Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/24/2002 5:32:32 AM EDT
Have soft-soap attitudes within the government hardened any since 09.11.01? From the mid-eighties until last year, the CIA Directorate of Operations was gutted and real field agents were replaced with politicians and hacks, a la George Tenet, in positions of influence. Has that changed? Has the CIA gotten serious about finding and targeting the people who are targeting us. Everyone since Gengis Khan has known that the best way to fight a war is to take it to your enemy rather than allowing him to bring it to you. Is there any reason to believe that, Afghanistan aside, this is being done? Is the FBI taking serious all the Jihad-talk here in America. Sure, there's a First Amendment, but if I was advocating terrorism here, I would expect a visit or even surveillance. If you haven't seen Steven Emerson's "Jihad In America," it would be worth your time to search it out. He detailed all kinds of activity here well before 09.11.01, including a convention of "death to America" jihadists in Kansas City, MO of all places. We're hearing more warnings now since Bush has been hammered for not passing on the fairly vague information the administration had before the attack, but does that mean that anyone is acting on it? Are we carrying the fight to them? Is America prepared to let that happen?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 5:44:35 AM EDT
i belive Americans are in for a big surprize this summer, i belive belt bombers will start stryking soon, i read recently that there were over 700,000 KNOWN mid easterners in this country who have terrorist ties, & most are located near these "Mosques" that are popping up lyke musrooms on a warm spring day....... kill'm all...., let God sort it out !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 5:45:13 AM EDT
Sadly, not a damned thing has changed. With our government, leviathan that it is, any real changes will take at least a generation to occur. And that's only [u]if[/u] changes are instituted now! I see no indication that the government really learned anything at all from Sept 11th, except how to properly harass little old gray-haired ladies at airports. The borders are still wide-open for the most part. The attitude of 'no racial profiling' is alive and well in DC and elsewhere! Jeepers, the Japanese should have waited until the current period of American history to launch its attack on Pearl Harbor! We would keel over in a heartbeat in any real war, I do believe! And as badly as the government has responded to Sept 11th, the American civilian population has not done much better! Once again, can you imagine tire/gas/sugar rationing going over well with the American people? Can you imagine mandatory blackouts? Air raid drills? Universal conscription and the draft? Eric The(LethargicLeviathan!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 5:47:52 AM EDT
Thank you Jarhead, I have been telling friends thius and they do not want to listen. Klinton destroyed our intelligence and military effectiveness to please his Commie handlers. GW walked into a cluter f...... I hope GW has the balls to be an American and do it right. Duh I am sorry the trigger slipped...I would never shoot you poor underpriviledged terrorist on purpose.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 5:59:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 6:03:16 AM EDT
Is the CIA allowed to operate within the borders of the U.S? I remember hearing that the are not. (If I am wrong tell me) If they are not allowed we are forced to rely on other alphabet agencies. BATF, FBI, DEA ect..... and we all know that the FBI and ATF we only shoot at unarmed people (mothers with little babys in their arms) Like you said take the war to them, dont wait for it to come to us. How well will our govt. do in the comeing year? Will those of us in the military be patrolling the streets like they do in other nations? Since a lot of us (I use "us" loosly) beleive that not much is being done, what is the plan of our government? Any time i think of that question I can only help to think that they will do what is best for them ( to retain or gain more power) and not the American people.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 6:27:39 AM EDT
I believe there is more going on than we are told. I heard from a co-orker who used to be a truck driver and still subscribes the ntl. trucking assc. that truckers are being trained to look for suspicious activities while on the nations hwy's after all, who has a better view of vehicles than they? No sources, but I believe we are doing more than they tell... This is the greatest nation on earth.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 7:53:47 AM EDT
Yes, this is the greatest nation on earth. To those who would attempt to harm this nation, my unit has a little statement for you... you shouldn't have shown up for Jihad with a box cutter. -SARguy
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:16:31 AM EDT
The stuff about truck drivers being used as observers was on the news a week or so ago. Although it sounds good in theory, that's not really what I'm talking about. Is anyone at the FBI/NSC going to give any credence to what comes in from that source and act on the information received? I just finished "See No Evil," by Robert Baer. He spent 1977 to 1997 working for the CIA Directorate of Operations and his memoir of that time is pretty depressing and disheartening. We've known all along who bombed the US embassy in Beirut, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and Pan Am flight 103. Nothing was done. No one was killed in messy, set-an-international-example style. No one was prosecuted except two low level Libyan jagoffs, and that in some joke of an international Hague court. Bush has called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" (cue the "Death Star" music...) but I haven't read about any Hizbollah or Pasdaran assholes being fished out of the Mediterranean with four 9mm holes in their foreheads, have you? How many more World Trade Centers have to fall before we take the gloves off?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:29:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: How many more World Trade Centers have to fall before we take the gloves off?
View Quote
Probably alot more. I heard one of those talking heads (can'r remember who, but I think it was a fed official) on the sunday morning news shows saying that IF the administration knew about the 9/11 attack beforehand and did nothing about it, they would be justified because otherwise it would have jeopardized their intelligence sources. Real nice eh?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:45:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Sadly, not a damned thing has changed. With our government, leviathan that it is, any real changes will take at least a generation to occur. And that's only [u]if[/u] changes are instituted now! I see no indication that the government really learned anything at all from Sept 11th, except how to properly harass little old gray-haired ladies at airports. The borders are still wide-open for the most part. The attitude of 'no racial profiling' is alive and well in DC and elsewhere! Jeepers, the Japanese should have waited until the current period of American history to launch its attack on Pearl Harbor! We would keel over in a heartbeat in any real war, I do believe! And as badly as the government has responded to Sept 11th, the American civilian population has not done much better! Once again, can you imagine tire/gas/sugar rationing going over well with the American people? Can you imagine mandatory blackouts? Air raid drills? Universal conscription and the draft? Eric The(LethargicLeviathan!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, I believe that you are 100% correct. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that what else, if not a situation like this, was the 2nd amendment designed for? Here we are in a nation among tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of unidentified terrorists living among us. Should'nt it be our responsibility to bear arms and fight this "invading army". It's a situation where combatants and non-combatants are not easily identified, but we need to be watchful and wary at all times. If a suitcase bomber or suicide bomber shows up at my Starbucks, would he be able to detonate before half a dozen people put .45 caliber holes in his body? I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, but wouldn't Amerika be a much safer place if all citizens seriously acted like the militia as described by the 2nd Amendment?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:51:53 AM EDT
How many more World Trade Centers have to fall before we take the gloves off?
View Quote
Unfortunately therein lies the question. And when efforts fail, will the powers that be review and revamp, or will they just try more of the same? One only need look at the over-used gun control debacle for an example. I don't really blame the agencies so much as the politicians. When I say politicians I include the types you refer to as the "politicians and hacks" now in charge of the various agencies. No longer are our leaders the statesmen they once were, seeking office because they really cared for their constituents. Now we have career politicians who seek to fulfill their own agendas while doing what's necessary to stay in office. After 9/11, in typical fashion, laws were passed and new programs were put in place that are merely more of the same grandstanding lipservice that allowed the attacks to happen in the first place. Efforts that look back to 9/11 with blinders on, as if commercial aviation is the only avenue that terrorists have. We all see it, potential targets that have either no security whatsoever or a laughable, token gesture. Forget aboout anything that could possibly be construed as any kind of profiling, no matter how reasonable, and search every toddler and grandparent. Be sure to tighten security at the Canadian border, but do nothing about our Southern border. Heaven forbid we actually trust our nations pilots with firearms! What would mostly ex-military men who fly mutli-million dollar planes carrying human souls know about safely handling a gun? What about the citizens for that matter? Someone said recently that a diffuse threat requires a diffuse response. The authorities cannot and will not be everywhere. Heck, the other day a bystander took down a shooter IN AN AIRPORT! Where was all this alleged "security" we were promised? Time to start trusting the people. So, in answer to your question, "How many more World Trade Centers have to fall before we take the gloves off?"; Too many. [/rantoff]
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:23:25 AM EDT
With regards to a discussion I was involved in, I spent some time researching information on what the established criteria are for intellgience services and political analysts to determine whether a terrorist threat is considered 'credible'. Interestingly enough I've found just about nothing with regards to that topic, but what I DID find was not overly heartening. Spending a lot of time on .gov sites reading PDF files of directives and executive orders, I kept noticing one rather alarming thread: America is much more interested in being re-active than pro-active. In all of the talk about dealing with terrorist events, the vast majority of work involves coping with the aftermath of terrorist incidents. Very little was there on how to possibly combat terrorism BEFORE it causes damage. The other thread is that the government has yet to reach the point where it enters the 'do what must be done'. There is still too much reliance on international entaglements, humane and 'dignified' forms of combat, and avoiding the risk of closing the PC umbrella. Now, this is not to say that the US has not changed since 9/11. Though I am deeply saddened that that is what it took, America has finally begun to shrug off the 'It Can't Happen Here!' syndrome. The government is finally beginning to wake up to the world as it is. Unfortunately, our the pace of our wakefullness is not rapid enough. Is the FBI taking Jihad-talk seriously? I believe so, however I do NOT believe that they are going to react the way one would expect. There is just too much institutionalized thinking to be shrugged off in so little a time. The mode of thinking is still very PC-centric......taking down a group of Islamic citizens in this nation who could very well BE terrorists, or at least have ties to terror organizations, is still being weighed against the sociopolitical ramifications of the act. Is it worth the amount of fallout that will reign down from civil rights organizations, muslim organizations, and the international community. And this sort of thinking will mean more incidents where actions COULD have been taken but were not.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:24:18 AM EDT
My own opinion is as follows: We are at war. This is not the war of our ancestors, where the Marquis of Queensbury is respected, quarter is given, and conventions of morality apply. No, the moral father of this war may well turn out to be Jack the Ripper. Our enemy is among us, and is using our very fabric to wage its war against us. They WILL NOT surrender, the WILL NOT accede to peace. They can and have used ANY MEANS NECESSARY to attack our positions. The writing is, sadly, clear on the wall: We bow and rise up as one nation under fundamentalist Islam, we bow and pay the heavy tax of being infidels living by the will of Allah, or we die. THAT is what our enemy seeks. To they that seek our fall, there are only two types of people: Muslim, and infidel. The mother walking with her young child in the park on the way to church is no different from the soldier fighting in the trenches, or the politician giving the orders. To any and all, no quarter is given, and to this we must respond. We must be swift and we MUST be MERCILESS. Not because we must become our enemies, for that we must not. We must, because the enemy we fight lives by the very credo of victory or death, and to them they are equally acceptable terms. If this means we must see blood in the streets, then the only rational response is shoulder our weapons, gather our courage, and see that it is done. Whether the peacenick, the rhetorician, the liberal, or the apologist accept it or not, the tree of liberty is calling for it's due, and the price of freedom is demanding to be paid. The question is, will we?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:35:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hard-case: My own opinion is as follows: We are at war...Our enemy is among us, and is using our very fabric to wage its war against us. They WILL NOT surrender, the WILL NOT accede to peace. They can and have used ANY MEANS NECESSARY to attack our positions...and to this we must respond. We must be swift and we MUST be MERCILESS. Not because we must become our enemies, for that we must not. We must, because the enemy we fight lives by the very credo of victory or death, and to them they are equally acceptable terms. If this means we must see blood in the streets, then the only rational response is shoulder our weapons, gather our courage, and see that it is done. Whether the peacenick, the rhetorician, the liberal, or the apologist accept it or not, the tree of liberty is calling for it's due, and the price of freedom is demanding to be paid. The question is, will we?
View Quote
Amen, hard-case, amen. I feel as if it is my duty to watch and be wary of any and all that would do harm to my nation, my liberty and (of course) my property. Unfortunately, CCW is almost impossible to get where I live without a mountain of legal fees. So, if I start carrying illegally, am I now the criminal or am I a true patriot?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:45:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcnielsen: So, if I start carrying illegally, am I now the criminal or am I a true patriot?
View Quote
You will be a domestic terrorist. Isn't that right mr. pitcavage?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:51:04 AM EDT
One problem with being proactive is the need for intelligence. You need to know not only who the bad guys are, but [b]where[/b] they're going to be [b]when[/b] you're ready to hit them. That sort of intelligence isn't easy to gather with satellites and wiretaps. It's best acquired by having agents on the ground who have infiltrated the enemy's organization. But putting those agents in place takes years -- and in years past, that wasn't a high priority.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 1:30:38 PM EDT
This is an excellent article: [b]Better Dead than Rude[/b]- [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire052402.asp[/url]. It talks about how we have refused to take a sensible precautions, like booting Arab aliens or defending our borders, because we are afraid of giving offense.
The state we have sunk to, after 30 years of political correctness, is that we would rather permit ourselves and our fellow citizens to be slaughtered by lunatics than run the risk that we might hurt the feelings of foreign guests. Our dogged belief that every culture is just as worthy and admirable as every other will admit of no exceptions; it even extends to those cultures where children are raised from infancy to hate Jews and the Great Satan. Said [Ann Coulter] last October: "Ordinary Americans aren't going to die for political correctness." Oh, yes we are, Ma'am — gladly, willingly! We far prefer an agonizing death to the possibility we might give offense to the differently religioned. Here in what my colleague Florence King calls "The Republic of Nice" we have reached the reductio ad absurdum of racial sensitivity: Better dead than rude.
View Quote
It is going to take a lot more than 3,000 dead to wake this dozing giant.
Top Top