Freedom of speech...

Getting back to the topic at hand...

The FBI is investigating anti-war rallies!

Being that it is from The New York Lies...er...Times, free registration and a package of salt is required. I for one am for this, for obvious reasons. These people are highly organized and violent. We need to investigate their funding to see who is financing them. We need to investigate their training practices. And we need to arrest those that have committed criminal acts.

""We''re not concerned with individuals who are exercising their constitutional rights,"" one F.B.I. official said. ""But it''s obvious that there are individuals capable of violence at these events. We know that there are anarchists that are actively involved in trying to sabotage and commit acts of violence at these different events, and we also know that these large gatherings would be a prime target for terrorist groups.""

Not sure what the problem is.

Especially given the views and activities of ANSWER, the principle organizer of the rallies. Take a gander at this:

One extremely energetic antiwar group is the International Action Center (IAC). It is the leading force in the coalition ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) which is calling the October 26 demonstrations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. (IAC and ANSWER share a New York City phone number and the latter''s website features many materials from IAC.) IAC is officially led by Ramsey Clark and is largely the creation of the Workers World Party; many key IAC figures are prominent writers for WWP.

WWP holds many views that we find abhorrent. It considers North Korea ""socialist Korea"" where the ""land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways, everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole"" (Workers World, May 9, 2002), a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world. IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic (http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosde...). There''s of course much to criticize in the one-sided Hague war crimes tribunal, but to champion Milosevic is grotesque. The ANSWER website provides an IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as ""socialist"" and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the ""USSR intervened militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government"" (http://www.internationalanswer.org/c...) -- neglecting to mention that Moscow first had to engineer the execution of the Afghan leader to get themselves the invitation to intervene.

In none of IAC''s considerable resources on the current Iraq crisis is there a single negative word about Saddam Hussein. There is no mention that he is a ruthless dictator. (This omission is not surprising, given their inability to detect any problem of dictatorship with the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.) There is no mention that Hussein is responsible for the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shi''ites. IAC''s position is that any opponent of U.S. imperialism must be championed and never criticized.

Facinating. The FBI should be giving these people a good going over before they get shipped off to Gitmo.

"ralcydan" wrote:

My point is that rights are neither sacred nor absolute, but are conditional, mutable parts of the social contract.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Ideas are property, hence the term "intellectual property". Downloading songs without permission or paying is stealing.

Glad to see you''ve come around Ral.

Also, for the record the breathing argument wasn''t mean''t to express anything in terms of severity but show the arbitrary nature of any line like that. Some people may be better voters than others but the line you are drawing is simply arbitrary. There is nothing about military service that makes you better able to select civilian leaders. It may not have been the best analogy for that, I was in a hurry Consider it withdrawn.

However since everybody has seemed to abaonded this argument I will too, I never really got angry about the argument just suprised that Ral would be defending that side of it.

For clarification, Heinlein''s book didn''t say mandatory military service, it said mandatory ""Federal"" service. Doesn''t mean military necessarily. He could have meant a custodian in the Pentagon for all we know.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Especially given the views and activities of ANSWER, the principle organizer of the rallies. Take a gander at this:

One extremely energetic antiwar group is the International Action Center (IAC). It is the leading force in the coalition ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) which is calling the October 26 demonstrations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. (IAC and ANSWER share a New York City phone number and the latter''s website features many materials from IAC.) IAC is officially led by Ramsey Clark and is largely the creation of the Workers World Party; many key IAC figures are prominent writers for WWP.

WWP holds many views that we find abhorrent. It considers North Korea ""socialist Korea"" where the ""land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways, everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole"" (Workers World, May 9, 2002), a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world. IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic (http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosde...). There''s of course much to criticize in the one-sided Hague war crimes tribunal, but to champion Milosevic is grotesque. The ANSWER website provides an IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as ""socialist"" and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the ""USSR intervened militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government"" (http://www.internationalanswer.org/c...) -- neglecting to mention that Moscow first had to engineer the execution of the Afghan leader to get themselves the invitation to intervene.

In none of IAC''s considerable resources on the current Iraq crisis is there a single negative word about Saddam Hussein. There is no mention that he is a ruthless dictator. (This omission is not surprising, given their inability to detect any problem of dictatorship with the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.) There is no mention that Hussein is responsible for the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shi''ites. IAC''s position is that any opponent of U.S. imperialism must be championed and never criticized.

Facinating. The FBI should be giving these people a good going over before they get shipped off to Gitmo.

I don''t see anything criminal in that, where the reasons for investigating them. They''re free to have any opinion they want, just like you, me and everyone else. If they break the law, they should be arrested. Is there any proof they''re planning something illegal?

For clarification, Heinlein''s book didn''t say mandatory military service, it said mandatory ""Federal"" service. Doesn''t mean military necessarily. He could have meant a custodian in the Pentagon for all we know.

For clarification, I was referring toStarship Troopersin which Heinlein was definitely referring to military service.

For clarification, being repetitive is really annoying.

For clarification, being repetitive is really annoying.

Not sure who that is aimed at, Pyro, but sorry if our discussions are annoying you - maybe you can let us know what type of comments are allowed so that people''s opinions won''t be such a bother to read

"ralcydan" wrote:
For clarification, being repetitive is really annoying.

Not sure who that is aimed at, Pyro, but sorry if our discussions are annoying you - maybe you can let us know what type of comments are allowed so that people''s opinions won''t be such a bother to read ;)

For clarification, that joke just sailed over ralcydan''s head. For clarification, it is a much simpler joke than what you''re implying. For clarification, you seem to have lost your sense of humor somewhere. Wait nevermind, that implies you had one in the first place. I suggest killing a bum and taking his.

I suggest killing a bum and taking his.

A novel approach to solving the homeless problem in this country!

I kind of liked the argument about serving the country in other ways. Getting college students to go spend time teaching in neglected communities, whether they be rural or urban, for a couple years after college, for instance is great. There are a great many public services that we could do, and I wouldn''t find it so very heinous that a part of graduating high school or college being some sort of public service--even if that public service demand a great deal of time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears. All that stuff.

Just suggesting you not gloss over that as a way to serve the U.S. in lieu of military service.