The Bobcat Nation

Back in the 80's when the United States troops and embacy were under attack by terroists the then USSR had little none incidents of terrorists acts against them. The line of thought then (at least from what I heard) was that the USSR government let it be know, through unofficial means and actions that if your group attackes us (USSR) we will kill you and those you care. There are stories of assasins and terroists recieving body parts in unmarked boxes on there front door steps.
Right now US law prevents us from putting "hits" on anyone, terroists or other wise unless they can be identified as enemy combatants (people we are at war with), and even then we are somewhat restricted.

While maybe not taking it to the extreeme as it is the rumored the USSR did would you support the US through the CIA or other orginazation carring out hits (ie death squads) in order to fight terrorists.

I don't know about the term "death squad," as that brings up memories of us supporting guys who murdered civilians in Central America back in the Iran/Contra days, but I do hope/assume that we have bad (very cruel) guys working for us around the world doing bad, bad things to terrorists. That's where the real war on terror will be won -- intelligence and covert operations.

I don't really want to know any details ... I just take some comfort in assuming that our guys (and our allies' guys) are doing a lot of damage behind the scenes.

Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't know about the term "death squad," as that brings up memories of us supporting guys who murdered civilians in Central America back in the Iran/Contra days, but I do hope/assume that we have bad (very cruel) guys working for us around the world doing bad, bad things to terrorists. That's where the real war on terror will be won -- intelligence and covert operations.

I don't really want to know any details ... I just take some comfort in assuming that our guys (and our allies' guys) are doing a lot of damage behind the scenes.

But BAC, what would the ACLU think!!!

The ACLU may well disagree with my personal opinion ... and that's fine. Their job is to maintain the role of our civil liberties in our society without allowing their personal biases to interfere. I have the luxury of being pragmatic -- they don't.

If we "fight fire with fire," we end up no better than those we fight.

Additionally, we're doing just fine with the military and diplomatic capabilities we have.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:If we "fight fire with fire," we end up no better than those we fight.

Additionally, we're doing just fine with the military and diplomatic capabilities we have.

But how can our military fight against terrorists? There is no government to declare war upon. The dirty work has to be done covertly.

I agree that we shouldn't figuratively fight fire with fire (in terms of using terrorist methods against terrorists that involve hurting innocents), but rather work with the international intelligence community to fight these battles in covert ways (and killing some bad guys along the way).

We probably are actually saying the same thing, now that I think about it, except that you are probably more likely to suggest that Iraq is a war against terrorism and I would say that it isn't. We've been over that before, though.

Bay Area Cat wrote:...Their [ACLU] job is to maintain the role of our civil liberties in our society without allowing their personal biases to interfere...

Please somebody tell the ACLU this is their responsibility.

HB's idea to fight terrorists: Have them ride in a car with Ted Kennedy

ok now onto my point. We need these guys to FEAR us. of cource because of international law we cannot torture anyone at gitmo *please dont argue this...this is not my point* we will need some bad a@@ to run around "terrorist hunting"

Cat Pride wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:...Their [ACLU] job is to maintain the role of our civil liberties in our society without allowing their personal biases to interfere...

Please somebody tell the ACLU this is their responsibility.

That's what they do, as their actions have proven consistently (in both cases that you probably agree with and disagree with). Please provide me an example of where their actions defied that mission statement.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Cat Pride wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:...Their [ACLU] job is to maintain the role of our civil liberties in our society without allowing their personal biases to interfere...

Please somebody tell the ACLU this is their responsibility.

That's what they do, as their actions have proven consistently (in both cases that you probably agree with and disagree with). Please provide me an example of where their actions defied that mission statement.

Gun Control

Back on topic:

Basically, any recognized terrorist organization is fair game, overtly or covertly under the rules of engagement. I suspect that US policy would rate "captured alive" over "killed."

bin Laden, and all those guys whose last name starts with al Z.... would be more valuable to us alive and in custody.

After Reagon took office NOT ONE country in the world fell to or became communist, in the long run that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (meaning there was never a communist leader who actually followed Marx's ideals) I know the CIA had a lot to do with that, and I am perfectly OK with that and would be still today.

As for the ACLU, this last holiday season, the fought to allow Jewish and Muslim religious symbols in a public square (the city tried to have all symbols removed regardless) while never once doing the same with Christian symbols.

I'll see if I can't find the specific case I was talking about.

Ponycat wrote:After Reagon took office NOT ONE country in the world fell to or became communist, in the long run that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (meaning there was never a communist leader who actually followed Marx's ideals) I know the CIA had a lot to do with that, and I am perfectly OK with that and would be still today.

As for the ACLU, this last holiday season, the fought to allow Jewish and Muslim religious symbols in a public square (the city tried to have all symbols removed regardless) while never once doing the same with Christian symbols.

I'll see if I can't find the specific case I was talking about.

I'd be interested to read about that case to see how they tried to justify that one.

may be the squad should be put together sooner rather than later.


SEATTLE - In a recent poll, the National Association of Chiefs of Police asked its members if they believed there would be a major terrorist attack within the next 12 months. The results are sobering.

Jim Kouri, who's a vice-president with the NACOP, says they got a lot of feedback.

"We have over 14,000 members," Kouri says. "Police chiefs and commanding officers, security companies."

The leaders were asked if they believe there will be a significant terror attack on the U.S. in the next 12 months.

87% responded "Yes."

"As the sheriff of King County, I have to be ready to respond for a terrorist attack," responds Sheriff Sue Rahr. "I need to have that mindset."

"It is disturbing, and it is concerning," says John Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol. "But it also gives me comfort in knowing that in chiefs being concerned, we're also very apt to be prepared; at least, prepared as we possibly can be."

For Sheriff Rahr, it's no longer the border's she most worried about.

"As we saw in the London terrorist attacks, the people that committed the attacks lived right there in the community," Rahr told KOMO News.

She urges you to know your neighbors, which makes it easier to know when something near your home isn't right.

The poll number may seem high to some, but in a way, it seems a little comforting that the nation's chiefs aren't denying the imminent threat, and the world we live in post 9/11.

"I would wholeheartedly agree with that," Chief Batiste responds. "This is something that is very serious and not to be taken lightly."

How exactly should we, the citizens, take the poll results? Batiste hopes you'll go on with your regular routines.

"But be cognizant of anything out of the ordinary and unusual and to report that immediately to law enforcement," Batiste adds.

For more information:

www.aphf.org/nacop.html

BAC wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:If we "fight fire with fire," we end up no better than those we fight.

Additionally, we're doing just fine with the military and diplomatic capabilities we have.

But how can our military fight against terrorists? There is no government to declare war upon. The dirty work has to be done covertly.

The War on Terror is a two-sided one. The first is done "in the clear" with obvious military action brought to bear on a physical enemy force. The second side is the "Cloak and Dagger" conflict, one that unfortunately has been ignored in the Middle East for many years, and one we are just now beginning to reinvent. A success on one usually means a synergistic success on the other.

BAC wrote:We probably are actually saying the same thing, now that I think about it, except that you are probably more likely to suggest that Iraq is a war against terrorism and I would say that it isn't. We've been over that before, though.

Yes, I do, and yes, we have.

Given how our society is a fear-based one (in general) it does not surprise me to see polling data indicating such.

It sure seems like such polling data has been pretty consistent (i.e., "people believing that there will be a major terrorist attack in the U.S. in the next 12 months") since 9/11.

I suppose if enough people believe such things to be true, eventually, there will be a sort of unconscious materialization (is that a word?) of the belief.

It is somewhat comforting to know that the police departments of the Country are bracing for such attacks, though. That's probably a "good thing."

i don't think the cia had a lot to do with the fall of commuinism. I think a combination of our growing economy(with lots of debt) and their struggling economy was the major reason. it was just a matter of time before russia changed. look at china, they learned from the fall of russia and are adapting a psuedo-capitalist economy, just to keep the people somewhat happy and money flowing.

Think what you want about the fall of communism, although I believe you are dead wrong, but I was talking about the spread of communism ie. South and Central America

We most certianly did outspend the USSR. They couldn't afford to keep their thumbs on their satellite republics. I'm sure the CIA "helped out" when it came time for the republics to declare their independence, though.

Here's a good article on the "new" China.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/ ... 5507.shtml

I also read another that was more of a, "how are people getting rich in China." The latter was really amazing, and pretty stated what hokey said above. Just enough openness to think you can be an entrepreneur, but not enough to have a free society.

China definately doesn't play by the rules, but I think there continued devaluation of there money will catch up to them. I could be wrong, but I beleive Markets have to be free to work. Didn't Russia try similar stunts before there economy went belly up.