How Do We Deal With Terrorists

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Trouble yourself to read a little on the revelations of declassifications 50 years after WWII and the McCarthy era but only if you wish to be guided by data. On second thought, IR, don't bother with the data! It hasn't been demonstrably useful in many conversations .

This from the king of false data and ghost data and of ignoring legitimate data… the hypocrisy amazes me…

To that I can only reply 'Have you no sense of decency, sir at long last?'

Get your head unstuck from the paranoid cold war dementia it still apparently is in. Joseph McCarthy did far more damage on so many levels then he ever did good. He maliciously destroyed the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of innocent people in the name of paranoia and alcohol fueled power mania. If you had been wrongly placed on a black list would you still be cheerleading for this man and saying well I know Im innocent but its for the good of the country. Doesnt matter if someone like me gets run over in the process? If your father had committed suicide for being wrongly slandered would you be just as tickled with this kind of zealotry? Joseph McCarthy was a tragic figure that should never have been allowed to besmear his little slice of american history as profoundly and disgustingly as he did. Whats next? Oh that Benedict Arnold was doing the right thing? Oh that John Wilkes Booth had the best of intentions for his country? Spare us...

[The Gaffer]

Heh. Way to drag the facts into it, IR!

Many years ago I wrote an essay on Oppenheimer, he who invented the Bomb then repented ("I am become a destroyer of worlds") and was subsequently blacklisted.

As part of the research I discovered that the FBI were using evidence from sources such as people who claimed to have a "sixth sense" and could tell whether someone was a bit dodgy just by looking at them.

[IronParrot]

Shoot zem. Shoot zem both.

[Rían]

Guys, neither Spock nor inky were endorsing McCarthy himself, or his methods - they were just pointing out that what he was acting against actually did exist and do damage. I hope you can at least agree with that.

I never read their posts as supporting McCarthy at ALL, and it troubles me that someone WOULD - it seems like stereotyping, as opposed to actually reading and considering what a person has to say

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Spock

Cultural damage, give me a break. This is now and we have structural damage and human casualties.

and the answer is more human casualties im assuming? we are a lover of these vicious cycles arent we spock? **** freedom to uphold it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Guys, neither Spock nor inky were endorsing McCarthy himself, or his methods - they were just pointing out that what he was acting against actually did exist and do damage. I hope you can at least agree with that.

true, there were actual threats, but McCarthy is a good example of how sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease... a road we may very well be travelling at this moment in history

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

and the answer is more human casualties im assuming? we are a lover of these vicious cycles arent we spock? **** freedom to uphold it?

And your suggesion is .... ?

(it's easy to criticize; harder to propose another solution!)

(hope your bday was happy!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true, there were actual threats, but McCarthy is a good example of how sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease...

I agree! But a bad cure doesn't mean there isn't a disease; it just means we should try to find another cure, IMO.

(and I never saw anyone say McCarthy was right - that's what concerned me, that people seemed to be stereotyping instead of reading what people wrote - IMO, a very dangerous thing to do.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree! But a bad cure doesn't mean there isn't a disease; it just means we should try to find another cure, IMO.

(and I never saw anyone say McCarthy was right - that's what concerned me, that people seemed to be stereotyping instead of reading what people wrote - IMO, a very dangerous thing to do.)

a good apologist never come's straight and say's "he was right"... but saying... "he was hard handed but," or "his methodolgy lacked a little" implies that he was wrong, but not anywhere near as wrong as many people believe

in that particular moment of american history, i think it would have been better to have left the disease completely untreated than approach it the way McCarthy did... like the common cold, sometimes the best treatment is just to relax a bit and sleep it off

[Spock]

...and Aldrich Aimes would have happened over and over and over again.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

...and Aldrich Aimes would have happened over and over and over again.

and how exactly did McCarthy's witch hunt lead to the ousting of Aldrich Aimes?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This from the king of false data and ghost data and of ignoring legitimate data… the hypocrisy amazes me…

If it makes you feel better, inky, many of us know that this is a false accusation

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a good apologist never come's straight and say's "he was right"... but saying... "he was hard handed but," or "his methodolgy lacked a little" implies that he was wrong, but not anywhere near as wrong as many people believe

When I reread Spock's post, I still don't ever see him condoning McCarthy's methods.

in that particular moment of american history, i think it would have been better to have left the disease completely untreated than approach it the way McCarthy did... like the common cold, sometimes the best treatment is just to relax a bit and sleep it off

You could very well be right; but IMO it's better to deal with it in a non-McCarthy way than to not deal with it at all. Not that I know what to suggest ... life is complex ... and I have worked extensively with the U.S. military so perhaps have a slightly different viewpoint because of my background ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If it makes you feel better, inky, many of us know that this is a false accusation

i agree... he's not "the king"

but seriously, as always, it's about the interpretation... not the data...

sure, there were russian spies, but was accusing innocents and putting fear into the general populace the right way to approach the problem? i think not

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i agree... he's not "the king"

Well, I'm certainly not the king - I'm a WOMAN! *admires her curves*

but seriously, as always, it's about the interpretation... not the data...

Yes, I would tend to agree - people's biases sometimes make them ignore the data, or twist it. But IMHO, inky does not do this - or at least, does it less than most, and ... *stamps foot* well, I just don't like that kind of comment - I think it's unprofitable and rather mean and unfair, as well as inaccurate, in inky's case. That's why I wrote what I did - to let him know that not everyone thinks what IRex said.

sure, there were russian spies, but was accusing innocents and putting fear into the general populace the right way to approach the problem? i think not

I don't think so either, and I don't think Spock did, either. Do you have any suggestions? It's sure a tricky problem ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think so either, and I don't think Spock did, either. Do you have any suggestions? It's sure a tricky problem ...

due process... follow the regular american legal system... will some people slip through, yes... but it is preferable to the alternative

[Spock]

...dream on

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

...dream on

i will... and post on too

[Lief Erikson]

"God willing, you will see the horror that will make you forget what you had seen in Vietnam."

~Ayman al-Zawahri



As ridiculous a statement as any I've heard from Saddam's Foreign Minister. Al'Qaeda is struggling.

[Spock]

Now that makes me more certain of where you stand. Thanks for clearing that up.