• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Here's a story I don't quite understand.

Whitewing

Well-known member
US blocks 350 suspected terrorists

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_re_us/us_airline_security

The U.S. government has prevented more than 350 people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups from boarding U.S.-bound commercial flights since the end of 2009, The Associated Press has learned.

The tighter security rules — imposed after the attempted bombing of an airliner on Christmas 2009 — reveal a security threat that persisted for more than seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

======================

Now, here's the part I don't understand, and I'm assuming that we're serious about the fight against terrorism....protecting America, etc.

Well, the Obama administration has already made it clear that despite its campaign rhetoric, like the Bush Admin before it, it has no problem holding indefinitely suspected terrorists or individuals with ties to terrorist organizations. Forget about all the whining about habeus corpus, military trials, etc....Obama is Bush Light in this instance and I'm fine with that.

Here's the rub. We spend millions looking for these guys, the terrorists, so we can stop them. We spend millions more installing airport security to prevent these guys from getting on planes with weapons. We spend millions more putting armed federal marshals on flights, both domestic and international. We spend millions more supporting governments around the world who are supposed to support us in the fight on terrorism.

If the airline passengers on the other end are suspected of terrorism, or having ties to terrorist organizations, why not search them from azzhole to appetite when they board the plane, put an armed federal marshal in the seat behind them, fly them to America, "greet" them at the airport, arrest them if there's sufficient evidence to hold them, and if there's not sufficient evidence to hold them, send them back on the next flight whence they came?

After all, they want to fly into our welcoming arms....they even pay to get here. A gift, so-to-speak.

Just random thoughts on my part.
 

Steve

Well-known member
WASHINGTON, April 11 (UPI) -- The CIA has all-but ended its interrogation role abroad,

"The CIA is out of the detention and interrogation business," a U.S. official familiar with intelligence operations told the Los Angeles Times.

"The tangled mess of legal and policy issues surrounding detention right now makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to gain complete access for questioning," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

seems that no one in the Obama administration wants to detain, let alone question any one labeled as a terrorist..

:shock: :?

"the fire burns out of control, and these guys put padlocks on the fire hydrants"..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If the numbers that are being reported are accurate, then in my opinion, they are missing the opportunity for a whole bunch of intelligence gathering.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
If the numbers that are being reported are accurate, then in my opinion, they are missing the opportunity for a whole bunch of intelligence gathering.

what good is detaining them if everyone is afraid to interrogate them?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
If the numbers that are being reported are accurate, then in my opinion, they are missing the opportunity for a whole bunch of intelligence gathering.

what good is detaining them if everyone is afraid to interrogate them?

I'm beginning to become disillusioned. I'm not sure we're really serious about this war on terror.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
To hell with interrogating them. If the powers that be would start leaving dead bodies layin' around and the terrorists have nothing to show for it maybe they would wise up. If that don't work, start destroying the infrastructure of the host countries. Maybe if they are unable to produce oil they will wise up. If that don't work then kill'em all and let god sort'em out. We are in a war and these people have already proven that they are more than willing to bring the terrorism to our shores. Quit pussyfootin' around and do something.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
If the numbers that are being reported are accurate, then in my opinion, they are missing the opportunity for a whole bunch of intelligence gathering.

what good is detaining them if everyone is afraid to interrogate them?

I'm beginning to become disillusioned. I'm not sure we're really serious about this war on terror.

disillusioned?? why, we have made great progress on our wars against things..


the war on poverty

the war on drugs

and now the defunct war on terror

surrender is not an option.. we just need to allocate more money and resources towards them and we can WIN the Future..

no Win doesn't mean Whip inflation Now, that was another defunct almost war. ( but we may have to ramp it up again as it looks like Inflation is rearing it's insidious head again. )
 

Steve

Well-known member
BAR BAR 2 said:
To hell with interrogating them. If the powers that be would start leaving dead bodies layin' around and the terrorists have nothing to show for it maybe they would wise up. If that don't work, start destroying the infrastructure of the host countries. Maybe if they are unable to produce oil they will wise up. If that don't work then kill'em all and let god sort'em out. We are in a war and these people have already proven that they are more than willing to bring the terrorism to our shores. Quit pussyfootin' around and do something.

so far our policy has been to give boatloads of money..

if we just cut off the money to radical nations it would be a good start...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That may work Steve, but I'm past the point of "nicey nice" and poltical correctness. We've had weak leaders and policies for too long. Blow their oilfields to hell and gone and put those people back to wandering around the sand trailing a bunch of goats. We didn't have any problems from over there until they got filthy rich off of the rest of us. If someone else like Chavez says he don't like it tell him that he's next. These little pissant countries need to have a relationship with the US like most of us did with our dad. We did what was right or dad would show us the error of our ways. We whipped Britain, now their our ally. We whipped Japan, now they are our ally. We whipped Germany, now they are our ally. We dinked around in Korea and Viet Nam, accomplished nothing really, and still have problems. We've dinked around in the wars we are now in and nothing has really changed. The terrorists are still there and still devising ways to hurt us. We've got the manpower, equipment and technology and we can't whip a bunch of goatherders living in caves? That's horsesh*t.
 

katrina

Well-known member
BAR BAR 2 said:
That may work Steve, but I'm past the point of "nicey nice" and poltical correctness. We've had weak leaders and policies for too long. Blow their oilfields to hell and gone and put those people back to wandering around the sand trailing a bunch of goats. We didn't have any problems from over there until they got filthy rich off of the rest of us. If someone else like Chavez says he don't like it tell him that he's next. These little pissant countries need to have a relationship with the US like most of us did with our dad. We did what was right or dad would show us the error of our ways. We whipped Britain, now their our ally. We whipped Japan, now they are our ally. We whipped Germany, now they are our ally. We dinked around in Korea and Viet Nam, accomplished nothing really, and still have problems. We've dinked around in the wars we are now in and nothing has really changed. The terrorists are still there and still devising ways to hurt us. We've got the manpower, equipment and technology and we can't whip a bunch of goatherders living in caves? That's horsesh*t.


:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I'm with you BAR BAR2.

What we have is a president and too many in Congress who favor the wrong country(ies).

When I think of the men and women we have lost....well, it's best
I don't think about it. We have wayyy too many thugs in this country,
because, they don't go to fight wars, the cream of the crop do.
:cry2:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
I'm with you BAR BAR2.

What we have is a president and too many in Congress who favor the wrong country(ies).

When I think of the men and women we have lost....well, it's best
I don't think about it. We have wayyy too many thugs in this country,
because, they don't go to fight wars, the cream of the crop do.
:cry2:

we have too many in congress that favor the companies that make money by the Billions supplying these "wars"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FH, a person can't blame this president anymore than he can blame any other president since the end of WW II. If a person really thinks about it, that was the last time that we went in with an objective and actually accomplished what we intended to do. And yes lonecowboy, war has became a big business. You can thank that sleazy SOB L.B.J. For that. Just look at who his wife was and what all she owned. Now look at who is still supplying the US in our war efforts.

I think a couple of the root causes for our current situation are too much time and too much expendable income. After WWII this country started a big population growth as well as seeing an increase in income. People don't have to work near as hard and yet take home more than ever. There has been ups and downs, but peoples living situations have steadily improved since the late 40's and early 50's. With all of this extra income people have bought time and comfort. How many people still change their own oil? How many people still eat breakfast and supper at home and pack a lunch for work? I know most on this site can probably be excluded from the previous questions, but that is the exception, not the rule. Since the end of WWII there has been a great exodus frm the farms and ranches to more urban areas and the easier more predictable jobs and lifestyles. The thing is though, whether you are on the ranch or in the city, people still want to do something that they think will count for something. Farmers and ranchers know that they are doing something important everyday. They are feeding the world in whatever conditions Mother Nature can throw at them. They aren't worried about political correctness and trying to be everyones friend. On the other hand, urban dwellers very rarely get to see the end results or positive impacts of their work. This is the reason you see so many of them joining up for this cause or that cause. They want to feel that they contributed. They have extra money. They have extra time and they want to feel that they made a difference. For some if the war ends and the troops come home, they can beat their chests and say they had a hand in it. For others, if they can make sure that a chicken doesn't have to live in a cage, they can pat themselves on the back. It all boils down to people not having enough in their own home to worry about.
 

Steve

Well-known member
It all boils down to people not having enough in their own home to worry about.

I agree with you,..

if a person is busy and getting by, they don't have time for the crap that goes on in the world..

when they get comfortable, they start getting concerned.. sometimes they go over board..

it is with idleness that the real problems exist.. the rich seem to want to stick their nose in everything..

and the poor or out of work, are just unhappy enough to be drug along by the idle rich.

and that is why we have .. liberals, unions, democrats, minorities.. and Hollywood...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Several Taliban detainees who had been captured in February after being observed placing bombs in the culverts of roads used by civilians and military convoys near Kandahar were fed, given medical treatment, then released by American troops frustrated by a policy they say is forcing them to kick loose enemies who are trying to kill them.

Despite what American soldiers say was a mountain of evidence, which included a video of the men planting the bomb and chemical traces found on their hands, there was nothing the soldiers who had captured them could do but feed and care for them for 96 hours and then set them free

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2011/04/afghan-rules-engagement-force-us-soldiers-free-insurgents-caught-red-handed
 
Top