| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2004 08:32:20 AM · #1 |
Man Sought for Photographing Texas City Refineries
When you are doing outdoor photography, never, never, never do so in a white van!
White van = psycho or terrorist! |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 08:37:35 AM · #2 |
ROFL!
Land of the Free^h^h^h^h photographers hell |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 08:39:54 AM · #3 |
Mmmm... white with dark hair eh? That narrows it down a bit. :)
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 08:51:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by siggi:
ROFL!
Land of the Free^h^h^h^h photographers hell |
Actually, with three thousand innocent people murdered in the twin towers, I really don't think it's unreasonable or a serious loss of freedom for authorities to simply ask the person about their intentions. It really amazes me that some people think that we have to put blindfolds and ropes on law enforcement to have freedom, but then will cry about government/law enforcement not doing their job to protect us when something bad happens...truly amazing, truly sad...
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 08:56:04 AM · #5 |
| well said, eric, well said indeed... |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 09:14:45 AM · #6 |
This was some time ago, but a friend of mine wanted to take some pics of a Maximum security prison. She drove around and found an access road that went around behind the facility, still outside the outer perimeter, but well within the view of the snipers in the towers. She was being watched, of course, but oblivious to it. About 30 seconds after she stopped and got out of the car, camera in hand, there were about a dozen armed and very irate guards and police surrounding her, guns drawn.
She was handcuffed, detained, interrogated, her film confiscated and was told that the people watching through the security cameras had mistaken her camera for a gun, and had given the order to the sniper in the tower to fire. It was ONLY because the guy with his finger on the trigger saw that she was holding a camera and not a weapon that she was not shot dead. I can't say that is true or not, but that's what they told her. She also learned the hard way that it is illegal to photograph certain parts of state prisons.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 09:16:48.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 09:28:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Actually, with three thousand innocent people murdered in the twin towers, I really don't think it's unreasonable or a serious loss of freedom for authorities to simply ask the person about their intentions. It really amazes me that some people think that we have to put blindfolds and ropes on law enforcement to have freedom, but then will cry about government/law enforcement not doing their job to protect us when something bad happens...truly amazing, truly sad... |
You right that around 3,000 innocent people were murdered in the Twin Towers. That was, still is and will always be a terrible tragedy. Hundreds of American Lives were lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor, that was, is and will always be a terrible tragedy. If the German Saboteurs had completed their tasks, rather then get captured/cease their efforts, many American Civilian Lives would have been lost in World War II.
In WWII the rights of the average citizen weren't trampled for good and forever. In the War on Terrorism, like the War on Drugs, it is something that will never end and our rights will for one and for all be trampled for good.
Recently the Office of Homeland Security announced that AL-Qaeda is looking for 'Average White American Men' of the ages 18 to 35 to recruit for terrorist acts. That means EVERY single American male 18 to 35 is now someone they can suspect. They also suggested that Al-Qaeda could expand their 'search' to include women as well.
That means you can be held for days, weeks, months or even a few to several years simply because they suspect you to have ties to terrorists. Terrorists are enemy combatants and enemy combatants have no rights. That's what they believe and that's how you would be treated.
The problem is that the Authorities don't and won't simply ask your intentions. They will detain you for an unspecified periof of time that could last anywhere from 15 minutes to several years, all dependent upon what they might turn up in a quick background check.
Did you ever hold a job where any Muslims or Arabs worked? That could show up, if they cross-reference your past employment along with any Arab Muslims, whether or not they are American Citizens or not. Honestly, it doesn't matter your intentions, they can consider you a terrorist suspect and while they consider that, you have no rights.
That is immensely wrong. That will not protect the American people, that will not stop terrorists from whatever they plot. All that will do is make Americans feel unsafe and suspicious of their own government. That pains my heart more then anything, because I know how great this nation has been and can be.
It also sickens me that people say, it's okay to give up some freedom. It's okay, until it happens to you. It hasn't happened to me and I hope it doesn't, because it would waste our goverment's time to detain an American that would do everything in his power to assist in the capture of terrorists. The thing that is terrible is that they have done that to Americans or prospective Americans that would help stop terrorists and they will continue to do that, because that's what they know. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 09:31:07 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Originally posted by siggi:
ROFL!
Land of the Free^h^h^h^h photographers hell |
Actually, with three thousand innocent people murdered in the twin towers, I really don't think it's unreasonable or a serious loss of freedom for authorities to simply ask the person about their intentions. It really amazes me that some people think that we have to put blindfolds and ropes on law enforcement to have freedom, but then will cry about government/law enforcement not doing their job to protect us when something bad happens...truly amazing, truly sad... |
I know why they want to ask about his intentions.
But its a fact: More security - Less freedom.
Tell me what is the diffrence between a terrorist bomm and a pilot droping a bomm from an airplain inside a city? There is not so much diffrence is there?
Why can't we just all be friends?
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 09:36:54. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 09:54:04 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by siggi:
I know why they want to ask about his intentions.
But its a fact: More security - Less freedom.
Tell what is the diffrence between a terrorist bomm and a pilot droping a bomm from an airplain inside a city? There is not so much diffrence is there?
Why can't we just all be friends? |
There isn't much of a difference if you take it out of context. If you add context then the difference is quite clear and quite different.
Modern Terrorists are similar to James Bond villians. They owe allegiance only to themselves, regardless of what their ideals are. They do not care who they hurt, as long as they feel they are moving their agenda forward.
An example is to take a look at what is happening in Iraq. You have Muslim Extremist Fundamentalists suicide bombing other Muslims. In principle both groups are on the 'same side', but not to those terrorists.
Those terrorists want to institute a Theocracy under their brutal control, like the Theocracy of the Taliban. They want to stagnate and revert that society to at least an industrial or pre-industrial state. They want to eliminate free thought, they want to make all of their opinions the only truths and utter facts as well as destroy anyone that dares mention a different opinion.
Those Terrorists don't have a nation to speak to the rest of the world at the United Nations. What they do is say, "We don't care, you do exactly what we say, or we kill your women, children, elderly, everybody like the dogs you are!" They grab people off the street, hold them hostage and cut off their heads. What kind of negotiation is that? Do you see the military of any nation running around doing that?
The pilot in the aircraft is working for a nation's military. That pilot and nation are answerable to the "World Court" or "Court of World Opinion". You don't typically see, for instance, American Fighter Pilots deciding that they need to fly over to Canada and blow up Toronto because they don't like the Maple Leafs or the way that people in Toronto dress. If such a thing were to happen those pilots would be immediately arrested and put on trial for their crimes, regardless of the feelings of the US President, who may really dislike the Toronto Maple Leafs, being a staunch Red Wings fan, for instance.
There is a huge difference and if you add the context and consider that context anyone can see that. Sometimes you have to dig to find that context, most people will eliminate context in order to have something suit their view. Both the Left and the Right do that, the truth always sits somewhere in the middle and can only be seen with context.
*edited to fix a sentence to clarify a statement*
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 09:58:06. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:04:47 AM · #10 |
I like the part where he says:
"This is based on the idea that al Qaeda does its homework," Clawson said. "That's not to say we don't have enough home-grown idiots already who might want to do something."
How many home-grown idiots do they have there? Doesn't that make a community proud.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:16:14 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
[
The pilot in the aircraft is working for a nation's military. That pilot and nation are answerable to the "World Court" or "Court of World Opinion". You don't typically see, for instance, American Fighter Pilots deciding that they need to fly over to Canada and blow up Toronto because they don't like the Maple Leafs or the way that people in Toronto dress. If such a thing were to happen those pilots would be immediately arrested and put on trial for their crimes, regardless of the feelings of the US President, who may really dislike the Toronto Maple Leafs, being a staunch Red Wings fan, for instance.
|
maybe not but the president of that country he works for might have decided to have him drop bombs on innocent people for the simple reason he wants their oil?
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 10:16:36.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:33:22 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
maybe not but the president of that country he works for might have decided to have him drop bombs on innocent people for the simple reason he wants their oil? |
Even that is taking things slightly out of context.
Sure, the Iraq war has an oil connection. It's about a little more then that though.
Honestly, is it really that bad that Iraq was liberated from Sadam Hussein, in part for oil. Not to forget to remove a dangerous destabilizing figure from the Middle East.
Do you know how much everything you own and everything you need to survive relies upon oil? Very few people think about how much of daily life is honestly powered by oil.
The below are ad-libbed from Dune, you can easily replace Oil for Spice and Interstellar with Intercontinental/Interstate.
"He who controls the Spice, controls the Universe."
"The Spice must flow or Interstellar Commerce will cease."
Without oil much of the United States would be without proper food in under 60 days. Much of the US would be without stable and consistent power in fewer then 60 days. Commerce would grind to a halt, the loss in jobs would be so immense people would think the world was ending and in a way they would be right.
This nation, this world is not ready to move from oil to an alternative power source. There aren't enough Nuclear or other types of power plants that don't rely soley on Oil power to assist in the move to get this nation onto something more renewable.
So, is the war in Iraq partly due to the World's reliance on oil? Heck ya! Is that really a bad thing? (Considering the world is not ready to move to anything else.) It's not bad, it's a good thing. It will provide the US and world time to move towards a better, by means of being more renewable, evergy source. We just need the right leadership to ensure that our nation begins to push for the development of alternative energy sources. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:39:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
So, is the war in Iraq partly due to the World's reliance on oil? Heck ya! Is that really a bad thing? (Considering the world is not ready to move to anything else.) It's not bad, it's a good thing. It will provide the US and world time to move towards a better, by means of being more renewable, evergy source. We just need the right leadership to ensure that our nation begins to push for the development of alternative energy sources. |
I feel sorry for you thinking that way
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:43:59 AM · #14 |
Looking at current technologies and prices, i think most people would be extremely shocked to see how advanced renewable energy sources are. The simple truth is........ oil makes more money.
Look at certain parts of Europe, their renewable enery policies are far in advance of the UK's or the US's, WHY? |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:47:54 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by biohazard:
Looking at current technologies and prices, i think most people would be extremely shocked to see how advanced renewable energy sources are. The simple truth is........ oil makes more money.
Look at certain parts of Europe, their renewable enery policies are far in advance of the UK's or the US's, WHY? |
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:50:31 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
I like the part where he says:
"This is based on the idea that al Qaeda does its homework," Clawson said. "That's not to say we don't have enough home-grown idiots already who might want to do something."
How many home-grown idiots do they have there? Doesn't that make a community proud. |
It'd be nice to disassociate ourselves from that community but I'd wager that when he says "home-grown", "home" is the U.S., in which case I'd agree that we have our fair share...just like EVERY other country in the world has their quota over-filled.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 10:51:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
|
Nail on the Head!
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 10:59:02. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:08:54 AM · #18 |
I didn't mean to bring out the conspiracy theorists...
Just read the article, have a laugh and turn in your favorite photographer from this list of suspects to claim your reward! |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:16:16 AM · #19 |
We all just need to be more like Iceland! (Niceland)
We don't have an army...
Guns are used for hunting...
Most die of old age...
We are not offended by Janets nipple on TV.
Well, we have had an American base here since the WW but we only let them stay so we can use there choppers and they provide some jobs for us.
Disclamer: Some of the facts might be a little off. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:23:43 AM · #20 |
Canada has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Why don't we just invade ummmmmmm errrr annex Canada?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:26:47 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
I feel sorry for you thinking that way |
I wouldn't have to feel that way if there were truly viable alternatives to Oil to keep the world moving.
Point me to the Semi-trucks that don't require Diesel or Oil for operation.
Point me to the Fleet of Ocean Freighters that don't require Diesel and Oil for Operation.
Point me to the power plants that provide enough power for the world today that don't rely on oil as fuel or as the means to transport the fuel to the powerplant.
Point me to the Farms that produce enough food for a major city that don't require or use oil to get the job done.
Point me to the commercial and transport aircraft that don't rely on Oil to get from A to B.
Point me to the alternatives.
Right now there are none. That is the harsh reality of the world. It's not the way I want to feel, but we have no choice. Our current world is so entwined with oil that if oil disappeared tomorrow, most of us, meaning millions upon millions, would die within a few short years.
Until there are alternatives that can completely replace today's oil-based economy, the Oil must flow. I am all for securing the world's oil for the benefit of the world until that day. Once we have those alternatives, anybody can do whatever they want with Oil or we can ban/outlaw it completely.
What the US needs is a strong far-viewed leadership that will make it their priority to replace Oil as the mainstay of our world's economy. If someone steps up to the plate with that as their platform, he/she/they have my vote.
For instance, someone like Lee R. Raymond Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Mobil Corporation. If you haven't, I recomend reading up on his statements regarding his long-term vision for Exxon-Mobile. I will even make it easy follow this link and read up on what he said. Perhaps that context will put some things into perspective.
I am on your side more then you think I am. I am just looking at more of the context of the situation. I implore you to do the same.
I recognize how important it is for the world to find a replacement energy source. I have looked into what it will take to move my home, off the grid. Right now, that's to expensive for me to do, but one day it won't be. In the meantime, I do other things to conserve power.
I unplug my television and whole entertainment system when I am not using it. I power off and unplug my PCs when I am not using them. If every American unplugged only their televisions when not in use the power savings would be so immense, on the order of several million kilowatts. (I seem to recall from the movie theatre advertisement.)
I recycle, I do my part and I hope to soon have enough money to start experimenting with a safe home power generation system. I have plans and ideas to put something together. It might not work, but it might work better then anything else. I just need some money and time.
Unfortunately, I can't neglect the reality of the rest of the world. No matter what I do personally, if the rest of the world, or at least this nation, continues to rely on oil, my life depends upon having the oil flow. Regardless of how much I dislike that fact, without it, my family and I will likely die of starvation or freeze to death in the winter.
That, my friend, is the harsh reality of our world.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 11:30:04. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:32:20 AM · #22 |
the white van thing is funny though, I think it started from a urban legend in the 80's about child abductors in white vans. Funny too that I still remember it from childhood as I was on the lookout for white vans. Anyway time for some fun stats...I did a search on google for "'color van' crime" and here are the results:
white 7680
black 1720
blue 883
brown 852
green 661
red 604
yellow 266
orange 113
beige 75
purple 56
pink 56
therefore we can reason that if you do wish to photograph nuclear facilities, refineries, or other sensitive areas. People will be much less concerned if you're driving a pink or purple van. But guys, I'd personally recommend using the beige as although security might be less inclined to question you, your family, wife, or significant other would probably question you MORE (at least your taste and preferences :).
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:43:45 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Those terrorists want to institute a Theocracy under their brutal control, like the Theocracy of the Taliban. They want to stagnate and revert that society to at least an industrial or pre-industrial state. They want to eliminate free thought, they want to make all of their opinions the only truths and utter facts as well as destroy anyone that dares mention a different opinion. |
Sounds rather like the theocracy Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority want to implement here ... although maybe they don't want a pre-industrialized state so much as a pre-industrialized society .... |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:59:44 AM · #24 |
so being half-arab and a photographer, does that mean that my chances of going on Holiday with my camera in the US next year without harassment from the authorities are slim to none?
*sigh* |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:04:16 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Actually, with three thousand innocent people murdered in the twin towers, I really don't think it's unreasonable or a serious loss of freedom for authorities to simply ask the person about their intentions. It really amazes me that some people think that we have to put blindfolds and ropes on law enforcement to have freedom, but then will cry about government/law enforcement not doing their job to protect us when something bad happens...truly amazing, truly sad... |
As a serviver of 9/11 (I used to work in the north tower, on the 30th floor), even now I can say: I didn't move to this country to be safe, I moved here to be free. I will take a chance on being killed, rather than lose the freedoms which attracted me here in the first place.
 |
|
