Us To Fingerprint & Photograph All Visa Travellers

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 18:57
So what!!!

Timothy Mcveigh was a white American citizen and committed the worst act of terrorism at the time (in the US).
What's the relation to the original point?

The 9-11 terrorists were not from Britain.

the relation to the original point is that fingerprinting is only being done to residents of countries that need visas under the heading of "security" but terrorist could come from anywhere so why just do it to those countries?
what is the point of bringing in a security measure if it has holes as big as the atlantic?
by definition security should be secure.

i made a point in an earlier post about Mcveigh.
Yes the 9/11 terroist didn't come from Britain...but richard ried did and it was only because the passengers on the plane stopped him that he didn't suceed.
i used him as an example because he is an actual attempted terrorist..he could have come from any one of the visa waiver countries but he happened to be a british citizen. i am not suggesting that britain is a threat because of one man, but individuals from anywhere can be

[vidcc]

Originally posted by DreamWeaver@7 January 2004 - 19:14
to compare this to the nazi's shows how stupid and lil minded you are! And my suggestion would be to anyone that says this law is like the nazis to really get sum help cause u need it ........ or get a life!

that's my two cents!

nobody on this post has compared the USA to the Nazis...a Brazillian judge did that

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 January 2004 - 20:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 January 2004 - 20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 18:57
So what&#33;&#33;&#33;

Timothy Mcveigh was a white American citizen and committed the worst act of terrorism at the time (in the US).
What&#39;s the relation to the original point?

The 9-11 terrorists were not from Britain.

the relation to the original point is that fingerprinting is only being done to residents of countries that need visas under the heading of "security" but terrorist could come from anywhere so why just do it to those countries?
what is the point of bringing in a security measure if it has holes as big as the atlantic?
by definition security should be secure.

i made a point in an earlier post about Mcveigh.
Yes the 9/11 terroist didn&#39;t come from Britain...but richard ried did and it was only because the passengers on the plane stopped him that he didn&#39;t suceed.
i used him as an example because he is an actual attempted terrorist..he could have come from any one of the visa waiver countries but he happened to be a british citizen. i am not suggesting that britain is a threat because of one man, but individuals from anywhere can be [/b][/quote]
And again the reason I said SO WHAT is because terrorists CAN come from anywhere including Canada and the US itself.

So because we want to try to close certain security holes you have this "Well THEY don&#39;t need a visa" argument.

Pretty pointless.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 19:32
And again the reason I said SO WHAT is because terrorists CAN come from anywhere including Canada and the US itself.

So because we want to try to close certain security holes you have this "Well THEY don&#39;t need a visa" argument.

Pretty pointless.

are you not getting what i am saying ? because it seems you are arguing for my point but telling me i am wrong.

my point is to clarify...if you are trying to close holes in security why leave fresh holes open?
do you only want to close "certain security holes" and not others.
any security measure is only as good as its weakest point

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 January 2004 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 7 January 2004 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 19:32
And again the reason I said SO WHAT is because terrorists CAN come from anywhere including Canada and the US itself.

So because we want to try to close certain security holes you have this "Well THEY don&#39;t need a visa" argument.

Pretty pointless.

are you not getting what i am saying ? because it seems you are arguing for my point but telling me i am wrong.

my point is to clarify...if you are trying to close holes in security why leave fresh holes open?
do you only want to close "certain security holes" and not others.
any security measure is only as good as its weakest point [/b][/quote]
Are you dense?

I GOT IT I GOT IT DAMN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Your asking why on a very broad question.

There are tons of security holes STILL OPEN&#33;&#33;

Are you suggesting an all-or-nothing approach?

Are you suggesting we would be &#39;less&#39; secure by just closing 1 security hole?

To be honest the US in some respects is &#39;too free&#39; which is our strength and weakness.

It seems foreigners like our freeness and criticize us more than we criticize ourselves.

In the US we consider some of the new measures introduced after 9-11 "inconvenient" but we gladly submit because it ultimately helps save lives. I guess I see why foreigners are whining.

There&#39;s no immediate benefit to them.

(unless you&#39;re caught in a terrorist&#39;s blast)

[100%]

I woke up laughing to BBC news
when i heard that US citizens will be fingerprinted
and photographed on entering Brazil, as a form of
payback to the USs policy.

I agreed to this and thought all
non US Visacountries(non EU)-should do likewise -
just to see how US citizens feel when it happens to them - to be treated with suspicion.

although
this is an eye for an eye attitude....not very good.......very childish.....
that is why Brazils action was funny, at the time

These US security actions enhance paranoia and suspicion towards
the Hundreds of countries and citizens in :
Africa, South America, Asia, Russia, Midde East etc

Since all travellers from these nations will be "documented" as a result of

"Washington&#39;s new rules are part of increased anti-terrorism measures"

-

Does this not mean that the US government hereby regards these countries as

"belonging to groups that Washington has on its list of "terrorist" organisations"?

-hence Africa, South America, Asia, Russia, Midde East etc, all pose as terrorist threats?

Does this mean that all immigrants, from these countries
who have lived in the USA,
lets say, three generations - will also be photographed and fingerprinted....?
Hasnt this happened in the states before concerning a certain Mcarthy&#092;er&#092;ur?

What Rights does someone have who is
"under the suspicion as a possible threat to National Security"?

Xenophobia : having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign.
"abnormal"- as in,
when did Brazil pose as a Terrorist Threat
other than;
-immigration threat?
-taking jobs threat?
-maybe drugs threat?
-borrow cash threat ?
-scientific,economic, resource and yes - military threat?
-opinion threat?
-Kickass football players threat?
-Sinfull G-string beach Carnaval threat?
shit man, even their groovy music?

Even this is an exaggerated naive stigmatisation of All Brazilians.
Whatever did the Senegalese do to the US?
(I can already hear some politician saying - its not what they have done - its what they might do...)

By letting the foreigners in, all we do is expose ourselves to risk without any possible benefit.

It is statements like these that give me the chills.

All this further divides the North from the South and East from the West.....progress...evolution...humanity

There&#39;s not much to be done other,
than to,
Avoid behaving in a paranoid, suspicious or rascist manner.

Please refer to
the French minister Le Pen and the Austrian prime minister
for further advice on "Love of Foreigners".

And, Yes

We have Anti-Immigration politics in Europe,
Except its not labelled under
"terrorist threat".....





Peace

[hobbes]

What does this have to do with immigration, at all?

Why are you taking my statement from it&#39;s proper context and making it look like I was talking about immigration. I was talking about a very specific group of temporary visitors here on Visas. What do we gain from these people? They give us money, get an education and leave. They reap the rewards of our resources.

These transients are the terror risks. Have we banned them, barred them, deported them? No, we asked for fingerprints to supplement our data.

Why is a passport not xenophobia? Why can&#39;t I just travel freely, why do the xenophobes around the world need to look at my government issued papers. It&#39;s all a matter of perspective.

What an appalling attempt to distort my post.

And as I have said 4 times, which you have ignored, while selecting a line which reads differently out of context, I will gladly submit my fingerprints, if that is what Brazil choses. If I don&#39;t like it, I won&#39;t visit. It is their country and letting me in to visit and work or vacation is a priviledge they grant me, not a right of mine.

[Busyman]

Your post makes me recall a bit I saw on 60 Minutes talking about why Middle Easterners hate us and they were interviewing a Saudi.

The reporter asked where his children go to college.
The Saudi said in America.
The reporter then said why would you send your children to a place that you hate.
The Saudi said "Why not send my children to get the best education they can receive?"

Weird but somewhat logical.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 07:13

Contrary to what seems to be the popular rhetoric, the world did not change on September 11th, 2002. The United States is, frankly, overreacting. Quite a few other countries have had, and continue to have, acts of terrorism. The only thing that was brand-spanking-new was the use of fully-fueled airplanes flown into buildings and blowing said buildings up.

That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+8 January 2004 - 01:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 8 January 2004 - 01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 07:13

Contrary to what seems to be the popular rhetoric, the world did not change on September 11th, 2002. The United States is, frankly, overreacting. Quite a few other countries have had, and continue to have, acts of terrorism. The only thing that was brand-spanking-new was the use of fully-fueled airplanes flown into buildings and blowing said buildings up.

That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is. [/b][/quote]
Man........when ya put it that way...Magic STFU.

just kidding man


.........but J&#39;Pol makes a very good point