I love conspiracy theories.

Cause we all know that suicide bombers live to tell...lol?

I'm just trying to figure out how that works.  I mean... so the guy rose from the ashes and will suicide bomb with a plane again?  What?!?

People are retards.

I think Caboose made that page.

[quote]
Oh, good.  For a moment, I thought that was me, because, I am blue, and I like to sleep.  But, if he is dead, then that cannot be me.  That would be silly.
[/quote]

Not that I'm one to ascribe to the conspiracy theories - i think they're pretty much dumb - but there are some interesting questions about 9/11 that linger. For example, the lack of wreckage around the pentagon, and as that site mentions, the strangely low numbers of passengers aboard the hijacked planes.

I don't think it's a huge government conspiracy or any of that crap - I'm sure there's a rational explanation for the missing bits of the puzzle - I'm just curious to know what it is.

Does anyone believe in the drive for a unilateral government by some secret groups of people? What would need to be done, to convince the American people, that our freedoms need to be taken from us? I have no proof, but a part of me can believe that 9/11 was conducted to convince us, Americans, that we need to give more of our freedoms to the government for one reason or another.

Are we any safer today than pre-9/11? Do we have less of our freedoms post-9/11?

We have significantly less & less freedom but are only gaining slight security.

"Give me liberty or give me death"...I totally agree

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12226.msg121521#msg121521 date=1121927270]
We have significantly less & less freedom but are only gaining slight security.

"Give me liberty or give me death"...I totally agree
[/quote]

Are we really any more secure? I really don't think we are.

A good way to take our freedoms away from us is to make us feel that we're not safe. Then they can convince us that a little less of our freedoms will make us safer. All I think it does is give our government more control.

MyndFyre: They are saying the government framed people or something.

Tuberload: Yes we're more secure, especially with things like the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is what enabled an arrest on somebody who had been planning to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge. They had no hard evidence, but it turns out he was the guy - he had the explosives and everything. All this lead from a phone call they were able to record, and they were able to arrest him without a warrant too.

I'm more than willing to give up freedoms for security. I strongly feel that if you don't seem to pose a threat to America (and I don't fit the sterotype of a terrorist) the government will hardly focus on every part of your life in a stalking manner. They obviously have to have some reason to beleive you're a threat to the country or they wouldn't be wasting time/money following you around or listening to you.

[quote author=Tuberload link=topic=12226.msg121576#msg121576 date=1121975503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12226.msg121521#msg121521 date=1121927270]
We have significantly less & less freedom but are only gaining slight security.

"Give me liberty or give me death"...I totally agree
[/quote]

Are we really any more secure?
[/quote]Yes

How does that stop terrorists from driving a boat into our harbors and setting off a biological or chemical weapon next to a large city? How does that address the illegal immigration problems that allow terrorists to enter our country?

All I see that doing is allowing our government to invade more and more of our privacies, eventually leading to them controlling every aspect of our lives because people think we are safer.

True if you have nothing to hide than why should you worry, but I doubt you would be singing the same tune if you were to wake up in some dark basement some day, held against your will, with out a trial because the government thinks you are a terrorist. So they got lucky once and got the right guy. What about the people that are NOT guilty?

The Patriot Act certainly opens more options for the government to help prevent them driving a boat into the harbor and bombing. They're not going to drive a boat from way over there to here undetected. It would have to originate in the states, it has to be talked about at some point in the states, and with the Patriot Act the chances of them being caught BEFORE they do it is that much greater.

Sure they're allowed to further invade our privacy, but that doesn't mean they're going to. They're not thinking "1337, we can totally h4x0r ALL americans now." No, they aren't.

The problem I see with the patriot act isn't the powers themselves - although those are worrying -- it's the lack of oversight. Its secrecy provisions mean that, actually, they could think "Let's go hax0r someone", and you'd never know about it. In fact, we can't know if the patriot act is being abused or not. We don't know how successful it actually is. Nor do we know how often it is used mistakenly - because of the lack of oversight. All you can know is what the government choose to, and they have a vested interest in making sure that it has a good reputation, and not a bad one.

Thus, it is bad. The trade-off of not knowing anything about its application -- the lack of accountability -- is not worth the security it provides. NO security is worth having when the trade-off is having a government that is unaccountable to its citizens.

Are you one of those people who would rather be dead than lose minor freedoms?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12226.msg121606#msg121606 date=1121986877]
The problem I see with the patriot act isn't the powers themselves - although those are worrying -- it's the lack of oversight. Its secrecy provisions mean that, actually, they could think "Let's go hax0r someone", and you'd never know about it. In fact, we can't know if the patriot act is being abused or not. We don't know how successful it actually is. Nor do we know how often it is used mistakenly - because of the lack of oversight. All you can know is what the government choose to, and they have a vested interest in making sure that it has a good reputation, and not a bad one.

Thus, it is bad. The trade-off of not knowing anything about its application -- the lack of accountability -- is not worth the security it provides. NO security is worth having when the trade-off is having a government that is unaccountable to its citizens.


[/quote]

Maybe some of the security that's given from the Patriot Act would have prevented those London bombings.

It still wouldn't have been worth it.

@Topaz:

1. No
2. There are no minor freedoms
3. It's nothing to do with sound-bytes. It's to do with a pragmatic, dispassionate analysis of the benefits, risks and consequences, as far as one is able to see them.

[quote]For example, the lack of wreckage around the pentagon, and as that site mentions, the strangely low numbers of passengers aboard the hijacked planes[/quote]

Believe me, I know someone who was at the pentagon that day...that person happens to be in vL as well...

And, low passenger numbers on airliners is not an uncommon happenstance...trust me I fly a ton.  I've been on alot of flights with only a handful of people.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12226.msg121633#msg121633 date=1122000979]
And, low passenger numbers on airliners is not an uncommon happenstance...trust me I fly a ton.  I've been on alot of flights with only a handful of people.
[/quote]

Especially for a long haul flight (Boston -> LA) on a Tuesday. I frequently fly out of Logan going back to LA via AmericaWest and usually try to during the middle of the week when it is less crowded and thus more leg room for me. Was scary when I figured out that I was flying out of the same airport where the terrorists flew out of and a similar route but not the same carrier. :\

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=12226.msg121487#msg121487 date=1121916487]
I think Caboose made that page.

[quote]
Oh, good. For a moment, I thought that was me, because, I am blue, and I like to sleep. But, if he is dead, then that cannot be me. That would be silly.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Yeah, he is just as funny and as stupid as that page.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12226.msg121609#msg121609 date=1121988497]
Are you one of those people who would rather be dead than lose minor freedoms?
[/quote]

Say that to all the people who died in the revolutionary war or iraqi war, I'm sure they'd appreciated it.

People that think terrorism was caused by the war in iraq crack me up

Not all terrorism, obiously. This (London) particular instance of terrorism, however, is highly likely to be because of Iraq.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12226.msg121651#msg121651 date=1122006552]
Not all terrorism, obiously. This (London) particular instance of terrorism, however, is highly likely to be because of Iraq.
[/quote]

It would have probably happened either way. The UK is certainly a strong ally of the US, and a Christian nation. These people are after Christians, plain and simple. It's a war fueled by religous hate.

[quote]
The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)1 (U.S. H.R. 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56) is an act of federal legislation in the United States.

Enacted by the U.S. Congress after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, the act enhances the authority of U.S. law enforcement for the purported intention of investigating and preempting potential terrorism. Because the USA PATRIOT Act is a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), this enhanced legal authority is also used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes. Expanding on FISA, the USA Act defines terrorism as an activity that meets all of the following three criteria:

1. It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population
2.It breaks criminal laws
3. It endangers human life.
This definition is adopted in the USA PATRIOT Act. Critics claim the Act is unnecessary and enables U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon free-speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. It is most controversial among critics for its section 216, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal phone and internet records on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment. [1]

The bill passed 98–1 in the United States Senate, and 357–66 in the United States House of Representatives; Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) cast the Senate's lone dissenting vote. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001. Assistant attorney general Viet D. Dinh was the chief architect of the act.[/quote]

[quote]This (London) particular instance of terrorism, however, is highly likely to be because of Iraq.[/quote]

I doubt it, at least not directly.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12226.msg121609#msg121609 date=1121988497]
Are you one of those people who would rather be dead than lose minor freedoms?
[/quote]I am, there is no point to live if you can't live freely

The people in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were oppressed, kept to curfews, stolen from, and highly taxed. This is no comparison to losing minor freedoms; I'm just making the point that few of you have the right to cry injustice when the government steps up to protect you.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12226.msg121606#msg121606 date=1121986877]
The problem I see with the patriot act isn't the powers themselves - although those are worrying -- it's the lack of oversight. Its secrecy provisions mean that, actually, they could think "Let's go hax0r someone", and you'd never know about it. In fact, we can't know if the patriot act is being abused or not. We don't know how successful it actually is. Nor do we know how often it is used mistakenly - because of the lack of oversight. All you can know is what the government choose to, and they have a vested interest in making sure that it has a good reputation, and not a bad one.

Thus, it is bad. The trade-off of not knowing anything about its application -- the lack of accountability -- is not worth the security it provides. NO security is worth having when the trade-off is having a government that is unaccountable to its citizens.


[/quote]

I felt I had to make a second post - Hold your representatives and the senators that you are, in part, responsible for appointing to knowing what the Patriot Act is going to be used for. The government is made up of people, and are prone to human-related errors and ideals.