WAR ON TERRORISM

Canada, surely, is not in charge of the security of the U.S. borders. But both countries share the same enemy, namely, the international terrorism, and IMHO, they should cooperate with each other in preventing terrorists entering territories of any of them.

The Canadian responsibility does begin with them letting the suspects into their country but doesn't that mean that we have holes in our security not to notify the authorities there? Several of the suspects were already pegged before they entered Canada.

BTW -- actually, Katie Couric's bit was made fun of (I could have done without the realism of looking in someone else's colon) but it prompted me to go in for the proceedure and it's a good thing I did! What has FOX done for you lately except give you high blood pressure?

steissd

Well, apart from my lack of affinity for the handy-dandy phrase 'international terrorism'...would it apply, for example, to the following bombing?

Apart from that little nit pick...I think our national police force and intelligence agency are probably cooperating with the FBI, at least as well as the CIA is.

I'd warrant the FBI gets better cooperation out of the RCMP than they do out of CIA--no turf wars there.

Having said ". . . at least as well as the CIA is." you haven't said much, unless there have been some serious improvements in the past year.

This discussion of FBI & CIA cooperation suddenly brought to mind the scene from Dr. Strangelove in which George C. Scott is whining to the President: "But, Mr. President, he'll see the big board ! ! ! "

Blatham, if the operation of Irgun took place in the territory of the UK and its victims would be Londoners just walking in the street and not involved in the conflict, this would be an international terrorism.
By the way, the Irgun people called the hotel 15 minutes before the explosion and warned the people there about it. They gave them chance to escape (though, UK military intelligence paperwork could not be saved under such circumstances). British military did not take this warning seriously, and this caused human casualties (Irgun did not have a purpose to cause such casualties, its only objective was elimination of the documents taken by the British Intelligence Service in the Jewish Agency).
If all the international terrorists acted this way, attacking only the military facilities and/or high officials, international terror would not be of concern of plain people and its danger to society would be much lower (in 19th century Russian revolutionaries committed numerous terror attacks on the high officials of the empire — including assassination of the Emperor Alexander II — but their actions did not affect the normal life in the country, since they never aimed innocent civilians and did not try to kill as many people as possible, unlike the Islamic terrorists).

New information (to me) and a new perspective is always welcome, steissd.

OK. I am going to start the anti-terrorist war of my own tomorrow: from 12.31.02 I am drafted to the active reserve service... So, Happy New Year to everyone, I shall not be able to make such wishes online tomorrow...

As an officer again, I presume. Else they will waste some valuable experience.

Happy New Year

steissd

That's a good post. thank you. I wish you a sincere good year and safety.

Some war on terrorism.

Is anyone even looking for Bin Laden? like, seriously.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/23/ap2689683.html



<snip>

Well, at least we know bin Laden's keeping up with the news.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure hope steissd's ok.

Funny how conservatives never bring this up. Have you ever noticed how many times the condemn Clinton because he never killed bin Laden? But not a word against our "War President" for allowing him to escape from Tora Bora.

xingu, Anybody with half a brain will realize the inconsistencies of this administration. The only problem we have at the moment is the simple fact that most Americans lack half a brain.

Commander expects no clear Afghan victory: report Agence France-Presse
Published: Saturday October 4, 2008

LONDON (AFP) — The top military commander in Afghanistan said in an interview Sunday the public should not expect "decisive military victory" there, only the reduction of the insurgency to manageable levels.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour in Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times that people should "lower their expectations" about how the conflict will end.

He also said Britons should prepare for a possible deal with the Taliban.

"We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army," he told the newspaper.

Carleton-Smith said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" but said it would be "unrealistic and probably incredible" to think that the multinational forces in Afghanistan could rid the country of armed bands.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency... I don't think we should expect that when we go there won't be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world," he said.

The brigadier added: "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

Britain has 7,800 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and US-led operations.

When Palin disagreed with Biden on how a surge like the one in Iraq will not work, Palin jumped in and told Biden he was wrong.

The reason I'm reeterating this piece is that it seems not only is the American commander in Afghanistan confirming Biden, but the British commander.

And the wonder of wonders, Palin may become the CIC without even having current information about the military tactics now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's almost an irony that the British commander is talking about "a possible deal with the Taliban," when McCain said he will not negotiate with our enemies. He said it would provide them with "legitimacy." Seems McCain's experience in the military didn't help him much.