What is the republican plan for fighting terrorism?

[DemandCurve]

I already know their strategy on the Iraq war...but I want to know about the war on terror? What is the long term plan to keep america safe?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Pretty much everything that you liberals oppose.

Again, most of you:

(1) don't want to use terrorist profiling as a last resort to keep terrorists off our planes and from sneaking into this country

(2) don't want the National Security Agency to wiretap efficiently and with out all the beauracratic nonsense that caused 9/11 in the first place

(3) don't like the PATRIOT Act

(4) don't like us fighting al Qaeda cells in Iraq

(5) don't like us detaining al Qaeda fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Instead of just bashing every policy and piece of legislation the Republicans and President Bush pass to keep this country safe, why don't you propose some plans of your own?

I have outlined what the Republicans and other patriotic, visionary Americans want to do to combat terrorism and you don't seem to like it. So I'll throw the question back at you -- what should we do to confront terrorism?

 

[flaja]

Use the PATRIOT Act to put every American behind bars where the terrorists cannot get to them?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I like how you avoided my entire post, in essence, confirming what I already know: that I'm right.

No, we shouldn't use the PATRIOT Act to put every American in jail? What the hell are you trying to get at with this?

 

[flaja]

I like how you avoided my entire post, in essence, confirming what I already know: that I'm right.

No, we shouldn't use the PATRIOT Act to put every American in jail? What the hell are you trying to get at with this?

Somebody certainly has a high and mighty opinion of himself, considering I did not read their post and thus was not responding to it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

http://usmcshop.grunt.com/Grunt/pro...alse&mscssid=6ADF1A174E6E4D88A85628ED1FC475A7

 

[Archangelwolf]

(1) You don't want to use terrorist profiling as a last resort to keep terrorists off our planes and from sneaking into this country

We do not need profiling. The technology is there to know the identity of every person that gets on a plane; or get it if someone is about to get on a plane that is unidentified. We have the capability to do it. I pity those Americans that claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Privacy has slowly been eroding away with the Technological Revolution of the 20th/21st Centuries. I do not believe the government has a right to legislate morality/religion; but in the case of national security, they should have a right to know who you are.

(2) don't want the National Security Agency to wiretap efficiently and with out all the beauracratic nonsense that caused 9/11 in the first place.

There was a special secret court created for this purpose. Our government had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to bypass it, period. The bureaucracy, while not non-existent, has been improved; with the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and so forth being put under one umbrella. Could it still be improved? Absolutely! One thing people do not realize is that Homeland Security, and the NSA, were brainchilds of Democratic members of Congress; and was in fact rejected by Bush's administration at first. Then, they conveniently brought it back up after everyone forgot about it; and made it their own. Things that make you go......hmmmm.

(3) don't like the PATRIOT Act.

The only part of the Patriot Act that I am concerned about is the part addressing the Federal Reserve. What many people do not know is that the Federal Reserve is a private bank; not a government bank. It is kind of like Federal Express. So, my problem is that the Federal Reserve Bank should not have special security privileges if other private banks do not. In fact, the very idea that the Federal Reserve prints our money is unconstitutional. But hey, that is just a "damn piece of paper," right?

(4) don't like us fighting al Qaeda cells in Iraq.

We are not fighting al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. We are fighting Iraqi cells in Iraq, that are also fighting each other over different interpretations of Islam. Besides that, the al-Qaeda factions in Afghanistan are rebuilding because we are not fighting the bulk of them anymore.

(5) don't like us detaining al Qaeda fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I do not have a problem with us DETAINING them. I have a problem with us TORTURING them. If someone were to torture me, I would tell them what they wanted so as to get out of the torture, even if I did not have a clue what they were talking about. These terrorists are not stupid (reference coordination of 9/11).

What I believe, and I see some semblance of this finally surfacing in the Democratic Party, is that we should have abandoned Baghdad after the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein. That was our victory; that he was gone. At that time, we should have occupied the BORDERS of Iraq in controlling who enters and exits; and leave the development of a new government to the Iraqi people. We could have advised and monitored the creation of this government so as to strongly discourage it being sympathetic with Al-Qaeda; but the use of combat troops within the city should be the sole responsibility of the new government. Our troops should have laid seige to Iraq; so that we could control the influx of those that might potentially be threats to the US.

This would, in effect, freed up more troops to begin re-occupying Afghanistan; and would have prevented the rebuilding of Al-Qaeda there. This would also allow our forces to begin hunting down those responsible for the 9/11 attacks worldwide; and also hold those nations that harbor them accountable.

Instead, we have over-expanded our military to the point that top Generals have threatened to resign if we invade Iran; and we are more vulnerable to attack that ever before.

The experiment in Iraq is over. Our troops are not "guinea pigs." It is an insult to the station of our men and women in uniform that we require them to serve our country based on "theories of success." Hussein is gone. Bring the troops home.

Arch.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

We do not need profiling. The technology is there to know the identity of every person that gets on a plane; or get it if someone is about to get on a plane that is unidentified. We have the capability to do it. I pity those Americans that claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Privacy has slowly been eroding away with the Technological Revolution of the 20th/21st Centuries. I do not believe the government has a right to legislate morality/religion; but in the case of national security, they should have a right to know who you are.

Profiling can't hurt. It's a last resort should the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Dept. Homeland Sec. fail in preventing the terrorists from arriving at the airport. The way I see it, we have three choices in regards to airport security:

(1) check nobody -- in a post-9/11 world this just isn't an option
(2) check everybody -- cost would be prohibitive and delays would put airlines out of business
(3) use historical data, experience, and evidence to compile a stereotype, a profile, of the people most likely to hijack planes -- in other words, experts establish rational profiling criteria so we can concentrate our efforts on the categories of passengers likely to be dangerous.

There was a special secret court created for this purpose. Our government had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to bypass it, period.

And it was this special secret court denying warrants that potentially led to 9/11. The President was using his CinC powers granted to him by Congress.

We are not fighting al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. We are fighting Iraqi cells in Iraq, that are also fighting each other over different interpretations of Islam. Besides that, the al-Qaeda factions in Afghanistan are rebuilding because we are not fighting the bulk of them anymore.

Oh you're right, those black flags with a yellow dot and Arabic writing on them aren't al Qaeda flags. The caches of intel and weapons that we find with al Qaeda's name literally inscribed onto it aren't from al Qaeda cells. Abu Nidal, al Zarqawi, and al Zawhiri, probably the three most important day-to-day al Qaeda operatives aren't stationed in Iraq.

And might I ask you, Mr. Archangel, how the hell you would know who is shooting at me?

(5) don't like us detaining al Qaeda fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I do not have a problem with us DETAINING them. I have a problem with us TORTURING them. If someone were to torture me, I would tell them what they wanted so as to get out of the torture, even if I did not have a clue what they were talking about. These terrorists are not stupid (reference coordination of 9/11).

Then the question of "what is torture" arises. I do not support torture of any kind -- breaking legs, chopping off fingers -- basically everything that the Islamic terrorists do when they get one of our guys. But I do support coerced interrogation -- sleep depravation, water boarding, loud noises. It works, and it's proven to work. I read this article that listen dozens of terrorists who submitted true and helpful information after just a few seconds of waterboarding.

 

[palerider]

Use the PATRIOT Act to put every American behind bars where the terrorists cannot get to them?

Before you start suggesting that the republicans are going to imprison Americans you should consider that the only time Americans have had their property seized and been imprisoned as a result of war, it was a democrat who did it.

 

[palerider]

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). And, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to see that this is true.

We had traded our liberty for the illusion of safety, a little at a time, long before the patriot act.

By way of proof, I would challenge you to name 3 things that you could do, prior to the patriot act, with no involvement or interference from government at either the federal, state, or local level.

Do try to avoid naming the most mundane aspects of your life. One fellow answered this challenge by stating proudly that he could take a pee sitting or standing. So speaketh the free man!!! Sadly he was unaware that a plethora of laws were in place to tell him where he could legally pee and had established the design and function of the receptical of said pee.

 

[palerider]

Our rights are defined by the law, in the absence of which we have none.

Our rights are granted us by our creator. They are merely protected, or not protected by law. That is the principle upon which this nation was established.

 

[saggyjones]

Pretty much everything that you liberals oppose.

Again, most of you:]

I definitely don't fit this mold, but I can't speak for others.

(1) don't want to use terrorist profiling as a last resort to keep terrorists off our planes and from sneaking into this country

I support checking every single Arab who walks onto a plane, because they're the most suspect to terrorism. I don't give a **** about being politically correct in this case.

(2) don't want the National Security Agency to wiretap efficiently and with out all the beauracratic nonsense that caused 9/11 in the first place

Bureaucratic nonsense caused 9/11? I thought it was some pissed off Muslims...

(3) don't like the PATRIOT Act

Wow, you're influenced by the name? I have to admit that's pretty stupid. (If that's not the reason you capitalized 'Patriot' I apologize and admit I am pretty stupid).

The reason I don't like the Patriot Act is because it doesn't do anything. If someone is really that dumb that they actually use the words "bomb" and "plane" and "white devil" in a phone call while planning a terrorist attack I don't think they have the brains to hijack a plane. I don't want the government invading my privacy, and I don't need to justify that because it's part of the Constitution. If you can show me a time when this wiretapping has worked please do, and I probably will change my mind.

(4) don't like us fighting al Qaeda cells in Iraq

I support that, like I have said.

(5) don't like us detaining al Qaeda fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I don't mind detaining, but I don't like to see anyone tortured, no matter how bad a person they are, because it's stooping to their level, and possible below.

Instead of just bashing every policy and piece of legislation the Republicans and President Bush pass to keep this country safe, why don't you propose some plans of your own?

OK. We need to stop fighting the Shiite and Sunni insurgents in Iraq and focus on terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. I've said this before as I'm sure you remember.

I have outlined what the Republicans and other patriotic, visionary Americans want to do to combat terrorism and you don't seem to like it. So I'll throw the question back at you -- what should we do to confront terrorism?

You really didn't outline anything. You just attacked liberals again.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Bureaucratic nonsense caused 9/11? I thought it was some pissed off Muslims...

You're right, it wasn't the bureaucratic nonsense that caused 9/11, but allowed the Muslims to carry out the attacks.

Wow, you're influenced by the name? I have to admit that's pretty stupid. (If that's not the reason you capitalized 'Patriot' I apologize and admit I am pretty stupid).

I didn't just capitalize because it looked good. "Patriot" stands for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" hence the capitlization.

The reason I don't like the Patriot Act is because it doesn't do anything. If someone is really that dumb that they actually use the words "bomb" and "plane" and "white devil" in a phone call while planning a terrorist attack I don't think they have the brains to hijack a plane. I don't want the government invading my privacy, and I don't need to justify that because it's part of the Constitution. If you can show me a time when this wiretapping has worked please do, and I probably will change my mind.

You're seriously underestimating the capability of our intelligence agencies if you think all they do is look for people talking about "bomb" and "plane". Believe me, I went to school with a few guys who work in the Pentagon right now in the counterterrorism department -- these guys are legit.

An example of when wiretapping has worked would be this summer, when Britain's MI5 used wiretapping (among other devices that the liberal judges are prohibiting America from using) to capture the hijackers planning to blow up numerous planes en route to America.

I don't mind detaining, but I don't like to see anyone tortured, no matter how bad a person they are, because it's stooping to their level, and possible below.

First -- even if we did torture, it wouldn't be stooping to their level. "Their" level is slowly decapitating innocent civilians with a dull blade in front of TV cameras for propaganda purposes. Abu Gharib was certainly bad, but underwear on people's heads doesn't compare to this level of butchery.

Secondly, you are ignoring the taxpayer-funded, culturally correct meals, library books, and extensive worship, recreation, dental care, and medicine these Islamofascists enjoy. They are being treated more than well: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/charlie2.asp

Thirdly, let me be clear: I do NOT support torture (shooting knees out, cutting off fingers, etc.). I do however, believe the coerced interrogation is a humane and effective tool in interrogation. It doesn't entail any long term pain, instead just temporary discomfort.

Tough questioning, such as waterboarding or simulated drowning, makes terrorists talk. That’s how U.S. interrogators encouraged Khalid Sheik Mohammed to detail how he masterminded al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks. He then ratted out Hambali, the man behind the October 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202, and “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla.

Al-Qaeda honcho Abu Zubaida stayed quiet until interrogators stuck him in a cold room and blasted Red Hot Chili Peppers. Zubaida cried uncle and began to talk. He helped America find terrorists Ramzi bin-al-Shibh, Amar-al-Faruq, Rahim al-Nashiri, and Muhammad al Darbi.

OK. We need to stop fighting the Shiite and Sunni insurgents in Iraq and focus on terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. I've said this before as I'm sure you remember.

I apologize if I come across as condescending, but you've never been to Iraq so you can't possibly understand. (a) It's impossible when people are shooting at you to determine if they're terrorists or Shia insurgents and thus, you can't fight AQI (military acronym for "al Qaeda in Iraq") without also fighting the insurgents and stabilizing Iraq to the point where the Iraqi gov't can help combat terrorism within the Iraqi borders. (b) A large sect of AQI fights alongside the Sunni insurgents.

You really didn't outline anything. You just attacked liberals again.

What are you talking about? We were asked about the "Republican plan for fighting terrorism" and I outlined my response in 5 parts.

 

[saggyjones]

You're right, it wasn't the bureaucratic nonsense that caused 9/11, but allowed the Muslims to carry out the attacks.

The bureaucratic nonsense definitely helped them attack.

I didn't just capitalize because it looked good. "Patriot" stands for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" hence the capitlization.

I didn't know that, and like I promised, I admit I'm stupid.

You're seriously underestimating the capability of our intelligence agencies if you think all they do is look for people talking about "bomb" and "plane". Believe me, I went to school with a few guys who work in the Pentagon right now in the counterterrorism department -- these guys are legit.

An example of when wiretapping has worked would be this summer, when Britain's MI5 used wiretapping (among other devices that the liberal judges are prohibiting America from using) to capture the hijackers planning to blow up numerous planes en route to America.

Well if it's truly helping then I have no personal complaint.

First -- even if we did torture, it wouldn't be stooping to their level. "Their" level is slowly decapitating innocent civilians with a dull blade in front of TV cameras for propaganda purposes. Abu Gharib was certainly bad, but underwear on people's heads doesn't compare to this level of butchery.

In my book there are only two basic levels, those who get revenge and those who don't. I believe it's better to not take revenge because it's simply a short-lasting pleasure that IMO isn't as fulfilling as rising above any form of vengeance.

Secondly, you are ignoring the taxpayer-funded, culturally correct meals, library books, and extensive worship, recreation, dental care, and medicine these Islamofascists enjoy. They are being treated more than well: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/charlie2.asp

Good, America's hospitality is shining through. I addressed part of this above.

Thirdly, let me be clear: I do NOT support torture (shooting knees out, cutting off fingers, etc.). I do however, believe the coerced interrogation is a humane and effective tool in interrogation. It doesn't entail any long term pain, instead just temporary discomfort.

Tough questioning, such as waterboarding or simulated drowning, makes terrorists talk. That’s how U.S. interrogators encouraged Khalid Sheik Mohammed to detail how he masterminded al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks. He then ratted out Hambali, the man behind the October 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202, and “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla.

Al-Qaeda honcho Abu Zubaida stayed quiet until interrogators stuck him in a cold room and blasted Red Hot Chili Peppers. Zubaida cried uncle and began to talk. He helped America find terrorists Ramzi bin-al-Shibh, Amar-al-Faruq, Rahim al-Nashiri, and Muhammad al Darbi.

Interrogation is different from torture for non information reasons. I don't mind these cruel techniques as long as we are getting important info from it.

I apologize if I come across as condescending, but you've never been to Iraq so you can't possibly understand. (a) It's impossible when people are shooting at you to determine if they're terrorists or Shia insurgents and thus, you can't fight AQI (military acronym for "al Qaeda in Iraq") without also fighting the insurgents and stabilizing Iraq to the point where the Iraqi gov't can help combat terrorism within the Iraqi borders. (b) A large sect of AQI fights alongside the Sunni insurgents.

The problem is we never will be able to stabilize Iraq, because more insurgents are being born every day, and they're just ordinary looking people with guns. Al-Qaeda however has actual structural leadership, and we need to target the leaders rather than individual soldiers. If we pull most of our troops out of civilian parts of cities we can let the insurgents have their civil war

What are you talking about? We were asked about the "Republican plan for fighting terrorism" and I outlined my response in 5 parts.

No, you listed what liberals supposedly don't want to do.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The bureaucratic nonsense definitely helped them attack.

Like with Pearl Harbor, the bureaucratic nonsense got in the way of our intellgience agencies being able to track down/uncover these attacks.

The problem is we never will be able to stabilize Iraq, because more insurgents are being born every day...

I disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine.

and they're just ordinary looking people with guns. Al-Qaeda however has actual structural leadership, and we need to target the leaders rather than individual soldiers.

So do the insurgents.

If we pull most of our troops out of civilian parts of cities we can let the insurgents have their civil war

And let all that we have built over the last four years collapse?

No, you listed what liberals supposedly don't want to do.

Which, conversely, is exactly what conservatives want to do.