Cindy Sheehan brings these things upon herself. Furthermore, it's quite apparent that this news item illustrates the "two-way street" in our bi-polarized government. The article also states that Rep Bill Young's (R-Fl) wife was asked to cover the offending message on her own shirt. That message was "Support Our Troops." Sheehan's shirt read "2,245 dead. How many more." While I support the right to free expression under any circumstances, it seems a bit more ridiculous to censor the message of Rep. Young's wife than that of Sheehan, who has emerged as a self-serving rabble rouser with no regard for America or our troops.

What we have here is kind of interesting, on a cultural level. Cindy Sheehan's son chose to enlist, putting himself in harm's way for his nation (or possibly for G.I. benefits). She had the opportunity to encourage him to chooose another vocation. At this point she shows little respect for his choice. Rather than honoring his committment and sacrifice, she chooses to blame the government for the fact that her son willfully enlisted and died in our military. Oftentimes, liberals find themselves defending the choices of children in the face of the sort of parental dissatisfaction more commmonly associated with "closed-minded" conservative establishment types. In this instance, we have a woman of the hippie generation refusing to support the choice made by her generation Y son. Had he chosen to attend college, work for NORML, burn up a trust fund, backpack through Holland, protest a war, attend rallies, get an MBA and then join the establishment, his mother might have given full approval. It's interesting to see how parents react to their children's choices. Had he attended college, he might have died as a result of binge drinking. Would Cindy Sheehan set up camp outside of Anheiser Busch or the University of Wisconson and demanded answers and audiences with figureheads?

Sheehan does little to honor her son's sacrifice. In fact, she does not view her son's death as a sacrifice. Rather, she seems to feel that her son was murdered by the president. She gives the impression that the 2,244 other fatalities in the war in Iraq were also homicides committed by President Bush. She also fails to weigh a few factors in her sloganeering.

On September 11th, 2001 a similar number of Americans were killed in one hour. Three years of war in Iraq haven't touched the number of lives snuffed out in that one day. After the 9/11/01 attacks, all Americans were frightened of what was to come next. Some demanded retribution, others justice, but all demanded safety. In order to acheive that level of safety, some degree of military action was in order. First came Afghanistan. It was a rousing success and the President commmanded a 90% approval rating. Iraq came next. A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point. I do believe most Americans feel safer with Saddam out of power and the play... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons
Vile haven't you been paying attention
newsflash Saadam wasn't responsible for 9/11
you connect the two and justify the number of US Iraqi war dead because of the number of dead on 9/11
yes some of the insurgents are al Qaeda but al Quaeda weren't involved in Iraq before the invasion
the US invasion has acted as a rallying cry and recruiting sergeant for al Quaeda

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

It's a great strategic location on many levels. With Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, sections of Africa and Indonesia stabilized and brought to the world's diplomatic table, then we can move closer to a peaceful world. Sometimes, you have to band together and beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard.

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

It's a great strategic location on many levels. With Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, sections of Africa and Indonesia stabilized and brought to the world's diplomatic table, then we can move closer to a peaceful world. Sometimes, you have to band together and beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard.

Indonesia???!!
you mean because of East Timor?
local trouble and no part of global geo-politics
but invading countries because you don't like the regime is acting like a bully
plus the current US position in Iraq is borderline and could go either way
yes lets hope the position stabilizes and civil war is averted
plus do you think invading Iran is a viable option
and do you think China would stand on the sidelines if the US militarily threatened N Korea
it might be argued that by demonstrating a willingness to tear up international treaties like the Geneva Convention and arguably break international law by starting a war of aggression the US is demonstrating its will. It could be argued that it is demonstrating that it is not a weak willed liberal power with more bluff than bollocks, not a decadent violet. In the same way that Hitler regarded all the western powers.
a/ Hitler was wrong then and the west and the US now never needed to prove anything and should be grown up enough to know it.
b/ International law and treaties are part of the social global infrastructure we should be nurturing and upholding (by force if necessary as was the case with the first Gulf war). These institutions and laws are an essential element in banding together to "beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard."
c/ as far as needing to prove to the likes of Bin Laden that we have the will the invasion of Afganistan demonstrated that and I supported it. I believe we should act when the law allows it and circumstances demand it and I don't think that is true of Iraq. We don't need to beat people up to demonstrate to the schoolyard that we're big and strong. Bin Laden's hiding in a hole in Afganistan (hahaha it's only a matter of time Ossama) because we have the balls but we also need to show to the Muslim world that we act with justice in mind and can show restraint. The difference between a bully and a leader is that the leader rules by consent not force, knows when to listen and knows that while u may have the power to impose your will u don't always have the right; a leader knows when to demonstrate restrain.

I think that Dimebag Darrell's death brought us closer to world peace. Thank God he got shot. I only wish that Dimebag Darrell worked on the 99th floor of Tower A, so we could have been rid of him sooner.

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

It's a great strategic location on many levels. With Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, sections of Africa and Indonesia stabilized and brought to the world's diplomatic table, then we can move closer to a peaceful world. Sometimes, you have to band together and beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard.

Indonesia???!!
you mean because of East Timor?
local trouble and no part of global geo-politics
but invading countries because you don't like the regime is acting like a bully
plus the current US position in Iraq is borderline and could go either way
yes lets hope the position stabilizes and civil war is averted
plus do you think invading Iran is a viable option
and do you think China would stand on the sidelines if the US militarily threatened N Korea
it might be argued that by demonstrating a willingness to tear up international treaties like the Geneva Convention and arguably break international law by starting a war of aggression the US is demonstrating its will. It could be argued that it is demonstrating that it is not a weak willed liberal power with more bluff than bollocks, not a decadent violet. In the same way that Hitler regarded all the western powers.
a/ Hitler was wrong then and the west and the US now never needed to prove anything and should be grown up enough to know it.
b/ International law and treaties are part of the social global infrastructure we should be nurturing and upholding (by force if necessary as was the case with the first Gulf war). These institutions and laws are an essential element in banding together to "beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard."
c/ as far as needing to prove to the likes of Bin Laden that we have the will the invasion of Afganistan demonstrated that and I supported it. I believe we should act when the law allows it and circumstances demand it and I don't think that is true of Iraq. We don't need to beat people up to demonstrate to the schoolyard that we're big and strong. Bin Laden's hiding in a hole in Afganistan (hahaha it's only a matter of time Ossama) because we have the balls but we also need to show to the Muslim world that we act with justice in mind and can show restraint. The difference between a bully and a leader is that the leader rules by consent not force, knows when to listen and knows that while u may have the power to impose your will u don't always have the right, a leader knows when to demonstrate restrain.

who's Dimebag Darrell?
ok i looked him up on google
how is that relevant?
i never liked pantera in fact they were being supported by belly on a tour in england and i saw belly then left but i didn't wish him ill, even if i had known who he was
pantera- mediocre metal band and i generally hate metal so his death is meaningless to me
another random act of hate in a world too full of hate

Vile wrote:
I think that Dimebag Darrell's death brought us closer to world peace. Thank God he got shot. I only wish that Dimebag Darrell worked on the 99th floor of Tower A, so we could have been rid of him sooner.

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

It's a great strategic location on many levels. With Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, sections of Africa and Indonesia stabilized and brought to the world's diplomatic table, then we can move closer to a peaceful world. Sometimes, you have to band together and beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard.

Indonesia???!!
you mean because of East Timor?
local trouble and no part of global geo-politics
but invading countries because you don't like the regime is acting like a bully
plus the current US position in Iraq is borderline and could go either way
yes lets hope the position stabilizes and civil war is averted
plus do you think invading Iran is a viable option
and do you think China would stand on the sidelines if the US militarily threatened N Korea
it might be argued that by demonstrating a willingness to tear up international treaties like the Geneva Convention and arguably break international law by starting a war of aggression the US is demonstrating its will. It could be argued that it is demonstrating that it is not a weak willed liberal power with more bluff than bollocks, not a decadent violet. In the same way that Hitler regarded all the western powers.
a/ Hitler was wrong then and the west and the US now never needed to prove anything and should be grown up enough to know it.
b/ International law and treaties are part of the social global infrastructure we should be nurturing and upholding (by force if necessary as was the case with the fir... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Argument on the matter of initiating the Iraq war *is* pretty much moot, but let's not be glib about it.

"You lost, deal with it." is a rhetorical cheap shot. You're trying to establish that disagreement with your point of view is motivated by naievte. It's bad enough that we're so polarized that war supporters and anti-war activitsts often literally hate each other, but that's a reality I both accept and "deal with" on a daily basis. Don't cheapen the debate further by implying that only fools or children disagree with you.

The reason the argument is a waste of time is because it doesn't offer much useful analysis of what's happening now or what comes next. Saying that we should "deal with it" carries an implication that it's the past we should forget it and move on. Two of those statements are accurate. Forgetting about a battle you fought and lost is a tacit concession to the winner. There's no need to be bitter forever, but neither should anyone dismiss as irrelevant any cause they fought for, even, perhaps especially, if they lost. Nonetheless, it is the past, and we *should* move on. There are many difficult situations emerging on the National and World stage and dwelling on the past distracts us from dealing with the present and the future.

Okay. So then don't deal with it.

k wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

Argument on the matter of initiating the Iraq war *is* pretty much moot, but let's not be glib about it.

"You lost, deal with it." is a rhetorical cheap shot. You're trying to establish that disagreement with your point of view is motivated by naievte. It's bad enough that we're so polarized that war supporters and anti-war activitsts often literally hate each other, but that's a reality I both accept and "deal with" on a daily basis. Don't cheapen the debate further by implying that only fools or children disagree with you.

The reason the argument is a waste of time is because it doesn't offer much useful analysis of what's happening now or what comes next. Saying that we should "deal with it" carries an implication that it's the past we should forget it and move on. Two of those statements are accurate. Forgetting about a battle you fought and lost is a tacit concession to the winner. There's no need to be bitter forever, but neither should anyone dismiss as irrelevant any cause they fought for, even, perhaps especially, if they lost. Nonetheless, it is the past, and we *should* move on. There are many difficult situations emerging on the National and World stage and dwelling on the past distracts us from dealing with the present and the future.

Vile wrote:
Cindy Sheehan brings these things upon herself. Furthermore, it's quite apparent that this news item illustrates the "two-way street" in our bi-polarized government. The article also states that Rep Bill Young's (R-Fl) wife was asked to cover the offending message on her own shirt. That message was "Support Our Troops." Sheehan's shirt read "2,245 dead. How many more." While I support the right to free expression under any circumstances, it seems a bit more ridiculous to censor the message of Rep. Young's wife than that of Sheehan, who has emerged as a self-serving rabble rouser with no regard for America or our troops.

Thank you for unwittingly supporting my argument. Sheehan and Young were both removed, but only the person wearing the shirt that didn't tote the party line got taken to jail on trumped-up charges.

Rep. Young's wife did not cause a problem. She was respectful and harbors no mental illnesses. It's time for Sheehan to move on.

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
Cindy Sheehan brings these things upon herself. Furthermore, it's quite apparent that this news item illustrates the "two-way street" in our bi-polarized government. The article also states that Rep Bill Young's (R-Fl) wife was asked to cover the offending message on her own shirt. That message was "Support Our Troops." Sheehan's shirt read "2,245 dead. How many more." While I support the right to free expression under any circumstances, it seems a bit more ridiculous to censor the message of Rep. Young's wife than that of Sheehan, who has emerged as a self-serving rabble rouser with no regard for America or our troops.

Thank you for unwittingly supporting my argument. Sheehan and Young were both removed, but only the person wearing the shirt that didn't tote the party line get taken to jail on trumped-up charges.

Vile wrote:
Rep. Young's wife did not cause a problem. She was respectful and harbors no mental illnesses. It's time for Sheehan to move on.

I assume by this we're all supposed to believe you're actually saying that Sheehan did cause a problem which resulted in her arrest.

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your entire argument is bullshit. There have been no reports of Sheehan doing anything other than quietly declining to cover her shirt, and then being led out of the room and arrested.

I find it amazing how often people seem to believe that if they talk for a long time about something and try to sound sincere, that what they're saying will magically become true.

Your arguments are invalid, and what you've posted to this thread is nonsense, even for a troll.

Gee Dagmar, that says alot. You are acting more like a troll here (a stupid word, at that. Folks who haven't spent their lives staring at computer monitors might use the word "asshole" instead, but it's not for me to judge the lack of external stimuli that you indulge yourself in). Sheehan should have covered the shirt. Period. If a host, police officer or any other authority figure asks you to do something, then you do it. Case closed. Afterwards, you may bring a case against the figure, but not right there. Sheehan has no class, is mentally ill, should be ignored and indulges in self-promotion more than civil disobedience. I shed no tears for her. She is guilty of treason. There is no patriotism in her actions.

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
Rep. Young's wife did not cause a problem. She was respectful and harbors no mental illnesses. It's time for Sheehan to move on.

I assume by this we're all supposed to believe you're actually saying that Sheehan did cause a problem which resulted in her arrest.

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your entire argument is bullshit. There have been no reports of Sheehan doing anything other than quietly declining to cover her shirt, and then being led out of the room and arrested.

I find it amazing how often people seem to believe that if they talk for a long time about something and try to sound sincere, that what they're saying will magically become true.

Your arguments are invalid, and what you've posted to this thread is nonsense, even for a troll.

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
Rep. Young's wife did not cause a problem. She was respectful and harbors no mental illnesses. It's time for Sheehan to move on.

I assume by this we're all supposed to believe you're actually saying that Sheehan did cause a problem which resulted in her arrest.

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your entire argument is bullshit. There have been no reports of Sheehan doing anything other than quietly declining to cover her shirt, and then being led out of the room and arrested.

I find it amazing how often people seem to believe that if they talk for a long time about something and try to sound sincere, that what they're saying will magically become true.

Your arguments are invalid, and what you've posted to this thread is nonsense, even for a troll.

Hey Dagmar, your argument, however valid, is the big old LOSER uin this thread!!!! You see, I WIN! Case closed. Read 'em and weep, loserrrrrrrr
!!!!!1

Vile wrote:

On September 11th, 2001 a similar number of Americans were killed in one hour. Three years of war in Iraq haven't touched the number of lives snuffed out in that one day. After the 9/11/01 attacks, all Americans were frightened of what was to come next. Some demanded retribution, others justice, but all demanded safety. In order to acheive that level of safety, some degree of military action was in order.

This is true but I do not know that the course of action we took was completely the right one. Although I will admit it was a hard decision to make and he had to make one.

I do believe most Americans feel safer with Saddam out of power and the playing field of the war on terror brought to a faraway arena. It's a far better thing to fight these groups in Iraq than in Philadelphia or NYC.

I do not agree with this but you are entitled to your opinion. Many people I have talked to recently are more afraid now then they were after the initial shock wore off. Afraid not only of terrorism but of the direction our country is heading and what the future holds for our children. There are many important and far reaching decisions being made and we as a country need to know that they are being weighed correctly, thought through completely and viewed with as little personal bias as possible

In their hatred for all things Republican, many war-opponents have forgotten both the fear and desire for safety that the WTC attacks left in their wake.

I have certainly not forgotten that. I worked in a school and the terrorfied faces of those children and the tears I dried are things I will never forget but I want to be able to look at those same children and tell them that WE did the right thing. We can not just strike out at anyone who does not agree with us. We are trying to teach our students to solve their problems the best way possible and definately with words not fists. I know this is not the same scale(words might not have worked)but to them it is. They do not see the gray areas that we as mature adults are able to understand, we were attacked and people are demanding we strike back, it is human nature I know but we need to be leading by example. I am not saying that everything we have done was horrible wrong but I want to make sure we are considering it.

Palindrome wrote:

Vile wrote:

On September 11th, 2001 a similar number of Americans were killed in one hour. Three years of war in Iraq haven't touched the number of lives snuffed out in that one day. After the 9/11/01 attacks, all Americans were frightened of what was to come next. Some demanded retribution, others justice, but all demanded safety. In order to acheive that level of safety, some degree of military action was in order.

This is true but I do not know that the course of action was completely the right one to make. although I will admit it was a hard decision to make

I do believe most Americans feel safer with Saddam out of power and the playing field of the war on terror brought to a faraway arena. It's a far better thing to fight these groups in Iraq than in Philadelphia or NYC.

I do not agree with this but you are entitled to your opnion. Many people I have talked to recently are more afraid now. Afraid not only of terrorism but of the direction our country is heading and what the future holds. There are many important and far reaching decisions being made and we as a country need to know that they are being weighed correctly, thought through completely and viewed with as little personal bias as possible

In their hatred for all things Republican, many war-opponents have forgotten both the fear and desire for safety that the WTC attacks left in their wake.

I have certainly not forgotten that. I worked in a school and the terrorfied faces of those children and the tears I dried are things I will never forget but I want to be able to look at those same children and tell them that WE did the right thing. WE can not just strike out at anyone who does not agree with us. We are trying to teach our students to solve their problems the best way possible and definately with words not fists. I know this is not the same scale but to them it is, they do not see the gray areas that we as mature adults are able to understand and we need to be leading by example. I am not saying that everything we have done was horrible wrong but I want to make sure we are considering it.

Fair enough, but those children will grow up to become adults who can see shades of gray. It comes with maturity. Worry not for children so much. They can largely do their growing up without much interference from adults (in fact, they do BETTER without it), but worry rather for something more emminent, like the plight of our elderly. Kids should be allowed to be kids. They will have their own issues to deal with in twenty years.

Palindrome wrote:

Vile wrote:

On September 11th, 2001 a similar number of Americans were killed in one hour. Three years of war in Iraq haven't touched the number of lives snuffed out in that one day.

This is true...

No it's fucking not. It underscores a fundamental disjoint in people's thinking about war. It's a necessary disjoint for any moral individual to claim support for a war. And that is to pretend that only the lives of your side matter. You don't have to be a rabid partisan to grasp that *thousands* of Iraqi civilians have died in our war there. It's what happens in a war. Always. Anyone should feel free to support the war, but it must be with full knowledge of what that entails. It takes a truly depraved mind to dehumanize the residents of an entire nation in order to feel ok about carrying on a war ostensibly in their name.

Vile wrote:

I do believe most Americans feel safer with Saddam out of power and the playing field of the war on terror brought to a faraway arena. It's a far better thing to fight these groups in Iraq than in Philadelphia or NYC.

Fuck yeah, Saddam is a bad guy and I'm glad he's not running a country any longer. But I'm not confident that his removal is necessarily a precursor to an inherently superior government in Iraq, and I'm especially concerned that we've offered a rallying cry to terrorist recruiters the world over.

Vile wrote:

In their hatred for all things Republican, many war-opponents have forgotten both the fear and desire for safety that the WTC attacks left in their wake.

My disgust is neither blind nor trivial in it's direction. What I despise is seeing fear and hatred wielded like a tool against american citizens. When a Republican takes a stand that I find right and honorable, I do support them. That this happens so seldom is hardly my fault.

Forget our fear?! Please! We're bombarded by it constantly. It is truly gratifying to hear a war supporter finally acknowledge that Fear is the primary motivator here. What I still can't grasp is why so few such people are bothered by our being TERRIFIED of TERRORISTS. Acting out of fear is exactly what they want. Reacting fearfully is guaranteed to produce quick, poorly reasoned results. On top of which, it reinforces their methodology (by proving that it works) and simultaneously offers tons of material to their recuiting operations, because when they tell some kid that America hates muslims, it'll be supportable with fact.

I haven't forgotten my fear... I never allowed fear to take hold of me. Anger, sadness, compassion... yes. I'd rather have people motivated by love of life and love of country. That means building up defenses back home and fighting to maintain or expand our civil liberties against anyone who would limit them. In some cases it means fighting a war on foreign soil, but I think it's patently false to claim that we're defeating the terrorists by operations in Iraq. We're doing a good thing by sticking around long enough to try and give them a chance at democratic self governance, whatever the likelihood of success may be. Let's just not confuse that with fighting Al Quaida.

Dagmar wrote:
Well, if you had any doubts left as to whether or not Bush had any respect at all for Freedom of Speech, this CNN article should clear that right up for ya'.

She wore a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan on it. They asked her to cover it up, she refused, they arrested her for "unlawful conduct".

I'd like to know exactly when fashion went from being a matter of personal taste, to carrying the force of law.

In the UK at the Labour Party conference a small, frail old man was manhandled out of the hall by bouncers twice his size and half his age, to be interrogated by police and security guards. Why? For calling out "Rubbish" at a speaker.

A woman was arrested for walking on a cycle path.

A police constable (read, ordinary Joe) soon will be able to decide if web content is related to terrorism (including Memestreams).

My US friends no longer want me to say these things in email in case they are arrested or monitored more closely. They already assume that their email is being monitored.

While I still can I will continue to say that these are losses of freedom that would have horrified your forefathers and mine. Arrested for wearing a t-shirt? Arrested for expressing a view? Wake up. Fear is destroying our way of life far effectively than any bomb.

oaknet wrote:

In the UK at the Labour Party conference a small, frail old man was manhandled out of the hall by bouncers twice his size and half his age, to be interrogated by police and security guards. Why? For calling out "Rubbish" at a speaker.

A woman was arrested for walking on a cycle path.

A police constable (read, ordinary Joe) soon will be able to decide if web content is related to terrorism (including Memestreams).

My US friends no longer want me to say these things in email in case they are arrested or monitored more closely. They already assume that their email is being monitored.

While I still can I will continue to say that these are losses of freedom that would have horrified your forefathers and mine. Arrested for wearing a t-shirt? Arrested for expressing a view? Wake up. Fear is destroying our way of life far effectively than any bomb.

Why are you telling me to "wake up"?