Terrorism Discussion V2

Knightwriter
Bush's approval ratings went up, and that's all that matters.

They did? Last one I saw had him at 34%.

 

I really hate to say this but I am starting to worry that this plot may have been larger then it initally appeared.

It now appears that all of the alleged terrorists had made a suicide video, all had bought plane tickets and that many owned small nuclear bombs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of these men were quietly assassinated by CIA operatives.

/cough

Links would be appreciated before we move off into the territory of claiming Bush set this up to lift his approval ratings.

Thanks

 

Like I've said before, I heard Bush was also the one that tempted Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. Conspiracy theories for teh win!

 

The thing about the term "blowback" is that the meaning has changed as it has entered popular use. It was never meant to be a catch-all term that described all negative activity.

Originally, as it was coined by US intelligence, blowback represented the negative side effect that resulted from an operation, and was factored into the "cost" of the undertaking. Most cases, no one (ie, the general public) would even know what the blowback entailed.

As an purely hypothetical example, if the CIA backed a coup in the Bahamas, a blowback point might be that an underground rum operation there might move to Cuba, and fall out of US control. The cost of loosing the rum operation would have to be weighed against the reasons for the coup.

To make the general claim if the US invaded the Bahamas, that it would upset some citizens, really isn't blowback, it's just an obvious statement.

These days, most bloggerss and the like use blowback in a much more general sense of criticism.

 

I

 

E_S said...So how is that working for Israel, J-Rod? Swimmingly? Awesomely?

E_S

Certainly. Remember that Israel has a much different position than we do; both in how they are perceived politically and their geographical location. The fact that they still exist in that climate proves that using the military as the prime front for combating terrorism is the most effective way remain safe.

Also you'll note that they have never lost 3000 people to a single strike. And they are right next door to most of the terror states. Seems to be working very well for them.

They don't, however, have the strength to defeat terror...only defend against it. We do have that strength. And just as with communism, we have the obligation to use that strength.

 

To be fair though J-Rod, Israel also uses alot of intelligence, law enforcement, and apprehension too. It's not all war, all the time.

 

Absolutely. But much of the time their military is used on a weekly or daily basis. It is necessary to defeat them, not jail them. Israel knows this and acts accordingly. They don't send in the cops or a negotiating team.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that many of the intel tactics they use would not be allowed in the US due to perceived Constitutional issues.

 

[/b]J-Rod[/b]
Also keep in mind that many of the intel tactics they use would not be allowed in the US due to perceived Constitutional issues.

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed here? Israel is in a very unique position and so have adopted measures that work,or seem too, most of the time.

 

OWM, maybe you can start over and begin by illustrating what you see as the main differences between the 2 administrations? Your argument does seem to boil down to what was brought up in the locked thread.

If I can directly sum up your position, it's that Clinton was more successful because he waited for an attack to happen, and then arrested those resonsible. But is that a desirable goal in every situation?

Does that policy differentiate between the various types of actions? Logically, isn't there a limit on how many attacks the public would allow to happen? Is it a sustainable position in the age of hyperterror? Even then, how do Clinton's own numerous militray strikes fit into your assessment? Are you still claiming that there were no negative consequences of those?

That's what I mean when I ask you for a more balanced discussion. You have yet to illustrate the major differences in policy between the 2 administrations. You have yet to define what a successful policy entails. You haven't really defined the terms of the discussion. Instead of ranting, as you say, how about we actaully examine what you want to discuss?

 

You seem to have forgotten that Mr44 wasn't the only one to talk about locking the thread. Ender_Sai also commented on it:

Not to mention his comment:

Your thread was already on thin ice before your rant that got deleted, and you were made aware of that by a different mod than the one you are complaining about.

You were warned, well in advance.

Kimball Kinnison

 

J-Rod, it's not even remotely working well for Israel, and only someone with massive blinkers framing their rose-tinted lense would even entertain any other idea.

The simple fact J-Rod is that terrorism is part of the modern age, and has been part of history for some time. So long as a group feels they have a large enough grievance coupled with a lack of recourse or willingness to listen to them, they will always end up resorting to violence to achieve their goals if they're shut out for too long. In fact, I've described the genesis of the PLO in that point.

Kimball; border security is not a military matter. It is if someone's invading, I will grant you that but in most cases, it's got nothing to do with the military.

I can't speak for the US, but for us and border security, the following agencies play a role; Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), Attorney General's Department (AGD), Australian Customs Service (Customs), and Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Guess how many of the above are also the agencies with a CT focus?

E_S

 

Yeah, but that's not entirely accurate either.

When the Australian government wanted a specific freighter (of which we won't mention) that was full of asylum seekers boarded and turned away, it most certainly relied on the military, specifically the SASR.

I'm not claiming that such an action was automatically "wrong," even though Australia was subject to a lot of negative perception because of it, but it most certainly did represent military usage applied to the security issue. I would argue that a great deal of ADF Timorese policy is borne out of border security concerns as well.

Are those activities specifically "military" or "law enforcement" responses?

Actually, they're a melding of both. That's the point. Each response is dependent on the situation. One can't make a blanket statement that one is automatically better or worse than the other. (and I'm not saying you made the blanket statement, but that's why it's important to define our terms)

 

J-Rod, it's not even remotely working well for Israel, and only someone with massive blinkers framing their rose-tinted lense would even entertain any other idea.

If Israel handled the situation any other way than the way they are, they would not exist right now.

How would you handle terror if in their position?

 

Tee-hee.

You just reminded me of an op-ed piece that I stopped reading when the writer referred to communism as evil.

The U.S. had no obligation to stop Communism (at least no more obligation than one religion has to stop another, but outside of ideological wars, difference =/= evil). If you want to argue that the U.S. had an obligation to stop the corrupt quasi-communist governments of the Soviet bloc, that's something else.

Ah, the wonders of inane right wing rhetoric...Comynunizm is Teh EViL!!!!1

 

Border security is both a military matter and a law enforcement matter. During peacetime, the military mostly takes a supporting role to the military, but it still plays a vital role. Exactly how those responsibilities are divided up may vary from nation to nation, though.

For example, in Australia, the responsibility to patrol the shoreline belongs to both the Navy and Customs (with local police playing a supporting role), and the primary responsibility belongs to Customs. In the US, the US Coast Guard (a military organization under the DHS that does not have a specific Australian counterpart) has the primary responsibility for maritime security and border patrol, with support from the Navy and ICE. Currently, the National Guard has been activated to provide support to the Border Patrol. Both of these are valid applications of the military for border security.

Even in your list of Australian agencies, you included the DoD (which, as I recall, has authority over the Australian military).

Military resources, whether it is additional ships for maritime patrols, UAVs for aerial patrol, or simply extra warm bodies for land patrols, are a valuable and important resource that can be applied to border security. It's not just a law enforcement matter.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Mr. 44, my examples only meant to illustrate that LAW ENFORCEMENT was more effecitve in BOTH administrations, not that Clinton was teh awesomee!!! or anything like that.

Again, the Iraqi war, the Israeli slaughtering of the Lebanese, sure we can outgun any terrorist, but all the terrorist has to do is keep fighitng to win, we have to get them to make peace to win.

 

Well, the opening statement in your other thread doesn't seem to support that sentiment, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding your statement above, that's why it becomes even more important to define the terms you are using. What do you consider a "law enforcement response" to be? What about a "military response?" Because that statement doesn't address any of the examples that were previously provided.

Again, if the government of the Sudan, as an example, was providing state support to elements of al Qaeda, what would you do? Charge the entire Sudanese government in US criminal court with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts? That's unrealistic, and not even an option. That's why Clinton directed punitive military strikes against targets in the Sudan, which you didn't have a problem with.

What about Afghanistan, which you described as the "justifed war?"

Obviously then, you do realize that there are times when military force is the "correct" choice under your own criteria.

As Farraday hinted at in your other thread, you seem to throw the term "law enforcement" around without considering what it means. As he said, would you be comfortable with the level required under your own desire?

At its core, the detention center at Gitmo represents the purest of law enforcement responses. It's specific, it's relatively unobtrusive, and there is no danger of collateral damage. But you are against such a center, which contradicts the result you promote.

With regards to this latest airline plot, the one which you heralded as a "complete triumph," the Brits are still detaining the subjects involved without any kind of official charges, in their own Gitmo, purely to gather intelligence. Would you accept such a "law enforcement response" if the US did the same thing?

At its core, the NSA intercept program is another purely law enforcement reponse. Again, it's specific, it's unobtrusive, and there is no danger of collateral damage. But again, you are against this program as well, which also contradicts the goals that you have outlined.

So you can plainly see that there are serious issues involved with all the responses under discussion here. Your claim that "law enforcement" is always the "correct" response is not accurate, as you, yourself, have issues with the consequences that come with it.

The problem seems to be that you label any response that you agree with as a "law enforcement response," while characterizing any response that you don't agree with as a "military response," even if there are numerous inconsistancies within your own position, and you have't even defined what the difference is.

 

Except, you neglect that law enforcement is only part of the solution.

How do you use law enforcement to capture terrorists who are in a hostile country, where neither you nor your allies have any legal jurisdiction? (Think of Libya in the 1980s and Afghanistan in 2001.)

If law enforcement is so effective, why did Clinton launch cruise missile strikes against terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998? Or did he pin a badge on the missiles and "deputize" them first?

Why did the 9/11 report focus so much on the intelligence community, if law enforcement is the most effective way to fight terrorism? Shouldn't it then have focused more on the law enforcement failures?

As I said in your other thread, Intelligence, Military, and Law Enforcement all have their own roles to play. Law enforcement is virtually useless once you step outside of our jurisdiction (or that of our allies). The military is virtually useless (except in matters like border security like Ender and I were discussing earlier) for domestic counterterrorism efforts. Neither of those can be successful without the Intelligence community actively trying to identify operations before they happen.

Kimball Kinnison

 

And that brings up a good point. So far, I've been limiting myself to OWM's difference of "law enforcement" vs "military," to try and examine his assertion that "law enforcement" is always the correct response, while "military" is always the wrong path.

Clearly, the response triad is formed by law enforcement, intelligence, and military, all working together.

 

Firstly, I know you are a big fan of Communistic ideals and wish to separate that from the brutal governments that inevitably arise from the implementation of those ideals.

So, while Communism may not be evil in and of itself it does historicly breed evil, brutal governments. It's not rhetoric...it's history. Look it up.

But my point remains, we had an obligation to meet that evil and defeat it. Just as we did with Nazism. Just as we do with terrorism.

 

It's history that Communism is evil? Well, I guess if you do consider James Bond novels and Tom Clancy novels history...then yes, you're right.

 

In the news this week do to the latest threat to planes Transport Canada has banned Gel Bras for women.

Now this is so stupid it's actually funny.
How will the guard ask, will he feel for them.
If the woman is asked to remove her bra for security reasons to board the plane, then what.

This is getting crazy stupid.

 

Well, Lenid Khalid was a) a woman, b) a terrorist and c) a hijacker, so it's a completely cromulent response.

E_S

 

Mr. 44, Kimball, your posts say nothing. Yes, law enforcement operations need to be coupled and supported by military operations, no question, but the point is that wars like Iraq and Lebanon which are designed to be proactive terrorist solutions have turned out to be abysmal failures.

Mr. 44, take a stand for once. What do you think is the solution? What do you think the appropriate U.S. policy should be? Do you honestly believe our current policy is working? What would you change, what would you keep the same? This goes for Kimball too, because you two are teh worst offenders in terms of never offering a single bit of criticism at the party in power, merely criticizing the criticizers.

I may "seem to neglect" arguments, but that's merely because I am trying to push the argument to you, trying get you to think beyond mere reactionary knee jerk defense of current u.s foreign policy.

I may throw terms around without writing dissertations on their meanings, but its because you cannot argue global policy and then get stuck defining every little thing. It's a legal trick that gets you lost in discovery without ever reaching a final judgment on the merits.

Do you both think Bush's strategy is working? If you do, why? What do you see as the end result of this current policy?