I am not a terrorist, says doctor. What resources are we left with other than the methods of the Spanish Inquisition? Well of course nobody is going to admit being a terrorist are they? These people aren't afraid to die, in fact they want to die. The doctor that failed in his attempt to blow up the airport in Glasgow had 90% burns to his body and still struggled against the police. I bet he won't be admitting to terrorism.
In the days of the Spanish Inquisition, you were guilty if suspected of witchcraft. The trial was a foregone conclusion. If suspects survived torture then they were guilty of witchcraft, and if they died in the process of being tortured then that was evidence that they were guilty.
The only real question we must ask ourselves is this, "is there such a thing as an innocent Muslim?"
Let me make this perfectly clear, I am NOT advocating the new Spanish Inquisition. I can only see it as becoming inevitable and the tide turns and Political Correctness finally outstays its welcome.
This is more of a personal prediction than an advocacy.
Consider the following.
There is one thing that all the talk about the real or imagined threat of terrorism fails to take into consideration. The terrorist and specifically the suicide bomber, cannot be punished, cannot be threatened with fear of punishment and cannot be deterred by any consideration of punishment.
Needless to say, we are unprepared, do not have any real strategy, do not have any effective laws (vis lack of evidence and intention not being a crime) to combat this threat.
What we do know is that the threat of terrorism will not, will never cause western society to collapse. It takes more than just a series of random killings to cause democracy and the economy of the western world to collapse.
I think that inevitably our freedoms will be whittled away as lame attempts are made to prevent terrorism. I think surveillance of our daily lives will increase to the point where we no longer have any privacy.
Welcome to the age of the new Spanish Inquisition.
8 comments:
And the powers that be are all to happy to remove civil rights for our own safety.
I'll take my chances fighting crazies thank you.
Lexcen, what we read about in the news is what the worlds politicians WANT us to know. What they do NOT want us to know is NEVER shown in any news in the world. In this way they control who they want humanity to direct their attention towards. But believe me... It is not any better any other place on earth, inside any religion, politic side, ruler or what ever else.
Terrorism, torture, controll, espionage etc etc exsist in different levels, all over the world, up front agreed upon between the different countries, politicians and rulers.
NO ONE is any better or worse than another.
THEY HAVE AGREED UPON WHAT SHALL HAPPEN IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES.
Kirsten, as much as I hate politicians, I don't consider them to control the news. In Australia, even politicians must support media owners if they want to win an election. It's the power of Rupert Murdoch that is greater than that of politicians.
What I don't understand is why they don't have secret vigilanteism going on. I mean come on - you have to take the PC high road publicly but hire a bunch of mercenaries to assassinate all the mo fo's you want out of the way - they could do it with organized crime too. Who, but the bad guys are gonna really get upset? Except the mistakes and geez - they were pro hits for god knows what? Wrong place wrong time. And the world's got too many people anyway. Ask me - we're looking at a world wide wild west show coming up. Everyone will be all prim on the outside and wondering where they're gonna hide the knife when the job's done.
jeannie, now you're talking!
Lexcen: If I say authorities instead of politician ... Does that sounds better?
Because they DO controll what is told in the news...all over the world...also in Australia.
(I'm not forcing you to believe it, Lexcen. Believe what ever suits you.)
This is an interesting piece. If we are fighting a "war" then the rules of engagement are important. I believe you cannot win a war while trying to fight a "clean war" ie. no civilian causalties. This is more true when the "enemy" comes from a culture where the afterlife is more important than life itself.
The only way to win a war is to break the other sides desire to wage war. This means devastation, even among civilians. The enemy must feel that there is no hope, the civilians around them must see them as their reason for destitution. As long as good thinking people can express ideas in favor of your enemy the "war" will continue.
If this is a war and we want to end it then we must change the rules of engagement. Occupations never work, police actions are filled with losses on your side, and doing things half-assed just causes soldiers to die.
War has no half measures. You either win or lose (sometimes both sides lose). If we are going to be there let's unleash the "shock and awe" we were told would be used, perhaps extend it to the entire region otherwise let's get out.
I think that inevitably our freedoms will be whittled away as lame attempts are made to prevent terrorism. I think surveillance of our daily lives will increase to the point where we no longer have any privacy.
Sadly, I think Lex is right on...
Post a Comment