2010 December 11 Saturday
What Muslim Terrorists Really Accomplish
How do Muslim terrorists change the world? As a result of their activities what is changing most?
- Governments watch their citizens, non-citizen residents, and visitors more closely.
- Governments develop computer systems to monitor credit card transactions, phone calls, airline reservations, and other data feeds.
- Governments cooperate more closely in intelligence and police investigations.
- Governments suppress more speech. Governments enforce more political correctness and suppress statements of the obvious.
- Governments restrict the right of free association.
- Governments subject their citizens to more indignities, notably at airports but in other realms as well.
So terrorists strength the power of the state and reduce the independence of individual governments. Terrorists also effectively reduce free speech by those who criticize Islam and Muslim immigration. Terrorists hasten the day when a real world government emerges and cause governments to justify losses of freedom.
Some of this stuff is not too offensive (e.g., governmental cooperation and information-sharing), some is necessary but unpleasant (monitoring, etc.), but I agree with you, the overall trend is bad. All wars increase government power and restrict civil liberties (which is another reason why most wars should be avoided, aside from the obvious ones, such as piles of dead bodies). Historically, presidents who have been big believers in centralized governmental power (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) have gotten the US involved in wars, which has allowed them to do what they might otherwise not be able to (restrict civil liberties, raise taxes, create lots of new government agencies and bureaucracies, etc., all of which never seem to go away once the war ends). The obvious solution to Muslim terrorism - keep the Muslims out - always seems to be ignored.
This is assuming you buy the official reasoning / explanation. Personally I think this is a case where if terrorists didn't exist, they would have come up with some other equally spurious reason to do all of the above anyway. Drugs are always good, or they could maybe have whipped up a real hysteria around pedophilia or something.
That's a pretty devastating list. Given that it increases the power of the state, you have to wonder how much the state really wants to end terrorism.
Terrorists can be the justification of the elite to impose a surveillance state whose aim is to erect a hegemony on who can successfully run for office. They'll know every website you ever visited, all of your business info, and every ex that you have. The intelligence agencies will assuredly find something embarrassing about everybody, and be able to leak this information to torpedo political campaigns of politicians they dont like.
Notice what Hillary Clinton wanted (as told to us by Wikileaks) about the UN-employees? She wanted their credit card information, and for them to be followed. Why? So we'd have something on them, and be able to twist their arm in a pinch. Im sure many of these wealthy envoys could be "Elliot Spitzered" or "Sybill Edmunded".
I read on another blog the other day about former Senator John Danforth being truly upset that the Tea Party might fund a candidate to challenge Dick Lugar of Indiana in 2012. He said there was "something wrong" if such a "respected" "five-term-senator" could basically face a primary challenge. You can see it with our elites, they truly think they are a pseudo-aristocracy, that should be bailed out by the cake-eaters if they fail. This is an extension of not having the needed term-limits in my opinion. The president is term-limited, and so should congress be term limited. 12 years is enough for anyone to "serve". Lugar has been up there for almost 30 years. He's not a medieval baron overloooking a duchy or whatnot, he's an elected official.
"How do alcoholic husbands change marriages? As a result of their activities what is changing most?
"blah blah blah
"So alcoholic husbands strengthen the power of the state and reduce the independence of individual governments. Alcoholic husbands also effectively reduce free speech by those who criticize drunkenness and drunkard immigration. Drunkards hasten the day when a real world government emerges and cause governments to justify losses of freedom."
I have to wonder: How many years of excellent postings on the internet and you still fall to the temptation of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Just goes to show how powerful that fallacy is.
Help, I've fallen in a post hoc ergo propter hoc and can't get up! CMC, I don't think anyone was claiming this action was planned by anyone to bring about world government or the loss of personal freedom, just that when such events do happen, they often lead to a loss of individual freedom.
Third world immigration not only has a huge and quantifiable monetary cost (measured in the depression of GDP by low productivity and transfer payments), but it is also destroying hard won civic freedoms and quality of life 'civil trust' as Robert Putnam would say.
A wicked, wicked, evil policy - Just why are the elites so ardent and unyielding in inflicting this destruction?
After 9/11 we had two basic choices: we could restrict the influx of Muslims into the West, and expel non-citizen Muslims, OR we could adopt the mantle of the police state.
Note that our politicians chose the latter, never even mentioned the former as an option, and in fact have put up roadblocks everywhere to doing so.
Alcoholic husbands are not terrorists. Governments do not respond to them by searching our private parts in airports or processing thru huge volumes of credit card transactions.
I fail to see a fallacy. The US government really does justify expanded surveillance due to the terrorist threat. The US government really did pressure that Gainesville pastor not to burn a Koran because of the terrorist threat. The US government really did decide to subject us to indignities in airports because of the terrorist threat. Obviously the terrorist threat has made the public more willing to accept expansion of government and for the government to be more eager to expand its power
You could argue the US government wants to expand its surveillance power anyway. But picture the last 10 years without Muslim terrorist attacks. Would we have a Department of Homeland Security? Would we have full body x-ray scans in airports or fondling of private parts?
Agreed. We made the wrong choice because of the evil forces of political correctness.
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Well, the Left often cites the the internment of Japanese during World War 2 as an example of why we can't racially profile, or exclude immigrants from cultures that hate us. I find it interesting that they're citing a policy example from a war that we won as a reason not to adopt a policy - superficially similar at best - to fight a war that we are losing. According to Bush, post-9/11, bin Laden would win the war if Americans didn't go shopping. He didn't think we'd lose the war if we turned America into an expensive, overbearing surveillance state. Of course Americans and our government did go shopping post-9/11, and we have the credit card bills to show for it.