Re: [privacy] 'The Architecture' Reaches Out To Arrest Activist

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 1/13/07, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> I might point out that the first WTC attack was *last* century... :)

You might, but its an obvious truth.

> I'll give them a free ride for the first 9 months of *this* century, but
> if they haven't been following terrorist cells for the *other* 63 months
> so far they're derelicting their duty.  So for some 92% of this
> century, they have been presumably doing something.

I believe the facts support their "doing something" for all that time
- since the second WTC attack at least.

> And given the glacial rate of progress we're seeing at rounding all the
> terrorists up, when we've been at it for 90% of the century so far, it's
> unclear that realtime reports *matter*.  You don't need realtime reports to
> notice that nothing earth-shattering has happened in the past year.
>
> Now returning to Fergie's point - they've had over 5 *years* to hunt down
> all the terrorists, and have come up (mostly) empty-handed.

Most of the people on this list, being modern liberals, would have
turned loose the bulk of the terrorist we've caught - and relocated to
Cuba or "secret holding areas" overseas. Which way do you want it? We
also killed the #1 guy in Iraq last year and countless other wanna-bes
as we cleaned up town after town - including those in the Baathe
controlled areas. They've chased Bin Laden into a cave from which he's
probably scared to leave - as are his immediate commanders who we also
haven't heard from in I don't know how long.

For that matter, with most of this list being made up of "modern
liberals", you would have turned loose the bulk of terrorists we've
captured and relocated to Cuba and "secret" locations overseas. Which
way do you want it?

> This pretty
> much implies that there *will* be mission creep, slowly redefining other
> things as "terrorist" to make them in scope, so that they can catch *somebody*
> and justify their continued existence.

Since your premise was incorrect, so is your conjecture.

> The alternative (they decide there's so few terrorists out there that they
> can declare victory, pack up, go home, and retire) doesn't pass the laugh test.

We can declare victory right now, the war is over - military has left
the battlefield and leader is dead, game over. We're now trying to win
an occupation which is always much more difficult - but would be made
much easier if the gloves were taken off and soldiers, both ours and
the Iraqi's, were allowed to be soldiers.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy