Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hogwash. But I have no doubt that's what YOU believe.
I'll see your hogwash and raise you a balderdash and poppycock.
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.
But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued."......
...."The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment...."
It is hard for me to believe this administration thinks they can offer olive-branches to a terrorist organization like al Qaeda to cease and desist their attacks and plans for attacks on a nation such as ours.
Outside of the 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan to weed out the less than 100 Al Qaeda that our own military states they believe is there, what exactly is this "olive branch"?
Don't get me wrong, this last attempt only shows how ridiculous this "fight them over here so we don't have to fight them here", strategy is. I would have like to have seen the funds used to wage Iraq actually used to protect THIS country better, instead of protecting a set of interests abroad that can't realistically be defended or pursued. We have at least figured out another way it won't work, bringing us one step closer to a way it will work.
Still think this Department of Homeland Security sounds way too Third Reich and is a redundant organ much like that of an appendix. It just sort of dangles there not doing much, but when it goes wrong, we all pay dearly. Why on earth supposed conservatives ever agreed to plant the seed for yet another expansive government organization that so far hasn't proven it is any better at managing intelligence than what we had before. We still have CIA, FBI, ATF, NSA, FEMA, etc... and they still aren't apparently communicating and working together any better than they were in the past. We have added more bells and whistles to the machine, we haven't made the machine any better, just something that sounds like it can keep us safe.
Nine years after 9-11 and it is becoming clear that using current methods of waging war on "terror" are as futile as waging war on drugs or crime. Throwing money and using platitudes at something like modern asymmetrical warfare employed by terrorist isn't going to make us safer, obviously as we can see. You are free to lay this all at the feet of Napolianto if you wish, as I don't have a lot of faith in this person either, but I think there is a larger systemic problem than just her.
You won't like it but I'll offer a few ideas and why.
You know how it felt after 9-11, yes? Everyone was saddened, angry, resentful and gunning for a little pay back, I know I was. These feelings were intense and still are for many people and this happened almost 10 years ago. Should we not also consider that each time a bomb or missile falls astray on some wedding party in Afghanistan or in Iraq that those civilians caught up in this don't also feel angry, resentful, sorrow, and would like a little pay back. In other words, violence cause in the scales of war we wage serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence on levels that it doesn't need to. We can still fight terrorist without having to invade and occupy foreign countries.
Money not spent on things like the occupation of Iraq which is HUGE should be spent tightening up security in the United States. Our porous borders, our ports, and airports. I would even recommend setting up high volume hubs for airports, in which any traveler from abroad would have to travel through one of these hubs. This limits the number of entry points and makes it easier to screen and check passengers and allows us to focus resources on fewer locations.
One thing pointed out by the 9-11 commission and noted by our own military and intelligence agencies was a lack of on the ground intelligence, the type that the Israeli Mossad specializes in. A greater reliance on counter terrorism groups working in more of a police or special forces fashion than just outright nation invasion which only antagonizes entire populations instead of targeting specific ones. A recent PBS special ran a bit on our early efforts in Afghanistan in which before US troops arrives, special forces units working with locals did massive damage to Al Qaeda and completely took them by surprise. We were damned effective by using in conjunction, the best modern technology with small forward groups on the ground. So effective that some in the White House thought Afghanistan was a "slam dunk" and didn't need the kinds of troops they are asking for today.
We are fighting an enemy that might as well be from the 19th century. They don't rely on technology as we do and to the extent they do use it, they have learned how to remain under the technology radar. Most information is passed hand to hand, face to face and no satellite we have is capable of listening in, so we need penetration and intelligence on a man to man level. We were actually fairly effective at doing this not long ago, but as many in the 9-11 commission report have pointed out, we adopted a reliance on satellites, communications, and technologies better suited for warfare than counter terrorism.
That's certainly what people were saying a year ago.
Not this year, though.
Heck I heard it at Bridge a few weeks ago. One of the gals (who is originally from Germany) talked about how much the rest of the world now loves us and how they respect our President. Of course she changed her tune when the rest of us said, "I don't think so"
Outside of the 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan to weed out the less than 100 Al Qaeda that our own military states they believe is there, what exactly is this "olive branch"?
Don't get me wrong, this last attempt only shows how ridiculous this "fight them over here so we don't have to fight them here", strategy is. I would have like to have seen the funds used to wage Iraq actually used to protect THIS country better, instead of protecting a set of interests abroad that can't realistically be defended or pursued. We have at least figured out another way it won't work, bringing us one step closer to a way it will work.
Still think this Department of Homeland Security sounds way too Third Reich and is a redundant organ much like that of an appendix. It just sort of dangles there not doing much, but when it goes wrong, we all pay dearly. Why on earth supposed conservatives ever agreed to plant the seed for yet another expansive government organization that so far hasn't proven it is any better at managing intelligence than what we had before. We still have CIA, FBI, ATF, NSA, FEMA, etc... and they still aren't apparently communicating and working together any better than they were in the past. We have added more bells and whistles to the machine, we haven't made the machine any better, just something that sounds like it can keep us safe.
Nine years after 9-11 and it is becoming clear that using current methods of waging war on "terror" are as futile as waging war on drugs or crime. Throwing money and using platitudes at something like modern asymmetrical warfare employed by terrorist isn't going to make us safer, obviously as we can see. You are free to lay this all at the feet of Napolianto if you wish, as I don't have a lot of faith in this person either, but I think there is a larger systemic problem than just her.
It seems you're off track regarding the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS was a consolidation of already-established Agencies under one roof. The only new component is the Transportation Security Administration.
Further, you are incorrect in your assertion that "supposed conservatives" were the reason for the new Cabinet-level office, when in fact the Senate vote was 90-9-1. Only 9 Democrats voted against the creation of DHS. The House voted a top-heavy 299-121. Yes, GWB may have planted the seed, but Democrats fell right in line with the idea. In other words, its clear that your leftist bent has clouded your ability to seek out the facts surrounding the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as evidenced by the low-blow reference to conservatives.
Your disgust should really be with TSA, not necessarily DHS, and you should reconcile your opinions with facts regarding who supported the creation of such.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 12-29-2009 at 09:02 AM..
I think you all miss the strategic element to this. The British were the first to stop calling this a "war" because they realized it empowered terror cells and boosted recruiting to be considered at war with the "white devil" or whatever they're hatefully calling us these days.
By treating them like common criminals - at least in language - they reduce their ability to recruit.
It's not about appeasing us.
We are at war, but the terrorists are not soldiers, they are war criminals and many are just criminally insane. We are at war, we are not fighting a crime spree.
I'm still amazed at the tone of those here who are all agitated by terrorists. If you somehow ever represent America, I will understand why the rest of the world hates us.
I don't live in fear of terrorism. It sickens me that we yield our freedoms to keep us "safe". How many commercial flights have occurred since 9/11? Probably around a million. And this one guy goes a little crazy (and again our security apparatus fails us miserably, curious isn't it?) and now we have to subject the tens of millions of airline passengers to more humiliating and draconian security measures? Isn't it odd that the first ten minutes of the nightly news was dominated by this small action? That they also provided the man's internet history and postings so quickly to demonize him? Doesn't it seem almost manufactured?
The real terrorists are those who place you in fear and take your security away, not the lone nut who's blown out of proportion for emphasis. Can anyone here independently verify that al Queda claimed responsibility? Of course not! We have no option here but to submit to our official sources. You can be distracted by silly things like religion or ideology, but you would be wise to realize that they are diversions designed to divide you amongst yourselves, to keep you guessing, and afraid. And angry, like so many on this thread, who I imagine would love to have their finger on the red button. You will be as guilty as all the others for participating in this charade.
You don't create peace by focusing all your energy on its opposite. But then, is that even your goal?
I think you all miss the strategic element to this. The British were the first to stop calling this a "war" because they realized it empowered terror cells and boosted recruiting to be considered at war with the "white devil" or whatever they're hatefully calling us these days.
By treating them like common criminals - at least in language - they reduce their ability to recruit.
It's not about appeasing us.
Exactly... If the OP would like to point out where Obama has "Offered an olive branch to Al Quaeda" I'd LOVE to see it.... Simply changing the name of something doesn't change what it is, as Conservatives so astutely point out time and time again...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
