Mr Snowden has been nominated by two Norwegian MPs for the Nobel Peace Prize, a gong the President himself won in 2009.
The more his leaks reveal, the more I'm ok with him in general
The more his leaks reveal, the more I'm ok with him in general
Let's see...
- Go to Congress with evidence that the government is abusing laws that congress passed.
- The same congress that can't/won't do anything about the numerous other violations by government.
- Then, stick around to stand up for what is right.
- ?
- Profit by not getting killed by FBI/CIA/NSA/Obama's personal drone.
what Snowdon did is more hurtful to our whole cause than helpful, and he is nothing more than a narcissistic little weasel.
And intelligence people claim he's done an extraordinary amount of damage to our national security.
Snowdon a hero? No. He should have gone to congress. Or if he really had to spill the beans he should have done it and taken the consequences as a man, not run off to China & Russia.
A late report I heard indicates he may have had help because they think he didn't have the expertise to do everything he did. If true does that change anyone's mind?
Granted we are entering a era when our own government is becoming an increasing danger to our liberties, but we ought not lose sight of the fact that we still have real enemies in this world as well.
It seems there are two opposing .... "concerns" that clash. I don't know where the best "balancing point" between security & freedom is, quotes from Ben Franklin notwithstanding ..... but what Snowdon did is more hurtful to our whole cause than helpful, and he is nothing more than a narcissistic little weasel.
- release more secrets making it even easier for Al Qaeda to counter our security forces. Given that they're already spreading over N. Africa and the mideast, it's not as if their threat is diminishing.
OTOH given the way we've been prosecuting this @ssh@t war we might as well just throw in the towel and let radical Islam take what it will....the end result won't be much different.
[tinfoil]
You know what, I'll just say it. I actually don't care that Snowden has made things a little easier for Al Queda. At some point we have to draw the line on when freedom is more important than safety. Freedom IS more important than safety. Freedom is also dangerous.Totally agree.
I actually don't care that Snowden has made things a little easier for Al Queda. At some point we have to draw the line on when freedom is more important than safety. Freedom IS more important than safety. Freedom is also dangerous.This.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to recognize that you won't always be safe, and that in fact, your freedom may just kill you. If you want to be safe, live in a Big Brother dictatorship where you are monitored 24 hours a day. You'll be safe and provided for.
You think going to congress would have made a damn bit of difference?
If you want to be safe, live in a Big Brother dictatorship where you are monitored 24 hours a day. You'll be safe and provided for.
Because maximum security prisons are such safe places.
You joking bro?
You think going to congress would have made a damn bit of difference?
Believe it or not, as utterly incredible as it is for you (and maybe some others here) to believe, yes I do.
If you don't believe that our vaunted congress cares about errant intelligence agencies then please 'splain the Church Commitee and why the &&*^$$%%%$$ they hobbled the CIA to me.
Take the [tinfoil] off your kopf and smell the coffee.
The Church Committee was the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975.(emphasis added)
If you don't believe that our vaunted congress cares about errant intelligence agencies then please 'splain the Church Commitee and why the &&*^$$%%%$$ they hobbled the CIA to me.The mid 70's were a long time ago, friend. Frank Church himself died over 30 years ago. I don't think anyone was saying that there never existed a congress that would try to do something about the NSA, just that our current congress wouldn't touch it unless forced by public opinion.
If you want to be safe, live in a Big Brother dictatorship where you are monitored 24 hours a day. You'll be safe and provided for.
You know what, I'll just say it. I actually don't care that Snowden has made things a little easier for Al Queda. At some point we have to draw the line on when freedom is more important than safety. Freedom IS more important than safety. Freedom is also dangerous.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to recognize that you won't always be safe, and that in fact, your freedom may just kill you. If you want to be safe, live in a Big Brother dictatorship where you are monitored 24 hours a day. You'll be safe and provided for. I completely recognize the importance of international intelligence gathering. At some point though, we have to draw the line when intelligence gathering "for the safety of US citizens" has taken one step too far into freedom curtailment. For that matter, as a society that believes in the human right to freedom, we should also recognize when to draw the line when our umbrella approach to intelligence gathering overly infringes on innocent non-US citizens.
The mid 70's were a long time ago, friend. Frank Church himself died over 30 years ago. I don't think anyone was saying that there never existed a congress that would try to do something about the NSA, just that our current congress wouldn't touch it unless forced by public opinion.
What has he released that has helped al-qaeda counter us?
- release more secrets making it even easier for Al Qaeda to counter our security forces. Given that they're already spreading over N. Africa and the mideast, it's not as if their threat is diminishing.I would say that Congressmen and Executive Branch politicians have probably let slip more damaging information with regard to Al Queda operations over the years than anything Snowden has done so far.
OTOH given the way we've been prosecuting this @ssh@t war we might as well just throw in the towel and let radical Islam take what it will....the end result won't be much different.
[tinfoil]
I would say that Congressmen and Executive Branch politicians have probably let slip more damaging information with regard to Al Queda operations over the years than anything Snowden has done so far.
I would say that Congressmen and Executive Branch politicians have probably let slip more damaging information with regard to Al Queda operations over the years than anything Snowden has done so far.
That could be true, but you don't make right the wrong Snowden has done by pointing out the wrongs others have done. Doesn't work that way. Find those leaky kongesskritters and line 'em up against the same wall as Snowden and I'd happily have the whole gang of 'em shot. >:DAren't you the one suggesting he should have gone to Congress with his information? He would get 15 minutes if that and be shuttled off to solitary and prosecuted with little or no say. The Feds have done more to people who have done a lot less. Also, hasn't it been established that the leading Congressmen knew all this stuff was going on?
....he needed a country that had no extradition treaty with us, then a country that didn't mind flipping off Obama, then maybe he wanted a country that wasn't a 3rd world @@@@hole. Not many choices out there. We are not actively in a Cold War with Russia and China is one of our major trading partners, so our own federal govt doesn't really consider them ememies do they?
Snowden aside, if all the rest of us with clearances let slip what those bucket mouths have let slip over the years, we would be sent away to go make little rocks out of big rocks.How come they are allowed to blabber about these things while you aren't?
How come they are allowed to blabber about these things while you aren't?
According to newsreports I've heard AQ and others are now being schooled in the fine arts of how American Intelligence agencies work & collect intelligence, thanks to Snowdon's releases.
Does that make you sleep easier at night?
Do you believe that our enemies are never able to make good use of the information traitors such as Snowden released? Do you even know what Snowden released -- and if you don't then I wonder what the basis of your original question is.
Well, even though I have a clearance, I don't really know anything all that interesting. Politicians seem to be able to bypass (or get a free pass) on spilling classified material that actually is both interesting and critical. I don't know if their clearance process works the same as for your Joe Schmo average .gov or .mil employee. Maybe the non-disclosure agreement they sign doesn't have the same consequences as the one I signed.
Going to Congress would have been worse than futile. Those Dem & GOP leaders on the intel committees already knew and are just fine with it.
Simple fact is, even if he is a slimeball narcissist, he is hewing closer to his oath(1) to support the COTUS than those congresscritters or any in the CIA or NSA who have allowed this to continue. AQ and the splodeydope contingent is less dangerous to us, physically, and less dangerous to the COTUS than CIA/NSA/etc.
FTR, most of those willing to thumb their nose at tyrannical gov'ts are bastards. It takes a special personality type to keep on pushing like that. Most the anti-communist dissidents in the Warsaw Pact were such personalities.
(1) Not sure if contractors swear, but I believe most DOD & federale civilian employees make an oath to support the COTUS.
Contractors are not sworn
Yes, he should have gone to congress. Not every kongesskritter has leaked. That sort have thing has been going on for decades; it isn't a new phenomenon.Technically he did take and release classified date which is a crime, regardless of the reasons.
Thank you. You made my point. Only criminals would worry that a country would have an extradition treaty with us. ;)
Technically he did take and release classified date which is a crime, regardless of the reasons.
Tehcnically, the Minutemen shot at British Soldiers which was also a crime, but we don't generally go around calling them criminals. =D
Ron Paul does a radio spot in the mornings down here. I believe he said he thought we should just pardon the guy, bring him home, call him a hero, and put an end to the whole fiasco. I doubt that would happen though.
Well, even though I have a clearance, I don't really know anything all that interesting.
Ron Paul does a radio spot in the mornings down here. I believe he said he thought we should just pardon the guy, bring him home, call him a hero, and put an end to the whole fiasco. I doubt that would happen though.
Nearly everything that Snowden released that could conceivably help AQ is also present in the litany of tell all books by members of the intel community.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
He wasn't the first to express his concerns. And from what I've read, he raised concerns before he started collecting data.
The CIA also was warned about his activities in 2009, and did nothing.
THe most helpful things for Al-Qaeda have been perpetrated by the very folks who are demonizing snowden. Drone strikes against innocents emboldened them and strengthened support, etc.
We fire bombed Dresden into ashes in WW2 and General Curtis LeMay practically leveled Tokyo.
And LeMay wanted to start WW3 with the USSR.
Do you think we're "deliberatly" calling in drone strikes against innocents?
I understand that sort of thing is used by AQ and its sympathizers to garner support. What I don't get is why we should hobble ourselves because of it. What we SHOULD be doing is a better job of target selection, and what we SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING was prosecuting the war far more aggressively from the start. We fire bombed Dresden into ashes in WW2 and General Curtis LeMay practically leveled Tokyo.
But today we're somehow supposed to fight a war "but we better not kill anyone."
We also won WW2 less than half the time we've been putzing around in those mideast sandpits.
Yea once in a while we bomb some Muslim wedding ..... I suppose though those Islamic Terrorists AQ & their ilk have killed very many of their own kind as well. And of course there's the Taliban & sharia law and the cr@p it gets away with.
During Bay of Pigs not WW2, and JFK rightfully chose another path. Your point being?
Congresscritters do not undergo security background checks. They're granted access by sheer virtue of being voted into office.
Nothing vexed me more than sending one of my daily reports to the Beltline, only to see my exact wording on CNN a few days later.
Turns out it was a Senate staffer. With the permission of my wing commander, I ever-so-slightly changed the phraseology of my daily reports, with each slightly different copy sent to specific individual recipients, vs. a mass JWICS email to all addressees at once.
That's how we found out who the leak was.
Well, I guess that makes sense. If they had to go through a standard investigation, half of them would never pass. Do Congressmen and Senators all just get handed TS, or is that at least held back for those with need to know (intelligence committees, etc)?
That's a crackup on how you caught the staffer. I'm guessing nothing much happened to him.
once he started releasing details of our foreign intelligence gathering, IMHO he crossed the line into treasonous territory.Part of the problem is that many programs that collected information on foreigners were indiscriminately applied to Americans as well. Show how it is applied to Americans and you show how it is applied to everyone else.
His point was, bringing LeMay into a discussion when you're trying to talk about good judgment and workable tactics is, well, kinda insane
No, I don't think that. I was just illustrating that we've done many things, of which that is only one, that have emboldened al-qaeda
Let me ask you this... if a nation started sending drones into the US to kill people they considered "terrorists," how would you feel about it?
We can't keep fighting wars on nebulous things like "terrorism."
A war is fought against a nation. If we have not declared war against pakistan, syria, or whoever, we shouldn't be sending combat aircraft into them to bomb people. Period.
Once in a while, eh? Any idea just how many noncombatants we've killed in our drone strikes? There's not near enough oversight.
The WW2 argument doesn't hold any water either. Not only have we gotten more technologically advanced, but we were fighting those NATIONS, in their entirety. Here, we continually say "we're not at war with XYZ, and then prove we're lying by sending armed aircraft into those countries to kill their people.
But this is all thread drift... So, again, I'll ask you... what has Snowden revealed that has A.) helped al qaeda, and B.) cannot be found in another source, such as the aforementioned huge amounts of tell all books, leaks (inadvertant or deliberate) by congress, etc?
The "moral equivelency" argument? This is hypothetical and need not even be answered, IMHO. If we had an AQ-like group in America I'd call them terrorists without using quotation marks to muddy the issue. Do you NOT think AQ is a vast network of terrorists?
UNperiod.Yes we damned well keep FIGHTING a war against the terrorists. What would you do? Sit back and let them blow up 3,000 Americans at a time? Infiltrate America and conduct a far more active covert war against us?
Some Commander-in-Chief you'd be.
Wars are fought against enemies of this nation. That may mean a foreign nation or some other type of enemy. Our country's founders fought the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s and that was the rough equivelancy of what we're doing now, so even they thought it was possible and beneficial to fight a war against a non-national entity.
What, really, has WW2 really to do with this? THEN we were at war with the Axis Powers. Now we're at war with radical Islamists. THEY'VE been at war with us since 1993 when they first tried to blow up the trade towers.
You just can't let an entity wage war against you and do nothing in response.
Youi may like the idea of living under Sharia Law but I don't.
And anyone who tries to get me to live under Sharia Law is going to get a bullet in his brain if I am humanly able to put it there.
The idea we're proving we're lying by sending drones somewhere to whack terrorists is wrong. It doesn't by any means prove we're lying. Are you aligning yourself with AQ now .... you seem to be making their argument for them.
AGAIN I will try to tell you that AQ is now being schooled in American intelligence tradecraft that they have picked up from Snowden's leaks. You can listen .... or not.
Neither you or I know where else this stuff could have been found out. That is a highly speculative statement. I do not think it needs an answer before I say Snowden was a traitor.
That others have "leaked" stuff does not show AQ could have gotten it from them, since the content of those leaks has not been compared to what Snowden has revealed. If you think otherwise then I suggest you provide this forum with the proof.
And such leaks, "tell-all books" or whatever do not excuse Snowden. An old bromide says "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Only criminals would worry that a country would have an extradition treaty with us.
YOU Made the statement that snowdens leaks helped AQ. YOU have provided no evidence to support that. YOU made the claim. I said I have seen nothing from his leaks that wasn't already available. Burden of proof is on you, bud.To be precise, I DID NOT make the claim, I reported that I'd heard this reported on cable news.
Tommygun you still have not answered what particularly aq knows now that snowden alone revealed that harms the usa. That is kinda important if you are going to accuse a man of being a traitor.:facepalm:
But let us assume you are correct and that snowden released information useful to thwarting nsa and cia surveillance. Well that information is now useable not only by aq but by american citizens. Given the unconstitutional nature of that surveillance i call that a win for americans. Perhaps we can make such techniques ubiquitous in america for americans.
Bovine excrement.
If I was a whistleblower trying to get my government to stop doing unconstitutional crap, and knew the second I blew that whistle that I was a walking dead man (or my family for that matter), then I'd look for someplace elsewhere to stay alive, too.
It's funny (in a funny/queer, not funny/haha way) - as an intel employee you're always encouraged to keep an eye open and report wrongdoing under the Intelligence Oversight Act, etc.
There'd be a lot more reporting of such transgressions if folks inside the IC weren't afraid of getting disappeared.
You also have a distinct lack of reading comprehension. I used quotations around terrorists discussing a hypothetical american terror organization. The quotes were appropriate, and not meant to muddy anything. I never said AQ weren't terrorists. If anyone is muddying the issue, it's you. Your refusal to back up your assertions, and answering questions with questions (And thinly veiled insinuations that I support those murderous bastards) are offensive, and cowardly.
YES IT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Fitz, did I not mention that commentors on cable news have claimed that AQ has been helped by Snowden's leaks? You want annotated sources for what I have heard on TV news?
Sorry I ain't keepiong recordings around of what I here 24/7 on news so I can provide it to you on some internet forum.
You can take my word for it .... or not. Take your pick.To be precise, I DID NOT make the claim, I reported that I'd heard this reported on cable news.
To me it makes a lot of sense that our enemies would use such revelations to learn more about how we operate. Is it hard for you to believe this? If you've served in the military (16 months fighting Islamists) I should think you might already understand this and comprehend the possible damage it does to us.
I made the comment about you aligning yourself with AQ because that is what it outwardly appeared to be doing, despite your avowed service of " spen(ding) 20 days cleaning up what they did, and 16 months in a shithole fighting islamic extremists." BTW, thanks. I don't feel that entitles you to demean our war effort by claiming the things you have about our airstrikes.
My points about WW2 was that we fought that war (IMHO) with a greater sense of the danger our foes posed to us than we apparently do today, and we fought to win, without wringing our wrists every time we bombed aNaziJapaneseIslamic Wedding Party by mistake. I think it will take the same attitude to win against the Islamists.
"War is Hell," as Sherman said. It's a lot of things, few of them good. And it's time we Americans ought to get our collective heads out of our butts and accept that war is as bloody nasty as it is, stop trying to play it nice and pretty like it's a video game, and annihilate the enemy.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion -- never said yo weren't. But I am entitled to mine as well.
I just think mine was forged in a nastier part of hell than was yours .....
Tommygun the snowden revelations showed us that the absolute worst possible abuses intimated by the usapatriot acts were but a starting point. The reality of those possible abuses and the orders of magnitude they went beyond shocked a lot of people normally willing to give govt the benefit of the doubt. The intel community has tossed away its credibility and the goodwill of many supporters with both hands. It will be a long time before they are trusted again if ever. They brought this on their own heads.
Do you think real life is a LeCarre' novel? That covert agencies always skulk around killing people who blab?
Hell, guy, if I thought that I'd move to a remote Pacific island and in a way no one could trace me; screw extradition and all that.
If Snowden was so worried about consequences such as that he ought to have given his information to an American Media Outlet who would paste it across the evening news.
I'd say since he did a career in Intel work, he probably has a better idea of the dangers of blabbing than many.
As for the rest, are you joking now?
He DID give the information to the media.... that's why you're calling him a traitor, remember?
Oh, ok.:facepalm:
So first, you're saying that because the news made a claim, it's true. Gotcha.
I cannot "understand" how this helped al qaeda because I have seen no evidence supporting that claim. You really have difficulty comprehending what you read.
LOL. Demean our war effort. Yes, because I have a problem with some aspects of our war, I'm demeaning our effort. You should call the Commissar and let him know I've badmouthed the Dear Leaders. We are under no obligation to praise every action that our leaders take, and ignore when they do wrong things.
Like, you know... spying on americans on a massive scale, breaking into american tech companies datacenters...
"According to news reports."
What a joke
According to news reports, I have a deadly evil assaulty weapon that is only designed to massacre children.
I don't believe the news. Neither should you. Have you taken a look at any of the stuff that has been leaked?
:facepalm:
I said I HEARD IT IN THE NEWS! If it isn't true then show me how it isn't true.
Gawd, people talk about "lack of comprehension" here but then jump right into it themselves. :facepalm: :facepalm:
As to "believeing" the news? OK I don't believe the news.
So there's no such person as Snowden (I heard him mentioned IN THE NEWS).
He never leaked any classified material (I HEARD THAT IN THE NEWS TOO).
He never damaged our intelligence community or aided AQ or defected to Russia (I HEARD THAT IN THE NEWS TOO).
Ok"
Reductio Ad Absurdem.
And now that I've done THAT, GOODNIGHT ALL!
Now that you've done what? Revealed precisely how tenuous your call of "traitor" is?
You heard on the news that snowden was a traitor. You blindly accept it.
You truly are an American
Disappeared as in "Banana republic disappeared"?
There'd be a lot more reporting of such transgressions if folks inside the IC weren't afraid of getting disappeared.
If we had an AQ-like group in America I'd call them terrorists without using quotation marks to muddy the issue.
TG:
I was looking for some hard data. Secondhand unknown third party accusations are pretty weak tea.
QuoteIf we had an AQ-like group in America I'd call them terrorists without using quotation marks to muddy the issue.CIA
I really wish people would stop treating the errors and mistakes we make in the field as though it was actually our government's policy.
So. Tallpine, I am to understand you believe we deliberatly launched Hellfire missiles on Muslim Wedding parties?
So. Tallpine, I am to understand you believe we deliberatly launched Hellfire missiles on Muslim Wedding parties?
Oh, no - I'm sure they "just went off" =D
And all those assasinations and regime changes were just misunderstandings :angel:
Seriously dude if you think we deliberatly whack Islam Weddings then that is some kind of sick, in my book.
Seriously dude if you think we deliberatly whack Islam Weddings then that is some kind of sick, in my book.
Really? The CIA is plotting terrorist acts against America and blowing up our buildings and killing innocents? [popcorn]
I really wish people would stop treating the errors and mistakes we make in the field as though it was actually our government's policy.
It isn't.
Grow up.
It's true though. They weren't targeted just because it was a wedding ceremony, but we have fired on them before if someone Obama wanted dead was a part of one.
OMG! We killed people who were associating with terrorists! :facepalm:
Our policy of assuming every fighting aged male is a terrorist if they happen to be in the blast radius of the missile is a little disturbing. Mostly form an honesty and a valid numbers collecting/collateral damage assessment POV. I am less worried about the actual deaths as I figure they are already sympathetic to America-hating scum and killing a few more won't matter much. All that is not a "mistake we make in the field," it is gov't policy. Collateral damage and the infliction of it is a choice, not a mistake. We can choose not to fire.
More importantly, the CIA/NSA/etc. currently, as a matter of policy, treat the whole of the American citizenry as the enemy. Totalitarian surveillance and data collection is not something you do to a friend or ally. I figure viewing them as the enemy right back is only fair. Call them terrorists, secret policemen, enemies of the citizenry, domestic surveillance thugs, vandals of the COTUS, or whatever you will. They, individually, could have refrained from these unconstitutional acts but chose otherwise.
From sign of mental illness ("some kind of sick") to shrugging it off in five posts (only two of which were yours).
What regime changes would those be? Obama being re-elected?
OMG! We killed people who were associating with terrorists! :facepalm:
My understanding was we brought the shah of iran into power
Literally over his dads dead body
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Collateral damage and the infliction of it is a choice, not a mistake. We can choose not to fire.
My understanding was we brought the shah of iran into power
Literally over his dads dead body
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
That was decades ago, before the so-called "War on Terror."
You know, at first I was going to say that you're very wrong, but then I remembered something and I have to admit, and I must confess you're exactly right.
What was THAT?
Echelon.
Remeber that? a program between the UK and America; they'd spy on our electronic communications and we'd spy on theirs?
Because we all know a NICE government doesn't treat its own citizens and spy on them......................
It has a friend do it for them. >:D
Finally something we agree on..................... :P
You remember echelon, don't you?
I'm sure you were out in the streets vigorously protesting it. :angel:
There are no more points to be made. This has devolved into a useless thread. We must agree to disagree.
I disagree.
Well, actually I didn't even read what you said. I'm just being contrarian.
Snowden is as deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize as previous winners Yassir Arafat, Algore, and Barack Hussein Obama.
As for whether he's a hero or traitor . . . releasing information on how fed.gov is spying on Americans (like most of us on this forum) can be plausibly regarded as patriotic . . . but once he started releasing details of our foreign intelligence gathering, IMHO he crossed the line into treasonous territory.
So. Tallpine, I am to understand you believe we deliberatly launched Hellfire missiles on Muslim Wedding parties?
With respect, the foreign intelligence stuff matters not even a thimbleful of water compared to all the oceans in the world.
The crimes he has exposed have shaken the United States. The damage the NSA did by bribing RSA to weaken its cryptographic programs can't even be calculated. Ditto the wiretapping of Google's data centers. The Verizon leak may or may not have been significant, but Boundless Informant leak taught us that the NSA is systematically targeting US citizens. It acknowledged 3+ billion segments of intelligence information on US citizens. Upstream, which is illegal wiretaps on US fiber optic backbones. XKeyscore, yet another program that spies on American internet usage. The leaks that showed the NSA violated even their own rules, which are highly illegal and unconstitutional, 2,776 times between March 2011 and March 2012. The leaks showed hundred million dollar bribes to telcos. The leaks show that the NSA routine provides intelligence on US citizen to foreign countries. Leaks that they illegally monitor the SWIFT network. Minaret leak, that the NSA and other intelligence companies illegally monitored Sen. Frank Church when he was running the Church Commission that was looking into illegal conduct committed by the intelligence committee. SYANPSE leak, illegally mapping US citizens' social media contacts and email contact lists. Leaks about NSA talking points lying about terrorism justifying the agency's surveillance programs as well as lying about legality of various projects.
This organization's head admitted to committing perjury under oath when testifying before Congress. They've committed billions of violations of US laws, as well as our Constitution. They will likely cost the US economy tens to hundreds of billions in economic loses. They've become arguably the greatest threat that the United States has ever faced.
And you're arguing that he committed treason for exposing this, because a number of his leaks exposed various legal and illegal foreign conduct?
Uhm. Yes?
In fairness, some were misidentified targets. It happens. Others were intentional strikes, because that's when clans get together. At social functions that outweigh everyday security concerns. Also, we have intentionally killed Americans because we believed they were probably terrorists, and in other cases because they were in the same building as suspected terrorists. Holder flatly admitted a US citizen minor was killed intentionally by the US government "for being in the wrong place." As we do not have corruption of blood (this is specifically a no-no under the Constitution), everyone involved should have been dragged up on murder charges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0
The government's stance is that if you're killed, your family has no standing to sue.
With respect, the foreign intelligence stuff matters not even a thimbleful of water compared to all the oceans in the world.
<<snip>>
This organization's head admitted to committing perjury under oath when testifying before Congress. They've committed billions of violations of US laws, as well as our Constitution. They will likely cost the US economy tens to hundreds of billions in economic loses. They've become arguably the greatest threat that the United States has ever faced.
<<snip>>
I personally don't understand why the claim that Snowden's leaks have helped AQ should be received as some sort of wild-assed guess-work, or even totally discredited.
You know what, I'll just say it. I actually don't care that Snowden has made things a little easier for Al Queda. At some point we have to draw the line on when freedom is more important than safety. Freedom IS more important than safety. Freedom is also dangerous.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to recognize that you won't always be safe, and that in fact, your freedom may just kill you. If you want to be safe, live in a Big Brother dictatorship where you are monitored 24 hours a day. You'll be safe and provided for. I completely recognize the importance of international intelligence gathering. At some point though, we have to draw the line when intelligence gathering "for the safety of US citizens" has taken one step too far into freedom curtailment. For that matter, as a society that believes in the human right to freedom, we should also recognize when to draw the line when our umbrella approach to intelligence gathering overly infringes on innocent non-US citizens.
So... the lid has arguably been blown of. What consequences do you fellows see? .gov clearly won't do anything beyond scapegoating and cover-upping, tightening up loose ends... how do you perceive the citizenry taking this up?
With respect, the foreign intelligence stuff matters not even a thimbleful of water compared to all the oceans in the world.
The crimes he has exposed have shaken the United States. The damage the NSA did by bribing RSA to weaken its cryptographic programs can't even be calculated. Ditto the wiretapping of Google's data centers. The Verizon leak may or may not have been significant, but Boundless Informant leak taught us that the NSA is systematically targeting US citizens. It acknowledged 3+ billion segments of intelligence information on US citizens. Upstream, which is illegal wiretaps on US fiber optic backbones. XKeyscore, yet another program that spies on American internet usage. The leaks that showed the NSA violated even their own rules, which are highly illegal and unconstitutional, 2,776 times between March 2011 and March 2012. The leaks showed hundred million dollar bribes to telcos. The leaks show that the NSA routine provides intelligence on US citizen to foreign countries. Leaks that they illegally monitor the SWIFT network. Minaret leak, that the NSA and other intelligence companies illegally monitored Sen. Frank Church when he was running the Church Commission that was looking into illegal conduct committed by the intelligence committee. SYANPSE leak, illegally mapping US citizens' social media contacts and email contact lists. Leaks about NSA talking points lying about terrorism justifying the agency's surveillance programs as well as lying about legality of various projects.
This organization's head admitted to committing perjury under oath when testifying before Congress. They've committed billions of violations of US laws, as well as our Constitution. They will likely cost the US economy tens to hundreds of billions in economic loses. They've become arguably the greatest threat that the United States has ever faced.
And you're arguing that he committed treason for exposing this, because a number of his leaks exposed various legal and illegal foreign conduct?
Uhm. Yes?
In fairness, some were misidentified targets. It happens. Others were intentional strikes, because that's when clans get together. At social functions that outweigh everyday security concerns. Also, we have intentionally killed Americans because we believed they were probably terrorists, and in other cases because they were in the same building as suspected terrorists. Holder flatly admitted a US citizen minor was killed intentionally by the US government "for being in the wrong place." As we do not have corruption of blood (this is specifically a no-no under the Constitution), everyone involved should have been dragged up on murder charges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0
The government's stance is that if you're killed, your family has no standing to sue.
If you want to define "associating" loosely enough then pretty much everyone in a large number of countries is a viable target.
And just so we're clear, you've switched from denying it happened, to denying it was deliberate, to saying it was ok now right? Hard to keep track.
Sending drones into a foreign country that we are not at war with like Pakistan to blow up people is an act of terrorism. Even if we hope that maybe there's a bad guy at that wedding and the 30 innocent men women and children we kill are just acceptable collateral damage. The US fed.gov is rapidly coming up on killing as many non-combatants in terrorist attacks as AQ killed on 9/11.
BUT WAIT, I kind of half remember someone on a totally non-biased tv show who said Snowden was a traitor so obviously it's totes the truth. And how dare you ask me to provide some type of evidence beyond a half remembered unqualified 3rd party saying something on tv?!?!?! This ain't college. Obviously you're an Al Qaeda sympathizer if you don't believe me.
Yes, yes we have. Because Obama really believed that a Bad Guy was there. And we counted any Military Aged Male who happened to be there as well as a terrorist.:facepalm: I wish I had an eidetic memory sometimes.
I saw some guy on tv who said so therefore it must be true.
But this is all thread drift... So, again, I'll ask you... what has Snowden revealed that has A.) helped al qaeda, and B.) cannot be found in another source, such as the aforementioned huge amounts of tell all books, leaks (inadvertant or deliberate) by congress, etc?
So... the lid has arguably been blown of. What consequences do you fellows see? .gov clearly won't do anything beyond scapegoating and cover-upping, tightening up loose ends..
So Snowden risked prosecution and fled to another country in order to reveal information that had already been released? ???
I'm not sure how I feel about him. Exposing corruption is a good thing, but I'm not sure about his methods. Did he carefully pick what information he exposed, or did he indiscriminately turn over anything he could get his hands on? What information has he held back, will he release it, and what will the impact of that be?
It is ironic that a guy who is worried about the government stepping on citizens liberties would seek asylum in countries like China and Russia.
Yeah, I don't really see the spy guys stopping what they are doing, they will just find another way to do it. So will anything Snowden did have a lasting effect in the long term big picture?
President Obama seems dead-set on ending the war which will give the Islamists a far greater opportunity than ever before to expand their territories.
No, sending drones in is an act in the prosecution of a war we've been fighting for over a decade. That you don't agree with some of our policies doesn't entitle you to claim it's terrorism.
No, sending drones in is an act in the prosecution of a war we've been fighting for over a decade. That you don't agree with some of our policies doesn't entitle you to claim it's terrorism.
I think it is very ironic that a person who has exposed corruption and wrong doing against US citizens has to seek personal safety in countries like China and Russia.
It is ironic that a guy who is worried about the government stepping on citizens liberties would seek asylum in countries like China and Russia.
TommyGunn,
The GOP is not going to save us, change anything important if they regain power nor slow down the elimination of our rights.
They are every bit as much a part of the problem as the Dems.
You've been played. Your true patriotism and love of our nation has been used to co-opt you into supporting a political party that is every bit as noxious and anti constitutional as the Democrats.
So if the Russians find a Chechen who slipped across the Mexican border into America and blow up a wedding in say Iowa in order to kill him that's ok right? If our "War on Terror" gives America free reign to kill anyone we want in any country then logically that extends to other countries right? Or is America so sooper special that when we bomb other so reign nations it's ok but no one else can do it?
If the libertarians would get off their obsession with legalizing drugs then maybe they might become a realistic possibility.
Well, heck - hijacking planes and flying them into buildings was just another act in the prosecution of the Islamic war against the infidels :angel:
I suspect "terrorism" has a slightly different definition depending on whether you are the terrorist or the terroree ;)
I'm pretty sure that is not the focus of their platform.I didn't say it was, but unfortunatly a lot of people associate libertarianism with legalizing drugs.
Quote from: TommyGunn on Today at 07:04:28 PMPresident Obama seems dead-set on ending the war which will give the Islamists a far greater opportunity than ever before to expand their territories.As opposed to before the war?
As opposed to before the war?
I think a great deal of AQ's expansion has happened in the past half decade or so.
But it is possible the way Bush Jr. prosecuted the war gave AQ the necessity & ability to flee from A'stan which might have been seen as a defeat at first. Theoretically AQ could have used it as an excuse to decentralize and start up training camps across N. Africa and adjoining areas ... I mean, aside from the natural aggressive desire of the Jihadis to expand their areas in search of a caliphate.
AQ had a well established presence in africa long before the war in A-stan
Was it as "established" as it is now? From what I've heard AQ has expanded into a number of areas that it hadn't penetrated until fairly recently...I sorta thought N. Africa was one of them; I am including other terrorist organizations that are, shall we say, "allied" with AQ such as the group that attacked our diplomats in Benghazi.
Holy cr@p, Revdisk.
I don't want to "define" associating so loosely that "anyone" qualifies as a target. And I wasn't trying to say it was "right" to blow up an innocent wedding party, I was saying it was a bad mistake but ought not hamper our efforts against AQ.
And if the Klingons are attacked by the Andorians who take up residence in a secret compound in Nebraska the Klingons have a natural right to blow up Planet Earth in revenge for being dissed.
Only James T. Kirk can save us. [tinfoil]
Balog; "Inter arma enim silent leges." It's a quote from Cicero.
So because we've declared an open ended war that definitionally cannot be won, we are morally in the right to kill anyone in any country in any way in your mind? What exactly is the difference in America blowing up innocents in a foreign country, and some other country doing the same? You just shrug and say "Meh, it's my country so we can slaughter all the women and children we feel like and I'm ok with it."First, I reject the idea of a war that "definitionally cannot be won." ANY war "can" be won if it is prosecuted aggressively and intelligently. I think I may have intimated a few times in this thread I don't necessarily believe this war has been fought that way.
Couple points, sir.
1. You may not even know you're associated with real or perceived terrorists.
2. You don't have to be associated with terrorists to be a target.
3. You're assuming folks don't make mistakes. See children and US senators ending up on the No Fly list.
I'm not against intelligence, drone strikes or other such activities. I believe they need to handled better, and that US citizens should not be the targets. The US military and intel community should be our watch dogs, not our masters. This is not an insult, but an honor. If they bite their owner however, there's no choice but to replace them.
RevDisk just gave al qaeda insight into our intelligence apparatus.
He's a traitor and should be punished
First, I reject the idea of a war that "definitionally cannot be won." ANY war "can" be won if it is prosecuted aggressively and intelligently. I think I may have intimated a few times in this thread I don't necessarily believe this war has been fought that way.
If we cannot, "by definition", win this war against AQ, then how are we supposed to deal with terrorists who want to establish a caliphate and bring down America?
Bin Laden may have believed in his own mind what he did was fully justified and probably inspired by Allah, but that doesn't mean he was right or that Allah had anything to do with it.
But we specifically DIDN'T declare war on Al Quieda. If we had we would probably be done already. We declared a "War on Terror". And as someone who's been fighting it for a bit now, we "definitionally" can not win it.There will always be terrorists looking to strike us or our allies. Eventually they will get lucky and succeed. We can not end international terrorism.
Just as you believe in your own mind that theFIFYUSSAUSA is right.
Is anyone actually wrong in your universe Tallpine.
You are :PAnd the Golden Rule applies to this debate .... how? >:D
You might take a look at that "golden rule" thing ;)
The old "moral equivelency" argument.You keep referring to the moral equivalency fallacy, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
I know, I understated the case. I'm kinda busy this week. I skipped over a lot of material.
In seriousness, anyone in the know knows not to cross the NSA. The CEO of Qwest learned that the hard way. He refused to play ball with illegal wiretapping, coincidentally went to jail for alleged insider trading and the US govt doesn't allow any of the NSA blackmail into evidence as it's classified. So did anyone foolish enough to work within the system as a whistleblower.
With respect, I don't think you or most people here understand. This isn't bad, it's just a lack of first hand experience. During my time in the military and government, I have worked with the NSA on a couple of occasions. Hell, when I was about 15 or so, I called them up, asked them to send me some books and they did. They sent me two meters of books, which took up an entire bookshelf of my youth. Even threw in some photocopies of some interesting open papers and whatnot. I joined the Army, went into Signal, and dealt with them on a regular basis because they handle the military's crypto.
Each and every single NSA employee I have ever met has been intelligent, thoughtful, competent, decent human being with a sense of humor. You have no idea how terrifying that was and is. Everyone on this board that worked for or with any part of the US government would find this as unnerving as I did. The NSA is more dangerous than any other part of the US government, including the military. For one simple reason. They're competent. Period, end of sentence. That should chill anyone to their very bones. Competency is bred out of any US government organization, in the long term. People that are intelligent, innovative, competent and generally decent human beings don't rise up the ranks and rarely end up as government lifers.
Historically, the NSA stuck to its knitting. Yes, they crossed the line here and there. But rarely and virtually never got caught. For decades, they were "No Such Agency" and black as a coal mine. The fact that they're making the news on a near daily basis is a complete 180 from their roots.
I suspect the decent individuals will start leaving. Any that stay will be less moral and decent. Competence will slip, because the less moral kind tend to be less intelligent, dynamic and innovative. But they'll still have a treasure trove of blackmail material that will put J. Edgar Hoover to shame. The NSA has been collecting dirt on politicians for a very long time. Decades of records. Ask Michael D. Barnes.
It's one reason why they hoover up so much US related material. Today's kid on FB may become tomorrow's Senator, billionaire tech CEO or maybe just a janitor that cleans the toilets at Realtek in Taiwan when the NSA wants to steal their signing certificate to assist the development a virus to slow down Iran's nuclear development. Yes, that would be Stuxnet. The NSA was wiretapping President Obama long before ANYONE thought he would ever become POTUS.
Funny part. I'm not sure how much I helped the NSA do all of these things. At DISA, I maintained infrastructure for the DoD and intel community. You're never supposed to know the contents of the stuff you handle, and 99% of the time, I never did. Well, except for the zOS IBM mainframe that processed their budget. That was a "fun" day. =D
Kinda 1984. I helped them build the platforms they used to spy on me and everyone I know. Oh, nothing complex or Jason Bourne. Swapping hard drives, rebooting routers, etc. Very mundane tasks.
*shrug*
Couple points, sir.
1. You may not even know you're associated with real or perceived terrorists.
2. You don't have to be associated with terrorists to be a target.
3. You're assuming folks don't make mistakes. See children and US senators ending up on the No Fly list.
I'm not against intelligence, drone strikes or other such activities. I believe they need to handled better, and that US citizens should not be the targets. The US military and intel community should be our watch dogs, not our masters. This is not an insult, but an honor. If they bite their owner however, there's no choice but to replace them.
At the moment, there is no oversight or accountability. None, zero. There are some ceremonial rubber stamps, that is all. Unlimited reach with no limits makes one sloppy, and lose focus. It shows, badly.
Btw, I apologize in advance if I sound patronizing or if I seem to be raking you over the coals, TommyGunn. Just that this sort of thing used to be more of my life than most and I kinda take it personal. Well, more accurately, this sort of thing *expletive deleted*ed my life.
First, I reject the idea of a war that "definitionally cannot be won." ANY war "can" be won if it is prosecuted aggressively and intelligently. I think I may have intimated a few times in this thread I don't necessarily believe this war has been fought that way.Fair enough. Can you define what victory in the War on Terror is and when it might possibly be achieved? How do we know we won and it's time to stop?
Fair enough. Can you define what victory in the War on Terror is and when it might possibly be achieved? How do we know we won and it's time to stop?
You keep referring to the moral equivalency fallacy, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You can't just cry "Moral equivalency! You are wrong!" every time someone makes any comparison.
There are valid moral comparisons that can and should be made.
Fair enough. Can you define what victory in the War on Terror is and when it might possibly be achieved? How do we know we won and it's time to stop?
I don't particularly care if my sarcasm is helpful in your mind at this point. Especially after some of your sarcastic nonsense (klingons, really? That's your deflection of an analogy?)
and it's about as helpful as any of the mindless flag waving, if you ain't with us you're against us *expletive deleted* you've posted
You call into question peoples allegiances and then are surprised when they're no longer interested in having a discussion with you?
If you know how to win the war against al qaeda, then by all means , do it. I can recommend a recruiting station . Or perhaps you can run for office
I see no valid moral comparisons in how AQ perceives our war on Jihadism and how we perceive their attrocities.
Nor do I see any comparison between how some Afghani villager perceives out .... "intrusion" into their country to hypothetical intrusions by some foreign entities into our country for putatively similar motives.
As I believe I've said, "the war on terror" is a misnomer. We are .... or rather should be .... conducting a war against AQ. As previous posts indicate I don't really believe we're doing so well in that respect.
You know Fitz, I'll say it it again, if I rubbed you the wrong way I'm sorry. The Klingon thing was a bit of sarcasm. I'm sorry if you left your sense of humor elsewhere.
In the end much of the irritable barbs I have posted are in response to some of the nastiness I have perceived on this thread.
The question stands... how would you prosecute this war on al qaeda. What is the end state, and when do you stop?
Keep in mind that the "Al Qaeda" moniker has been adopted, abandoned, and adopted again by several offshoots that, at various times, are tightly or loosely affiliated with the others, depending on the current internal climate, goals, engagements around the world, etc.
Kill them and break their things. Worrying about numerous ancillary groups is too distracting .... we didn't "get" every Nazi high command in WW2, some got to South America through ODESSA or DER SPINNER. No one is about to suggest since we were creaming the Nazis back then we ought to continue THAT war against Neo-Nazis in the present.
For similar reasons we need to finish off the relevant AQ and Taliban assets in this war.
And remain on guard against the "offshoots" because I don't think they are Boy Scouts.
However, as I have said, I no longer believe we are up to this, as a nation.
So it isn't going to happen.
Therefor, sadly, your inquiry is .... irrelevant.
No, your knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant.
Al qaeda is NOTHING MORE than a vast network of the numerous ancillary groups. There IS no "al qaeda" army. it's a ton of small groups of no more than a few people.
Ignore them, and you've accomplished absolutely nothing. In fact, the BULK of the opposition against us in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been affiliated with AQ.
Care to take a gander at how many insurgent groups are involved in A-stan and Iraq?
OK then DO go after them. Perhaps you should explain how YOU would prosecute this war since you seem to think what I know is irrelevant.
I see no valid moral comparisons in how AQ perceives our war on Jihadism and how we perceive their attrocities.
Nor do I see any comparison between how some Afghani villager perceives out .... "intrusion" into their country to hypothetical intrusions by some foreign entities into our country for putatively similar motives.
As I believe I've said, "the war on terror" is a misnomer. We are .... or rather should be .... conducting a war against AQ.
our war on Jihadism
Kill them and break their things.
I never claimed I had all the answers. Seems to me you and a few others here have claimed to have all the answers. "Like the war being "unwinnable" for example -- and that is in fact an answer, albeit a bad one.
I , unlike you, have not claimed to have those answers.
I do know that it's difficult, if not impossible, to win a war against that kind of enemy.I don't think abuse is justified, I think it is inevitable.
Problem with you is, you seem to think that any abuse is justified in the prosecution of that war, which i disagree with.
I don't think that an entire party of revelers who may or may not have a connection to terror is an acceptable cost to assassinate one guy. Nor do i think we should go into other countries and bomb them without a declaration of war on that country. Nor do I think that spying on americans is justified. Apparently you do, and I suspect that's the biggest reason we'll never agree.
You're funny though. you're basically saying that we, as a nation, don't have the stomach for... SOMETHING. Something you can't define.
But DAMMIT, we're pansies and we dont have the stomach for it!!!
Is there any action in your mind that we are unjustified in taking?
The irony of your position is hilarious Tommygunn
We will do anything we can, including killing innocents, to bring to justice those killing innocents.
Meanwhile, troops get investigated over accidents, but the drones and whatnot can PURPOSELY destroy a party of people because of one HVT.
If a marine squad did it, they'd be in jail
But hey
At least we still have the moral high ground against those terrorists
Is there any action in your mind that we are unjustified in taking? We have a "war" on terror, so you don't care if we blow innocent people up in countries we have no declared hostility toward. Is there anything you would object to? You keep referring to Dresden: shall we just kill every living person in every Middle Eastern country? Would that be an acceptable final solution, in your mind?
What you think we should be doing is not relevant. What is relevant is what we are doing, and according to our leadership we are fighting a Global War on Terror(TM). You say that this is not an unwinnable war. Tell me how it can be won, how we would know when to stop.To the first part, I believe I have dealt with it. If you do not wish to consider my opinion "relevant" fine, I shall return the favor in kind.
Ah, so it's a war on Jihadism, is it? Ok. Jihadism is the belief in armed jihad. Tell me, how can a war against a belief be won?
What things, exactly, do they have that we can break? How many of them do we kill? Is it, even in theory, possible to kill them all?
EDIT:
Check out this medal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal
What war is this, again?
You seem to be under the impression that this stuff is reversible. Not so. When was the last time a major overstep of fed authority was reversed?
Hint: not recently at all.
you live in a nation of moronic, lazy shitheads. That's why we need to expose and fight these oversteps, not allow them in the name of "OMG TERRORISM" then attempt to roll them back later.
Nor do I see any comparison between how some Afghani villager perceives out .... "intrusion" into their country to hypothetical intrusions by some foreign entities into our country for putatively similar motives.Why not?
I bring up Dresden for a purpose, yet it seems NO ONE seems to understand why.First of all, I've always understood the firebombing of Dresden to have been a British campaign. Pretty sure that the US general in charge maintained targeted daylight bombings because of his vehement opposition to the idea of haphazardly bombing civilian targets in the dark.
The countries we have "no declared hostilities to" are harboring the people who we do consider hostiles. Would you have us declare war on Pakistan because they are harboring Taliban elements?That's the problem. You want to fight today's war with last century's techniques which by any right should require a declaration of war on the nations we are bombing.
What we should have done was to prevent the Taliban from bugging out of A'stan .... guess Dubya couldn't have bothered to have the forces necessary to do that over there.Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Again. Even if the US war machine were even capable of sealing off the Afghanistan in the way you propose (and if you've ever seen topographic maps of the 1,600ish miles of Pakistan/Afghanistan border you would be wise to doubt our ability to do so) I would venture to say that the cost to the US taxpayer would make the budget for the war to date look like pocket change.
Take a wild guess what things should be broken. And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are. It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.When you blow up a bunch of innocent people to kill an enemy, you often end up with more enemies than you started with.
Why not?
First of all, I've always understood the firebombing of Dresden to have been a British campaign. Pretty sure that the US general in charge maintained targeted daylight bombings because of his vehement opposition to the idea of haphazardly bombing civilian targets in the dark.
Secondly, the situation today is completely dissimilar to WWII. Resorting to desperation measures like firebombing and dropping nuclear weapons on civilian centers and the Vergeltungswaffen campaigns on the other side are not techniques that really carry over well to the strong side of asymmetric warfare. When you are fighting for the survival of your nation, you can make the argument that dropping bombs on civilian targets - accidentally or intentionally - might be a legitimate technique to reduce the will and warmaking capability of your enemy. And if you win the war, you might not even be prosecuted for your war crimes. In the conflict we have today, wiping out a village to kill some visiting bad guys is more likely to radicalize additional enemies rather than force the nebulous force who doesn't necessarily care about that village anyway to sue for peace.
That's the problem. You want to fight today's war with last century's techniques which by any right should require a declaration of war on the nations we are bombing.
Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Again. Even if the US war machine were even capable of sealing off the Afghanistan in the way you propose (and if you've ever seen topographic maps of the 1,600ish miles of Pakistan/Afghanistan border you would be wise to doubt our ability to do so) I would venture to say that the cost to the US taxpayer would make the budget for the war to date look like pocket change.
When you blow up a bunch of innocent people to kill an enemy, you often end up with more enemies than you started with.
Why do you hate America, achmed?Михаил, actually. :)
"Jihadism" is the concept of fighting a religious war, a war with the goal of expanding the religious footprint of, in this case, Islam. It is a great deal more than just a simple belief. You fight it by fighting the Jihadis, and killing them.It's not a belief, it's a concept. Got it. And you fight it by killing the people that subscribe to it.
Take a wild guess what things should be broken. And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are.These guys live in tents and caves. They don't own things that are all that valuable. We can't destroy their industry or their economy. What is there for us to break that will impact them?
It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.How do we know that this has happened?
Oh friggin' woopeee they put that inane phrase "Global War Against Terror" on a medal so we're NOT really fighting AQ & Taliban. :facepalm:So the Commander in Chief says this is what we are fighting. You disagree. Clearly, what you say goes.
You fight it by fighting the Jihadis, and killing them.You are constantly answering a question I did not ask and completely ignoring a question I did ask, several times.
Take a wild guess what things should be broken. And I don't know how many we should kill because I don't know how many there are. It may be possible to kill enough of them to stop them from being an existential threat to us.
Oh!!! Prevent the bad guys from bugging out of Afghanistan?Just line up everyone in the military who can carry a rifle shoulder to shoulder along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and start marching northwest killing any terrorists or wedding parties they come across, and firebombing any Dresdens they see.
Maybe when we finished that, we could have convinced the democrats to lower taxes, the Republicans to love abortion, and congress to get along with each other
You know, since we're clearly talking about fantasy at this point
Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. “What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? ” the one asked.
The second replied, “Well, they were both founded by Spaniards — St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy — the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.”
“What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?”
“Met any Albigensians lately?”
Be careful not to match fallacy with fallacy when countering TG.
1. Yes, you can practically end the threat from adherents to an ideology.
The question is not "Can we forever remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?" The question is, "Are we willing to do what is necessary to remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"
2. Yes, orthodox Islam is a threat to Western Civilization. This says more about the moral weakness of Western Civ than it does about orthodox Islam's strength.
It would be cheaper and make more sense to wage war against W Civ's internal rot. Yes, that includes warring on much of the libertine agenda and the suicide pact of "tolerance." For libertines, half of a libertine loaf is better than the bitter harvest they will reap when they succeed and thoroughly enervate Western Civ.
The question is not "Can we forever remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?" The question is, "Are we willing to do what is necessary to remove the threat from adherents to an ideology/idea/religion?"I'm not sure if you are actually advocating anything specific, but it is my fervent hope that he answer to your second question and the implied campaign of terror behind it remains "No!"
It would be cheaper and make more sense to wage war against W Civ's internal rot. Yes, that includes warring on much of the libertine agenda and the suicide pact of "tolerance." For libertines, half of a libertine loaf is better than the bitter harvest they will reap when they succeed and thoroughly enervate Western Civ.
What we should have done was to prevent the Taliban from bugging out of A'stan .... guess Dubya couldn't have bothered to have the forces necessary to do that over there.
What is the difference between concept & belief that is earth-shakingly important in the context of this thread?
It's not a belief, it's a concept. Got it. And you fight it by killing the people that subscribe to it.
Can you point out a concept that has been defeated by killing people who believe in it? Ever?
These guys live in tents and caves. They don't own things that are all that valuable. We can't destroy their industry or their economy. What is there for us to break that will impact them?
How do we know that this has happened?
So the Commander in Chief says this is what we are fighting. You disagree. Clearly, what you say goes.
Er... What?
You are constantly answering a question I did not ask and completely ignoring a question I did ask, several times.
Once again:HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN TO STOP FIGHTING?
Picking nits, but have you ever looked at a topo map of Afghanistan? We couldn't keep moonshiners from bugging out of Kentucky, Keeping the Hajis from going wherever they want is a pipe dream.
Islamic terrorism is not now, nor has it been, an existential threat to the United States of America.
The can, if they're lucky, kill some Americans, and we should try to limit those occurrences, but to pretend that Islamic terrorism is even remotely capable of existentially threatening the USA would be laughable if it wasn't so often packaged with delusional fear justifying atrocities. *
*Not saying you personally, Tommygunn, but every .gov official that has used that phrase in the last 12 years was using it to bludgeon dissent against some US overreach or atrocity. It's a clear sign in a conversation.
What is the difference between concept & belief that is earth-shakingly important in the context of this thread?
You claim we fight it by killing those who subscribe to itNo. You claim we fight it that way. If you can't remember your own words, look up the thread.
So you can't kill concepts and beliefs. There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts, but no one says they are a threat to us. You can still buy Hitler's Mein Kampf in bookstores (well, not in Germany maybe) but few worry about it and consider it only a historical artifact of a brutal dictator.The war was not with the concept of National Socialism. The war was with Germany and it's allies, not all of whom subscribed to the ideology.
Haven't you ever heard of the bromide that the "purpose of an army is to kill the enemy & break their things?"I have. I just don't see these guys having stuff that needs an army to break.
Obviously if AQ doesn't have an industrial complex you can't bomb it into oblivion, but you can still kill the people.We seem to have a little problem determining just who those people are.
Surely you don't need my feeble input to figure that amazingly difficult concept. :-X
Certainly there must be someone up in military intel....somewhere....state dept. (Ack!) that can recognize the end of a war when he(she) sees it.Commendable faith, but without any basis in reality.
How did we know WW2 was over? Right, that little shindig aboard that battleship in Tokyo Bay.The war was over when the other guy was unable to continue and said so in writing through an official representative. Armed jihad has no official representatives. It's a thing various people do. There is no way for it to surrender.
I believe there will be some tell, IMHO. I don't know what it is.If you don't know what it is, what makes you so sure it exists?
The cmdr in chief was engaging in something called rhetoric. I was not engaging in something called rhetoric .... though I might as well have been for all the good it does me here. :facepalm:Clearly, you don't hold the current CiC in very high regard. However, he isn't the one who created the medal.
P.S.; the Commander-in-Chief is a boob.
I wonder if Patton knew when "the fighting would stop"? I mean....someone gave him a date certain?Actually, he did. Wars don't end on a specific date. Wars end when one of the sides surrenders.
I don't believe it is Orthodox Islam that is the threat, but the primitive tribal types who use Orthodox Islam as the excuse and vehicle to attack the West. I have a few coworkers from that region. To hear them talk, religion is only part of the problem. The main issue is an ancient culture that requires revenge for any slight.
Every time we bomb a wedding party to kill one "high value target", we give a whole bunch of people reason to hate us. Along comes an imam with an answer in the form of "join our sect and you get to kill infidels" and you now have 20 new "terrorists".
It's human nature coupled with a culture that believes in revenge for any slight. This goes beyond Islam. As long as we're in their homeland, killing their people, we'll never run out of primitive tribal types who want to kill us. Orthodox Islam merely gives them the vehicle.
Chris
I'm not sure if you are actually advocating anything specific, but it is my fervent hope that he answer to your second question and the implied campaign of terror behind it remains "No!"
So - if we make the wimenz wear burkas then we will have defeated the Jihadists ???
Quote from: TommygunnWhat is the difference between concept & belief that is earth-shakingly important in the context of this thread?
You tell me. You are the one that brought it up. I was perfectly happy calling it a belief.
It's not a belief, it's a concept. Got it.
Quote from: TommyGunnYou claim we fight it by killing those who subscribe to itNo. You claim we fight it that way. If you can't remember your own words, look up the thread.
And you fight it by killing the people that subscribe to it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quote from: TommyGunnSo you can't kill concepts and beliefs. There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts, but no one says they are a threat to us. You can still buy Hitler's Mein Kampf in bookstores (well, not in Germany maybe) but few worry about it and consider it only a historical artifact of a brutal dictator.The war was not with the concept of National Socialism. The war was with Germany and it's allies, not all of whom subscribed to the ideology.
QuoteCertainly there must be someone up in military intel....somewhere....state dept. (Ack!) that can recognize the end of a war when he(she) sees it.
Commendable faith, but without any basis in reality.
Seriously, the people who are awaiting Rapture are on more solid ground than you. They at least know what they are waiting for
YOU tell me when this war will end.Maybe never. You can't reach a goal when you don't know what that goal is. At best, it will end, like Vietnam, when there is enough of public derision for it in the US and we just recall the troops and say we're done.
If we weren't supposed to attack AQ & Taliban in response to 9/11, what would you have done?We didn't attack either of them. We attacked Iraq instead. Saddam was a *expletive deleted*bag, but he was not a member of AQ. Hell, he wasn't even particularly religious.
I didn't say the war was against National Socialism. I've reread the statement I made there and don't for the life of me get how you managed to get that meaning out of it.You say "There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts"
So everyone in .gov. is stupid?I don't know that. Being stupid and not knowing something aren't the same thing, though.
You're not even on loose ground here -- the rapture is a myth.So far, given your inability to explain what it is, the victory in this war also seems to be a myth.
You don't have to like my answers.You don't really have answers to the main questions I'm asking.
We didn't attack either of them. We attacked Iraq instead. Saddam was a *expletive deleted*, but he was not a member of AQ. Hell, he wasn't even particularly religious.
A much smaller scale effort to find the exact people responsible and bring them to justice would have been more appropriate, IMO. Israelis managed it with the Nazis, since you are so fond of WWII examples. And they did it without wiping out piles of random civilians and invading countries.
You say "There are still new Nazis around despite Patton's, Eisenhower's, and FDR's best efforts"
Nazis are members of the National Socialist Workers Party and believers in the National Socialist ideology. The parallel you are drawing is with believers in the ideology of armed jihad. Except that war was declared not on the National Socialist Workers party, or National Socialism, it was declared on Germany and it's allies. And it was Germany and Japan that surrendered.
You don't really have answers to the main questions I'm asking.
They hate us for our freedoms, so all we have to do is get rid of our freedoms. ;)
They hate us for our freedoms, so all we have to do is get rid of our freedoms. ;)
Washington DC or Al Qaeda? >:D
Yes, becaus we WEREN'T making war on a concept or belief ... or whatever. Patton's best efforts weren't after "Nazi-sim" they were against the German Army. To put a fine point on it, Patton retained a number of known Nazis in lower offices after the war ended because he realized they had been forcibly impressed into the Nazi system, and also that if he removed every "Nazi" just to be vindictive, the whole structure of what was left of the German beuracracy would collapse, making a bad messy situation even worse.
Same in Japan; we were fighting the Japanese Army.
No I don't: I also don't have a crystal ball. Or a Ouja Board.Since when is either one of those required to set a goal?
I would sooner see Islamic civilization snuffed out and forever shattered than see the same happen to Western Civilization.That's a false dichotomy.
And it would not be a campaign of terror, but of mass killing, destruction, displacement, and colonization of their lands with Western peoples.A rose by any other name ...
The sort of thing that happened pretty regularly in history.Oh, well then that makes it okay.
The sort of thing that Western Civ largely put an end to...but may be necessary for its survival.The sort of thing that would change Western Civilization to merely Western. Put another way, whatever good Western Civilization is would be lost were they to play out your fantasy.
[I would note that it would be the same sort of thing Islam did to large stretches of Christendom, Persia, and N India during the muslim expansion starting in the 600s.]Oh, well then that makes it okay too.
I would hope we could find the stones to do it, were it to come to that.One of us is in the wrong place, Roo_ster. When I find myself associating with people who have genocidal wet dreams I need to determine if I am spending my time in the right places.
It is interesting to hear the perspective of an insider. So do you think that the genie can be put back in the bottle? How do you keep tight reins on the intelligence apparatus? Is there an effective strategy for getting good, timely, relevant information on our enemies while respecting freedoms, or does one have to be sacrificed for the other?
Unless you count the Church Commitee.
I bet they thought what Lincoln did was ireversible too. Especially after the effects of Reconstruction became known. >:D
Fitz, if we really are a bunch of lazy moronic shitheads, it's lost. We won't be able to fix it either now or later.
Better hope you're wrong.
5) Grow a pair and go back to the Eisenhower Doctrine of Massive Retaliation.
Exactly. It is exactly unlike the current situation. Why did you bring it up if it's completely different?
Since when is either one of those required to set a goal?
You do realize I'm not talking about a date, but about some condition or event?
Seriously, what is so hard about this? Would you play a game not knowing how winning is defined? Would you bet money not knowing what the condition of winning is? (By the way, if the answer is yes, I want to play a game with you. You give me money, and then I tell you if you won or not. I'll know I won when I see it. )
Exactly. It is exactly unlike the current situation. Why did you bring it up if it's completely different?
"What's so hard" about it is I don't know WHAT SPECIFIC EVENT would be. Again to the tired WW2 analogy; it's like expecting me to know the name of the Battleship the treaty will be signed on, what deck, where on the deck, where the ship will be.....when it can't even be gauranteed the ship will survive the war.All those answer the question of "where?" (on a ship, deck, etc). I'm not asking "where". I'm asking "what?"
Our goal in Vietnam was to prevent S. Vietnam from falling into the communist world. We lost that war because we did not obtain that result, irregardless of how many battles we won on the ground.Right. We lost it because we gave up and went home. Which is what I think is a very likely end to this. However, I'm not asking how this is likely to end. I'm asking how we would know we won.
A closer analogy, I suppose, would be the Barbary Wars of the early 19th century, conducted against pirates, not countries.Actually, they were conducted against the Barbary States, which were Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis. And they ended in treaties with rulers of those states. They also had goals - freeing the hostages, monetary restitution, and not paying tribute. Once those things happened (no matter where or when), it could reasonably be said the US won.
What is the answer here?
Paucity of enemies? [tinfoil]
That being true, your question will never have an answer.So this war cannot be won. Which is what I (and a couple of other folks) have been saying all along.
That's better. Only thing left to figure out how many is a paucity. Also, how to get there if new ones keep appearing.
"Jefe, would you say that I have a plethora?" =D
So this war cannot be won. Which is what I (and a couple of other folks) have been saying all along.
Minor correction: Obama is throwing in the towel.Nope, it does not. Anyone else would do the same thing, since it's the only practical thing that can be done.
Not that it makes a lot of difference ... really.
Right after (helped) we overthrow the Taliban would have been the time to leave. "Here's the keys to your country, let another group of shiiteheads take over, and it will get ugly."
I do remember a quote from an Air Force General shortly after 9/11, is was something to the effect of "Yes, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, it'll take about 10 minutes, but then what?"
Because that's what were up against, a 6th Century philosophy and way of life. We ain't gonna make them Jeffersonian's anytime in the near future. The best we can do is: Stop sending them money by developing our own energy resources. Which could have the following potential effects:
1) Their ability to pacify their people with the current "Bread and Circuses" that use to keep their populations in line, will be dramatically reduced.
2) Contrary to popular belief, it ain't the poor that go out on Jihad, it's some rich bastard that gets them stoked up and sends them out to die for Allah, while providing them with food, shelter and spending cash. Bin-Laden wasn't some beggar, he had mounds of cash. Same with Saddam sending checks to the families of homicide bombers. And Iran sponsoring Hezbullah and a couple of other Jihadi type groups. Cut off the cash, cut off the threat.
3) Idle hands are the devils workshop, so lots of suddenly unemployed Arabian Utes, and the "Arab Spring" really goes viral in places like Saudi Arabia.
4) Oh, and we can tell them to GFThemselves, food is now 2x or 5x the price of a barrel of oil. Get Canada and Argentina in on it, and form OFEC. (Organization of Food Exporting Countries.) Enjoy eating your oil.
"Jefe, would you say that I have a plethora?" =D
Right after (helped) we overthrow the Taliban would have been the time to leave. "Here's the keys to your country, let another group of shiiteheads take over, and it will get ugly."
I do remember a quote from an Air Force General shortly after 9/11, is was something to the effect of "Yes, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, it'll take about 10 minutes, but then what?"
Because that's what were up against, a 6th Century philosophy and way of life. We ain't gonna make them Jeffersonian's anytime in the near future. The best we can do is: Stop sending them money by developing our own energy resources. Which could have the following potential effects:
1) Their ability to pacify their people with the current "Bread and Circuses" that use to keep their populations in line, will be dramatically reduced.
2) Contrary to popular belief, it ain't the poor that go out on Jihad, it's some rich bastard that gets them stoked up and sends them out to die for Allah, while providing them with food, shelter and spending cash. Bin-Laden wasn't some beggar, he had mounds of cash. Same with Saddam sending checks to the families of homicide bombers. And Iran sponsoring Hezbullah and a couple of other Jihadi type groups. Cut off the cash, cut off the threat.
3) Idle hands are the devils workshop, so lots of suddenly unemployed Arabian Utes, and the "Arab Spring" really goes viral in places like Saudi Arabia.
4) Oh, and we can tell them to GFThemselves, food is now 2x or 5x the price of a barrel of oil. Get Canada and Argentina in on it, and form OFEC. (Organization of Food Exporting Countries.) Enjoy eating your oil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAEjvT-Ri8
NSA is now releasing Public Service Announcements. =D