Terrorist dry runs in the US?

[Seagoon]

Hello Chairboy,

Originally posted by Chairboy
I think that's abhorrent, and I bet there are plenty of folks here who quietly agree with you but don't want to say it.  There certainly isn't an upwelling of protest against the idea, that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.

I haven't really been following this thread for a couple of days, but I was a little bit appalled to read that you think that if the so-called Christian contingent on the board doesn't loudly declaim every wrong, silly, or sinful statement made on the BB that it is tacitly endorsing it. I wouldn't dream of applying the same reasoning to the atheists on the board, especially because I have no idea who the bona fide "members" of each so-called contingent are, and because I don't expect everyone to monitor every thread. Anyway, Chair after several years here of posting on war and related topics, I hope you'd realize that I don't subscribe to genocide or total war theories, nor do I believe that one sin ever justifies another or that the children must pay for the sins of their parents.

As I have posted before, I heartily affirm the rules of land warfare, and subscribe to just war theory. Here is a general 7 point outline I use in teaching Just War Theory which sums up my own belief:

The general rules of a "just war" are:

1. Just cause. All active aggression is condemned; only a defensive war is legitimate. However, if it is obvious that the other side is clearly preparing for aggression based on solid evidence and past performance a justifiable "first strike" would be allowable.

2. Just intention. The only legitimate intention of a just war is to eventually and, as soon as practicable, secure a just peace. Wars of economic gain, religious expansion/control, revenge, or ideology are unacceptable.

3. Last resort. War can only be begun when all good faith discussions, compromises and negotiations have failed. Again this is hard to gauge if one side is not honestly participating in the effort.

4. Government involvement and formal declaration. This is the action of government not individuals. Some sort of "state of war" must be clearly declared. In this day of terrorist organizations that are not under a government clouds this; states supporting such terrorist organizations would then be held responsible for terrorist acts.

5. Limited objectives. If the purpose of war is ultimately peace, then total destruction of the nation is not just. Only narrow war-fighting objectives that bring the war to a successful conclusion are legitimate. Blanket bombing, gassing, the destruction of a people's way of life is not warranted.

6. Proportional means. Is tied closed to #5, the type of weaponry and tactics employed should be limited to secure the limited objectives (repelling the aggressor, deterring future illegal attacks, removing specific aggressive individuals/groups from power).

7. Protection for non-combatants. Since war fighting is a declared, official act of organized government, only those who are active agents of that government (its fighting soldiers--not POWs, casualties, civilian non-participants) may fight. Others should be protected from aggressive acts of violence.

(These general "just war" guidelines were taken from an article by Arthur F. Holmes, "The Just War," 1981.).

More Specifically, you can find sermons preached on the subject of War at our church at this link:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=providencepca&keyworddesc=&currSection=sermonssource&AudioOnly=true&sourceOnly=true&subsetcat=topics&subsetitem=bearing+the+sword

I think you'll find that at no point have I ever endorsed a "kill 'em all" doctrine of war, so I'd appreciate it if we limited the broad brush strokes approach.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by crockett
You know I get so sick of hearing you right wingers act as if Democrats have no balls and are weak on terrorism.

You want the facts?

Less than a year after the Dems took control of Congress and the Senate, they passed legislation to fund the scanning that was suggested by the 9/11 commission at both our ports and for cargo planes entering the US.

Despite Republicans holding all the power the last 6 years since 9/11 they haven't managed to do this. Why? Because the Democrats put it as a top priority. So they didn't talk about doing it they "did it".

Also this week Democrats managed to get an extra 3 billion in funding for our US/Mexican boarder. That mean more boarder patrol troops on the ground "protecting our boarders".

Bush had planned to veto it because he thought it was too much money. Yea the guy that write blank checks to haliburton nonstop but an extra 3 billion was too much to spend on boarder security.

So once again we see Republicans talking  the talk, meanwhile the Democrats are the ones walking the walk. Your Tough on Terror Republicans are just tough on terror when it's comes to talking like usual they never have any action to back the talk.

It's always the same, you want to listen to a bunch of talk about getting things done, you elect Republicans. However if you actually want to get anything done you better talk to the Democrats.

Dems wish to strengthen the border? nice change, REALLY don't hear Hillary or Obama talking it up, in fact, all the Dem pres candidates were silent during the immigration fight (as were most Bush officials, unless it was to oppose enforcement)

As for the 3 billion:

The Senate on Thursday approved an amendment devoting $3 billion to increase border security efforts as part of a $38 billion homeland security funding bill. It passed 89-1.

sounds good so far....
howEVER:

he amendment, offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), provides funding to build a 700-mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, as called for in the Secure Fence Act. It also requires the federal government to establish and to demonstrate operational control over 100 percent of the land and maritime borders between the U.S. and Mexico. ......................The amendment provides to hire, train and deploy 23,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents. It seeks to permanently end the "catch and release" of illegal aliens by providing the resources necessary to detain up to 45,000 individuals a day.

Wonder which Dem voted against it?link

Dems ALSO initilly tried to BLOCK the 'john doe' provision---which would protect from harassment litigation those who report suspicious activity in airports, etc--like the 6 Imams---the passengers who reported the behavior are being sued by these salamanders.  

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation, expressing concern that it would lead to racial profiling

link
(Dems saw they were on wrong side of polls and let it go through) Aside from port security, which I agree with (and will coincidentally create LOTS more union jobs), Dems haven't shown me that this kind of stuff is paramount for them

[crockett]

Originally posted by bj229r
Dems wish to strengthen the border? nice change, REALLY don't hear Hillary or Obama talking it up, in fact, all the Dem pres candidates were silent during the immigration fight (as were most Bush officials, unless it was to oppose enforcement)

As for the 3 billion: sounds good so far....
howEVER:

Wonder which Dem voted against it?link

Dems ALSO initilly tried to BLOCK the 'john doe' provision---which would protect from harassment litigation those who report suspicious activity in airports, etc--like the 6 Imams---the passengers who reported the behavior are being sued by these salamanders.   link
(Dems saw they were on wrong side of polls and let it go through) Aside from port security, which I agree with (and will coincidentally create LOTS more union jobs), Dems haven't shown me that this kind of stuff is paramount for them

I'm not going to say the Dem's are perfect, but they tend to get the job done. Who gives a crap about John does BS.

The fact is we need more boarder patrol officers and secure boarders everything else in regards to that is secondary. We need to scan cargo ship's and aircraft. The fact is Dem's just put the bill in place to do just that, meanwhile the Repubs just talked tough and didn't do anything.

Republican's never do anything unless some special intrest group benefits from it or big business. The fact is Republican could have done just about anything they wanted and they did. However the fact is they still didn't put our country's safety as a priority.

Of course if they could figure out a way to give Haliburton a no bid contract to secure the boarders then I'm sure Republicans would have been all for it.

Oh and you are actually complaining that the Dem's saw that people wanted something different so they did what the people wanted? You actually prefer the Bush doctrine of do it wrong over and over and over as long as you stay the course.

In case you forgot our govt is here to serve the people not vice versa.. If the people say hey we don't like this, it's the govt's job to change it. Not tell us they are the decider and do what ever they want.

[Dowding]

...we have to fight the war on the same level the enemy fights it. When you fight a war with PC gloves on it is perceived as a weakness.

Mr No Name - are you going to be the one to start killing little boys? How would you prefer to kill a nine year old compared to say, a 12 year old? Will you use strangulation maybe? Or will you saw their heads off with a kitchen knife?

Afterall, aren't we supposed to be fighting the 'war' like the enemy?

[Excel1]

no point in getting down and dirty with them cause that's what they want; or trying to cull the chaff from the wheat, that's too slow and time is on their side; or going soft on them.. ultimately all will fail. better to use superior fire power while you’re still got it and let God sort out the good from the bad. May as well face it, regardless of religious beliefs or lack off, it's going to happen sooner or later.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by crockett
I'm not going to say the Dem's are perfect, but they tend to get the job done. Who gives a crap about John does BS.

The fact is we need more boarder patrol officers and secure boarders everything else in regards to that is secondary. We need to scan cargo ship's and aircraft. The fact is Dem's just put the bill in place to do just that, meanwhile the Repubs just talked tough and didn't do anything.

Republican's never do anything unless some special intrest group benefits from it or big business. The fact is Republican could have done just about anything they wanted and they did. However the fact is they still didn't put our country's safety as a priority.

Of course if they could figure out a way to give Haliburton a no bid contract to secure the boarders then I'm sure Republicans would have been all for it.

Oh and you are actually complaining that the Dem's saw that people wanted something different so they did what the people wanted? You actually prefer the Bush doctrine of do it wrong over and over and over as long as you stay the course.


In case you forgot our govt is here to serve the people not vice versa.. If the people say hey we don't like this, it's the govt's job to change it. Not tell us they are the decider and do what ever they want.

Lol do you get cash if you work Halliburton into every post? The gazillion dollar Homeland Security bill wasn't going to do ANYthing about the border. A House GOP member introduced said provision--in truth, the ONLY 'shut-down-the-border' talk over the last  few years has been from a slight majority of the House GOP members. The Pres and the Senate have been either neutral or against it, only thinking about being labeled as racists and losing the Hispanic vote

The 'John Doe bs' is significant--Are ya saying that Americans viewing possible terrorists doing 'dry' runs, reporting it, then being sued by said terrorists via the wealt of oil-rich middle eastern doesn't matter?

The imams, who had been removed from the aircraft, complained that their civil rights were violated. But their suspicious conduct -- asking for unnecessary seatbelt extenders, refusing to sit in their assigned places and praying loudly before boarding -- are actions that should raise suspicions in air travelers because, as the public record shows, they were similar to some of the behaviors of the 9/11 hijackers.

The Democrats who voted to strip the provision teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union, which in November wrote a letter to Leiberman claiming that religious persecution had occurred and the clerics were “deemed a threat to security merely because they had, in accordance with their faith, conducted their evening prayers in Arabic.” The ACLU said that after 9/11, “flying while Muslim” made some passengers unfair targets. However, the imams’ behavior in the November incident provoked a real concern for air travel safety. Suspicion is a simple, preventative measure that puts citizens in control and helps security officials. If you see something, say something. .........

Debra Burlingame, director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and sister of 9-11 victim  American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame, whose aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, wrote in an editorial that “one of those most haunted” people by 9/11 is the airline worker who screened some of the hijackers before boarding. “He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, ‘didn't act right.’”

“Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because he ‘was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way,” Burlingame wrote.

The Democrats who opposed the amendment apparently succumbed to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the group suing on behalf the imams.  CAIR, though it bills itself as a “civil rights” organization, has ties to Islamic terrorist groups. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, tried to defend the lawsuit on MSNBC yesterday with a comparison to Klu Klux Klan members coming on board to accuse black people of suspicious behavior for no reason. "We don't know if [the unnamed passengers] had malicious intent," he said. Some have speculated that the Imams purposely displayed their behavior to provoke a lawsuit.

link

[Eagler]

crockett
I remember the lack of response by the dem admin to the terror attacks of the 90's differently than you do. IMO it was the lack of intensity of our responses to them which embolden the extremists which resulted in 9/11 and beyond. Of course the potus at the time was slightly distracted and had other things on his mind .. didn't he ... they had 8 years to handle it but instead looked the other way

CB/Dowding
you both know full well no one this board could murder an unarmed child. that is one of many things which separate us from our animal cheekbones enemy. Keep stirring the pot though as sensationalism is one spin which works well with the uniformed these days

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children.  The silence is...  dare I say it...  deafening.

Killing children of any religion or nonreligion is bad.

Wouldn't want you to go deaf.

[Mr No Name]

Originally posted by Dowding
Mr No Name - are you going to be the one to start killing little boys? How would you prefer to kill a nine year old compared to say, a 12 year old? Will you use strangulation maybe? Or will you saw their heads off with a kitchen knife?

Afterall, aren't we supposed to be fighting the 'war' like the enemy?

Did they care about the ages of those they killed on 9/11 or in other suicide bomb attacks all over the world?  No, they did not... as to your knife question - thats not efficient enough, I'd rather make an entire city glow whenever an attack against the west takes place but until then, bullets will suffice.

The islamofascists have been at WAR against the west since 1979.  We have not been engaging them until recently.   It is a global movement of a grand scale, involving countries where islam was virtually uknown, the phillipines, malaysia even gaining ground in latin america!  They have an attitude that everyone must convert and submit or DIE.

I am in full agreement with Tancredo that the next attack against the west should result in the destruction of mecca by nuclear blast.  They ARE in a total war against us, I believe we should be in a TOTAL war against them.

The thought of war and its' horrors sickens me but they have declared it, they are fighting against us every day.  We owe it to them to make war as distasteful to them as it is to us... That means no restrictions to the targets we attack - if it's close to a mosque - too bad, a hospital - too bad, a school - again, too bad.   They know where we will not hit and they use it against us.  They cross the border from pakistan and syria and other countries to fight us just as the communists did in laos and cambodia - we must disregard these borders that give them protection and kill them wherever we find them.

The question is no longer "Do we fight this war?"  WE ARE IN IT, people are fighting and dying as we sit here reading this board.  We owe it to the troops fighting, our nation as a whole and our allies to fight to win no matter what it requires to win it, without regard for whomever we have to kill to take away the will and ability to fight of our enemies.

[Rolex]

Just to make sure you folks know, it turns out this "dry run" story was bogus and an over-hype job by the TSA and CNN. CNN never corrected the story on their website, but said "Oops, sorry about that" over weekend. I hope some of you aren't too disappointed?

Here's a interview with one of the dry run islamofascists:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/07/27/todd.bogus.threat.cnn

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Seagoon
5. Limited objectives. If the purpose of war is ultimately peace, then total destruction of the nation is not just. Only narrow war-fighting objectives that bring the war to a successful conclusion are legitimate. Blanket bombing, gassing, the destruction of a people's way of life is not warranted.

6. Proportional means. Is tied closed to #5, the type of weaponry and tactics employed should be limited to secure the limited objectives (repelling the aggressor, deterring future illegal attacks, removing specific aggressive individuals/groups from power).

7. Protection for non-combatants. Since war fighting is a declared, official act of organized government, only those who are active agents of that government (its fighting soldiers--not POWs, casualties, civilian non-participants) may fight. Others should be protected from aggressive acts of violence.

USA tried to follow these principles in Vietnam. It did not work, especially when the enemy had other principles, or more likely, did not have any rules at all.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by TimRas
USA tried to follow these principles in Vietnam. It did not work, especially when the enemy had other principles, or more likely, did not have any rules at all.

That crossed my mind as well--Would the US EVER fight a war the way we did against Germany and Japan again? Utterly FLATTEN the whole place...probably not. How many tens of thousands of guys died in Vietnam before we ever were ALLOWED to egg targets in the North? A country prosecuting a war ought to have to experience said war