A liberal with a not so liberal idea.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:23 pm

I guess I am know on this board as being the board bleeding liberal which I find sort-of
humorous. All of my wives friends think I am a right wing business rape the land
kind-of guy. I want to go real off subject here and make a suggestion that could really
blow my image and put me in the loony bin category.

Fighting terrorism.
It is a new world out there and I really wonder if we (the United States and others) have
really approached this new kind of war fare in a effective manner. Terrorism is real about
small people finding a way to take power. Granted there is a always a main figure head
like Bin Laden, but really he is directing thing in a very loose way. He relies on average
little people on doing all of his dirty work. People who feel empowered to do so. These
people are so under the radar they feel invincible, and why not. We come marching in
guns a blasting and what are we shooting at, Bin Laden's tanks and airports!? We can
take out a country using old style warfare, but we can not get the terrorist. The tools of
the terrorist are small as a human being and or a little explosive, or a vile of this, and the
feeling of inviolability. The resources we need to take out instead of tanks and airports
are the people. Have you ever noticed how all of the suicide bomber/martyr are mostly
the young, the older leaders and generals all have more sense, and really value their lives
a little bit more.

Many year ago congress outlawed US based hit squads. It really seemed unthinkable that
we would have sanctioned murders being committed by our government. I am though
beginning to have serious doubts about that policy and wonder if that approach would not
be a more efficient way to win this type of warfare. Do you give up some of your moral
fabric to win a war. Is this method with all of it failing better than mass bombing killing
more innocents than terrorist worst morally. Would this type of warfare inflict the same
type of terror and take away the invincibility the terrors are used to. It has been proven
by history when warfare has been taken to a personal level the individuals tend to change
there tune real quick.

I don't know how I would eventually fall if this issue came up but I can tell you which
way I am leaning. I really do not think what we are doing in the long run will be more
than a speed bump in the terrorist agenda.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:49 pm

I might be wrong, but I think we reversed our position on assassinations carried out by our people right after 9-11. I think it was about the same time we quit being so worried about paying "bad" people to work for us overseas.

I doesn't seem like it was a congressional thing, though. It may have just been an administrative decision. I don't really have any source information to reference to, unfortunately.

I am trying to do the "See no evil, hear no evil" pose for a couple years and am hoping that we just have a lot of bad, bad people doing a lot of bad, bad things to terrorists around the world (with the assistance and cooperation of bad, bad people representing all of the other responsible countries of the world as well, of course). The less I know about it, the better. That just means it is working.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:37 pm

I think the administration feels the same way except that when the secret war didn't show enough results to "parade" in front of the nation they decided to conjur up a real live "enemy" for all to see and decided on Iraq! That way they could take all their frustrations out on a "state" wrather that an idea. I originally felt the WMD thing was a necessary step to take if they existed, but no one had any idea of how bad the intelligence was. I just hope Bush will stay with his promise to pull out soon. I think Iraq could be an un-winnable situation if we try to impose Western ideas on these religious zealots (Nut cases).

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:43 pm

Here's a book you should read if you are currently 100% sure that "Iraq" wasn't involved with Al Qaeda under Hussein.

The Third Terrorist : The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing

by Jayna Davis

Jayna was a reporter for the Oklahoma City NBC affiliate in 1995, and was one of the first reporters on site after the Murrah Building bombing. She's quite convincing.

In my opinion - while some terrorist organizations might not be formerly tied to a particular Government, those that oppose the existence of America, will find willing accomplices in North Korea, Syria, Iran and until last year, Iraq...that's indisputable.

As far as the policy to not assassinate people - who cares what the policy is - I believe the NSA and CIA will do whatever they have to in the name of national security.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:51 pm

Jayna Davis has a lot of interesting research regarding John Doe #3.

I have no idea why there hasn't been an independent investigation into this intelligence failure, although this current witch hunt in DC on 9/11 isn't really accomplishing much other than make this Richard Clarke guy a millionaire by selling his book, the movie rights, and an analyst job on ABC.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:06 am

I believe that if there was a focus on John Doe #3, then the case against McVeigh and Nichols might have been a lot weaker. The defense tried to make a case that #3 was the real perp, but since there was 'technically' no #3, it kind of eliminated reasonable doubt.