Are we safer? Are we better off?

[Traveler]

One on the accusations against the current administration is that the attitude change towards terrorists and getting critical information from “enemy combatants” is a treat to the safety and security of American citizens and a hindrance to those that serve to protect this country.

The question is – are the recent acts of terrorism at Fort Hood and on the North West flight from Amsterdam to Detroit an indication of more to come or the “last ditch” efforts of terror organizations that are dwindling in influence? Do we have more to worry about or less to worry about? Are things improving or are they getting worse? Are we pursuing a “better” or “worse” cource – or do we need a longer “wait and see” attitude?

The Traveler

[talisyn]

Considering the current administration is less than 1 year old...if they are to blame then truly they are a powerful force in the world already

However, I have a different view. Anyone who does statistics knows 'people' can be predictable, but a 'person' is capable of just about anything under the sun. These 2 acts are the work of lone people. We will never be able to stop the acts of every random person, but we can take an overall view of what the most plausible acts of terror are and develop measures to counter-act them. Does that mean things are getting better or worse? I believe neither. What I think is terrorists will change tactics (like they always do) and we will try to prevent them (like we always do). Administrations really have nothing to do with it.

[Moksha]

I would imagine that as long as the Muslim world sees itself at war with The West, that such incidents will continue.

As far as permanently having the Guild for Seekers of Truth and Penitence servicing "enemy combatants" as their clients, would it be more for general principle or for extracting information? Has any of our extracted information ever been of value?

In the past, I have felt it wrong to torture prisoners in order to extract confessions that they were an enemy to the people and a dupe in seeking to overthrow the glorious revolution. Perhaps moral acceptance is contingent upon it being us who is doing the torturing.

[OmahaLDS]

Things are worse and we have more to worry about.

[ozzy]

Personally I feel catering to the comforts of the unlawful in any category to be sickening. That feeling varies of course with the level of their crimes. It is beyond my capability of thought as to how we can grant more comfort to those who outwardly fight the law than those who strive to make an honest living and fail.

Anyway, I do partly agree with Talisyn. We can't really do much about individuals. However for those terrorists who act as a group, then I believe it would be safer, wiser, and more productive to use those captured to find, catch, and deal with the rest in the organization. And yes, my darker side does say that any means necessary may be necessary.

So yes, I do believe we are worse off now than we were.

[Islander]

I suggest that in order to appreciate the current state of affairs we must understand what the real threats are. If any future terrorist attack in American soil are to take place they will not be from Al Qaeda. A much greater and underestimated threat comes from Hezbollah who already has thousands of operatives in US soil, by the way. They are sponsored by Iran, significantly better financed, with vastly superior counterintelligence and operational capabilities, much better trained and embolden by our aparent lack of resolve to deal with them on the nuclear issue.

The Iranians know that the US will not do anything. They will carry on and continue to follow their WMD road map and develop a deliverable nuclear payload. They will pass the material to Hezbollah making them able have a dirty bomb in US soil in 5 years. I think Israel will move against them before we do and that can bring the world to the brink of WW-III.

Are we safer now? Nope, I do not think so.

[ozzy]

You have an interesting point Islander. I personally don't know anything about that particular issue, so I can't agree or disagree, but I am rather interested. Could you give me some sources I can check out? Thanks :)

[Islander]

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject. But, also check some of these sources.:

Hezbollah's Strategic Threat to Israel :: Middle East Quarterly

G2 Bulletin

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/262.pdf

FrontPage Magazine - Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the Next 9/11

[OmahaLDS]

I suggest that in order to appreciate the current state of affairs we must understand what the real threats are. If any future terrorist attack in American soil are to take place they will not be from Al Qaeda. A much greater and underestimated threat comes from Hezbollah who already has thousands of operatives in US soil, by the way. They are sponsored by Iran, significantly better financed, with vastly superior counterintelligence and operational capabilities, much better trained and embolden by our aparent lack of resolve to deal with them on the nuclear issue.

The Iranians know that the US will not do anything. They will carry on and continue to follow their WMD road map and develop a deliverable nuclear payload. They will pass the material to Hezbollah making them able have a dirty bomb in US soil in 5 years. I think Israel will move against them before we do and that can bring the world to the brink of WW-III.

Are we safer now? Nope, I do not think so.

Hezbollah has never shown any desire or inkling to operate in the US. It would not serve their purposes, nor would it be in keeping with their political objectives. I think you are drawing conclusions from the wrong sources.

[OmahaLDS]

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject. But, also check some of these sources.:

Hezbollah's Strategic Threat to Israel :: Middle East Quarterly

G2 Bulletin

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/262.pdf

FrontPage Magazine - Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the Next 9/11

Now I know you are drawing conclusions from the wrong sources. I would avoid anything Daniel Pipes/Robert Spencer related.

[Hemidakota]

One on the accusations against the current administration is that the attitude change towards terrorists and getting critical information from “enemy combatants” is a treat to the safety and security of American citizens and a hindrance to those that serve to protect this country.

The question is – are the recent acts of terrorism at Fort Hood and on the North West flight from Amsterdam to Detroit an indication of more to come or the “last ditch” efforts of terror organizations that are dwindling in influence? Do we have more to worry about or less to worry about? Are things improving or are they getting worse? Are we pursuing a “better” or “worse” cource – or do we need a longer “wait and see” attitude?

The Traveler

It will only get worst and not better. We are facing the same problems from poor leaders as it was for both Clinton and Carter; it is no different than we are facing now with Obama. This minority group - terrorists - who go about in the name of religion with altered viewpoint to satisfied their own cause, to enlist the ignorant and the faithless in doing their bidding. Hells gate will grow wider in days to come until there is a global savior to control the masses. How would he control them?

Even this year alone, there is high probability of a monetary collapse. Who do you blame? Bush? Clinton? Obama? Or just both parties? It really doesn’t matter of the party anymore; it is matter of those who sell their souls for power or money to bringing the masses unto one leader.

[talisyn]

I would like to remind the jury that under the last Republican administration we lost over 5,000 soldiers in the fight against terrorism Most recent casualties | Faces of the Fallen | washingtonpost.com

Add up all the U.S. military and civilian deaths under Democratic reigns of the past 30 years and they won't come close to that number.

So, are we safer than we were 5 years ago? 7 years ago? 30 years ago?

[Hemidakota]

You need to read where we lost that many in a single battle - remember Normandy? That is one of many. Perhaps, the last day of World War I where 8000 lives were lost to numbskull general’s poor tactics? Being a military historical minded individual, how many wars began under the Democratic regime? I am not stating or blaming parties, I am reminded of poor leaders as presidents or generals in making bad decisions.

[OmahaLDS]

It will only get worst and not better.

I think that is a very dangerous statement to make. If we are to assume that it will never get better we have no responsibility to make things better.

I would say the opposite, things can get better, though they are not. The problem is one of understanding, not really action. I think everyone wants to do well, and actions being taken that some think will do well, but the action being taken is really absent any real understanding.

In general people, and governments, are terribly myopic, and actions taken today have little long term consideration.

[talisyn]

But you listed only Democratic presidents by name, Hemidakota. I really don't know if the world was safer under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama, because the world was a different place for each of them. This 'war on terror' has been brewing for a long time. If we are assigning blame for the current situation on those who are not advocating slaughtering innocents and holy wars then we have to blame the British (sorry guys). After all, they are the ones who created the latter-day state of Israel.

[Guest]

But you listed only Democratic presidents by name, Hemidakota. I really don't know if the world was safer under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama, because the world was a different place for each of them. This 'war on terror' has been brewing for a long time. If we are assigning blame for the current situation on those who are not advocating slaughtering innocents and holy wars then we have to blame the British (sorry guys). After all, they are the ones who created the latter-day state of Israel.

For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yes. But not for Iran/Iraq/Kuwait...

[Guest]

I would like to remind the jury that under the last Republican administration we lost over 5,000 soldiers in the fight against terrorism Most recent casualties | Faces of the Fallen | washingtonpost.com

Add up all the U.S. military and civilian deaths under Democratic reigns of the past 30 years and they won't come close to that number.

So, are we safer than we were 5 years ago? 7 years ago? 30 years ago?

Why must it be partisan politics with all of you? You think terrorists care which political party is in the White House? Geez! You're like my 2 kids...

"Where is the gift wrapping tape?"

"I didn't do it. My brother did it!"

"Mommy, my brother is lying, I didn't do it!"

Sigh. All I wanted was to find the tape...

[Hemidakota]

I think that is a very dangerous statement to make. If we are to assume that it will never get better we have no responsibility to make things better.

I would say the opposite, things can get better, though they are not. The problem is one of understanding, not really action. I think everyone wants to do well, and actions being taken that some think will do well, but the action being taken is really absent any real understanding.

In general people, and governments, are terribly myopic, and actions taken today have little long term consideration.

It is not dangerous to state something we cannot prevent but it still doesn't stop from giving our best effort. It is the masses is the problem here when they have the agency to evil over good.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

But you listed only Democratic presidents by name, Hemidakota. I really don't know if the world was safer under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama, because the world was a different place for each of them. This 'war on terror' has been brewing for a long time. If we are assigning blame for the current situation on those who are not advocating slaughtering innocents and holy wars then we have to blame the British (sorry guys). After all, they are the ones who created the latter-day state of Israel.

It is because I served under those regimes and know the blundering acts they have caused. Even Bushes made some blunders and some of it will eventually will come to light in the near future.

The war on terror began as Adam was created and will not end until the Christ rules over the world.

[Islander]

Now I know you are drawing conclusions from the wrong sources. I would avoid anything Daniel Pipes/Robert Spencer related.

The fact that they have been reluctant to strike inside US territory does not diminish the threat. Because we "know where they live" they have shown restrain all this years. Once the Mullah's in Iran determine that it is time and that retaliation fromt he US would not be forthcoming they can order a strike that will make 9/11 pale in comparison. Until 9/11 Hezbollah had the record for inflicting the most US casualties worldwide. They have also attacked Israel worldwide with more precision and damage than any other organization. There are thousands of members of Hezbollah in the US already! The same can not be said for Al-Qaeda, for example.

Again, it seems to me that you have not been able to assess accurately what a global threat to the US can be and where does it come from.

[ozzy]

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject. But, also check some of these sources.:

Sweet, thanks

[Hemidakota]

If secrets were not so secretive today, we nearly killed every person that was original Al Qaeda top organization. One exception to this, which I believe is number two who is still hiding in Iran. In removing these individuals, they are simply replaced by more of the same minded foe.

[ozzy]

Well, I think that we can all agree that regardless of fault (and as amusing as it is, I think it is pointless to assign blame at this point), the world will just get worse before it gets better. And on a wide scale it is only likely to get better in the second coming.

Personally I think this would happen even without terrorism. It will happen as a result of generally degrading morals.

My sourceless opinion

[boyando]

Why must it be partisan politics with all of you? You think terrorists care which political party is in the White House? Geez! You're like my 2 kids...

"Where is the gift wrapping tape?"

"I didn't do it. My brother did it!"

"Mommy, my brother is lying, I didn't do it!"

Sigh. All I wanted was to find the tape...

We are all still children, at times. But I think the question is, do politics play a role in the security of our nation? They must, when you are talking about the politics, on a federal level, because that is one of the things that the federal government is charged with doing.

FDR's policy of "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" was designed to keep us out of war. It didn't work, but in my opinion, was the best policy for the time. After world war one, Americans didn't want to get involved in the wars of Europe.

The currant Presidents policy, seems to be we will make friends with all terrorist, except al-Qaeda. That is a stark difference from the last Presidents policy of we will fight terrorism any were we find it. You may want to notice that having a policy, doesn't guarantee out come.

But having a policy, clear or muddy, is designed to let others know what your intentions are and how you will react to situations, as they will, or might happen.

FDR's policy, meant that he had to follow through and use that big stick, when necessary. The currant administration is sending signals that he has opted for a smaller stick and instead, will rely on civil courts and world opinion, to protect us.

I am sure that some feel safer, with this policy. I don't.

b

[OmahaLDS]

The fact that they have been reluctant to strike inside US territory does not diminish the threat.

It depends on how you define threat. The IRA has the capability to operate in the US, but will not do so because it would be contrary to their objectives. Hezbollah has the same situation, they probably could do something, but any action on their part would be irrational considering their objectives and stated goals. In fact the source you provided says...

"I believe Hezbollah's intentions to conduct a terror attack against the U.S. under the present circumstances to be low"

Threat is based on ability to do something, and the desire to do it. China could attack the US, but it is not going to.

Because we "know where they live" they have shown restrain all this years.

Not at all. Their location is irrelevant to their inaction. Acting against the US would be counterproductive.

Once the Mullah's in Iran determine that it is time and that retaliation fromt he US would not be forthcoming they can order a strike that will make 9/11 pale in comparison.

You assume that Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran, this is incorrect.

Until 9/11 Hezbollah had the record for inflicting the most US casualties worldwide.

Do you have a source for this?

They have also attacked Israel worldwide with more precision and damage than any other organization.

Given their objective to attack Israel I am not surprised. They have no goal of attacking the US.

There are thousands of members of Hezbollah in the US already! The same can not be said for Al-Qaeda, for example.

So? There are also members of Al-Qaeda in the US. The difference is that Al-Qaeda has a stated goal of attacking the US, Hezbollah does not.

Again, it seems to me that you have not been able to assess accurately what a global threat to the US can be and where does it come from.

That's odd. I thought I was paid to do just that?