Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

could rulers use terrorism to justify a police state?

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by atc, May 30, 2002.

  1. atc

    atc Member

    Joined: Jan 5, 2001 Messages: 588 Likes Received: 0
    That is what was spraypainted on an overpass on 66 east. And it really got me thinking. Everyone got real behind the government after 9/11, to the point where we just wanted results. Now with the FBI increasing their ability (read: lessening the amount of people they have to answer to) to investigate people, could a big brother be closer at hand? Though the FBI is claiming that its reconfiguration is simply to combat terrorism more effectively, something tells me that soon it would be inward to the American people.... anyone else have any thoughts?
     
  2. deadlydnut

    deadlydnut Guest

     
  3. fizm

    fizm Member

    Joined: Apr 9, 2002 Messages: 573 Likes Received: 0
    bush gave the taliban 43 million dollars in may 2001.
     
  4. deadlydnut

    deadlydnut Guest

    thats some fucking tax cut..
     
  5. --zeSto--

    --zeSto-- Guest

    America is approching a moral 'Marshal Law'.

    Worship the allmighty Dallah Bill and you will return to the bliss of ignorance.
     
  6. boogie hands

    boogie hands 12oz Legend

    Joined: Feb 15, 2001 Messages: 16,059 Likes Received: 13
    in all honesty....at the moment i couldnt care less....if the goverment wants to do something they will do it, legal or not....and as long as the party breaking the law IS the law there isnt really a damn thing your going to do about it either....

    mabey once we get to the point of armed revolution ill start showing some intrest but for the time being ill just chock it up to living in america....as close as you think things are comming to a "police state" you could have it far, far worse....not that thats a reason to take the abuse of our "civil rights" lying down but believe me, there are millions of people on this earth who would scoff at this very discussion.....


    you should feel spoiled just being able to discuss this in a public forum.....
     
  7. platapie

    platapie Guest

    is this true?
     
  8. Dr. Dazzle

    Dr. Dazzle Veteran Member

    Joined: Nov 19, 2001 Messages: 8,147 Likes Received: 3
    It's all a CONSPIRACY........
     
  9. Wilt

    Wilt Guest

    yep...and you can be sure it wasn't out of pocket either....essentially,you gave the taliban 43 million.....
     
  10. fizm

    fizm Member

    Joined: Apr 9, 2002 Messages: 573 Likes Received: 0
    http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2001/bo011006.gif'>
    [img]http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2001/bo011118.gif'>
     
  11. deadlydnut

    deadlydnut Guest

    fizm do you live near St.louis?
     
  12. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01...umns/052201.htm

    Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
    By Robert Scheer
    Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


    Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

    That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

    Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

    Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

    The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

    At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

    The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

    The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

    Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

    In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

    For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

    As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

    The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

    - - -

    Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.


    Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer
     
  13. fizm

    fizm Member

    Joined: Apr 9, 2002 Messages: 573 Likes Received: 0
    define "near". i live in the same state.
     
  14. willy.wonka

    willy.wonka Guest

    nice comic strip..

    i dont believe in our gov.
    i always thought that if i joined any army it would be my own.
    i thought there was gonna be an american revolution...not a war against terrorism..:rolleyes:
     
  15. Anti

    Anti New Jack

    Joined: May 21, 2002 Messages: 22 Likes Received: 0
    I dont think the US is using terror as a reason to enact a police state,
    I think the US is using terror as a way to bring the already thriving police state out of the closet for every one to wave thier plastic flags at.
    What do we have, like the second highest imprisonment rate in the WORLD? The police states already here, it's just as of recently being used to sell SUVs.
     
Top