Posted on 09/15/2001 10:07:46 AM PDT by xzins
1. This is an open-ended question posed to a group with significant experience and capability....the Freeper population.
2. The objective has been stated by the President: vanquish those who perpetrated the 11 Sep attack and all who aid and/or harbor them. (Feel free to use your own wording of what the president has expressed.)
3. At a minimum I'd think you'd need: (a) an implementation strategy and (b) an exit strategy.
;-)
Never thought of the IRS as an international weapon before. Lol.
It's too bad about the Kurds-but I think we should give Iraq back to the Turks..
Your Opinion/Questions Editorial Published: 9/15/01 Author: Joe Hadenuf Posted on 09/15/2001 11:09:43 PDT
When are we going to wake up to the fact that this massive criminal illegal alien invasion must stop. How many more terrorist are here among us? We have allowed this to happen and it’s now time to end the free for all at our borders.
The very lives of our families and loved ones depend on this security of our borders. This is no longer business as usual. We need to change they way we look at people that gain entry to our nation illegally. As it is now, Sadam himself could enter our country with little or no effort.
Our Borders have been bleeding for years and have become a national disgrace. Estimates range between 10 million and 20 million illegal aliens that are now in our nation. And they are not all Mexicans.
We are now finding out that some of these terrorist involved with this murderous acts against our nation entered our country illegally. We need a massive crackdown on people that enter our nation illegally. We need to protect our country. We need to regain control of all of our borders.
Please realize that as I write this, a small team of terrorist with weapons of mass destruction could be entering this nation illegally, right now. They could already be here illegally, waiting, planning. With 10 to 20 million criminal illegal aliens already in country, how many of them are here with agendas of death.
It’s Time To Make It As Difficult to Enter This Country As It Now Is To Board An Airliner
Joe Hadenuf
If Osama and his Afghan hosts make their defense plans based on what gets posted around here, out boys will be able to waltz in and get him. They'll be too busy waiting for us to nuke Mecca.
Like you, I believe that Iraq is the major player.
Also, however, I'm convinced that Syria and Iran are very involved. I'm extremely suspicious of Saudi and Egypt. Most of the terrorists who blew up WTC and 5gon were Saudi and Egyptian. Osama is Saudi.
#1. Intellegence. Lots of it. Bug the homes of any and all suspected terrorists anywhere in the world, including the USA.
#2. Profile those would be terrorists and create a large database and track all their movements, conversations, connections, etc. Of course we would have their houses bugged and have people working inside of their communities. It would be extensive intelligence.
#3. If a terrorist plot is uncovered, make that gentleman disappear.
Have a nice stately 50 year old gentleman go to the front door at 3a.m. and pump him full of bullets. Of course we could come up with many creative ways to eliminate those who make threats. Just making a terrorist threat would be reason enough for deadly force. Those terrorist organizations, all of them, would be targets. Participation in WTC would not be a requirement.
Take the body and wrap it up in chains and dump it 5 miles off shore.
If anyone asks, deny everything.
Of course there should also be increased airport security, etc etc.
-Rebuild our intelligence agencies. This will take years. They need to re-establish human assets. This will take years.
-Hire the Mossad for their expertise. They know the players far better than do we.
-Abolish silly EO's and laws against "assassination". Give the CIA and NSA carte blanche to operate against any terrorist in foreign countries.
-Rebuild the military. Remember that we have a "DEFENSE" department, whose primary aim is what they are now pleased to call "Homeland" defense. I read in the paper today that the U.S. has only 60 (sixty) fighters assigned to domestic airspace protection. This is an outrage.
-Slowly, and with precision, begin to take out the terrorist organizations, working from the top down. Mercilessly. Methodically. Again: consult the Israelis, who used to have the guts to do this.
-Prepare for more domestic terror. This will come in the form of CBW and mini-nukes.
-Round up and deport all arabs who are non-citizens. Accept NO reason as valid other than citizenship. Green card, student visas--revoke them all.
-Seal the borders. Allow no more Arab nationals to enter--for any reason.
That would be a start.
--Boris
IMO I think you have hit it on the nose. And even if we are wrong ... so what take that slime ball out first ... if only for a warm-up.
Then we pick that up and cross reference that to our database.
If he is already on the list as to being an associate of terrorists, then WHACK.
Sleep with the fishes.
Check out #47, #48, and #52
First define the enemy. There are three.
1) Radical islamic terrorists. This does not mean all Muslims are terrorists.
2) Sovereign governments Active--Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and whatever others exist.
3) Sovereign governments Passive--Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc.
Active state sponsors of terrorism provide significant and direct logistical and financial support to terrorists; passive state sponsors primarily provide safe harbor, though behind the scenes there may be significant direct support.
Axiom: Terrorists who can attack the United States as happened this week are by definition state supported terrorists.
Corollary 1: Terrorists cannot be defeated without attacking the state sponsor. There is no difference between the terrorist or the state who supports terrorists.
Corollary 2: Active state sponsors of terrorists have by defininition a government riddled with political and bureaucratic supporters of terrorists. Therefore, punitive measures directed against such governments will by necessity be less selective.
Corollary 3: Passive state sponsors of terrorism probably have many government bureaucrats and officials who are less sympathetic to terrorist support and who may be motivated, given the right conditions, to assume leadership roles in their governments opposing terrorism.
More selective measures should be taken against passive state sponsors so as not to alienate and in fact so as to help possible allies rise to positions of prominence in their government as terrorist supporters are eliminated.
Now, we have entered a new phase of this campaign against terrorism. It is no longer a campaign. It is a war. The terrorism we are fighting is multinational and paramilitary, not national and military. In other words a war against terrorists who are actively and passively supported by a state multinational coalition. Call it "TATO" (Terrorist Alliance Treaty Organization)
The United States campaign against terrorism has, until now, failed because we have treated terrorists as rather isolated entities and have failed to target the government officials who support terrorism. I say this again. In a liberal's mind, a government is a bureaucrat is a politician is good. Liberals hate to hold failures and criminals responsible for their action, but most of all they hate to hold governments responsible for their failures and criminal actions.
Liberals would sooner hit a goatherder's camp who sold terrorists goat cheese with 150 million dollars of cruise missiles before they would target a government minister in Afghanistan who was known to create fictitious accounts and passports to help terrorists. Think of it as professional courtesy among statists.
To a liberal, government is good. Being against government and its minions is bad, no matter whose government it is. Hell, look at what liberal's did in THIS country to protect the government and its minions at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Maybe the foot soldiers of terrorism are liable to cruise missiles, but the government enablers have largely sat by unscathed and in fact profiting from their involvement, secure in the knowledge that up until now, we wouldn't touch them. Therefore, the single most significant change that has to take place in our strategy in fighting terrorists is to carry the fight to both multinational terrorists and to their active and passive multinational government supporters...by this I mean targeting those individuals in those governments who support terrorism, not primarily the government itself.
The executive order on assassination should be changed to reflect the following. We should not be in the business of overthrowing governments or assassinating politicians whose views are at odds with ours. However, in international law, our Bill of Rights should not be the standard by which we take action in other countries. (I would prefer that this order be preceeded by a clause that states any country which Congress has declared war upon will be subject to this order, but our Congress is so gutless I doubt they would declare war on any country anymore.)
"In addition to terrorists, The United States will take all necessary means of retribution up to and including the use of lethal military force against any foreign government leader, official, bureaucrat or citizen who has been identified as actively or passively supporting the planning, support or commission of acts of violence against our country. This order will serve as sole notification of this policy to all concerned."
Governments who support terrorism should be given a chance and asked one question.
Are you for us or against us?
If the answer is no, they should be told that we will use all means to identify and eliminate terrorists and their support structure in that country, including those government agents who aid them. We should make it clear to those governments and their people we will not be indiscriminate, and our quarrel is with the uncivilized elements in their midst.
We announce with great fanfare and publicity that we will not attack government officials who are not involved in supporting terrorist activities, but as far as we are concerned a terrorist is a government bureaucrat is a citizen who supports terrorism and will be dealt with the same way. Between us and the Mossad, we know who is supporting terrorists.
We should not declare unrestricted war on these countries and their populations. It must be clear who and what our fight is with. In this way we have a chance to not alienate whole countries, or turn this war from a war against paramilitary terrorists into a war against states and their active military forces.
Finally, this will require ground troups. The days of having an isolated war from above in this fight are over. Whether single individuals are given targets, or small forces to hit and take out targets quickly, this will require putting people at risk on the ground for a limited time to achieve specific goals. Trying to invade and occupy a territory like we did in Haiti is not the model here.
when pigs fly!
I'd hate to bring him here for trial. Aren't beheadings legal out there?
The Ottomans were on the wrong side in WWI, but it's definitely time to forgive them. I agree with you 100%.
I laughed out loud. Thanks.
Isn't Sean Connery more like 60 years old? :-)
I do agree, though, that we should make an example to send a message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.