americans. Remember, in Iraq, there were (and still are) three separate ethnic groups, all very large portions of the total population, each living in a different part of the country, and they all hated each other. It's not that hard to motivate people to do horrible things to people of (what they perceive to be) a different group, whom they already don't like. Here in America, we don't have that; we're just a bunch of mutts mostly, and the separate ethnic groups we do have aren't really that different (except the Spanish-only-speaking illegals from Mexico perhaps), and they all live in and around each other generally. The military also looks much like the rest of the population. Basically, the military IS us; they're our relatives, neighbors, etc.
So no, the situation in America is absolutely nothing like any of the middle-eastern countries, and there's no way Americans would accept a dictatorship.
Here again, you're making wild comparisons between completely different situations.
Germany and Italy? Their leaders were extremely popular at the time! Did you not read your history books? Hitler was loved by his people until they were defeated. He didn't just seize power and force the German people to his will, they willingly followed him. In case you haven't noticed, Bush's popularity is at an all-time low. I don't know anyone that actually likes him right now, though this was different four years ago. What's more, Hitler convinced his people that they had some "right" to subjugate people and build an empire, and also blamed their problems on other people (the allied powers, the jews, etc.). It's easier to gain and hold power when you can convince the people to hate some other group and direct their energy and attention there. We don't have a lot of people to hate here, except middle easterners because of the supposed terrorism threat.
The reduction of personal freedoms has been noticed, the response is just very very slow. The people already made a big statement in '06 that they weren't happy with things; that's why they elected so many Democrats to Congress. It was a real shock to Bush. Now the Dumbocrats haven't stood up to Bush, and people are getting even more angry. I expect to see some interesting happenings from now until the '08 election. I'm already seeing Ron Paul Revolution posters everywhere I go.
I'm normally pretty cynical, but the idea that Bush, or anyone else, could make himself dictator of America is simply ridiculous. America isn't separate from "humanity", but it certainly is quite different from all the middle-eastern countries which have never even had democratic governments or significant freedoms, and the situation here doesn't even remotely resemble that of WWII. The sky is not falling.
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
What makes you feel that only Western governments have representative governments? India is the largest democracy in the world and has a representative government? So are dozens of countries in Asia. Are the elections fair? Not always. But please raise your hand if you feel the 2000 and 2004 Presidential votes were fair.
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.
And then there is the media, which will suggest that losing rights is good for us, lull us into complacency, and encourage us to vote away our rights. So all the military, arms, whatever, doesn't help if we ourselves don't care about rights. Which we don't, as evidenced by the lack of uproar over the past five years' shredding of the Bill of Rights.
I guess that's why Bush's approval ratings are so high... oh wait, they aren't.
Or maybe that's why so many people voted for the Republicans in '06... oh wait, they didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian)
I miss him terribly, one of the funniest I've ever seen.
RIP
(and may his God go with him)
I'll be Godwin'd, but anyway:
Hitler demonstrated very well how you can stay in power while still adhering to the letter of the constitution. It's called colloquially the "Ermächtigungsgesetz", the USian translation being "PATRIOT act". Of course, it may be somewhat difficult for Bush to stay president - but that isn't needed, because the (economic and political) power elites have learned from the Hitler experience and thus try to keep stricter control over their puppet: If Bush is replaced, it doesn't matter. Even a democratic president will be corrupted by the power granted by "anti-terrorism" laws (especially as the US is one of the few "democratic" countries where you have only the choice between two far right wing parties).
The other branches of government in the US are also already severely weakened: what with illegal wiretaps, circumvening the courts; replacing classical conservative US attorneys with neoconservative ones because the old ones weren't aggressive enough; the executive claiming under the doctrine of unitary executive powers which were reserved for the other branches; hindering investigation by the courts by claiming state secrets; the list goes on and on, but the point is clear: no branch of government will save you.
Indeed, the military very much loathed Hitler, but still didn't do anything: do you really think that the military (as a whole) will be anything different? Then just think about how they knew from the start what a crap idea it was to send the soldiers into Iraq to their deaths, but yet they didn't do anything. Of course, in many dictatorships the reign is cut short by military putsch, so appeasement may be needed. Hitler did that by killing the leaders of the SA to alleviate the military's fear of being replaced by Hitlers private army.
In the Weimar Republic, every party had its milita wing which ran around and hit each other and the people. Of course, I don't think the German people had as much guns as the US people - but the same was valid, at least initially, for the party militas: If both sides have guns, it doesn't mean that you win but that you die. Not only that, but it is to note that they didn't use the military within the country: For that, there were Police and SA. Therefore, there isn't a problem with the military not wanting to shoot their countrymen, because they aren't asked to in the first place.
Also, an insurgency only helps against occupying forces. But if the government is domestic, it is easy to paint the insurgency as communistic or terroristic (isn't it funny how every totalitarian government uses the very same scapegoats?). Thus, they don't need to make up a threat, but they can point to a live one.
Also, the slide into a totalitarian state is often subtle in that people are able to close their eyes to the truth until the totalitarian structures became so far entrenched that even a civil war or revolution can only hope to replace one totalitarian system with another. You may not be there yet - but unless you step in now instead of waiting until it becomes unbearable (and unchangeable), it won't be stopped.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
It's usually at least 90% (at least in the official figures), that I can give you, but all totalitarian states I've seen numbers about, it was never exactly 100%. The idea is, after all, to get the people vote for you by any force necessary, not to fake the results - unless you've only got an approval rating about 30%, where you need fake votes just to stay in power.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
Communism isn't in and of it self evil, it is usually the totalitarian regime that enforces it.
But you can't have Communism without a totalitarian regime. As Marx realised, if ordinary people have a choice in the matter, they will prefer to take a bigger slice of the capitalist pie, rather than give up their "bourgeois freedoms" like the right to own property and choose their own occupations. So Communism has to be forced on people "for their own good", and the only type of government that can do that is a 1984/Stalin/Mao-style arrangement with regular purges of dissidents.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Umm...
To us, most terrorists are either Muslim or South American Communist.
To a Palestinian, most terrorists are either American or Jewish.
To a Basque, most terrorists are Spanish
To an Irishman, most terrorists are English
To a Tibetan or a Nepalese, most terrorists are Chinese
And so on. Pick your culture, and I'll tell you who the terrorists are. It's all relative. But there are three problems for us Americans:
1) We really have no idea about who lives in the rest of the world, much less any ability to see the world through their eyes.
2) In terms of reasonably preventable fear and death, we're probably the biggest bullies and bad guys out there.
3) And all the things we do to sort problems out, because of our ignorance and our bullying nature, just make them much, much worse.
Islamic terror exists because of Islam, and because it puts its leaders in power for as long as a conflict holds.
Or why Bush was impeached for over a dozen impeachable violations...oooh wait he wasnt. Or why Rumsfeld was prosecuted for war crimes....oh wait he wasnt.
You sir, is a kepala butoh for insulting Malaysia like that! Then again, they deserve it.
"George Habash, the founder of the PLO"
_ Organization#Creation
That's a lie. By no measure was there any "founder" of the PLO, and if you were going to try and pinpoint one, it wouldn't be George Habash.
How fucking pathetic are you that you pick a Christian in the PLO then fabricate a lie about him being the founder? It's not fucking hard to check liar.
"The Arab League on Cairo Summit 1964 initiated the creation of an organization representing the Palestinian people. The Palestinian National Council convened in Jerusalem on 29 May 1964. Concluding this meeting the PLO was founded on 2 June 1964. Its Statement of Proclamation of the Organization[8] declared "... the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its sacred homeland Palestine and affirming the inevitability of the battle to liberate the usurped part from it, and its determination to bring out its effective revolutionary entity and the mobilization of the capabilities and potentialities and its material, military and spiritual forces"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation
You're a liar and I caught you.
India got fucked longer and harder than the Middle East, but they didn't resort to the same kind of idiotic behavior. And look at India now.
Stop defending people who do horrible things just because they had horrible things done to them. It's been shown time and again that enlightened, civilized people can find a different way to stop getting fucked, regardless of how badly they were previously treated.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
If it were already a totalitarian state, discussions like this would be taking place...
Since this is the second comment on the issue, and you are not an anonymous coward, let me clarify: I never said the US is a Totalitarian state. I don't believe that for an instant. However, that possibility (not likelihood but possibility) is increasing and the issue needs to be addressed before it is too late for a non-violent resolution.
Your and the ac's post both allude to repressive totalitarian states of the past (communist Russia) and perhaps present-day China. I think you both are right in doing this, given historical precedent, but I think limiting totalitarian to mean only the afore fails to account for a more passive but more Orwellian system wherein one's life is an open book to the government. One where they have total access to your purchases, your finances, your travel, your postings, your IP addresses, and your encryption keys. (So it wouldn't matter if you used pgp or not.)
The fact is, the US governmental systems are already very close to this. Now, granted, much of this data has been obtained by private entities (which, for me, doesn't actually make it any more palatable), and I certainly not been abused in any fashion by the Government (well, except for TSA but that isn't personal, they hate everybody), but in either case, the legal and technological groundwork is being laid for a system that could most certainly control its citizens in the Totalitarian sense. Which, of course, lead to my previous statements about totalitarianism and technology.Hope that clarifies.
But the gun nuts in Iraq are losing repeatedly against our professional military force: we go into an area, kill several hundred of them, and maybe lose two or three people.
The problem is that they keep fighting anyway, even if they ought to know that they will lose. And we don't have enough people to keep them from organizing anywhere. Nor can we do so by enacting harsh measures, because the more we do that the more we are a hostile occupying power, which drives more people into the insurgency.
"If you have to resort to guerrilla insurgency, in the modern world it's quite questionable how much there is left to gain by the action."
Please list the time when an occupying force has successfully defeated a significant guerrilla insurgency.
Now list the times when a guerrilla insurgency has successfully defeated an occupying force.
You'll find, if you're honest and check the facts, that the second list is FAR FAR longer than the first.
So, your assertion that there is little to gain simply isn't supported by the facts.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I'm sorry, but this point is just stupid.
Either you don't know how easy it is to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto or you're vastly ignorant about how easy it is to operate a machine press.
Either way, the fact that people don't have access to full-auto weapons right now has absolutely no bearing on what would happen if a revolution broke out.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
For example all the Saudis that have traveled to Iraq/Afghanistan to attack US troops need killing. They and their families were already our enemies. Getting them to reveal themselves is a good thing. Killing them even more so.
Not to go Godwin on you, but did the same logic apply to Nazis, Maoists or Stalinists? They had families.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sure, but whether the society that is left after that is one you want to live in even if the insurgents win is a completely different matter. From a purely patriotic point of view it's clearly better than no opposition but if you don't think about patriotism but about getting the kind of society you want, I'm not so sure anymore.
"Sure, but whether the society that is left after that is one you want to live in even if the insurgents win is a completely different matter."
Sorry, but your post was a little incoherent. The only thing I'll say to this is, society isn't static and "what's left" immediately after a conflict has little bearing on what the society becomes after it rebuilds.
"but about getting the kind of society you want, I'm not so sure anymore"
Well, it's live under tyranny or fight, destroy society, and hopefully win the right to rebuild. Not much to be unsure about there, unless you're ok with living under tyranny because your cowardice causes you concern for "what's left". Cowardice and I never got along, sounds like you might have better luck.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Not really, but I'm not into the attitude of always fighting just because you've got to fight either.
Of course guerrilla insurgency can be worth it, but I don't really believe it always wins anything truely valuable. It really depends on the situation. The greatest benefit I'd see in guerrilla action would still be the threat of it, potentially eliminating the need for the action itself.
"I don't really believe it always wins anything truely valuable"
The Revolutionary War in America was a guerrilla insurgency.
If I were you I'd stop before I said something else that's wrong and ridiculous.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
always != ever, and an anecdote doesn't prove a general point. Of course that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have a point either. That's all I'm going to say.
Maybe you should have stuck to saying nothing.
Actually, you did. My bad.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.