Dept. of Homeland Security hires KGB General?

[Zundfolge]

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?

 

[Art Eatman]

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]

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]

The idea is to win right?

So why not use the dirtiest tricks you can.

 

[scubie02]

"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]

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]

makes sense

it makes sense to me,considering KGB in russian translated to english is Homeland Security

 

[publius]

Government is a dirty trick.

 

[scubie02]

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.