WP: New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

...."We do not need ambassador-level approval," said one defense official familiar with the order.

....This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042201124.html

I don't like the cowboy mentality of elite troops such as the ones under SOCOM command. What sort of mischief will they cause on unsuspecting civilian populations in the countries they decide to operate?

It means violating the sovereignty of foreign countries

What they're planning is to attack blindly and indiscriminately at targets they "believe" to be behind a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.

It will turn out just like the Israel/Palestinian situation of tit-for-tat attacks.

hang out? Or perhaps banks. This plan has a lot possibilities for the type of mischief IG was talking about.

Something is indeed wrong with this picture.

Oil Ministry buildings.

While our Cowboys-in-Chief might like to operate on a 'post-9/11' mentality, there are many people around the world who still respect the concept of sovereignty. (Imagine that.) This can't not violate nation's sovereignty. We bitch and moan about the UN and how we 'have to get a permission slip from the world community'. What is the world going to think when we run non-clandestine military ops in their countries? I don't think they will be too happy. It is literally saying 'We are better than you, because we have to do this on our own'.

We're whistling past the graveyard.

We're going to have these shadowy soldier of fortune types go into Muslim countries and off people en masse because Rumsfeld's Viagra didn't take one day, huh? Maybe I'm reading too much into this article but who gets to decide who is a "terrorist" or "bad guy"? Rummy? Penis Cheney? Surely not *. If congress doesn't stick its nose in and shut down this cockamamie scheme they all need to be in the docket at the Hague when the admin finally gets caught. And you know they'll get caught at it. This gang could fuck up a wet dream.

I don't see anything that restricts them to "offshore" work at all. I wonder if they'll open a storefront at the mall?

for what is not necessarily a military problem.

then dance around to showers of candy and flower pedals.......except this time on a global scale. Rummy war plan phase 2. He has the peanut brained 'decider's "Full confidence".

running around looking for work causing mischief once they leave the service too. Testosterone, the lure of big money and thrill seeking will make for a dangerous cadre of people advertising in the back of Soldier of Fortune Magazine...

about "bad guys" and "good vs. evil" is getting more and more crazy. Chimp, of course, can not see a cause and effect between our actions and the reactions of people who do not appreciate having America dictate to them, and pillage their natural resources. This is bordering on megalomania, and is extremely troubling to me.

There is now no greater priority, in my opinion, than to get control of one or both branches of Congress this November, and starting a wide scale investigation of abuses on Bushco's part. It's not terrorists, but the Bush administration, which is bringing the world closer to WW III. I believe that he is truly insane, and too many members of Congress refuse to admit to, or address the problem.

unilateral aggression against sovereign states, secret prisons, violating the geneva convention, electronic surveillance on its own citizens...

WTF is this country coming to?

:puke:

(And no Ambassadorial (and certainly not Congressional) reporting or approval required).

Quoting Sy Hersh (on Pentagon special ops in Iran) (New Yorker):

<snip>

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

What the hell is wrong with these people?

rummy's private army, to do his sinister bidding. they'll simply label whomever isn't capitulating to their demands TERRORISTS. chavez for example.

of kidnapping dissenters and extracting them out of the country until it was convenient to release them, or terminating them.

This plan is intended to be used in countries that are off the media's radar screens.

That said...

Well, suffice to say, this would make it into one hell of a dirty war.

U.S. foresees fighting beyond war zones

Rumsfeld approves new plans for expanding anti-terror operations

By Ann Scott Tyson

Updated: 10:22 p.m. ET April 22, 2006

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

Fighting beyond conventional borders
For example, SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where they do operational planning and intelligence gathering to enhance the ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war.
(snip/...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12412488/from/RSS/

Shame on you for thinking your natural resources belong to you.

We have guns and we are coming.

I thought this was going to be a warning that enough people enough places are pissed at the administration that they will try to get back in any way possible, not knowing that the administration would be happy to have a bunch of us disposed of.

This is all simply conditioning of the public for Iran and beyond.

What gets me is the phrase, "war zones such as Iraq." The press keeps saying it as if we were in a war against a hostile government when, in fact, we invaded a country that was no threat to us and we're being rightfully resisted by the native population.

That isn't being "in a war." That's being a rogue state brutalizing people unable to adequately defend themselves, simply for the purpose of maintaining the power of a criminal cabal in the US.

Absolutely!! Gore/Feingold dream team '08.

mass terrorism by the U.S. government.

OK, so this means they have a list of groups they want to hit, so that when another terrorist attack comes, they can quickly pick one (does it have to be the one responsible for the attack?) to go after.

It almost sounds as if they're hoping for another attack so they can have a reason to go and hit these groups!

The smell of PNAC certainly is strong in this one!

is the right word. I'm sure if another attack was needed they wouldn't need to rely on hope.

and this is giving me a flashback.

and go with the more accurate "pro-terror." Watch out, world. The US is comin' at ya, with its ambitious, rapid and decisive retaliation.

We've got that good neo-con intelligence squad that will give us today's list of all the countries they want to subdue and occupy-- oh, I mean the list of countries to "retaliate against."

"SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where they do operational planning and intelligence gathering to enhance the ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war."

US embassies are now not only diplomatic but military embassies?

Think about that folks? Name another country that does that?
They are not there to guard the embassy but to do what?

"to enhance the ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war."

would we!

It they say they belive there are terrorists there. (Friendly countries include the U. S. A.)

In other words they give themselves the right to militarily control the whole world.


If someone doesn't act soon, we won't be able to do anything at all about these monsters.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

-- The Declaration of Independence
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

I think we can pretty much rest assured that another "major 'terrorist' attack" is inevitable.

We live in a land of paradox ruled by ubiquitous fears. Homeopathic war? Suicidal homicide? Just what is being protected by this type of policy--? oh yeah, power and profit. The endless cycle of samsara is demonstrated repeatedly.

"The Pentagon also gained the leeway to inform -- rather than win the approval of -- the US ambassador before conducting military operations in a foreign country, according to the report."----

this means that the defense (war) dept has power of the state dept.

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060423050329.7ya4p9ng.html

was combined!!!!!!!!!

:kick:

This is an important piece of news

suspicious and more distrustful of the US?

ed: grammar

dangerous.

For example, SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where they do operational planning and intelligence gathering to enhance the ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war.

And in a subtle but important shift contained in a classified order last year, the Pentagon gained the leeway to inform -- rather than gain the approval of -- the U.S. ambassador before conducting military operations in a foreign country, according to several administration officials. "We do not need ambassador-level approval," said one defense official familiar with the order.

Sorry this cannot fly if we let the war department ,it was called that for most of our history, have power over State

The Declaration of Independence stated in that


"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

The old plan was racist and concentrated too heavily on ethnic minorities; it's good to see the new plan is more inclusive and expansive in it's target goals...

DoublePlusGood!!!

On a more serious note, if the US is more or less stating that from the M$NBC article that Judi Lynn posted: "For example, SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20 countries".

By all rights, most of the 'potential' countries can ask for Embassies, if NOT the staff, then the entire Embassy be removed and locked down...makes sense, since the Bushites don't know diplomacy, the loss of Embassies support is no big deal.

Diplomats tend to be like the Press, other political parties, citizens; they tend to ask people in power to explain themselves or ask to see some sorta evidence...

n/t

...is a characteristic of totalitarianism. Undermining the sovereignty of other states is characteristic of a belligerent totalitarian state.

The connection between the erosion of human rights represented by colonialism and the internal disruption of traditional government institutions pointed out by Hannah Arendt in her definitive work The Origins of Totalitarianism, couldn't be clearer. Traditional lines of authority are irrelevant in a lawless totalitarian state.

I'd never heard of Hannah Arendt before. I looked her up on the web and I'm getting that book tomorrow. Your post explains the situation with the special ops troops very well.

I've been telling people for a few years now, (since GWB announced his candidacy in 1999) that the agenda will be, has been and continues to be to kill off half the planet. Once they've done that AND totally destroyed the US government, the corporations will come in and buy everything left at fire-sale prices. This will lead to their Utopia of Global Free-Market Capitalism, where they've privatized everything and everyone. Power in the hands of those with money, and everything has a price-tag.

I have yet to see ANYTHING in their actions that leads me to believe otherwise.

The question becomes this: Don't like it? Well, what are you gonna do about it?

There's only one answer that I can see.

Stop enabling them with your dollars. The game is rigged for them to win, everytime you burn petroleum products and everytime you pay interest on any purchase. Stop using those fucking credit cards! Stop paying interest! That's how they create the wealth that goes right to the top. Stop burning fossil fuels! That's how they convert a non-renewable resource into the cash that they will eventually use to buy YOU.

HOPEFULLY, Karl Marx will be proven right, and Capitalism will crush itself under its own weight. Then maybe you and I can create a world that functions rationally.

If they don't kill us off first...

This plan makes it sound as if we may never get rid of the Bush cabal.


On the other hand, why can't we find Bin Laden.

Asked why bin Laden was not been captured yet, the president responded,
"Because he's hiding." :eyes:

Bush: Voters Ratified Iraq Policy - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/29/politics/main670258.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

These people will NOT leave the office Jan - 2009. There must be another secret plan to stay in the office.

those people are beyond mad, they are insane.

He certainly used "conventional warfare" in Iraq, and the terrorists are stronger than ever. Setting up networks sounds good in theory, but I'm sure there's more to it with these insane people.

OKie dokey

Terrorism is better fought through targeted action rather than conventional attacks on countries.

This sound like the P2OG info that was buzzing around a couple years ago. scary stuff

The Secret War Frustrated by intelligence failures
by William M. Arkin
Loos Angeles Times, 27 October 2002.
globalresearch.ca , 1 November/ novembre 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what may well be the largest expansion of covert action by the armed forces since the Vietnam era, the Bush administration has turned to what the Pentagon calls the "black world" to press the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction......................................

The Defense Department is building up an elite secret army with resources stretching across the full spectrum of covert capabilities. New organizations are being created. The missions of existing units are being revised. Spy planes and ships are being assigned new missions in anti-terror and monitoring the "axis of evil."
...............................

"Prevention and preemption are ... the only defense against terrorism," Rumsfeld said in May. "Our task is to find and destroy the enemy before they strike us."
..................................Even with all this, the Pentagon wants to expand covert capabilities.
The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.


Never to be outdone in proposing hardware solutions, the Air Force is designing its own Global Response Task Force to fight the war on terrorism. The all-seeing, all-bombing Air Force envisions unmanned A-X aircraft capable of long-range, nighttime gunship operations and an M-X covert transport, as well as hypersonic and space-based conventional weapons capable of delivering a "worldwide attack within an hour."

And for those who worry that all these secret operations and aggressive new doctrines will turn the United States into the world's policeman, there is a ray of hope.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARK211A.html

The Secret War
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-11.htm

Although this is old news.....I wasn't on DU back then...

THE PROVOCATEUR STATE
Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi "Insurgents"--and Global Terrorism?

http://www.ww4report.com/node/457?PHPSESSID=ff398f9925ee28cbf411457fea106c03

:mad:

Translation: "I'm a black belt in karate!"

:rofl:

Posse Comitatus! Still, we all knew this was coming under the Worst pResident in History!!

We need lots more fine, upstanding chaps like you to do clandestine assassinations, or full blown military attacks, in any country at a moment's notice, based on the decision of the Secretary of Defense, rather than that untrustworthy State Department who do suspicious things like talking to foreigners.

I know, get out the tar and torches...

I guess this is where I part ways with a people on this board who think that terrorists will lay down arms if we do, or think that radical Muslims will join hands with us if we just accept our differences. There are people out there that will do us harm, and sometimes the only answer is Swift, Surprising, Violence of Action.

So this plan would be normally something I would agree with on principle.
The only problem is I DON'T TRUST ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSH JUNTA!!!
--I don't trust their policy on who is a terrorist.
--I don't trust that they won't screw things up horribly due to politics, money, whatever...


L

How manly! NOPE. We don't need any more illegal wars. Or mini-wars.

Especially when all it takes is another "terrorist" attack. Committed during the regime that would rather allow attacks than prevent them.

Everything else you have to say, we'll have to agree to disagree. Especially your sexist stereotyping.

L

And don't use it as an excuse to grab land. And to become a "popular wartime leader."

So.... How do you propose we do that?

I think there are surgical military solutions that have been used in the past that don't imply "grabbing land". I think we can at least agree on that...

L

Which ones?

Have you ever spent much time in an OR? If you had, you wouldn't use the word so cheerfully.

I use such words advisedly.

Entebee ring a bell?

Princess Gate?

L

So you advocate putting elite forces in our embassies to do surgical strikes on countries that we are not at war yet.
I will go back and quote you if necessary.

This is what the plan is.

Entebbe is not even relevant to this discourse.

but it doesn't mean there are parts I would agree with. I also stated pretty clearly that these ideas when proposed by the current Administration sound troubling.



I must ask though, what is your grand plan to solve the problem of radical Islam and its fatwa against the West?

*waiting*


Oh, and what about Entebbe isn't relevant? A country took action to combat terrorism to save its citizens.

You are ambiguous, oh wait no you are not.
"
So this plan would be normally something I would agree with on principle."
What parts do you disagree on?
What parts do you agree on?

Entebbe wasn't using an embassy as a staging area for housing elite troops.
Entebbe wasn't allowing the Defense Department have control over the State Department

Obviously constructive world dialogue, bringing in the injured parties of both worlds would be the beginning to answer your question on "radical Islam"

Name one conference where this has happened?

. . . is a fascinating statement. It is based on a set of assumptions that are worth examining, and raises interesting questions:

What does it mean to say that there are "people out there that will do us harm"? Is there someone that you know of specifically that has expressed to you that he or she wants to do you harm?

If so, let's examine the evidence of this. If there is any evidence, what is the nature of the evidence, who has provided it to you, and is it credible? Or is it considered "secret"?

For what reason would some group of "people out there" want to do "us" harm? What "us" is being referenced? What assumptions are being made in that grouping?

Do people generally attack others for no apparent reason? That is, other than the usual reasons for war, such as money, wealth, tribute, land, why would someone attack someone else for no apparent reason? Generally speaking, would it be unusual for someone to attack someone else without provocation?

Is it a rational fear? Is the statement based on legitimate concern, or does it arise from and is it the creation of powerful media?

As are the considerations of the righteous action that should follow.

I guess I should ask: do you believe that there is no person or organization that would like to see America and its citizens wiped off the face of the earth? Do you believe that random violence NEVER occurs? Do you believe that everything is solved by talking or appeasement?

You are very lucky to have the luxury of talking about these things. Would you debate the socio-economic reprecussions of capitalistic societies while someone is someone takes you wallet and then shoots you?

As you said, you bring up interesting points.

L

Do you believe that there is no person or organization that would like to see America and its citizens wiped off the face of the earth?

In order to believe that, it would be necessary to look at the evidence. There is no way around this. And that was part of the reason for the questions that my previous post presented. There were other questions as well that you did not answer.

Do you believe that random violence NEVER occurs? Do you believe that everything is solved by talking or appeasement?

"Random violence" is not what the Administration or the media are saying has occurred or will occur. The notion that "there are people that want to harm us" actually describes the opposite of "random violence," but connotes intentional and calculated violence.

Regarding "talking" or "appeasement," you will have to be more specific with regard to the question for it even to be reasonably addressed. In what context do you view "talking" or "appeasement" taking place? The previous questions force you to examine that context.

You are very lucky to have the luxury of talking about these things. Would you debate the socio-economic reprecussions of capitalistic societies while someone is someone takes you wallet and then shoots you?

Not "lucky," in any regard. The "luxury of talking about these things" is a freedom that all men and women have, as it is an inalienable right, which no government can bestow, only take away.

The "luxury of talking about these things" is a freedom that all men and women have, as it is an inalienable right, which no government can bestow, only take away.

Hmmm. ALL men and women have. So if you lived in Sudan, I would guess you would write letters to the government to please stop the Janjaweed from destroying your village and killing your family?

Regarding "talking" or "appeasement," you will have to be more specific with regard to the question for it even to be reasonably addressed. In what context do you view "talking" or "appeasement" taking place? The previous questions force you to examine that context.

Do you believe that there are NOT elements of radical Islam that mean to kill Americans?

"They (Americans) should prepare...their coffins, hospitals and graves. The coming days will be full of surprises and great events which will make them a historic example,"

"In conclusion, I say to the American people we will continue to fight you and continue to conduct martyrdom operations inside and outside the United States until you depart from your oppressive course and abandon your follies and rein in your fools. "

bin Laden's fatwa

I have addressed your issues, but you seem unable or unwilling to address mine.

Then you repeat your questions, after I have given answers, perhaps because you don't like the answers.

Can you address the issues in my original post to you?

If you cannot figure out from my quotes and citations that elements of radical Islam mean to see the end of the American way of life, I'm not really sure what you want.

Do you want me to say that the current Administration is corrupt and not to be trusted? I did.

Do you want me to say that the US may have brought this action on themselves by its past behaviors? Sure, but that doesn't mean we just offer our neck to the block.

I still say you are someone that spends more time thinking up clever questions with no clear answers than trying to work out effective solutions.

How's that working out for you? Being clever?

L

Now forget the movie quotes -- and you don't even have to post it, but do think about the questions. Engage the questions.

That is all I ask.

It's a fact that there are people out there who want to do us harm.

Evidence:

- Kenya Narobi
- The Cole
- ummmm, Smoldering WTC is a pretty good place to start
- Jihad against the Infidels
- Cartoon riots, burning flags "Death to America" (we didn't even publish)
- Too much to list

To think that there are NOT people who wish to do us harm is completely childlike and silly. Certainly some of this we have coming. We helped found these movements in the ME as a way to stymie the Russians. But make no mistake, they do want to do us harm.

I believe it is a reasonable policy to meet these people head on and destroy them. I agree that any military action proposed by this administration is tainted. Independant of this Admin, I have no problem with the policy to seek and destroy those who want to do us harm.

I too, wish this violence wasn't necessary. It's not an ideal world, but it is reality.

I always wonder why Americans never ask themselves that question, we're always so ready to just believe that people wish to do us harm simply because they're evil. It has nothing to do with anything we might have done to inspire their animosity, oh no, they're just evil, it has nothing to do with us, so there's nothing we can do to prevent people from wanting to attack us, we just have to kill them before they kill us because, again, they're just evil that way. People, I know these simplistic explanations make for attractive children's books, but we're supposed to be adults now, you know? Like, maybe there's a reason why half the world wants us dead and maybe it has something to do with our tendency to dismiss as evil and shoot anyone who disagrees with us.

Then we can all sit around and discuss things. Of course!

I'm sure that Mr. bin Laden would agree to sit down and tell us what it would take to stop all of the killing.

I'll get right on that.

L

There are loonies in the world, and Osama bin Forgotten is probably among them. The world isn't a safe place, it never has been, never will be. Even just within the US, within a state, within a town, within a neighborhood, there are hazzards with which one lives, why should we expect the world to be any less perilous? Eliminating danger and violence from the planet isn't an option you have, so you may as well just get over it.

The real choice you face is whether you're going to legitimize violence or marginalize it. If you marginalize violence, there will of course still be those who practice it and, yes, certainly, some people will continue to be harmed by it, but violence at least will be the province of wackos, whose conduct will be widely rejected. If you choose to respond to violence with more violence, you legitimize it and show the world through your example that violence is appropriately the principle means of resolving problems. At that point, violence becomes the preferred method for everyone, not just us (sorry, but that whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing doesn't hold much water with most people, for whom actions always speak louder than words). Which world do you really think is safer? One in which a tiny handful of wackos practice violence, or one in which violence is the rational choice for ordinary, everyday people who normally would never have considered it as a solution for their problems? You don't think it works that way? Fine, then ask yourself how many supporters fruitcakes like Osama had before we invaded Iraq and compare that to how many supporters he has now. What do you think, you think al Qadea's increased its membership and resources a thousand fold, or is it only a hundred fold? Oh yeah, I'm feeling safer already. :eyes:

You make a dangerous assumption that Osama Bin Laden is a "whacko". Or is that label for anyone who disagrees with you? Characterizing someone as insane leads to you underestimating them and their motivations.

Still, you are the one with Ghandi as your icon--would you follow his example? Since you only seem to see problems as black and white: you would allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered? You would offer yourself to the butcher's knife? Throw yourself into the sea from a cliff?

Proper application of the right tools cure a problem, whether it's a leaky faucet or a cancerous growth...

L

Without ever firing so much as a shot, Ghandi took on the entire British Empire and won. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You honestly would equate the current conflict with Al Qeda and elements of radical Islam with the British Empire in India?

Really?

Seriously?

Well, then.

I guess you got me.

Maybe we could get Mr Ghandi to handle the negotiations? Oh. I guess in that case you'll be flying to Sudan to discuss things with the government there? Then maybe Pakistan to talk to bin Laden?

Wow. You are really onto something.

Hmm.

You win. I guess.

You WOULD allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered. You WOULD offer yourself to the butcher's knife? Throw yourself into the sea from a cliff.


You have the moral high ground. I am left with nothing.

I'm done.

Obviously they are difference situations, but it does not follow from them being different situations that only violence has any hope of making an impact upon our current situation.

With respect to your repeated straw men of allowing us to be butchered, I would suggest that we would be less likely to be slaughtered if we didn't inspire quite so many people to want to slaughter us by slaughtering their men, women, and children. It's admittedly going to be an uphill battle now that we're slaughtered 150,000+ Iraqi men, women, and children, so all of the friends and relatives of the victims we've butchered are going to take a while to get over being pissed off at us, but somehow I don't think that going out and butchering another 150,000 innocent men, women, and children is going to help matters any.

I took those ideas straight from Ghandi's mouth regarding the Holocaust and the impending invasion of England by the Nazis.

I've already conceded that you have your right to believe these things, if you like. I only wanted to say that I didn't pull those ideas out of the air.

L

You bring up "living under the whip or yoke"; "allowing ourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered"; and "offering ourselves to the butcher's knife" in the context of a discussion of the US' troubled relations with the Middle East, not a discussion of the Holocaust. Do you perceive that our difficulties have reached a stage analagous to the Holocaust? Well, if that were so, I would agree with you, force would be the only recourse left us. I guess I just don't think we're anywhere near that stage. I mean, last I heard, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had taken over half a continent and initiated an official program of genocide against anyone, but maybe I missed the headlines on some crucial day.

Sooooo.... if Ghandi's solutions for the above problems are something you agree with, which you must, then how would he treat the current problem, which as you say dwarfs in comparison?

I concede that answer to your superior stance on non-violence.

L

Instead of stating what you think to be "fact" and stating that you are "with" another poster?

Doing that, in itself, is far, far more "childlike and silly" than actually engaging the questions that the post above contains, and thinking critically.

If you still come to the same conclusion, at least you have begun asking the questions. You may eventually come to different conclusions.

You say that sometimes violence is the only answer. Why is that a given? We've been pretty violent already and look where it's gotten us - we're the most hated and feared nation on earth and just about everybody wants to shoot us on sight. In contrast, Canada barely has a military at all, they haven't resorted to violent answers to solutions... um, well, pretty much ever, have they? Yet how many Canadians have died at the hands of terrorist attacks? Don't like Canada as an example? Fine, pick any other country. The overwhelming majority of the planet manages to escape the "random violence" which you describe as omnipresent and answerable only by violence, precisely by not resorting to violence themselves. Face it, the random violence to which you refer is anything but random; it is targeted very specifically against countries like ourselves which perpetrate violence.

So, given that empirically what we find pretty much 100% of the time is that violence begets more violence, what makes you so sure that violence is the solution to every problem? Unless, of course, the problem worrying you is that there isn't enough violence in the world and we need to encourage it.

If you are happy living under someone's protection or having someone act as your proxy, then you certainly have every right to your belief.

If you would live under the whip or yoke, you certainly can.

If you believe offering your neck will make a better world, walk on brother.

Following Ghandi's example, you would allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered? You would offer yourself to the butcher's knife? Throw yourself into the sea from a cliff?


I still believe that there are things worth fighting for. My family, friends and my life. No one takes them from me without a fight, and if there is a God I would await his judgement.

If you don't want someone else acting as your proxy, you need to strap on your gun & get to work.

Just shows what you don't know about me.

L

Also known as Shaitan.

Again, every one of your claims starts from the assumption that violence is the only way to respond to a problem, yet my question remains unanswered: why do you believe that only more violence is an effective response? If you are diagnosed with brain cancer, do you instruct your surgeon "Hey, none of that pansy ass crap, just whale away on my skull with a sledge hammer, yep, that's the treatment I want!" If your plumbing spings a leak, do you advise the plumber to just whack it with a wrecking bar until the situation improves? Of course not, because violence isn't the right solution for every problem. So why are you so ready to accept as rote that the only solution to international disputes is violence?

Case in point. After 9/11, the FBI wanted to gather as much intelligence as they could from Middle Eastern emigrees living in the US. Sensible plan, wouldn't you agree? These people were a resource for tons of potentially useful intelligence and, better still, most of these people were asylees and refugees who had fled countries like Afghanistan and Iraq because they were victims of persecution, so they had no love for the Taliban or Saddam Hussein and would have been delighted to tell us everything they knew on the subject. Unfortunately, people who share your conviction that violence and coersion are the best ways of achieving ends were in charge of that effort and so they threatened, bullied, abused, and harrassed these emigrees and their families. You know, it;s the damndest thing, but pretty soon these once willing witnesses somehow arrived at the conslusion that we weren't a whole lot better than the tyrants they'd fled and we could pretty much go fuck ourselves before they would lift a finger to help us. For all of our bullyboy tactics, we ended up getting precisely squat out of that effort. We could have been the beneficiaries of a bountiful harvest of freely and willingly offered intelligence and instead we got nothing. So, could you please explain to me how we're made ourselves and the world a safer place by threatening these people at gun point instead of simply asking them nicely for their help?

This is a new world: at least it was.

No one seems to be paying attention. There is a difference between a cruise missle, carpet bombing and SEAL team 6. I'm all for taking my time, finding out who the opposition is and what they want, and then finding an appropriate solution. In my heart of hearts I hoped that the cruise missile attack right after 9/11 was a distraction while SpecOps was out finding the real perpetrators. It doesn't look like the case.

See my original post.

"This is a new world"? How so? Frankly, we seem to be behaving with the same lack of enlightenment - and paying the same prices for our foolhardy policies - that homo sapiens have always shown.

"A difference between a crusie missile, carpet bombing and SEAL team 6." Did you happen to notice that not one solitary non-violent solution appeared on your list? I can't help but think it must be very dangerous for you to blow your nose, since you apparently will not consider using a nonlethal tool such as Kleenex and have to rely exclusively upon guns and weapons as your only tools with which to perform basic tasks. You should really try a tissue sometime, you'll see, it really works a whole lot better than a 50 calibre machine gun or a rocket launcher.

I think I lost you the moment I said that there was a time for talk and a time for action.

You conceded that there is no talking to bin Laden, so what would you propose?

I fully recognize that there are plenty of non-violent solutions, but I was under the impression that we were discussing various solutions when those options run out.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about that.

I'll try to be more explicit in the future.

I don't disagree that there are occasions - extremely rare occasions, but conceivable - when force would be appropriate. I think where we disagree is at what point we can safely conclude that other options have been exhausted. With respect to the Middle East and the Islamic world in general, we haven't tried any solution other than violence and, violence having predictably only made the situation worse, I would suggest a change in tactics is overdue, while you seem to be content that we already have reached a stage where every other course of action is exhausted and it is with that contention that I must take exception.

Sounds familiar.

Silly me, I keep forgetting how that changed everything and now black is white, night is day, and evil is good. I must remember to keep those lessons in mind.

Hi Bridget! :hi:

This is tolerence and free-thinking.

Okay.

Thanks for confirming a lot of things I felt bad for assuming.

have a great day.

L

But we're Bad DU'ers if we dare the same!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the Cost of Liberty.

L

No, I do not agree to disagree. I simply disagree.

That particular Republican Phrase du Jour nauseates me. Even when Your President isn't using it.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. --Thomas Jefferson

Hmm.

Neither Jackson nor Jefferson used the phrase as an excuse to invade other countries. (Jackson had plenty of other excuses.)

Jackson & Jefferson were warning about enemies of Freedom within our borders. And I don't mean immigrants.

Just checking. You refer to "your president".

You are making a lot of assumptions about me and my beliefs without any basis. Your "intolerant" and "black and white" attitude is interesting.

Bored Now.

Nowhere in that famous quote did Jackson say that the only solution to a problem is to kill somebody, please notice that.

but if you wish to secure liberty, violence may be the solution. Sad as it may be.

L

"liberty" is never secured, since it requires constant vigilance. On top of which, what "liberty"? Whose? That of red/white and blue people? This is not thorough and logically flawed. So much so that it certainly looks like a bait.

I really don't have time to go over this whole thing for you.

*sigh*

Now that Osama bin Laden's belief that the only good American is a dead American is shared not only by a handful of followers, but by pretty much everyone in the Middle East? Feeling any safer yet? Sorry, I'm forgetting: violence has secured liberty for drug cartels, war lords, and terrorists, there's no doubt, their situation has definitely improved. Well, maybe if we spread some more violence, liberty will filter down to other people as well, kind of like trickle-down economics. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

However, they are willing to make assumptions about my character and beliefs based on a few posts on a website...

Sure, you win.

L

I am getting carried away here and I do apologize. Unfortunately, the position you're arguing is one which can easily become blurred with the neocon shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then when everybody's dead, try asking a question school of thought which has gotten us into so much hot water. And I do appreciate that that is not what you're advocating, it's just hard to address such a volatile subject dispassionately. Anyway, thanks for the chat and have a good one. :hi:

As a young man growing up in American, I believed what I was taught, that America stood for truth and justice, equal rights, innocent until proven guilty, and above all freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But in today’s America, Americans live in fear, in fear of their own neighbors, in fear of terrorist, in fear of each other. Our government is exploiting this fear and passing laws that strip away 200 years of civil rights of which America stood for. And as long as Americans live in fear, our government will capitalize on the opportunity to gain more and more power over the people. Today in America ANY citizen can be arrested and held without charges indefinitely. Americans have lost their right of privacy as their government can and does collect personal information on then.

It is time Americans stop living in fear. We need to give in to the fact they are not as safe as they once were. We need to go about our lives and stop looking over our shoulder; we need to stop suspecting our neighbor base solely on race or religion. Above all, we need a government that does not promote suspicions and fear. If we truly want to be safe we need to scrutinize our foreign policies, both transparent and covert, and decide if it reflects the true values of America. As long as America promotes its democratic principles backed with power in all its forms, we will continue to live in fear.

Everything America stood for is being striped away by this administration. To use our embassies as military installations is will only alginate America even more. For those of you who say there are people out there who want to hurt us, well you are correct, but that is a fact of life, get over it. America, under this administration, is the new world treat. We have become the USSR of the modern era, if our current policies are allow to continue it will be our down fall.

A fact since Iraq's invasion. Let us please remember that Iraq was not a so-called "war-zone" before the US invasion. You can't find more "no-need for (anybody's) approval" than this one. So taht, by using the word "plan", they promote the idea that Iraq invasion did not belong to that category. Usual spin where the message is encrypted in the communication but not explicit in its content.

Apart from the black guy, they love it all.

"Slam the gate after the cows get out!!!!" This is simply putting justification before widespread global revenge. Remember this is the party of WMD's in Irag, and flowers in the street. It is playing to what few still believe in worldwide domination and superiority and nothing gets those people fired up like a bombing raid on a third world country that does not even have regular air service.