Can we have security without fear?

[Varmit]

Ok Pam, I can agree with some of that.  But what HUMAN rights are being violated just because?  The tone of the article implies that we should treat the detainees as civilian criminals. They're not.  Maybe some of them are innocent, which is why we hold tribunals.  At least we haven't beheaded any yet.  I guess the long and short of it is, what are we willing to do to keep our country safe??  My position is whatever it takes.

[pamsback]

I guess the long and short of it is, what are we willing to do to keep our country safe??  My position is whatever it takes.

Basically so is mine believe it or not. But that doesn't mean I don't know it's wrong and that it doesn't hurt my soul.

My problem is with the people like Cheney who are trying to say it's ok because it's NOT. The brutality,violence, hate and butchery has GOT to stop. In no "religion" having anything to do with Jesus is it "acceptable". It's not acceptable in so-called PAGAN religions like Buddhism. It is ONLY in the OLD testament using religions that such things are done and given "divine" inference and I DO not recognize them or ACCEPT it as being the "way of God" Jesus cancelled out the old testament.

Gods got nothing to do with things like this and when factions or sects or denominations or whatever try to justify what they do that way it really torques me off.

[redcliffsw]

Obama's talent for nonsense

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=99201

[pamsback]

The real question is: How many American lives are you prepared to sacrifice to spare a terrorist from experiencing distress?

I'm commentin on this because it was the only part of that that really pertained to this line.........my position is not about causing or not causing distress to terrorists. What they get is their karma.

I am a person who understands both the way things get done AND the fact that doing them that way is a black spot on my soul. That is MY karma.......and I have to be prepared to pay or not pay it. Saving lives matters but wrong is STILL wrong and has to be paid for.  Seems like nobody understands that anymore. The fact I do makes me doubly guilty for not standin up.

[flo]

This part of the forum has deteriorated in the three weeks I was gone to name calling,belligerant pronouncing instead of intelligent debating, and basically just bickerin back and forth about who said what to who and not a whole lot of anything is gettin done except for increasing hard feelings. Think maybe we should take a few steps back and get a perspective maybe?

Pam, absolutely correct.

I once knew a man who would argue black was white and up was down.  Not because he believed black was white or up was down, but because he liked to get an argument started then sit back and watch the fur fly.

[Tobina+1]

Ok, I'm going to brave it and post a reply on this topic.  Kind of a backwards, looking inside-out rehtorical view...

The question:  Can we have security without fear?
Follow-up question:  Why do we need security if we don't have fear?
Example:  Why have locks on your doors if you don't have fear of somone coming into your home?  Why even have doors on your house at all?  Why lock your car if you don't have the fear of someone getting into it and taking your stuff/car?  Why keep guns in your house (under your bed) if you don't have the fear of someone breaking in?  Why have military if you don't have the fear of someone taking over the country?

So, I think that security and fear go hand-in-hand.  Most people feel that the more fearful they are, the more security they need/want.  Example:  a rapist running loose around a neighborhood makes people take more security measures by installing yard lights, better locks on doors, not going out after dark.  And on the flip side, the more security people have, the safer they feel.  Another example:  9/11.  Are we more fearful because of the lack of security before the attacks?  Or are we beefing up security because we're so fearful of another attack?

Back to the original article; I think these 2 politicians are just playing different sides of the same coin.  One is playing on American's fears to try and keep security high... and the other is pointing out that security is already high, so our fears can be less (which plays on the fact that our fears are high about lowering security).  You can't make someone feel safe without making them fearful of something in the first place.

Dizzy yet?  Did I just talk in circles?   

[Wilma]

Teresa, where are those applauding hands?  I need them.  Little momma has done it again.

[Varmit]

Pam, not trying to start anything here, maybe my understanding of karma is flawed, I don't really know about that type of philosophy, but...

I'm commentin on this because it was the only part of that that really pertained to this line.........my position is not about causing or not causing distress to terrorists. What they get is their karma.

if it is their karma, how can it be wrong? 

[Wilma]

Where did I miss that Pam said it was wrong?

[pamsback]

  Billy the ACT is wrong no matter WHO does it. Their act causes their karma yes but doing the same act in return causes OUR bad karma, etc. etc. sooner or later SOMEbody has to step off the merry-go-round.

 Every harm you do has to be paid for..........even if you think that harm is for a good reason.

 Tobina I see what you are sayin lol. By the way I hear congratulations are in order! I missed the news while I was down

 Ma, I think I met that guy a time or two LOL. He was my hero You know I still miss him? He talked to me about a lot of stuff...