[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

I don't allow myself to be offended by the truth, broham. You're entirely right in your assessment; although there is no constitutional guarantee of "privacy" as most people apply the term, and the federal parasite had been looking for a way to chip away at our liberties and personal protections long before 9/11 occurred. I'm fully convinced that the feds allowed 9/11 to happen for the purposes of pushing both that agenda and their foreign policy agenda in the Middle East.

It's sort of like what happened at Pearl Harbor: they knew the Japanese had chosen it as a target and they even went so far as to stockpile the proper medical supplies on location beforehand, but the powers-that-be wanted to involve us in Europe's war against Germany at a time when the American population was primarily isolationist and were incredibly wary -- and rightfully so -- of "foreign entanglements." They didn't have an active role in 9/11 any more than they did in Pearl Harbor, but they knew it was coming and allowed it to happen for the purpose of getting the population to go along with their plans.

So I guess that begs the question: is Europe better now for America's involvement in WWII 70 years ago? Will the Middle East be better in 70 years for our involvement over there now?

Of course, this as you described isn't anything new in a tactical war cause. I'm sure if we dissected the history books primarily around war focused political powers, we will find many examples.


If you get "the people" up in arms, you have everything. Lets face it, the common joe, pre 9/11 knew squat of what a muslim radical was. Just like common joes pre pearl harbor knew very little of that era. But the common joe post attacks will get to know them well enough to never question the amount of taxes we spend to "protects our freedom". Not to mention the unlimited amount of patriotic volunteers ready to assist their country.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Of course, this as you described isn't anything new in a tactical war cause. I'm sure if we dissected the history books primarily around war focused political powers, we will find many examples.


If you get "the people" up in arms, you have everything. Lets face it, the common joe, pre 9/11 knew squat of what a muslim radical was. Just like common joes pre pearl harbor knew very little of that era. But the common joe post attacks will get to know them well enough to never question the amount of taxes we spend to "protects our freedom". Not to mention the unlimited amount of patriotic volunteers ready to assist their country.

I just take heart in the knowledge that those patriotic volunteers are anything but naive. Some of the most vocal opponents of the federal government that I've personally encountered are either current or former members of the armed forces. Even my Pop -- who joined up after and because Kennedy got assassinated and has voiced his disappointment at not having had the opportunity to personally cash in LBJ's ticket -- told me to always consider my best interests if I chose to opt for military service.

He said not to worry about doing it for the country, because the country was going to get what it needed out of me one way or the other once I signed the paperwork. The true question I needed to ask myself was, according to him, whether or not I was going to be better off for it in the long run should I not go career. I believe he referred to it as "enlightened self-interest."

So at least the current crop of recruits and service members appears to understand exactly that. They're not just blind servants and federal machines.

Well, except for the Marines; but those dudes are just plain fucking crazy no matter how you look at it.

[Parannoyed]

Originally Posted by 30564U ↗

Given the video shown today of the bad guy running around the area outside the Parliament Building and car jacking cars...wouldn't it have been nice if a citizen(s) who was legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm had shot him outside rather than inside? The only thing that stops these idiots are good guys with a firearm.

See we agree on this, a gun is the only thing to solve that situation. Its how to prevent these things from even happening is probably what we dont agree on

[winvens]

[AetherXi]

I would just like to say as a Canadian, we are not new to the concept of terrorism. I would like everyone to look up Canada's past with terrorism before saying things like #welcometoourworldeh

Or that we aren't prepared to fight back. And I also disagree with you rob666, I would gladly take loss of privacy if it meant increased security.

All this bullshit about problems with privacy is a bunch of stubborn idiots who can't see the bigger picture and cling to the thought that government is against us. No offense of course.

Vive le Canada!

[winvens]

Originally Posted by AetherXi ↗

I would just like to say as a Canadian, we are not new to the concept of terrorism. I would like everyone to look up Canada's past with terrorism before saying things like #welcometoourworldeh

Or that we aren't prepared to fight back.

Exactly.

[GRiZ]

Originally Posted by AetherXi ↗

I would gladly take loss of privacy if it meant increased security.

Vive le Canada!

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” -Benjamin Franklin

[winvens]

^ I'll be damned...30564U and I actually agree about something, once more.

[dpinkston91]

Originally Posted by OhJstFkOffAlrdy ↗

Fucking Canadians and their psychotic bloodthirsty gun-crazy cowboy culture. I'm glad that shit doesn't happen down here anymore now that we have Obama to keep us safe.

This is top-tier sarcasm, sir.