Failed terrorist attack in Detroit

[lostfan]

I'd much rather have that than nothing at all. The fact is the terrorists don't do anything abnormal. You're never going to get a tip that says "there's a group of middle eastern men hiding bombs in their shirts heading towards an airport." Also, more than anything, those tips help put together what happened/how it happened after the fact.

Yeah I totally agree, like I said, you can't exactly tell them not to report stuff, you just thank them and move on. A lot of times it ends up being useless information but that's why we have analysts.

[lostfan]

Here's the bottom line, IMO.

 

To say that Obama is personally responsible makes about as much sense as saying Bush was personally responsible for 9/11. Obama is not responsible for this.

 

With that said, to want to make nice and want to "reach out" and be "friends" with these assholes is a mistake in policy. An appeasement policy doesn't, hasn't, and will never work, and Obama's policies are more closely to that side then where we were. While his administration's policies don't DIRECTLY correlate to these sorts of attacks, indirectly they do because you can't handle this as a "police matter" or "as it happens", you have to screw over these assholes and put them in their graves before they do any of us, no matter how ugly this may seem to the bleeding hearts.

Who are we being nice to? Al-Qaida? Dude, no. Never. Perpetual warfare is a self-fulflilling prophecy (what do you think dominates al-Jazeera coverage, it's either Gaza or crying widows in Iraq or Afghanistan). There are ways of going after terrorist cells overseas without mobilizing multiple divisions and occupying random countries for decades at a time, I won't even get into moral reasons or why that makes terrorist networks grow rather than shrink, because it's just not practical or economically viable. The actual goal of any counterterrorist policy is to REDUCE the threat of terrorism, not to inadvertently make it worse. One of the unintended consequences of Iraq was to create the third wave of global jihad, the effects of which we really haven't totally seen yet).

 

I think everybody is confusing Obama's low-key approach (hyping it up plays into their hands actually, it's something they hope and expect us to do) with not treating it as a priority. We're never going to defeat it with straight-up military force, that concept is just absurd on its face.

[kapkomet]

Who are we being nice to? Al-Qaida? Dude, no. Never. Perpetual warfare is a self-fulflilling prophecy (what do you think dominates al-Jazeera coverage, it's either Gaza or crying widows in Iraq or Afghanistan). There are ways of going after terrorist cells overseas without mobilizing multiple divisions and occupying random countries for decades at a time, I won't even get into moral reasons or why that makes terrorist networks grow rather than shrink, because it's just not practical or economically viable. The actual goal of any counterterrorist policy is to REDUCE the threat of terrorism, not to inadvertently make it worse. One of the unintended consequences of Iraq was to create the third wave of global jihad, the effects of which we really haven't totally seen yet).

 

I think everybody is confusing Obama's low-key approach (hyping it up plays into their hands actually, it's something they hope and expect us to do) with not treating it as a priority. We're never going to defeat it with straight-up military force, that concept is just absurd on its face.

 

That's not necessarily what I mean. However, if we were to do what it takes to really win any war now - Americans on the face do not have the stomach for real war anymore. Even the commando style small force type of stuff that would be pretty bloody. They just don't, and they never will, after Vietnam.

[Balta1701]

That's not necessarily what I mean. However, if we were to do what it takes to really win any war now - Americans on the face do not have the stomach for real war anymore. Even the commando style small force type of stuff that would be pretty bloody. They just don't, and they never will, after Vietnam.

Who should we be invading, and why should I think that it would work better than the last 2 terrorist fighting total failure invasions?

 

Should we be invading Yemen and murdering clerics?

[kapkomet]

Who should we be invading, and why should I think that it would work better than the last 2 terrorist fighting total failure invasions?

 

Should we be invading Yemen and murdering clerics?

 

 

No, we should just bow to them, sing kumbayah, and toast their efforts. After all, everything they do we caused it.

[Balta1701]

No, we should just bow to them, sing kumbayah, and toast their efforts. After all, everything they do we caused it.

In all seriousness, you're advocating millitary action, again. Who is your target? I genuinely have no idea who you could go after militarily for this. It seems like the problem in these last few months is religious leaders in Yemen, which is why I suggested that. What other enemy are you targeting?

[Rex Kickass]

No, we should just bow to them, sing kumbayah, and toast their efforts. After all, everything they do we caused it.

 

You are aware that this administration is much more hawk and far less dove than most people realize, right? Just because we don't thump our chests and scream it doesn't it make it less effective.

[Chet Lemon]

No, we should just bow to them, sing kumbayah, and toast their efforts. After all, everything they do we caused it.

 

Agreed. Obamaamamaobama annointed one is the bowing/singing wimp. We need real action like this:

 

[LittleHurt05]

For all this talk about airport security/screening & what not, I say we should just follow the same procedures El Al Airlines uses.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#El_Al_security

[Cknolls]

isolated extremist, yeah o.k.: SOLD!!!!!!

 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...ooters_cler.asp

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

In all seriousness, you're advocating millitary action, again. Who is your target? I genuinely have no idea who you could go after militarily for this. It seems like the problem in these last few months is religious leaders in Yemen, which is why I suggested that. What other enemy are you targeting?

 

If I were in charge I'd be increasing the intelligence budget to follow each and every cell known to exist. Once I get information about a potential terrorist leader, I find every one of his family members and make it known that I know who they are, what they do everyday, and at the drop of the hat I could get rid of them. People don't mind if you come after them, but when you bring in their family it's a much different situation. Who was the guy in South America (i think) that was all ballsy against the US and we got rid of his son and we haven't heard from him since? Why can't we use that tactic?

 

I agree that an all out war is worthless, but at the same time we shouldn't just be sitting back, playing nice with governments in hopes that the "people" will somehow view us as the nice guy and the terrorists as the bad guys. That's never going to happen. Create a system whereby retaliation is imminent and maybe some of the younger guys would think twice about joining up with the crazies.

[lostfan]

That's not necessarily what I mean. However, if we were to do what it takes to really win any war now - Americans on the face do not have the stomach for real war anymore. Even the commando style small force type of stuff that would be pretty bloody. They just don't, and they never will, after Vietnam.

Yeah, we're not talking state-on-state conflict like that though. Strategically that's just not sustainable.

[lostfan]

If I were in charge I'd be increasing the intelligence budget to follow each and every cell known to exist. Once I get information about a potential terrorist leader, I find every one of his family members and make it known that I know who they are, what they do everyday, and at the drop of the hat I could get rid of them. People don't mind if you come after them, but when you bring in their family it's a much different situation. Who was the guy in South America (i think) that was all ballsy against the US and we got rid of his son and we haven't heard from him since? Why can't we use that tactic?

 

I agree that an all out war is worthless, but at the same time we shouldn't just be sitting back, playing nice with governments in hopes that the "people" will somehow view us as the nice guy and the terrorists as the bad guys. That's never going to happen. Create a system whereby retaliation is imminent and maybe some of the younger guys would think twice about joining up with the crazies.

What the current administration (and the previous admin. for that matter) is doing is a lot closer to this than a lot of people realize, it's just not a high-profile thing. Like Rex said, for as much as people say Obama is a bleeding heart liberal, he's pretty hawkish. Which is what made the Nobel Peace Prize so awkward.

[Rex Kickass]

What the current administration (and the previous admin. for that matter) is doing is a lot closer to this than a lot of people realize, it's just not a high-profile thing. Like Rex said, for as much as people say Obama is a bleeding heart liberal, he's pretty hawkish. Which is what made the Nobel Peace Prize so awkward.

 

Obama's Nobel Prize speech by the way is an amazing piece of writing.

[kapkomet]

Obama's Nobel Prize speech by the way is an amazing piece of writing.

 

 

Funny what he said isn't much different then what Bush said. That's the only time he's come across more like a "hawk" that you all make him out to be.

[lostfan]

It was a pretty consistent message from a U.S. president to the world. American foreign policy doesn't change that much from administration to administration.

[lostfan]

btw Kap did you choose to completely ignore anything Obama's said on Afghanistan, or things he's done in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.? You act like he is all apologies and concessions and hasn't ever taken any aggressive actions and he just chose a bunch of weak counterterrorism policies. In reality he hasn't changed that much, just put it in a sleeker marketing package.

[BigSqwert]

And in other news terrorism still the cause of less deaths than salmonella and swine flu.

 

 

Lets keep flaming the fire of irrational fear.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, we're not talking state-on-state conflict like that though. Strategically that's just not sustainable.

 

People are trying to solve 21st century problems with 20th century ideas of massive warfare. We could "do what it takes" to "win a war" in Iraq or Afghanistan but that isn't going to solve a single problem and will likely, as you've already pointed out, make matters worse.

[kapkomet]

People are trying to solve 21st century problems with 20th century ideas of massive warfare. We could "do what it takes" to "win a war" in Iraq or Afghanistan but that isn't going to solve a single problem and will likely, as you've already pointed out, make matters worse.

 

 

No, "we're" not. But, Americans don't want to fight a real war, because a real war is ugly. We want this pretty, machine driven, no deaths type of warfare, which frankly is not reality. But as long as we can keep the appearances up of fighting half assed to satisfy the political aspects of war, it's all "ok". War is a terribly ugly business.

 

I haven't advocated "massive warfare" at all against this enemy. You have to have surgical strikes with small elements of special forces to be effective. But, they need to go and wipe out the enemy areas in total. You can't just go in and hope for the best "political" outcome.

[StrangeSox]

What comprises enemy areas?

 

By wipe them out in total, do you mean eliminate all life?

 

How do you think this will actually make things better?

[Jenksismyhero]

And in other news terrorism still the cause of less deaths than salmonella and swine flu.

 

 

Lets keep flaming the fire of irrational fear.

 

Apples to oranges. Less than 10k Americans have died in Iraq/Ahfganistan. Does that mean it's not a big deal?

[BigSqwert]

Apples to oranges. Less than 10k Americans have died in Iraq/Ahfganistan. Does that mean it's not a big deal?

The amount of money and resources to prevent terrorism seems seems out of whack. Why don't we just completely destroy our economy so that we might save 100 more live in the next decade.

[kapkomet]

The amount of money and resources to prevent terrorism seems seems out of whack. Why don't we just completely destroy our economy so that we might save 100 more live in the next decade.

 

 

If you're not careful, I think you might become a Ron Paulite.

[Jenksismyhero]

The amount of money and resources to prevent terrorism seems seems out of whack. Why don't we just completely destroy our economy so that we might save 100 more live in the next decade.

 

Ditto universal healthcare, welfare, war on drugs, war on poverty, guns, etc.