POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candletrader, Dec 8, 2002.

Which of these is most likely?

  1. Co-ordinated large-scale bombings of shopping malls and offices (similar to September 11, but not us

    12 vote(s)
    133.3%
  2. Biological attacks on schools, malls, airports etc

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  3. Highly co-ordinated machine gun mow-downs of crowds by suicide gangs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. One person suicide bombings (similar to that carried out by Hamas) co-ordinated across numerous smal

    30 vote(s)
    333.3%
  5. Devastating car bombs set to go off amongst traffic queues of commuters crawling into work in the ru

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  6. It won't be as obvious as any of the above, but it will make September 11 look like a wasp bite com

    26 vote(s)
    288.9%
  7. No repercussions

    95 vote(s)
    1,055.6%
  1. >>What is going to be really amusing is when after the war is all settled and Iraq is being rebuilt better than before, all these supposed anti-war types will leave the message board or change their aliases ! HA HA HA<<

    This brings one to the question why we are even bothering responding to the scum which refuses to respond to the content of our posts yet are spending an enormous lot of time cutting and pasting.

    Even more so if they are posting under multiple aliases.
    I reckon Baron ought to do his patriotic duty and expose those double or triple or multiple user name holders.

    We all know which posters we are talking about so there wouldn't be too much work involved in sussing that out.

    Again, these people are subversive in their actions and should be hel accountable as enemies of the state. No mucking about there.

    I heard tonight that the FBI will allocate 5,000 men to keeping an eye on people suspected of being up to no good.

    For Christ's sake, there is a war going on. People who are outspoken and incite and/or encourage others to commit crimes shouldn't even be in your country. If they are identified they should either be sent back to where they come from or, if one merely wants to pussy foot, they should be told that their right to free speech has been suspended pending further investigations. If they don't like it they can leave now.

    Who can afford to have people in one's midst who don't fit in with their racist ideas and whose motive seems to be to incite others ?

    The price is just too high to allow such conduct to be carried on.

    And for heaven's sake Msfe, I wished you wouldn't bother to respond with another cut and paste job pointing out that it is in fact us who are the racists (as I am sure you will do, just cannot help yourself).

    freealways
     
    #1651     Mar 17, 2003
  2. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    One of the wonderful things about living in the USA
    is freedom of speech......seems some of us forget that it is right guaranteed to us......when we flame people.......ahmem.....:eek:
     
    #1652     Mar 17, 2003
  3. Babak

    Babak

    #1653     Mar 17, 2003
  4. #1654     Mar 17, 2003
  5. Again, Kathy's talk about the principle of free speech is fine in an ideal world.

    But ................................, these are not normal times.

    When someone is known to preach hatred (and thus aims to incite others to commit crimes) placing a ban on such a person so as to prevent him to incite is quite O.K. by me and I would think most other rational people.

    The only ones who could possibly object would be people who are paranoic about the possibility that ordinary people's freedom of speech is taken away.

    Unfortunately one cannot have one's cake and eat it too.

    If one however wants the highest security possible then such restrictions may be the price which has to be paid.

    If on the other hand one is happy to accept second rate security then by all means give everyone free slather to carry on their subversive activities.

    freealways
     
    #1655     Mar 17, 2003
  6. ges

    ges

    hmmm... was this meant to be ironic? Or was it just an accident. Your handle and your message clash a bit, I'd say.

    :p

    g
     
    #1656     Mar 17, 2003
  7. momoNY

    momoNY

    Yeah,

    The difference between Iraqi people and US is that Iraqis have been living in those "anormal times" for so long. It might happen to you as well, kid! You know, one of those "temporary" situations that last for decades!
     
    #1657     Mar 17, 2003
  8. Ges, freedom doesn't necessarily mean freedom to do anything you want.

    But that seems exactly what you appear to state.

    In other words, can you break into my house and assault my family or, if that is prohibited, does that intrude on your freedom ?

    However, I note your concern so putting a (short) time limit on such an edict would that alleviate your concerns somewhat ?

    If so, tell your representative in parliament.

    freealways
     
    #1658     Mar 18, 2003
  9. IRAQ IS FUCKED!!!!
    DROP THE BOMBS!!!
     
    #1659     Mar 18, 2003
  10. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    Free....

    I was not thinking globally, just about the posters on this board when I made the comment on free speech.

    Loose lips sink ships.
     
    #1660     Mar 18, 2003