Way to go, Red! You've managed to take four words out of a much more complete quote, misrepresent my position, AND manage to say nothing, all at once!
Q: Which country has been ranked as the least likely to suffer from terroristic acts of violence?
A: North Korea. No one can get away with SHIT over there.
Am I suggesting we turn Iraq into North Korea? Nope, no way, no how. But, the level of personal freedom you enjoy exists on a continuum with a free and open society on one end and a totalitarian police state on the other.
As criminal violence becomes increasingly difficult to manage, those responsible for protecting their citizens have several options: If the violence is politically motivated or directed, address those issues. If the objective of the violence is the violence itself, then increased "police" activity becomes necessary.
Think of it as a slider on a scale. Want more security? Be prepared to give up more personal and political freedoms. Want more personal and political freedoms? Be prepared to deal with the potential threat of increased violence.
There are LOTS of people, here in the USA, that get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's say you and your buddy go to a bar, pick up two chicks. You all decide to ditch the bar and grab a bite to eat. They jump in your car, the car gets pulled over for speeding. One of the girls YOU HAVE JUST NOW MET AND DON'T KNOW THEIR LAST NAME throws some pot she had on her onto the passenger seat. The cop finds it, asks who it belongs to. No one fesses up. Guess what, you're all going to jail. Is that innocent? I think so.
What if you happen to be visiting your friend's house, whom you know to be a recreational drug user, when the cops raid the house? Are you innocent? Yes, but to a lesser degree. You knowingly put yourself into a situation where illegal activity was occurring.
Finally, in regards to al-Sadr's "newspaper" being shut down - it is a historical fact that terrorists, insurgents, and the like will often use mass media and marketing techniques to spread misinformation to the least educated members of society. While we in the US might think that a simple libel lawsuit will suffice, when the purpose of the misinformation is to foment violence, the freedom of the "press" isn't quite as free as we would like to think (sedition act here in the USA making speech criticizing the federal government illegal). al-Sadr's GOAL was to use his "newspaper" to incite violence against any and all authorities other then his own. It was clearly the first salvo in an attack, although unconventional to most people. Shutting down the paper was NOT an attempt to silence a political opponent but a necessary act to stem violence based on misinformation.
Q: Which country has been ranked as the least likely to suffer from terroristic acts of violence?
A: North Korea. No one can get away with SHIT over there.
Am I suggesting we turn Iraq into North Korea? Nope, no way, no how. But, the level of personal freedom you enjoy exists on a continuum with a free and open society on one end and a totalitarian police state on the other.
As criminal violence becomes increasingly difficult to manage, those responsible for protecting their citizens have several options: If the violence is politically motivated or directed, address those issues. If the objective of the violence is the violence itself, then increased "police" activity becomes necessary.
Think of it as a slider on a scale. Want more security? Be prepared to give up more personal and political freedoms. Want more personal and political freedoms? Be prepared to deal with the potential threat of increased violence.
There are LOTS of people, here in the USA, that get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's say you and your buddy go to a bar, pick up two chicks. You all decide to ditch the bar and grab a bite to eat. They jump in your car, the car gets pulled over for speeding. One of the girls YOU HAVE JUST NOW MET AND DON'T KNOW THEIR LAST NAME throws some pot she had on her onto the passenger seat. The cop finds it, asks who it belongs to. No one fesses up. Guess what, you're all going to jail. Is that innocent? I think so.
What if you happen to be visiting your friend's house, whom you know to be a recreational drug user, when the cops raid the house? Are you innocent? Yes, but to a lesser degree. You knowingly put yourself into a situation where illegal activity was occurring.
Finally, in regards to al-Sadr's "newspaper" being shut down - it is a historical fact that terrorists, insurgents, and the like will often use mass media and marketing techniques to spread misinformation to the least educated members of society. While we in the US might think that a simple libel lawsuit will suffice, when the purpose of the misinformation is to foment violence, the freedom of the "press" isn't quite as free as we would like to think (sedition act here in the USA making speech criticizing the federal government illegal). al-Sadr's GOAL was to use his "newspaper" to incite violence against any and all authorities other then his own. It was clearly the first salvo in an attack, although unconventional to most people. Shutting down the paper was NOT an attempt to silence a political opponent but a necessary act to stem violence based on misinformation.
