Dept. of Homeland Security hires KGB General?


PDA






javafiend
August 3, 2005, 04:35 PM
Can this be true? (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Americans/USSA.htm)

"You will be happy to learn that the former head of the KGB (the secret police of the former Soviet Union), General Yevgeni Primakov, has been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security. Do you think he will share his expertise in "security" to prepare US citizens for domestic internal passports under the pretense of fighting the never-ending 'War on Terrorism?' "

"What Primakov finds funny are what he calls these 'right wing flag wavers' that were so anti-communist and now they're supporting a state policy of internal passports. The irony is deafening."

I wonder how much dough comrade Primakov colelcts annually from the US Treasury.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dept. of Homeland Security hires KGB General?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
August 3, 2005, 04:41 PM
:eek:

"Here is signed confession of your grandmother when she fly from Tampa airport. She has confessed to being a terrorist and a running dog capitalist." :scrutiny:

Zundfolge
August 3, 2005, 05:08 PM
Would be nice to get that story from a trustworthy source and not some Bush basher's blog quoting some leftist conspiracy theorist

Andrew Rothman
August 3, 2005, 05:23 PM
A quick Google search (http://news.google.com/news?q=Primakov&num=20&hl=en&hs=IF5&lr=lang_en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn) shows that he is "president of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry" as of just a couple weeks ago.

Maybe he is consulting for the DHS, but I doubt it.

Here's his bio (http://www.un.org/News/dh/hlpanel/primakov-bio.htm) from the UN.

And from other (http://nccg.ru/en/site.xp/050050051124.html) places (http://www.mvdv.ru/vip/11.htm)...

Nope, doesn't seem likely to me.

Joejojoba111
August 3, 2005, 05:26 PM
It would be really nice to find out it's fake!

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 05:54 PM
It is definitely agitprop, but it might be literally true in a Michael Moore kind of way. The words "hired as a consultant" are nearly meaningless for example. It is not uncommon for self-promoting wannabee experts to demand some nominal fee if someone wants to ask them a question, just so they can claim that they're a consultant. So some guy at DHS asks the Russian Chamber of Commerce where they can buy bulk toilet paper in Moscow, this guy asks for a $1 research fee and suddenly he's a DHS consultant.

LawDog
August 3, 2005, 07:32 PM
God, I hope it's true.

Folks, like it or not, the old Soviet Union trained, armed, equipped, coached and funded terrorists for decades.

The KGB wrote the textbook on terror tactics and doctrine that has been used by every modern organized terror outfit. While they may not have trained Al Queda, they trained the people who did.

Hell, yes, I want him hired. Tell him to bring every old file he can purloin, sit him in a Barca-Lounger with a bottle of vodka and a tin of butter cookies, and pick his brain for about three months.

When he's done talking, stick him in an advisory slot out on the sticky end of things and let the man do to terrorists what he was trained to do.

You know, the more I see and hear from fluff-bunny bliss-ninnies regarding actions that are perfectly logical and neccessary when fighting terrorists, the more I begin to think that President Bush was right to invade Iraq.

I thought that President Bush should have started his War on Terror by ordering the assassination of those Heads of State who supported terrorism, and then start working his way down the butcher's bill, ordering terrs knifed in dark alleys, sniped at Parisian bistros, snatched/chemically interrogated and left drifting down the Rhine with an extra grin, and maybe a Hellfire or two into Mercedes here and there.

That's the way I was taught to fight terror, and I thought George Bush made a huge mistake in invading a country.

I now realize that your average American not only doesn't have the stomach to fight terror any other way, but actually can't even intellectually conceive of doing it dirty.

George Bush invaded Iraq, and his popularity took a hit, but he's still President.

I firmly believe that when the Media breathlessly reported on finding the fifth one of bin Ladens' advisors dead with electrical burns on his squishy bits and veins full of sodium thiopenthal, and the American Public would have voted George Bush out of office.

Never mind that doing it the dirty way would be more effective and produce much fewer American casualties -- going to dark alleys with knives and silenced pistols (Eww!Gross!IckyIcky!) would have resulted in a mass revolt by the Average American fluff-bunny.

Kee Riced All My Tea, I'm glad that I'm not in Bush's shoes right now.

LawDog

JohnBT
August 4, 2005, 08:25 AM
Me too. Just so they keep him on a short leash.

The feds must be short of help across the board. The local country station is running employment ads for the Secret Service at 6:30 a.m. They could be running them all day, but I only listen to the radio in the morning.

John

Joejojoba111
August 4, 2005, 11:34 AM
"Never mind that doing it the dirty way would be more effective and produce much fewer American casualties -- going to dark alleys with knives and silenced pistols"

Yea, because it's not like America is nothing if not a nation of laws. Fk the laws, fk the world, lets create organizations which will be guaranteed to turn on their citizens once their job proves impossible to complete.

And it's not like American secret agents leaving hundreds of stuck bodies in back alleys around the world will generate ill will against America. It's definately not like other countries would consider THAT to be terrorism or anyhing. And when Ahmed's uncle is found with a 7.65 in the head and 7 more in the belly it's not like Ahmed is going to hold a grudge because his uncle was killed without any evidence or any trial or any counsel or any chance to defend himself. Nope Ahmed is going to be cool with that, and Ahmed isn't going to strap on a bomb belt and get revenge with the citizens of the country that created a Department of Foreign Murder.

And what better way to win the war on Arab extremeism than to make yourself indistinguishable from Israel? Just because even the most ardent Israel supporter admits that their rocket attacks producing a 10 or 20:1 civilian:target casualty ratio are almost as wrong as he retaliatory suicide bomber attacks. And just because the intractable support for Israel is the #1 or #2 grievance in most Arab minds, why worry about that.

oops sorry, forgot that it's not permitted to mention Israel in conjunction with the war on terror. And it's not allowed to think about what the reaction to our actions will be, that's pussy-footing. Yea, we got to do something brash and then when the backlash bites us in the ass we do something brasher, until absoluetly everyone hates us. Because no matter how many rules we ignore we're going to want to make sure that other countries don't break any. And if they don't like it then they better start checking their back alleys.

Werewolf
August 4, 2005, 11:45 AM
^^^^^^
Fluff Bunny

LawDog was right.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 11:48 AM
LawDog

+1

Don't Tread On Me
August 4, 2005, 11:54 AM
Someone says how the KGB wrote the textbook on terrorism. I'd gather that our own CIA is far better at teaching terror than the KGB ever was.

Of course, we will never get that side of the story, since we live here. Easy to see the rest of the world as bad, and us as all good.

It was and IS in our best interests to keep the Islamic world destabilized. Total monarchy and centralization is bad for us. Don't need another Ottoman Empire. What we want is kingdoms and dictators on our side, and at each others throats. Divide and conquer, THE British tactic. What keeps the area destabilized is religion and terror. There isn't a nation out there that isn't just 1 step away from revolution of some sort. This keeps their kings and dictators under our wing for military aid to suppress terrorists and other religious uprisings.

It is aburd for the news and media to report how the French and British were some how "ignorant" of the cultural and religious lines that divided the Middle East. Totally absurd. The lines were drawn in the sand with the intent of creating tension. If you can't keep them colonized, at least let them fight amonst themselves for decades.

The KGB taught terror as a deterrant to American attempts to dominate the region. To make it difficult for us to control the region.


The KGB though seemed to be better at stopping terrorism. Their tactics were down right vicious, and they even deployed anti-Islam methods to strike fear into their hearts. Murder, severe torture, using pork....they didn't have to be "civilized" in any way, while our guys did have to do their best to at least stay under the media radar. Who knows what we've done also, but whatever it was, it was kept secret.


Don't get me wrong, I am not some kind of moral relevance freak. Government is universally inherently an evil thing.


The DHS should be immediately dissolved. Shouldn't exist. Same with the TSA, IRS, BATFE .... all solutions to problems that do not exist. And when a problem does exist, they don't fix it, they perpetuate it. Have to justify more funding ya know! They create most problems anyway as a result of illogical concepts and unconstitutional behaviors. As Americans, when government fails, we ask for more. In business, when a dept completely and totally fails, and is an utter disaster, a liability, and a total money pit -- they all get fired.

Bizarre. Like terror, and the ever increasing government, people will not solve these problems unless the simple concept of personal responsibility comes back.

JohnBT
August 4, 2005, 11:55 AM
"And just because the intractable support for Israel is the #1 or #2 grievance in most Arab minds, why worry about that."

How do you explain Arab grievances and behavior prior to the existance of Israel? They've been causing trouble for centuries. I know, I know, it's still Israel's fault.

John

Derby FALs
August 4, 2005, 12:02 PM
This was news back when Jose Padilla was popped. Ashcroft made the announcement of Padilla's arrest from the steps of the Kremlin, KGB's old headquarters. There were so many things like this going on all at once that it was nigh impossible to keep track of everything.

Joejojoba111
August 4, 2005, 12:45 PM
"How do you explain Arab grievances and behavior prior to the existance of Israel? They've been causing trouble for centuries. I know, I know, it's still Israel's fault."

No-one is assigning fault. Perhaps it actually is difficult for some people to distinguish then, but I'm illustrating that it is a catalyst. Like I said though, it's unmentionable, reality be damned.

And yes, those jihadists attacking Armica in 1890 were a pain, and also the ones in 1924, and 1936, just over and over I don't know why they left it out of the history books. Well at least you and I know the truth, that there's a conspiracy to cover up the centuries of Arab attacks on America. Because the rest of the world thinks differently, but you and me, we know the truth. The rest of the world thnks that America was a breath of fresh air, that it was very popular in areas that were colonies of British and French. Yea, I know, they expect us to believe that there was a time when Americans were lauded and popular, and that foreign policy has resulted in the mess we see now. But you and me, we don't believe it because we know the truth, that for hundreds of years we've actually been at war in a clash of civiliazations.



Actually if you wanted to assign blame you could feasibly blame the KGB for a lot of the American resentment, but foreign policy made their job so easy.

TrapperReady
August 4, 2005, 01:10 PM
Even if Primakov has been hired... here are some exceprts from a BBC News article about him (originally published March 30, 1999 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/kosovo/307797.stm) )


Mr Primakov, 68, made his name on the international stage when he went to Baghdad to try and avert the Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait.

A Middle East expert, he is a friend of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but also has a good working relationship with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

...

He first got to know Saddam Hussein during his stint as Middle East correspondent for the Communist party newspaper Pravda in the 1960s.

His stance made him unpopular in the United States, where many in the State Department still regard him as a Cold War hawk. Some say his laconic speaking style and tinted spectacles have not helped this image.

His pro-Arab stance has won him support in the Middle East, notably in Jordan, Syria and Iraq, with the result that Moscow's ties with Israel remain strained.




Sounds like the folks at impeach-bush-now.org would welcome his inclusion. But, they've got to blame anything and everything on Bush. :rolleyes:

DigitalWarrior
August 4, 2005, 02:14 PM
The United States sent materials and advisors to the resistance in Afgahnistan in order to wear away at the Soviet occupational forces. We trained all kinds of people to a very high degree about escape and evasion of technologically and numerically superior forces. We trained them how to wear away at the will of an occupying country. We trained them in assymetric warfare. By training them how to defeat Russia, we trained them how to defeat ourselves.

I do not think it could have been done differently, but it was not Russia who trained them.

1 old 0311
August 4, 2005, 02:19 PM
Within 90 days of the end of WW2 America brought 120 German rocket scientists here to work on our program. Former enemies become friends fast if they have something we need. :D :D :D

Kevin

LawDog
August 4, 2005, 07:35 PM
The United States sent materials and advisors to the resistance in Afgahnistan in order to wear away at the Soviet occupational forces. We trained all kinds of people to a very high degree about escape and evasion of technologically and numerically superior forces. We trained them how to wear away at the will of an occupying country. We trained them in assymetric warfare. By training them how to defeat Russia, we trained them how to defeat ourselves.

I do not think it could have been done differently, but it was not Russia who trained them.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. bin Laden got involved in the dust-up the same year. The majority of bin Ladens' time in Afghanistan revolved around the Maktab al-Khidimat, a group he helped found to raise money, import equipment and recruit Arab fighters to fight the Soviets.

Even then, Osama bin Laden spurned American aid, and any American aid he received had to be funneled through Pakistani or Saudi intelligence.

When the Afghanis turfed the Soviets out in 1988, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and his family's construction business. Around 1991, he got himself declared persona non grata, punted out of Saudi Arabia with his assets frozen, because of his anti-American views.

So, off to the Sudan he went and spent the next five years gathering what would become Al Queda.

Pay attention now: whilst in the Sudan, bin Laden hooked up with the National Islamic Front, a Sudanese militant fundy group trained by -- three guesses and one of them isn't "The USA".

During this five years in addition to utilizing the training camps and cadre belonging to the National Islamic Front, bin Laden began building bridges with other miltant groups, such as Egypt's Al Jihad and, most importantly, with the Hezbollah out of Iran.

Trust me when I say that Hezbollah didn't get a lot of American aid. They did, however, get a lot of ...Bueller? Bueller? Soviet aid.

Now, in 1996-ish, bin Laden got hisself unceremoniously punted out of the Sudan. He promptly went back to Afghanistan, where the fledgling Taliban welcomed him with open arms -- especially his wallet and list of contacts.

Those Afghani's who knowingly received American aid tended to run with the counter-Taliban faction(s) and thus had no truck with bin Laden. There were Taliban who did receive American training, but 8 years is a long time to let your skills atrophy, especially in a place where the life expectancy is less than forty years.

bin Laden made sure the Taliban would come out on top in Afghanistan, but it cost him in spear carriers. He used his friendship with the organizations listed above, plus various smaller jihadist groups from Yemen, Somalia and Saudi to get training for his replacements, and refresher courses for the survivors. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's Islamic Group -- trained by graduates and cadre of Patrice Lumumba Peoples Friendship University (hint: the main campus isn't in America) helped more than a bit.

Since then, members of Al Queda have trained at camps in Libya (Soviet trained and supplied), Syria (ditto), Oman (damned Soviets were everywhere) and other places.

but it was not Russia who trained them.

Technically, it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but yeah, it was Russia who trained them.

LawDog

bogie
August 4, 2005, 07:43 PM
I just wanna know what we're paying all those guys in the CIA to do... I've seen the movies, and read the paperbacks. Those are OUR spooks, and they're getting big fat paychecks and playing bacarrat and boinking Swedish supermodels, while they should be putting the cattle prod to Achmed's favorite pieces...

Hmpff.

LawDog
August 4, 2005, 07:56 PM
And it's not like American secret agents leaving hundreds of stuck bodies in back alleys around the world will generate ill will against America. It's definately not like other countries would consider THAT to be terrorism or anyhing. And when Ahmed's uncle is found with a 7.65 in the head and 7 more in the belly it's not like Ahmed is going to hold a grudge because his uncle was killed without any evidence or any trial or any counsel or any chance to defend himself. Nope Ahmed is going to be cool with that, and Ahmed isn't going to strap on a bomb belt and get revenge with the citizens of the country that created a Department of Foreign Murder.

America is screwed any which way we go. We invade Iraq: Ahmed straps on a bomb belt.

We start TWEP-ing known terrs in every dark alley, whore-house and disco on God's green Earth: Ahmed straps on a bomb belt.

We sit back and bomb an aspirin factory (The #3 favorite Democratic response): Ahmed blows up our embassies, war-ships and airplanes.

We sit back and impose sanctions (#2 favorite Democratic response): Ahmed blows up subways in our allies major cities.

We sit back, suck our thumbs, blame Israel, and pretend everything will be okay and the Fundys will respect us in the morning -- really (#1 Democratic response): Ahmed flies multiple airliners into multiple buildings.

For God's sake, don't start whacking terrorists! You'll just make things worse!

WORSE THAN WHAT?!

We weren't assassinating terrs, and yet, there's the rubble of the World Trade Center. We weren't assassinating terrs, yet there's the USS Cole. We weren't assassinating terrs, but here's the USMC barracks in Beirut.

Tell me, do. I beg to be exposed to your enlightenment: How is assassinating terrorists going to make our situation worse?

LawDog

Coronach
August 4, 2005, 08:10 PM
:D

Well, it will make the Parisian Street rise up against us. You haven't seen terror until you've seen an assault mime.

Mike :D

LawDog
August 4, 2005, 08:32 PM
Yea, because it's not like America is nothing if not a nation of laws. Fk the laws, fk the world,

You got that right. And some of those laws are the Laws of War, otherwise known as jus in bello and the Law of Land Warfare.

And, despite the snivelling of the liberals, ain't nothing jus as bellum that prevents the President of the United States from having a couple of knuckle-dragging SeALs shoot Ahmed the Bomb-belt-maker multiple times with silenced pistols in the head as he sips his latte.

Nothing in the Law of Land Warfare says that SFOD-D can't jump Ahmed as he comes out of a French cathouse and cut his throat from ear-to-ear. Ain't nothing that says we can't drop Ahmed's cooling corpse on the front porch of his Saudi banker.

The use of Sodium Thiopenthal and field telephones is a little murkier, but I'd be willing to give up interrogation if the locations of further terr leaders can be gathered in another way.

LawDog

NMshooter
August 4, 2005, 08:51 PM
Well, there is another way to find the location of some terrorist's leader.

Just implant one of those Digital Angel tracking devices and let him go...

:evil:

DorGunR
August 4, 2005, 09:45 PM
Careful LawDog..........you're gonna upset some of the fluff-bunnies, you know who the fluff-bunnies are, the're the guys that's never been shot at but they know all about how a war should be fought.

Zundfolge
August 4, 2005, 10:13 PM
I agree with LawDog is saying, however once those dogs are released will they eventualy change out "Ahmed" for "Randy" or "David"?

At some point will our government claim that quoting Thomas Jefferson (in particular his quote about trees) is in and of itself de facto evidence of "terroristic intent"?


Have they already? :uhoh:

Art Eatman
August 4, 2005, 11:00 PM
We know that SOME of the Saudi royals are supporting Al Qaida. We know that SOME in the governments of such countries as Iran and Syria are supporting such groups as Hamas and the more militant among the Palestinians. Yet, there is no legal justification of invading or bombing any of those countries. Nor, actually, any moral justification. Further, there are real-world problems, both physical and political.

There are both moral and legal justifications for killing terrorists in a shadow-war sort of fashion, in that they have declared war on us. Just because the combatants are not official soldiers of any government does not mean that we are not at war. The biggest mistake that we could make is to assume that these enemies are "merely" some form of criminals and subject to our criminal justice system. That belief is definitely contra-survival both for our people and for our society. Our Constitution speaks to enemies foreign and domestic--and these are indeed enemies.

Some will worry about wrongful identification. I do not doubt mistakes will be made. I note, however, that we accept "collateral damage" in warfare. IMO, shadow-war mistakes will be in tens or even a few hundreds--and not in thousands or tens of thousands as in conventional war.

Personally, I prefer the word "Jihadist" when referring to our terroristic enemies. I think it is possibly more accurate than much of the other terminology that's being used. My opinion, obviously...

It's all well and good to talk about the conflict between Al Qaida, et al, and the U.S. or the western world or culture. What are the cultural reasons for the bombings in non-western countries? Indonesia? Thailand? Philippines? India? And those in power in certain African countries are not peaceful Islamics, considering the near-genocidal murdering in such places as Chad and the Sudan. And elsewhere.

It occurs to me that the majority of peaceful, non-Jihadist Islamics need to be given more mainstream media coverage of any hostility to the Jihadists. As it is, the Jihadists are like Mao's proverbial fish swimming among schools of other fish, and having support therefrom. Unless this changes, we'll see many more bombings around the world.

Including here.

Art

Joejojoba111
August 5, 2005, 03:19 AM
You both are pretty convincing, changed my mind. I still feel there will be backlash, more than without the hits, but you are right that it is perfectly in keeping with the nature of the war.

Ridge
August 5, 2005, 03:48 AM
The idea is to win right?

So why not use the dirtiest tricks you can.

scubie02
August 5, 2005, 10:01 AM
"You know, as a Christian, who knows more about evil than the Devil? Why not have the Devil come into church and advise on the best way to combat evil, after all, he'd know..."

I can see the point, but its a slippery slope. And a "few mistakes" resulting in only "a few hundred such collateral damage incidents" or however you want to phrase it seems reasonable...unless you are one of the "mistakes", then it doesn't seem so good.

Here's a good movie to watch some sunday afternoon...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/

The sept 11 deaths were tragic. But I am willing to consider them the Price of Democracy. Once we start having internal checkpoints and monitoring our citizens and potentially killing innocent people in back allies, we have lost. We have become less. What we have left is no longer worth fighting for.

So I guess people can take "the high road" and call me names now for feeling that way...

Art Eatman
August 5, 2005, 11:52 AM
scubie, whether it is the US military or the Jihadists doing it, it seems to me that a lot of innocent people are dying. If my idea of a shadow war would prove equally effective or more effective in notably reducing terroristic acts, and there are fewer innocents killed, I can't help but see that as an improvement.

What I won't listen to is any argument that we're not in a war. To me, that we are in a war is a given. Just because this war doesn't follow the formats of the past: Hey! That's irrelevant.

Those who make public statements on behalf of the Jihadists say--among other things--that the west is evil because of its hedonism. Such sinning can be dealt with only by killing the sinners and imposing Sharia.

I see no difference between those who would impose Sharia at gunpoint and those who imposed Communism at gunpoint.

It so happens that I agree that many of us in the west are overly hedonistic. Proof? Watch the more popular movies and TV programs; that oughta be enough. Or, for more, read the supermarket tabloids. But, so what? Part of liberty is the freedom to be hedonistic; whether it's sensible or not is beside the point.

The choices of life is and has always been, "Live Free Or Die." The only thing that ever changes is the name of the group seeking to remove freedom and liberty. My personal view includes Communists, Jihadists--and in moments of cynicism, Congress...

:), Art

Markcode3
August 5, 2005, 01:34 PM
it makes sense to me,considering KGB in russian translated to english is Homeland Security

publius
August 7, 2005, 10:32 AM
Government is a dirty trick. ;)

scubie02
August 7, 2005, 12:18 PM
I don't have a problem with them hiring the kgb guy as an advisor if its on terrorist methods, etc--if they are hiring him to ask about how to put up internal checkpoints and such, then the enemy just became internal, not external, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd also rather see them snatch terrorists from other countries, bring them out, try them and execute them, in the fashion that Israel did with former nazis, then just killing them on the street. The result may be the same, but it has a different connotation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dept. of Homeland Security hires KGB General?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!