| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
It's for our own good
And it will be an Orwellian Police State, too: Thoughtcrime is already subject to ostracism and vilification, and what with the UN ready to codify it, and Obama signaling that he wants to increase the importance and influence of the UN, how long will it stay out of the U.S.?
And why is this necessary? Primarily "to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack." Of course, to call the Muslim community in America to account and compel it to stop teaching Sharia supremacism and hatred of Jews and Christians -- that would be "bigoted." Of course, to halt Muslim immigration in light of the impossibility of distinguishing peaceful Muslims from actual and potential jihadists -- that would be racist. Of course, even to institute some kind of screening of Muslims who enter the country in order to determine their adherence to Sharia principles and to make agitation for Islamic law (stonings, amputations, no free speech, no freedom of conscience, etc.) in this country grounds for deportation -- that would be "Islamophobic."
So if we can't do all that or even anything close to those things, what is left? What can we do? Why, become a Police State, with armed troops roaming the streets. After all, the next terror threat could just as easily come from the local Methodist church as from the local mosque. Better have that Wesleyan Center adequately covered.
"Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security," by Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson for the Washington Post, December 1 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said....
Posted by Robert at December 1, 2008 2:48 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Socialism is all about destroying the Nation State. The EU is doing just that. It wants to create one big country made up of all the previous countries we know now in Europe. It will then destroy language, culture and history. We will all be like Automatons.
This is what we have to look forward to and yes, I may be speaking from the UK, but the same will happen to the USA as well. The United Stated of America is now under attack from the same Marxist Socialism that is destroying the UK and most of Europe. Russia, Putin especially is rubbing his hands with glee. In his eyes the Great Bear never died, just merely went in to hibernation.
What also amazes me is that who makes up the police, the army and people who make all the changes in society? Yes, they are the children of the people who will be out on the streets protesting at their country being destroyed. One would think that they would see that they are fighting in the wrong side, but they never do change. I really pity the USA as your future looks bleak. Then again, I know what it's like as I've been part of the multicultural, socialist experiment for the last 14 years in London UK.
Posted by: Richard the Lionheart![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 1, 2008 3:32 PM
Seems like this idea runs afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, no?
Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 3:39 PM
So, the U.S. Goverments policy on dealing with terrorism is now 're-active'. Pro-active may insult someone.
When will we all be taking 'the mark' to show that we are citizens worthy of being tracked?
at December 1, 2008 3:41 PM
Islam has a once great civilization over a barrel, me thinks.
Posted by: Sounder at December 1, 2008 3:43 PM
My take is that Obama wants to create another group (not the military) to do this. Can't recall the phrase or name he called it but he said it would have the same amount of funding as the DOD has now.
Kind of scary if you ask me.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at December 1, 2008 3:45 PM
When the Army crosses the Rubicon, so to speak, we've moved from a Republic to an Empire with a Caesar at the head.
I don't feel the need to think about time travel anymore because I am traveling back in time along with the rest of the plebians in the United States. We no longer need to wonder what living through 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' would be like. We are repeating it in at least five or six dimensions... with 'Crossing the Rubicon' as lucky number seven by my estimation.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 1, 2008 3:49 PM
[sarcasm]
It's been perfectly obvious to me for decades that the National Guard is the biggest threat to freedom in the United States.
I mean, there are thousands of soldiers "quartered" amongst us ready to spring into action at a moments notice to suppress the populace in the event of a natural disaster!
[/sarcasm]
And that is what this will be more of. National Guardsmen trained to deal with the aftermath of terrorist incidents.
Others will be similar to the NEST teams already in existence.
Take the tin-foil off and think, people. No-one is trying to use the military to police the general populace.
at December 1, 2008 3:53 PM
Im.mad.as.HELL!,
Here is the clip of Obama calling for a civilian security force to rival the power of the United States military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Posted by: ethoman at December 1, 2008 3:56 PM
Didn't someone call for an end to Muslim immigration lately? Must have fallen on deaf ears. One would hope at least for an outpouring from the usual sources of bigot, etc. Almost makes you think letting Muslim immigration continue is deliberate.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 1, 2008 4:05 PM
"response to nuclear terrorist attack"
Relax, it's a 20,000 man burial detail.
Posted by: BL@KBIRD at December 1, 2008 4:05 PM
I think he called them Stormtroopers or Brownshirts. That's what I heard anyway.
Posted by: Abrog8 at December 1, 2008 4:06 PM
"Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising and in 2005 alone more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades.[25][26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 1, 2008 4:12 PM
The way I read this is that these are federal troops, not the civilian thought police Obama is accused of favoring. They will be under unified military control, which means they would be able to take advantage of modern communications that includes eavesdropping on foreign terrorists, and would have the ability to respond to a crisis, such as Mumbai, at an instant's notice. If India had had the equivalent, their crisis would have been over in a matter of hours, not days. A federal force would also be able to instantly deploy to anywhere in the country in response to an external threat, and not be subject to delays caused by jurisdictional squabbles among the local police, state police, or country sheriff's departments. Far from carrying Orwellian implications, with its overtones of Illuminati conspiracy and black helicopters, as it appears to be to some posters, it sounds like a good plan to me.
Posted by: Eastview at December 1, 2008 4:14 PM
I have been praticing law for some twenty years, and acumulated a very nice law library before my semi-retirement in 2006. The library is in a back room at my home now, but it is becoming a painful reminder of the great freedom under law that the American people have enjoyed for so many years.
Last week I came to a painful awareness that the people of the United States have, finally, and at terrific speed, let our great freedoms under law be squandered in the name of every stupid fashion that has come along -- multiculturalism, recial sensitivity, global warming, animal rights, ozone holes, all kinds of crap.
I now realize that we are no longer a nation of laws, or, at least those laws that we could count on to protect us, while we prosper by our own efforts.
Therefore, I began carrying my lawbooks out to the trash, three at a time in plastic garbage bags. Thousands of dollars worth. Our new leader has promised CHANGE, and I can see that the planned CHANGE will not leave much room for the law as it has been.
I am devoting the shelving to storage of food and medical supplies, emergency equipment, and those things that will be needed when there are rioters and looters in the streets, and there are shortages caused by government mismanagement, including the price controls which I expect in a year or two.
When the feces hit the fan, and the muslims increase their demands from the rest of us, our law enforcement and military personnel will be standing with their backs to the mosques.
So, Law, you go to the garbage now. Dammit, I do love you, but I cannot bear to see you die.
at December 1, 2008 4:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-zzmCmMVI
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at December 1, 2008 4:20 PM
In his book "The Story of the Malakand Field Force", Churchill has this to say of the Afghans
Nor are these struggles conducted with the weapons which usually belong to the races of such development. To the ferocity of the Zulu are added the craft of the Redskin and the marksmanship of the Boer. The world is presented with that grim spectacle, "the strength of civilisation without its mercy." At a thousand yards the traveller falls wounded by the well-aimed bullet of a breech-loading rifle. His assailant, approaching, hacks him to death with the ferocity of a South-Sea Islander. The weapons of the nineteenth century are in the hands of the savages of the Stone Age.
It was valid in the time of Mohammed, it was quite obviously valid when Churchill wrote it, and as events in Bombay have shown, is valid today. Churchill writes this of Afghans but knowing his views on Islam, it is applicable to all Muslims.
So why is it impossible to remove Muslims from our midst? They are predators, while we are constrained not to deal with predators in the customary manner, but are required to show them tolerance.
at December 1, 2008 4:20 PM
Of course, to halt Muslim immigration in light of the impossibility of distinguishing peaceful Muslims from actual and potential jihadists -- that would be racist.
Even if we could identify a peaceful immigrant Muslim, what is there to prevent his descendents, born in the West, to become susceptible to the timeless allure of 72 virgins and those pearly boys.
Posted by: DP111 at December 1, 2008 4:44 PM
This isn't what scares me. Honestly, the Canadian Human Rights Court for the express purpose of violating people's human rights without ever even really knowing what they're doing or how necessary it is, how legal it is, and how true everything they say may be scares me much more. It's the fact that this signals that we will be overrun by Mohammedans, with whom Obama has said he would side, "if the political winds were to turn...," whatever that means. It's treasonous sedition and I don't want to pay for it. I don't believe in a "peace dividend" either. I think it might get very, very bad before it gets better, which I do believe it will. I also think that we will vote in a very different government next time around. The Fitzgerald Doctrine is the only pragmatic, affordable, realistic option. Why is nobody running on that platform?
Posted by: jdamn at December 1, 2008 4:47 PM
'...with whom Obama has said he would side, "if the political winds were to turn...,"'
Posted by Jdamn,
Jdamn, do you have a source for that statement, and was it made in the context of Islamic activity in our country? Any way, WE, our voices and the voices of those like us, are the political winds, if we choose to make it so. We just have to make sure they continue to blow.
Posted by: Eastview at December 1, 2008 5:08 PM
Solution:
Get the Mohammedans already here out, and stop further Mohammedan immigration.
Problem solved! No police state necessary!
Posted by: darcy at December 1, 2008 5:10 PM
Solution:
Get the Mohammedans already here out, and stop further Mohammedan immigration.
Problem solved! No police state necessary!
Unfortunately, given the PC climate, whatever degree of "police state" we developing is set up more as a guard against people who want all the fine, upstanding Mohammedans out of the US--it's set up to protect those fine, upstanding Mohammedans from all those racist Americans who are always on the brink of rioting and lynching them. This was more or less the case under Bush, now it's even worse under Obama.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 1, 2008 5:28 PM
I managed to post this in the wrong thread a minute ago, so I'll try again:
Welcome to the Police State: 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011
The government cannot stop the flow of thousands of illegals each day across the Arizona border, yet they tell us they'll be able to adequately cover the land area of the US with 20000 troops. What a joke. According to the last statistic I saw there were 20000 illegal entries a week, just in Arizona.
In a country as large as the US, they are extremely unlikely to be deployed at the right time or in the right place to stop anything when it really matters.
If we are ever to be a country of responsible citizens again, how about allowing us to take some responsibility for ourselves? There are currently around 60 MILLION private gun owners in the US. Why not encourage more responsibility and training among the population, instead of continually trying to disarm us and make us more dependent on the government, while stretching government resources ever thinner?
I would rather see a system for encouraging the safe, responsible use of firearms, the training and coordination of private citizens, than an over-reliance on active duty military, or National Guard.
"The Plan" as currently outlined by Rhom Emanuel
has a number of reasonable ideas, but calls for disaster response. Shouldn't we be concentrating on prevention too? As a nation, we should let the jihadist nutcases know they stand a good chance of being killed by every potential victim they see in the US. We should make it more likely to be a disaster for the jihadists than for us.
I would much rather have all my neighbors at the ready, than depend on a bunch of armed, blue helmeted foreigners with a near perfect record of screwing up every country and every engagement they've ever been in.
You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass. (Explaining one of the reasons the Japanese choose not to invade the continental US during World War II.) - Admiral Yamamoto
at December 1, 2008 5:30 PM
"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe...."
Or a domestic catastrophe such as a likely Republican victory in 2012?
Seriously, I think we're getting a little paranoid here. The U.S. has had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in the U.S. ever since WW2: they're in army camps and bases all around the country. When I was a kid, there were three army bases just around my hometown -- Nike missile bases for air-defense. Then there are the Navy, Marine, and Air Force installations, with hundreds of thousands more personnel. The last time (that I recall) that they were deployed in the U.S. was in the 50's when the governor of Arkansas refused to obey a Supreme Court order de-segregating the Little Rock schools, and called out the state's National Guard to enforce his orders. Ike ordered the federalization of the Arkansas Guard, and sent in regular Army troops to enforce the Court order.
One place where it might be useful to deploy Army troops is along the Mexican border, to support the Border Patrol.
at December 1, 2008 5:32 PM
12th try at posting, God I hate Tyepad
LazarOfSerbia,
Another verse to that hymn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4
at December 1, 2008 5:39 PM
Oh it went through with a misspelled word.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 1, 2008 5:40 PM
Sorry to disagree with most posters here but I do not look upon the US military as the enemy. Quite the contrary. It has been the greatest guarantor of my safety and the safety of millions of other Americans from the Revolutionary era down to the present day. Yes, I would very much like to see a ban on Muslim immigration and, yes, there are a lot of stupidities circulating out there like multiculturalism, political correctness, the frenzy over global warming and continuing esteem for the United Nations, but stationing some twenty thousand military personnel throughout the country is not in and of itself a threat to our liberty. In fact, it is a safety precaution which will further insure that we do not lose our freedoms. Please remember that the military is composed of Americans like you and me. Yes, there are some Dirty Harry types in the elite forces but surely a sensible person can see that a Dirty Harry here and there will protect us more, not less. Time to get a grip.
I would like to propose, though, that at the rate it takes me to post my ideas here at JW with TypePad that a threat to my liberty to be heard by others really is in jeopardy. Man, does TypePad suck.
Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2008 5:54 PM
RalphInfidel
The government cannot stop the flow of thousands of illegals each day across the Arizona border, yet they tell us they'll be able to adequately cover the land area of the US with 20000 troops. What a joke. According to the last statistic I saw there were 20000 illegal entries a week, just in Arizona.
**I got this in an email, makes sense to me.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 1, 2008 6:07 PM
Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
LOL
How about a PIG! Or better yet equate mad cow disease with following jihad.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at December 1, 2008 6:17 PM
As a life long Methodist, I would like to commend your hunch about the threat of "radical Methodism" in comparison to the jihadists.
We of the "dar-al-Method" have been, in secret, planning the subjugation of the world through our many sham-charity organizations, such as the Methodist Hospital System, Methodist camps (training the Methodi's of tomorrow), and sundry outreach organizations.
We grow our church through the thoroughly reprehensible practices of:
1. Community and foreign charity outreach.
2. Preaching and talking about our beliefs.
3. Cooperation with those of other faiths where we can agree on a need.
4. Murder and rape of young girls when Muslims live in our community . . . no, wait . . . that's what Muslims did to Methodist missionary families in parts of the Philipines. Scratch that one.
4. Burning down mosques when they are built in predominately Methodist communities . . . no, wait . . . Methodist churches have been burnt down in Malaysia. Scratch that one.
Oh, you get the idea.
Posted by: djrz at December 1, 2008 6:24 PM
My last comment didn't mean to say that I think the US military and intelligence aren't protecting us from Muslim terrorists--just that they will not be doing that job good enough if they are spending too much time and energy and focus looking for Americans who might attack and lynch Muslims in "hate crimes" if there is another terrorist incident.
PS: this is the only site or blog where I have problems signing in with TypePad. Other sites that have TypePad have no problems. What gives?
Posted by: DenverRodeo at December 1, 2008 6:31 PM
Wellington,
I've stopped previewing my comments. It keeps coming back saying I'm not signed in. Just now, on another thread, I logged on, made my comments, and saved them (just in case) and then posted.
It makes me think there might be something wrong with the preview function. That, or I was just lucky. Who knows?
at December 1, 2008 6:39 PM
One place where it might be useful to deploy Army troops is along the Mexican border, to support the Border Patrol.
Posted by: ebonystone
Given that the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law that restricts the military's role in domestic law enforcement, has been cited as a reason we can't have the military on the border, then there is little reason to believe that they will take over the country.
"Training" the army for such activities as dealing with a nuclear strike is not the same as putting twenty-thousand soldiers on the street.
To the Bush administration: if the greatest threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you might try an ounce of prevention. It's worth a pound of cure. Start by curbing Muslim travel to the US. It won't eliminate the problem of terrorism but it's a good first step.
Posted by: PMK at December 1, 2008 6:56 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington?
interestinconundrum,
The cow doesn't have any constitutional rights, so it could be registered and tracked. Meanwhile our laws have been interpreted to mean that an agent infiltrating a mosque during services is some breach of religious freedom. Go figure.
Posted by: PMK at December 1, 2008 6:59 PM
undaunted: You could be correct about this action running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act but it seems to me that there is a difference between advice and aid given by the military to local police forces and its actually engaging in search and seizure missions, which is what the PCA was arguably concerned with. Anyone know of a pertinent legal case addressing this issue? It could be the case, as with so many other matters, that a shade of gray exists in the law which means interpretation is key and clear cut understanding will elude everyone.
Posted by: Wellington at December 1, 2008 7:18 PM
Worries are probably overblown.
The troops will more than likely be the same U.S. troops currently billeted from Fort Bragg to Kaneohe Bay--they'll simply be "tagged" on a rotating basis to serve as "Quick Reaction Forces" ready to load buses, trucks or planes on a moment's notice to augment state police, FBI, ATF , local police and first responder outfits in a scenario like we just saw in India. On an ad hoc basis this sort of thing was implemented in the immediate wake of 9/11.
Bigger things to worry about.
Posted by: counterjihadi at December 1, 2008 7:29 PM
PMK and Others,
I wonder if the Posse Comitatus Act applies to troops placed on the US border, as opposed to the interior. The US border is an international border, and I can't think of anything more Constitutionally appropriate to the role of the US government than protecting its borders against invasion, whether with civilian, military or private contractor forces.
I would have a lot more faith in the integrity of the US government if it appeared to understand the difference between a fortress and a prison. Fortresses are built to keep the enemy out. Prisons are built to keep the criminals in, and to observe and control their every moment, to the extent possible.
The "security measures" that have been put in place since 9/11 are overwhelmingly more applicable to a prison than they are to a fortress.
I would like to see even a token effort to treat us as occupants of a fortress, rather than prisoners, even if it is just 20,000 troops patrolling the border, and dropping fire and iron on anyone who tries to come into our country without our permission.
It would be a welcome change.
RSI
at December 1, 2008 7:42 PM
Yeah, first the Government doesn't do a thing about all the "unindicted co-conspirators" in Islamic terrorism funding and they let them continue to make money here for Jihad. They won't even detain them, now we are going to have a police state?
Posted by: 90 at December 1, 2008 7:42 PM
Side note -- my comment above, at 7:42 PM, took three extra logins and copy-and-paste attempts to get it to stick.
As others have said, TypePunk appears to need work.
RSI
Posted by: RedStateInfidel at December 1, 2008 7:48 PM
OT story
BBC host sacked for requesting Non-asian taxi driver for young daughter riding alone for fear of 'asian taxi rapists".
Posted by: Borg at December 1, 2008 7:58 PM
Several commentators have mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act of 130 years ago as prohibiting the deployment of federal troops to support law enforcement. Well, what about the deployment of the Army under General Pershing to Texas and New Mexico in 1915, during Pancho Villa's raids? That was only 93 years ago. And as I mentioned above, in 1957 Ike deployed the Army to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock.
Posted by: ebonystone at December 1, 2008 8:25 PM
ebonystone-
The 1915 raids were against members of another country, correct?
Therefore legal. Basically to protect the border.
The 1957 use of the Army to enfore school desegregation was against US citizens for the benefit of other US citizens.
Therefore illegal. To enforce a civil law.
Posted by: Borg at December 1, 2008 8:36 PM
I don't think the 20,000 troops are for border patrol or chasing down illegals, for enforcing some silly speech ordinance. There are more lethal and serious scenarios that they would be used for. Consider the following:
1. A container ship containing a 5 kiloton nuke makes it into Long Beach harbor and detonates. You think Katrina was bad? Instantly Terminal Island is smashed and the entire Palos Verdes peninsula irradiated, with winds carrying the radiation cloud across the LA basin. Panic sets in, and rioting ensues as people try to escape.
2. Same scenario, but involving the Jersey City docks, or those in San Francisco, or Boston, or Baltimore, or Miami, or...
3. Same scenario, but with a semi-trailer truck containing a nuke that was offloaded from a boat at any number of secluded coastal regions. From here the truck could drive to any interior city in the U.S. and be detonated. And if it could be done once, it could be done multiple times, in multiple locations, and with good planning, the detonations could be made simultaneously.
Think about what would happen if this were to occur in port cities, and also in Denver and Chicago and St. Louis and Salt Lake City and Tallahassee, and yes, New York and WDC. The U.S. would be attacked from within, and there would be a need for an immediate, unified, top down response. The 50 separate states and thousands of separate communities would have their roles to play over the longer term, but they are not set up for an instantaneous response. This is what this force would be used for. There would be a need for protection of critical infrastructure, like power plants, docks, etc. And, yes, possibly protection against rioting citizens.
But consider the alternatives. Think Katrina, but multiplied many times over.
(And yes, TypePad sucks.)
Posted by: Eastview at December 1, 2008 9:12 PM
Wellington & Ebonystone,
I agree that there's no reason to fear our own military, they are us.
The problem I see is that there are already some 800000 full time law enforcement personell in the United States. The addition of another 20000 bodies is a only a 2.5% increase, and is unlikely to make a significant difference over the long run, since no matter how they are deployed the jihadists could simply move around them to find a softer target. We shouldn't be looking for just a "rapid reaction force", we should continue working on prevention. And barring prevention, a responsible, trained, and armed citizenry can provide "instant reaction".
I don't know what percentage of our 60 million private gun owners are certified for concealed carry, but if just 10 percent were carrying, that's 6 million more potential chances to stop the jihadists in their tracts, a 750 percent increase over law enforcement alone. The incidence of accidental and criminal misuse of firearms among that group is extremely low, and areas that have enacted concealed right-to-carry laws have seen either reduction or a slower increase in violent crime rates when compared to those areas that have not.
Gun Control: Examining the 2005 FBI Crime Statistics
http://newsbusters.org/node/9140
If we're going to deploy our military internally, it seems more efficient to deploy along borders.
It's our freedom and our lives at stake; we should have some say as to how they are put at risk, and how we choose to protect them.
at December 1, 2008 9:23 PM
Richard the Lionhearted,
You make a shrewd observation. The connection between Marxism and ignoring culture has been bothering me. It seems as if the need to destroy religion was not a coincidence. Economic analysis blinds one to all other considerations.
For Americans: This reminds me of the famous question, "Can't we all just get along?" Then, the answer being "no", the military steps in. They have to keep the peace.
Don't worry. Diversity is not important. If you point it out you're a bigot. We can just all get along despite . . . Oh don't say diversity, that is the same as racism.
www.cutlurism.us
Posted by: culturist at December 1, 2008 10:11 PM
I have to say, "hang in there" on the TypePad thing. For some reason, I'm no longer having any trouble. And it's been about three days that it's been trouble-free for me. (Knock on wood, I guess.)
I do use the Preview button; still, it works for me now.
Posted by: Vee at December 1, 2008 10:21 PM
When I ran the covert drug team out here in the mid-80's, we were able to buy illegal drugs from civilians off-post if we could demonstrate that they were selling to soldiers.
The rule that permitted this was called "Policy 5 Exception" and it pertained to drug interdiction only, as I recall. We had to persuade a DOD lawyer back in DC that we had probable cause to believe the combat readiness of the Army was diminished by the sale of these drugs. But we could, in exigent circumstances, do a buy or a buy/bust and then call it in after the fact, a "delayed approval."
Posse Comitatus was suspended in Policy 5 cases, when we got DOD approval, I and believe that's what the "exception" meant: an exception to Posse Comitatus restriction. So, PC can be set aside though I don't know if it's still in use in the context I mentioned,
Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 10:22 PM
As has been said, this seems to be just a federal rapid reaction force that can be quickly deployed to deal with a WMD attack or something like that. Seems reasonable to me.
As for gun owners stopping terrorist attacks, that's absurd. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in the middle of a city, I don't see how a CCW is going to help in that situation. If something like Mumbai happened in the US, would you really want poorly trained and equipped private citizens conducting improvised hostage rescue missions? Come on.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 1, 2008 10:35 PM
remember that scene in Red Dawn where the Soviets/Cubans tracked down all the "registered" gun owners by their ATF forms?
Avenge Me!
so 54% or so of the US voting population voted for obama - who could not pass a background check for a contract security guard job - hoo boy.
Well. the USA was a good thing while it lasted - better to die a as a free man then live as a slave - I paraphrase.
at December 1, 2008 10:48 PM
No, sittiing on your ass during a a Mumbai Massacre in the Main Street Mall when you're armed and trained is absurd.
Nobody's talking about gun owners stopping a nuke detonation, as if anyone has suggested that in any thread I've ever read here.
As for civilians being hostage negotiators, here are the basics, since you asked.
1. Identify the HT location but do not enter.
2. Contain HT but do not try to control him/her physically.
3. Get people out/away but don't endanger them by moving them.
4. Begin to speak to the HT, calming and slowing the situation down.
5. Speak to HT within the first 5 minutes. Be nice. FBI stats show that most death and injuries are inflicted during the first thirty minutes of hostages being taken and that most incidents end without injury if within the first five minutes someone says something like this to the HT:
"If you don't kill anyone, I think you'll be okay. But if someone dies, you may die also."
and
"We don't want anyone to get hurt. As long as you don't hurt anyone, I'm going to try to help you."
6. Stall.
7. Don't promise anything. Tell the HT the person who can help him/her more than you has been notified and is on the way. Do not say that helper is a cop.
8. When the cop shows up, quickly brief him/her and try to intruduce him/her to the HT.
There. Now you know as much as any rookie cop in the street.
My instructors were former hostage negotiators from major cities in the SE US and from the FBI.
Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 11:13 PM
Sad day to see this happen in the US; and the coup is only just beginning.
Posted by: witness at December 1, 2008 11:16 PM
Posted by Jesus Christ Supercop:
As has been said, this seems to be just a federal rapid reaction force that can be quickly deployed to deal with a WMD attack or something like that. Seems reasonable to me.
Unfortunately, the terrorists don't seem to be cooperating by keeping the hostages alive long enough to rescue.
As for gun owners stopping terrorist attacks, that's absurd.
Oh, are terrorists are so brilliant, so well trained, that they are impervious to civilian bullets? Or is it that no poor slob American civilian could hit one of those idiots? Where do you think police and the military are recruited from?
If a nuclear bomb is detonated in the middle of a city, I don't see how a CCW is going to help in that situation.
Who said it would? Just how much would 20000 extra troops help that situation?
If something like Mumbai happened in the US, would you really want poorly trained and equipped private citizens conducting improvised hostage rescue missions? Come on.
No, you come on. Who said anything about "conducting improvised hostage rescue missions"? Personal defense and hostage rescue missions are two completely different things. You're mixing other apples and oranges; Mumbai was no WMD attack, it was several jerkoffs with assult rifles. And yes, I would much rather the photographers snapping those pictures had guns than cameras.
at December 1, 2008 11:17 PM
A couple of things:
1)Here's the thing, anyone knows that once a terrorist attack occurs or a massive riot on the scale of the Los Angeles Riot happens. Law enforcement will be overwhelmed in a short period.
Here's why:
In 1997 the LAPD had its ass kicked by two crazed body armor wearing, machine gun wielding bankrobbers. Despite a hail of inaccurate gun fire from police the robbers were able to put up a prolonged fight despite being outnumbered a 50 to 1.
The LA riots, the police took a powder and hid out and the NG and Marines were called in to restore order.
2) CCW's make a lot of sense should our Mumbai happen, because we will be on our own. The Police will not do stop it any more than they could stop two kids at Columbine from killing 21 people. The police there ran rather than fight.
Forget about SWAT, they take forever to assemble and don't do dynamic situations very well. Heck they were so terrified of the two kids at Columbine they let a teacher bleed to death rather than get him to safety.
Posted by: waltc at December 1, 2008 11:27 PM
And this, Moron Supercop, is why it's okay for civilians to be armed and to have some idea of how to respond appropriately in event of an armed terrorist attack.
1. To many cops are in the job because it's cool to drive fast cars and carry a gun when nobody else gets to do so.
2. Cops are not required to protect any person or group of persons in particular. Their mandate is to protect society in general. So, if someone sees real bad-guys sneaking around with real AK-47's and the snotty dispatch officer wants to poo-poo the silly, scared civilian and not bother sending a patrol or two over to see what's up, then someone should do something, if they're armed and trained and willing, doncha think?
3. A likely tactic we will see here is multiple simultaneous attacks in one town/city... like in Mumbai. How may cops to go around then? How many cops go to which incident? All those who get short-changed on cop coverage are just supposed to bend over and take it in the ass, right, Moron Supercop?
You're a clown.
Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 11:27 PM
I believe waltc is referring to the Louisiana riots, post-Katrina?
Posted by: undaunted at December 1, 2008 11:31 PM
"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said."
-- from the article above
Though several times the rhetorical tocsin is sounded over the possibliity of a nascent police state -- "Welcome to the Police State" and "it will be an Orwellian Police State too" and "we....can become a Police State" -- the case is not made. More worrisome than the measure itself is the opposition to it of the ACLU and similar groups, the ones that continue to flatter themselves as "civil liberties groups" but whose understanding of what measures are appropriate to defend or protect ourselves nowadays does not inspire confidence or trust.
This proposal is not the sign of a nascent police state, inexorably being created, and it hardly merits such alarm. The widespread failure of those who whose duty it is to instruct and to protect us, to learn about Islam, and thus to begin to discuss measures that are both rational and justified, and that might be understaken in order to minimize the danger to our legal and political institutions, and to our physical security (this failure applies to all the Infidel nation-states of the world, not only to the United States), should be constantly pointed out. And, as in Iraq, the failure to grasp the nature of Islam leads to ineffective or wasteful or wrong-headed undertakings. The failure to grasp the meaning and menace of Islam, and the ways in which this failure leads to misguided policies, should be noted, analyzed, criticized, unceasingly.
But that does not mean that every measure of defense that is taken must necessarily get in the way of, or have been adopted in lieu of, that better understanding of Islam and of how best to weaken the Camp of Islam and the forces of Jihad. If 20,000 army troops are to be trained "to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack" so what? Why does that signal a Police State any more than the calling out of members of the National Guard in times of national disasters, a traditional task of the Guard, as a poster carefully notes above.
In Israel, as we all know, since the army is in large part a citizen-army, soldiers are often seen, I am told, on the streets, and that has led to one absurd charge being made by those looking for any weapon with which to bash Israel, that that permanently imperilled state, the victim of Jihad, as a "militarist little Sparta." Of course it is not, and the notion that 20,000 American army troops being trained to help in case of a nuclear attack is not, without more, to be deplored. It may make many feel safer, and it may even make us safer.
It is proper to note that while a plan to train and deploy 20,000 army troops for such duties may at this point be required, such measures should never be regarded as the only way to respond to a growing threat of Islamic terrorism carried out within the United States, and that part of the discussion of such measures should include other measures, including limits on continued Muslim immigration. Given the fact that someone who claims to be an adherent of Islam can reasonably be held to have accepted the Qur'an as the literal word of Allah, including its more than one hundred "Jihad passages," and held to have accepted the inculcated duty of Jihad, the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, and given that it is also reasonable to attribute to someone calling himself a Muslim the belief that Muhamamd, despite all that he did, remains the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), then we Infidels have a perfect right to consider what has happened in the countries of Western Europe, and to intelligently, rationally, unembarrassedly, discuss how to minimize a similar threat to ourselves. This is owed to the people who created this country, however unworthy we may be to have inherited their legacy.
Alarm at this point about an incipient "Police State" may find an echo among those who worry most about a Big Brother state, and oppose any increase in the power of the government, and that opposition will be predictably expressed, for quite different ideological reasons, by the wilder shores of the current ACLU/But many others will fail to be convinced, and as the well-known fairy-tale puts it, alarms about false threats can vitiate the effect of alarms about real ones.
Posted by: Hugh at December 1, 2008 11:46 PM
Eastview, it was all over the place. I read it yesterday on Atlas, but it was on HotAir and lots of other places during the campaign season, not that the MSM is failing us or anything.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/mumbai-muslims.html
"Obama declared on page 261 of his book, should the political winds shift ......he would side with the Muslims."
And it was the National Guard who were called out to enforce desegregation in 1957, not the army.
Posted by: jdamn at December 1, 2008 11:54 PM
"response to nuclear terrorist attack"
Relax, it's a 20,000 man burial detail.
Posted by: BL@KBIRD at December 1, 2008 4:05 PM
I have to agree. Sounds more like a body bag detail should the death cult pull another operation in the US. Let's get a grip people.
Posted by: Kevin at December 2, 2008 12:53 AM
RalphInfidel:
Unfortunately, the terrorists don't seem to be cooperating by keeping the hostages alive long enough to rescue.
A WMD attack isn't about hostages, and this force isn't built to deal with hostage situations as far as I know. SWAT teams exist for that purpose, and then there are of course federal units like the FBI's HRT.
Oh, are terrorists are so brilliant, so well trained, that they are impervious to civilian bullets? Or is it that no poor slob American civilian could hit one of those idiots? Where do you think police and the military are recruited from?
The police and military train all their recruits. Are you saying that American citizens somehow possess an innate ability to effectively use firearms?
Who said it would? Just how much would 20000 extra troops help that situation?
They're meant to deal with the aftermath.
No, you come on. Who said anything about "conducting improvised hostage rescue missions"? Personal defense and hostage rescue missions are two completely different things.
I got the impression that if Mumbai happened in the US, armed citizens would resolve the situation all by themselves.
You're mixing other apples and oranges; Mumbai was no WMD attack, it was several jerkoffs with assult rifles.
Then why did you bring up guns in the first place? They're useless against WMD attacks.
waltc:
Forget about SWAT, they take forever to assemble and don't do dynamic situations very well.
As opposed to armed civilians who are of course experts at assaults, dynamic entries, hostage rescue and the use of firearms in high-pressure combat situations?
The Police will not do stop it any more than they could stop two kids at Columbine from killing 21 people. The police there ran rather than fight.
Heck they [SWAT] were so terrified of the two kids at Columbine they let a teacher bleed to death rather than get him to safety.
Something tells me you are making things up.
undaunted:
Moron Supercop
Moron Supercop
You're a clown.
And I have no idea what the fuck you're rambling about. There's nothing Mr. CCW can do against a WMD attack, and he is quite unlikely to be trained to respond to hostage situations and the like. If some terrorist takes hostages or takes over a building, what is Mr. CCW going to do about it? Shooting at the range once a week doesn't turn anyone into an expert in counter-terrorism and urban combat.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 2, 2008 1:25 AM
"And it was the National Guard who were called out to enforce desegregation in 1957, not the army."
Posted by: jdamn
Technically this is correct. Eisenhower was sensitive to introducing federal army troops into a situation where memories of the War of Northern Aggression (the 1861-1865 Civil War for most of the rest of us) still held substantial sway. Governor Orville Faubus had used the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation in Little Rock in spite of a new federal law mandating desegregation. Eisenhower's response was brilliant. He simply federalized the National Guard, thereby taking them out from under the command of the governor, who might have been tempted to try to use them to fight the federals, and ordered them instead to protect the black students entering for the first time a previously all white high school.
About Obama's statement: What was the context? He says a lot of things that later he backtracks on.
Posted by: Eastview at December 2, 2008 1:41 AM
the concern and fear in America has grown to record proportions about the potential demise of our freedoms and the safety and security of our families and nation.
i post on a Dow Jones stock site and the longest thread today was about soldiers being stationed in America and how unacceptable that was...
sales at gun shops and gun shows has skyrocketed since obama became the democratic candidate every gun shop that I have been in is packed with people buying firearms and ammo.
putting 20,000 soldiers into America is only acceptable if they are stationed along the border to protect Americans from the invasion across our borders.
there is a powder keg on fire below the surface of America and one terrorist attack will set it off and then we will see if American soldiers will shoot a fellow American for defending themselves, their families and AMerica... I think the liberals and feds may be shocked by what happens across America... for America is still by and for the people...
America is in peril...
are you prepared???
are you armed???
are you ready???
God help us...
Posted by: ???
at December 2, 2008 1:58 AM
Quite frankly, I am more much more concerned about an ACLU inspired thought-police-state than I am a US military police state. The vast majority of people who join our military do so specifically with the thought of guarding our lives and our freedoms, not taking them from us. After all, they have families too. Though we don’t always agree on the way our military or police are used, they are our friends, not our enemies: They Are Us.
The occasional recruit, in either force, that goes haywire, should not invalidate the entire organization. It is the nature of any human organization that it can’t be made perfect… even though we will always keep trying. At some point, “we the people” need to assume some modicum responsibility for our lives. I’m not saying that 20000 uniformed troops inside the US is a necessarily a bad thing, quite the opposite. It may be useful at times, particularly in the aftermath of a WMD attack. But I also believe raising the doubt that such an attack could ever be successful in the first place is a better idea.
Relying on such a relatively small group as our current military to defend us from random, tiny, clandestine, non-uniformed groups of brazen nutcases with guns is putting a lot of burden on very few people, regardless of how well trained and equipped they are.
There are some things our military does exceptionally well, things the average civilian cannot and should not be allowed to do: control enormous amounts of fire power, focus large groups of well trained aggressive actors against an enemy, gather intelligence and act on it with a coherent intensity that assures the problem is eliminated. But we can’t expect them to be everywhere, all the time. They’re only human too.
It’s interesting the panic the sight of a firearm can inspire in some, as if it could animate itself and come after them on its own. Yet they may think nothing of putting themselves in a metal box and whizzing past other metal boxes, separated by only a few feet; an endeavor that kills more people than firearms do in the this country.
Cars and firearms are both tools, and they can both be dangerous in the wrong hands. I tried to point out repeatedly in my posts above the things I think are important in this regard; concealed carry, training, and responsibility. Concealment: so as not to become the immediate target. Training: to act only when and where one could make a difference, and responsibility for ones actions; for bad actions as well as good actions.
If President Elect Obama does implement the idea of “Universal Civilian Service”, I hope it includes a realistic study of Islamic theology and how it contrasts with, and threatens our Constitution and our freedom. I also hope it includes some basic familiarity training with small arms, the inherent dangers when using them in high population density areas, and the responsibilities that gun ownership involves. It’s not a perfect solution, but a few well placed rounds could have made all the difference for some of the victims in Mumbai.
Perhaps the model of the Israeli citizen-army is worth considering. Perhaps I’ll find myself agreeing with the President Elect on some points more than I had ever expected.
But one thing is for sure, this is not just some quaint saying from a time gone past:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
at December 2, 2008 2:05 AM
'If President Elect Obama does implement the idea of “Universal Civilian Service”, I hope it includes a realistic study of Islamic theology and how it contrasts with, and threatens our Constitution and our freedom.'
Posted by: RalphInfidel
Ralph, it is this "Universal Civilian Service" that some posters here seem to be confusing with the 20,000 strong military force that is the subject of this article. I think Robert was somewhat unresponsible in posting this inflammatory article. Has anyone seen an actual proposal of how the UCS would be structured? The fear expressed on this thread is that it would contain a brown-shirt component that would go around bullying people, breaking heads and scattering demonstrators, and that guns are needed to protect us from all this. Frankly, I doubt any of this would happen, some shrill cries above notwithstanding. Even if there might be a few extreme Leftists who might harbor such thoughts, their fantasy world is as far out of tough with reality as the fantasy world inhabited by those at the other end of the spectrum. A plague on both their houses.
In regard to inclusion of a realistic study of Islamic theology in the way you mention, I doubt if that would be part of its mandate, unfortunately. If such study doesn't occur in the State Department or the FBI or the Justice Department, what chance is there that it would be in the UCS?
Posted by: Eastview at December 2, 2008 2:42 AM
RalpInfidel, I have never said or implied that I have anything against guns, I am simply pointing out the fact that Joe Average doesn't turn into a special forces commando because he's got a handgun.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 2, 2008 2:48 AM
Excellent posts, I must say. First off on Type(SUCK)pad: I was having trouble logging in at all for over a week and it just solved itself. Of
course I asked JW to make sure things were OK on that end and then sent numerous emails to TP and they repsonded but none of their suggestions helped at all. Then one night, all was well and the all the palnets lined up correctly. So be patient is all I can tell you.
As to Obama's 20,000 clone troopers: I am not quite ready to run off like it is the end of the world here in the states. Yamamoto's comments about there being an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass, yeah, I like that and at least in my circle of friends that is very true.
The proposition makes me very nervous but 20,000 across the U.S. is not a huge number given the size of this country. Obama's socialist positions from his education on up to being the next POTUS is what really scares me. I find little comfort in his cabinet appointments so far as it is padding the nest with clintonistas.Rham Emanuel is a perfect example.
The EU and the UK have provided us with real time examples of what we might be looking at down the road. Tip of my hat to Richard The Lionheart for his post and comments about our possibly bleak future. I would love to us stop all islamic immigration to the USA and so what if we are called racist, bigoted? Our public schools, colleges and universities are turning out students that are being taught lies about now bad and evil the USA is, and how we need to be ashamed of our past and move past it. Move past it and on to the PC uncorrcet world of socialism, multiculturalism, gov't know what is best for us and islam cannot be bad. No, islam is not bad at all.... IT IS EVIL and where do you think Obama's
sympathy really will find favor.
Jdam is right with her comment about the "Canadian Human Rights" court and the court jesters that make up that dangerous bunch of free thinkers who think that islam and the the ilk that follows that perverted cult have been so wronged by those nasty Canadians who see the real dangers of islam and the seepage of corruption that comes with it, and sharia law. We have way too many of these these free wheelin' thinkers here in this country. They abound at the aclu(Gag) and other socialist country club organizations who are so busy defending those poor muslims from us islamophobics. Well, count me in as one! islam is attacking us from within our own institutions to try and enusre the dominance of islam by removing ALL obstacles, legally, culturally and by not assimilating into our country. They want us to change and adapt to islam. How many mosques have weapons stored, how many islamic only "towns and compounds are there now across the USA? One is more than too many and it these things that really worry and concern me.
I rattled on long enough to put many of you to sleep so I end with this "Be vigilant, be aware, be knowledgable of our enemies, but do not be afraid. For we are the watchers on the walls of Jerusalem."
at December 2, 2008 2:54 AM
Eastview & Jesus Christ Supercop,
I think we were all getting a little needlessly wound up, and talking past one another.
Eastview, you’re probably right that:
In regard to inclusion of a realistic study of Islamic theology in the way you mention, I doubt if that would be part of its mandate, unfortunately. If such study doesn't occur in the State Department or the FBI or the Justice Department, what chance is there that it would be in the UCS?
But then again, he has surprised me recently with more centrist appointments than I had expected. It looks like he may have taken the hard Left on the ride of their lives during the campaign. If this is true, good for him.
Now if winds up being as smart as he is smooth, we’ll do O.K.
Supercop:
I am simply pointing out the fact that Joe Average doesn't turn into a special forces commando because he's got a handgun.
I know, but there are times when I want Joe Average with his handgun around, if he’s got any clue at all.
Anyway, I’ve got a headache and need to hit the sack.
Have a good evening, er, morning.
at December 2, 2008 3:52 AM
"More worrisome than the measure itself is the opposition to it of the ACLU and similar groups, the ones that continue to flatter themselves as "civil liberties groups" but whose understanding of what measures are appropriate to defend or protect ourselves nowadays does not inspire confidence or trust."
The extent of the understatement here is mystifying.
The ACLU's agenda is clear: to weaken America in every way possible....to ignore threats to our liberties emanating from the Islamo-Left (advocating for unchecked illegal immigration, ignoring Islamic prayer in public schools, advocating for habeas corpus for battlefield detainees, looking the other way as Joe the Plumber had his privacy rights trampled, etc., etc.), and to hyperventilate over any and every national security directives coming from Bush.
"does not inspire confidence or trust"???
The ACLU is out to destroy America as it is, no question about it.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 2, 2008 6:45 AM
The Methodists don't worry me - the Baptists do. And for some really scarey folks, check out the Mormons. Thought control and police state goals are central to their ideology. Caught between Islamic and Mormon jihadisms, the Land of the Free is in for the fight of our lives!
Posted by: Tex at December 2, 2008 7:35 AM
I BELIEVE MISTER SPENCER ONE OF MY POSTS YOU CENSORED WAS IN REFERENCE TO OBAMAS PLAN AND BY THE WAY IT WILL BE 2 MILLON IN OBAMAS THIRD TERM AND YET THEY SAY WE CAN NOT PROTECT OUR BORDERS BUT TROOPS ARE JUST FINE PROTECTING US YA MAY NOT LIKE WHAT I SAY BUT WHAT I SAY IS TRUTH.
Posted by: spcbat at December 2, 2008 7:50 AM
Some things never change and others things always stay the same. Trying to stop the bullets rather than targeting the holder of the gun. What a soft touch the Non-muslim world and the sitting duck soldier has become...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at December 2, 2008 8:18 AM
Don't worry, Prophet Elect Obama (PBUH) and his million + 'Civilian Security Force', 'every bit as well funded and powerful as the US military',
will restore order and protect us from the bad guys. Even if it takes tanks and field artillery.
Tolstoy was right, paraphrased a little: 'The good cannot seek power nor retain it. To do that men must love power, and the love of power has the opposite qualities of goodness: pride, cunning, cruelty'...
The 'good' are not in power now, and the 'good' will not be in power later...
We see 'pride, cunning, and cruelty in every direction, and it is not all coming from Mohammadans.
The Prophet Elect (PBUH) has not yet exhibited cruelty, but he certainly has exhibited, pride and cunning...But of course, he has not yet assumed the throne of power...
Posted by: duh_swami at December 2, 2008 8:38 AM
Jesus Christ Supercop;
Your argument is such a target-rich environment. But I'll pass on any return fire.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 9:31 AM
few examples of the use of federal troops more recently than Little Rock: in 1962 JFK used federal troops to enforce the enrollment of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi; in 1967 LBJ sent paratroopers into riot-torn Detroit.
Posted by: ebonystone at December 2, 2008 9:52 AM
Sorry, my last post should have begun: "A few examples...."
Posted by: ebonystone at December 2, 2008 9:55 AM
Supercop:
I am simply pointing out the fact that Joe Average doesn't turn into a special forces commando because he's got a handgun.
I don't know for sure who the 'average Joe' is,
but I know this country (US) is full of people who already know how to use fire arms. From Ex military, to hunters to range shooters.
You don't have to be a special forces commando to know how to point and shoot...
Posted by: duh_swami at December 2, 2008 10:55 AM
Yea, what swami said.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 11:02 AM
The real answer is simple, Stop American and Western European immigration and the rest of the world can live in peace somewhat. After all it is the Western Europeans and American who believe that everyone else should follow thier way of life.
They are also responsible the the 2 world wars as we know them, not the muslims of the world.
Posted by: gman at December 2, 2008 11:52 AM
spcbat, please show some consideration for other posters and refrain from using all caps in your comments.
Posted by: Eastview at December 2, 2008 11:58 AM
They just have to push our epic tolerance to the limit, but will happen. 4 more years, people.
Posted by: jdamn at December 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted by gman,
The real answer is simple, Stop American and Western European immigration and the rest of the world can live in peace somewhat.
What a hoot! LOL
After all it is the Western Europeans and American who believe that everyone else should follow thier way of life.
Well sure, especially as opposed to the passive Religion of Pieces, which as we all know encourages endless diversity in every aspect of life? Right?
They are also responsible the the 2 world wars as we know them…
You betcha, a good thing to keep in mind as the fanatics in the world strive to get everyone riled up again. But, don't leave out the Russians and Japanese, they helped out too.
…not the muslims of the world.
And just how much significance did Muslims forces wind up having in that little party, once it got going, even in their own back yard?
I'll say it again; they got no idea what they're starting or where it will lead. And their "optimism" that "Islam will rule the world" is wildly misplaced.
at December 2, 2008 1:55 PM
No surprises here.
Nothing hard to understand.
The world has seen plenty of this sort of thing before.
We may delight in speculating about the finer details and exact pace of the development toward totalitarianism ... but that is all parlor games and fluff.
And we don't need fancy conspiracies to explain it.
The plain fact is that a defensive posture toward mohammedan imperialism and its methods is perfectly harmonious with an expansion of gov't power -- something in which professional politicians delight.
Effective offensive resistance, to crush mohammedan imperialism in its cradle before it reaches our shores, is far more concordant with preserving domestic freedoms and limiting the domestic prerogatives of politicians -- something that professional politicians don't like as much.
And guess who's calling the shots ...
=============
Our freedoms and their job advancement frequently conflict.
=============
One has to bear in mind that from a professional politician's point of view, the occasional Mumbai style attack -- with a couple of hundred deaths and a couple of millions in property damage -- is not the worst thing that could happen.
And I don't mean in comparison to larger more horrific attacks, although that is of course true.
I mean in comparison to a serious diminution of their own power to direct events, or a serious diminution of the institutions that give them power, or a serious disturbance in their relations with other politicians from other countries.
These are people who have trained themselves to think in terms of "an acceptable level" of civilian casualties ... in the name of a higher goal, of course.
We are numbers to them.
===========
We will be seeing more soldiers in the streets.
at December 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Eastview wrote:
'...with whom Obama has said he would side, "if the political winds were to turn...,"'
Posted by Jdamn,
Jdamn, do you have a source for that statement, and was it made in the context of Islamic activity in our country?
.................
Eastview, this quote is cited as being from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope". I don't know the full context. I am going to read the Obama books in the interest of educating myself--but I'm not much looking forward to it.
......
Jesus Christ Supercop wrote:
As for gun owners stopping terrorist attacks, that's absurd.
.................
I agree this is a touchy subject--you don't want a lot of poorly trained civilians working at cross purposes, randomly throwing shots around an area filled with innocent bystanders and hostages.
However, it is not absurd to think that gun owners have indeed stopped terrorist attacks. There have been several incidents in Israel where civilians and off-duty military personnel *have* stopped terrorist attacks, most notably bulldozer rampages, all before law enforcement had had time to arrive.
All the carnage in Mumbai was caused by just an estimated *ten* gunmen. It is certainly not impossible that a few well-armed citizens might well have made a difference there.
Posted by: gravenimage at December 2, 2008 2:43 PM
My intel, from reliable sources in that area, set the number of Mumbai shooters at between 25 and 30, operating in multiple teams of twos, threes, fours.
Well-armed citizens could have made a difference there and will make a difference here.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 2:55 PM
I'll wash the rest of the intel and post it at my blog ASAP.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 2:57 PM
It is simple military logic that, barring practical impossibility, an entity under attack must be able to defend itself -- otherwise it must retreat or be sacrificed.
Insofar as it is the civilian public that is the consistent target of jihaddi attack (asymmetrical warfare and all that) the civilian public must therefore be able to defend itself.
Otherwise retreat and/or sacrifice are unavoidable.
A small jihaddi force will do fine against a much larger group of unarmed terrified civilians.
They wouldn't stand a chance against a much larger group of armed and incensed civilians determined to defend themselves.
It's just that simple.
And if your primary value is the preservation of individual human lives, the argument is airtight and irrefutable.
Posted by: joeblough at December 2, 2008 3:52 PM
Joeblough, I like the way you think.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 3:58 PM
Posted by joeblough:
A small jihaddi force will do fine against a much larger group of unarmed terrified civilians.
They wouldn't stand a chance against a much larger group of armed and incensed civilians determined to defend themselves.
It's just that simple.
And if your primary value is the preservation of individual human lives, the argument is airtight and irrefutable.
Yep
at December 2, 2008 10:12 PM
undaunted:
Your argument is such a target-rich environment. But I'll pass on any return fire.
Translation: "I can't think of anything to say."
duh_swami:
You don't have to be a special forces commando to know how to point and shoot...
I'm afraid combat, especially in a tricky situation like Mumbai, is a little more complicated than pointing and shooting.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 2, 2008 10:31 PM
I'll translate that for myself, jerk. It means I have no words to waste on you.
Go ahead and list your CV here so we can judge your credibility in this matter. Mine's at my blog.
Or shut the f*ck up, bozo.
Posted by: undaunted at December 2, 2008 10:59 PM
Haven't read all the above comments, and it's late to comment on this post anyway, but:
This is disgraceful. The photo might as well be a scene from an Islamic hellhole in the Middle East! Must we lower ourselves to their standards?
If so, well, there goes the beauty of living in America.
Posted by: Stormwarning at December 3, 2008 8:37 AM
Joeblough, good posts!
And I wonder where the picture was taken. Is that lipstick and rouge I see on the soldier on the left? I'd prefer seeing that to a burqa any day.
Posted by: Eastview at December 4, 2008 1:00 AM
Hmmm...
Posted by: undaunted at December 6, 2008 12:28 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)