I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Will we ever learn? Rand Paul


SEN. RAND PAUL: There is no debate more significant for a legislator than the decision to engage in war. We must hold our leaders accountable. If we do not, there will be no end to war. The ridiculous and the absurd must be laid to rest. You've all heard it before. Toppling Ghaddafi led to a jihadist wonderland in Libya, toppling Hussein led to the chaos that is Iraq, toppling Assad will lead to a new chaos and greater danger from the jihadists.

The moss covered too-long-in-Washington crowd cannot help themselves. War, war, what we need is more, more war. Their policies and the combination of feckless disinterest, fraudulent red lines, and selective combativeness of this administration have led us to this point. Yes, we must now confront ISIS, in part for penance for the President's role in their rise. But while we do so to protect our interests here, what we need is someone to shout: War, war, what are we fighting for?

Amidst the interventionist's disjointed and frankly incoherent rhetoric, amidst the gathering gloom that sees enemies behind every friend, and friends behind every enemy, the only consistent theme is war. These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didn't like. They beat their chests in rhythmic ode to failed policies. Their drums beat to policies that display their outrage but fail to find a cure. Unintended consequences drown and smother the possibility of good intentions.

Must we act to check and destroy ISIS? Yes, and again yes, because of the foolishness of the interventionists. But let's not mistake what we must do. We shouldn't give a pass to forever intervene in the civil wars of the Middle East. Intervention created the chaos. Intervention aided and abetted the rise of radical Islam and intervention made us less safe in Libya and Syria and Iraq.

To those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground everywhere: Remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating about so-called freedom fighters and "heroes" in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq...unaware that so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers, killers or both. Are the so-called moderate Islamic rebels in Syria friends or foes? Do we know who they really are? All debatable questions at best.

As the interventionists clamor for boots on the ground, we should remember that they were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about Libya. They were trying to intervene last year on the wrong side of the Syrian war. When will we quit listening to the advocates of perpetual war? When does a track record of being consistently wrong stop you from being a so-called expert when the next crisis arises?

We should remember that they were wrong, that there were no WMD's, that Hussein, Khaddifi, and Assad were no threat to us. We should remember that radical Islam now roams about in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We should remember that those who believe that war is the answer for every problem, were wrong. We should remember that war against Hussein, that war against Khaddafi, that war against Assad led to chaos.

That intervention enhanced the rise of radical Islam, and ultimately led to more danger for Americans. Before we arm the so-called moderate Muslims of Syria, remember what I said a year ago: "The irony you will not be able to overcome is that these arms will someday be used against America."

That prediction is now true. We will fight ISIS, a war I accept as necessary, largely because our own arms and the arms of our allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar have enabled our new enemy ISIS. Will we ever learn?

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Is ISIS Islamic?


I was pleased when Bush 43 said that the 911 terrorists did not represent Islam.

I was pleased when Obama and Cameron said similar things.

We don't want to be at war with Islam (or sometimes "1.6 billion Muslims").  It was appropriate for us to give a great religion the benefit of the doubt.

But I think that that has been said enough - by us.  If we keep saying it, then it relieves the folks in Tehran, Cairo, Saudi Arabia and such places from having to make that argument. It lets the leaders of Islam off the hook that their particular crazies have put them on.

I understand some muslim leaders in the US have issued a fatwa condemning the ISIS movement.  That is their job - to guide their flocks and tell the world that they are not all terrorists.

So I'm ready for Obama to quit saying things like:    ISIL (sic) is not "Islamic." 

(Which is a step beyond the previous statements above.)

How does he know that they are not Islamic?
They say they are Islamic.
How did Obama get to be the arbiter of who is and who is not Islamic?
If ISIS is not Islamic, why doesn't the much talked about "1.6 billion Muslims" step up and smash the 32,000 imposters who are ruining their good name?



Sunday, June 15, 2014

Dealing with Terrorists 2


The original was on June 3, 2014  As I noted there later I had misread a crucial word.


The Obama administration has just traded 5 midlevel Al Queda correction Taliban people from Gitmo for one american soldier captured in Afghanistan.

I am opposed to trading terrorists for hostages taken by terrorists.

Three things:

A)  1st  Obviously we have just encouraged the terrorists to take more hostages.
      2nd  The Taliban is a much more "normal" military and therefore it would be more acceptable to trade prisoners with them.

B)  Is this Obama's plan to close the Gitmo Prison Camp?  Once he has traded them all off it will be easy.      This remains untouched.
   
C)  It seems to me that I recall the left arguing that terrorists should be treated like any other criminal.  Soooo .... .
As is one this is modified, but not by as much.  They weren't civilian prisoners true, but the Mafia parallel is still an interesting question for those who advocate treating terrorists like common criminals.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Dealing with terrorists


 I had misread Taliban as Al Queda.

There were no comments and so I feel free to review this.

Sorry

I will return to it later.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Enemy Combatants



So should the Boston bombers be classified as enemy combatants?

First of all what difference does that make? 
I believe that the difference is, basically, if you are an enemy combatant then you may be handled under military law and you do not have some of the procedural safeguards that are afforded to persons who are accused in accordance with civil law. 

Just a couple of side points here about who gets what?
No one “gives” you your Miranda rights (against being required to incriminate yourself.) when you are arrested.  The rights are given to you by the Constitution.  Officials “read” them to you so that the court can be sure that you are aware of them.  Not only that, if they fail to read them to you that doesn’t mean you get off, it just means that what they learn after not reading them cannot (normally) be used against you.
It sounds like some of the TV guys think that these civilian rights apply only to citizens.  Your constitution uses the expression “person”  as in “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy…  .”  It does not say no “citizen” … .

So should they be classified as enemy combatants?  It seems like first you should decide on who the enemy is first. That means recognize that we have a new situation and it is not a question of simply “figuring out what they are” and that what we need a general definition of enemy here.    

I would say the place to start would be with the list of terror organizations that the government keeps, they are among the enemy. Also any organization that declares itself to be at war with the U S is an enemy.  Anyone who is a member of or fights for such a group is an EC (enemy combatant).

It does not appear that these guys had a group.  So they are common criminals.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Boston Massacre 2013


Yesterday a bomb explded at the Boston Marathon killing several people and injuring many others.  It is, of course, very sad and your heart goes out to the people who are affected.

Soon enough one gets to the question:  What should we do about this kind of thing?

Obviously we should do what we can within the constraints of the rule of law.  However, I think that we can not prevent all such things and we have to accept the fact that this sort of thing is going to become, like car accidents, a regular sort of tragedy.


Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Death of Awlaki

.
A search of this blog for Awlaki produces a short list of entries beginning with this one so you will have to scroll down.

I don't have much to add to that, but I will repeat (more or less) this:

"Basically, I think I'm OK with it. I am assuming that the President has a very serious procedure for putting someone on such a list and doesn't just wake up some morning and say, 'You know that guy really got on my nerves.' I would think that the procedure should involve some sort of self proclaimed identification with our enemies."

and I will add that:

I am still amused that some people think that it is totally outrageous that W's people poured water in the face of a known foreign terrorist and, simultaneously, are not troubled when O's people cross into a foreign country and assassinate an unindicted American citizen.

You will generally find those people among those who say that they believe that we should deal with terrorists in the same way we deal with other criminals.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Revenge

.
Maureen Dowd column in the May 7, 2011 NY Times was good in that it jumped on the inclination of some to find moral equivalence in our killing bin Laden and his killing on 9-11. That's good.

But she opened her piece with: I don’t want closure. There is no closure after tragedy. I want memory, and justice, and revenge.

Well I don't really see the point in revenge.

I would say, and I bet Obama would agree:

If I could eliminate terrorism by killing all of the terrorists, I would do it.
If I could eliminate terrorism by killing none of the terrorists, I would do it.
If I could eliminate terrorism by killing some of the terrorists and leaving others alone, I would do it.

(Thank you, Abraham Lincoln.)
.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama is dead - first reaction

.
It may be that this is an opportunity to get out of Afghanistan. The theme being:
We came over here because this guy attacked us and your previous government was protecting him.
You've got a new government now and we got the guy.
We're leaving now.
We tried to do minimum damage to your country this time.
Don't make us come back over here again.
.