Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By gonzales56
  • 1 Post By Neverfly

Thread: Dealing with Partisans

  1. #1 Dealing with Partisans 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I want to re-cast the problem of terrorism in a historical context, and see what conclusions come out of it. Suppose this is World War II, and the Nazis have begun recruiting American citizens to conduct partisan attacks on American soil. They spout Nazi rhetoric, and sometimes blow themselves up in order to kill civilians on buses and trains, and etc.

    A few of them manage to commandeer some commercial planes, and crash them into the Pentagon and...... um..... Empire State building (since the World Trade Center hadn't been built yet). The fourth one is successfully stopped by the heroic efforts of the passengers.


    How would we deal with this threat?


    Oh wait.... come to think of it.... I already know how we dealt with it the first time.

    Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Maybe we might not want to follow the example of that generation, but still there is a question . How should we deal with it in the present, where the enemy isn't officially at war with us, but still continues to send partisans to disrupt us?


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I want to re-cast the problem of terrorism in a historical context, and see what conclusions come out of it. Suppose this is World War II, and the Nazis have begun recruiting American citizens to conduct partisan attacks on American soil. They spout Nazi rhetoric, and sometimes blow themselves up in order to kill civilians on buses and trains, and etc.

    A few of them manage to commandeer some commercial planes, and crash them into the Pentagon and...... um..... Empire State building (since the World Trade Center hadn't been built yet). The fourth one is successfully stopped by the heroic efforts of the passengers.


    How would we deal with this threat?


    Oh wait.... come to think of it.... I already know how we dealt with it the first time.

    Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Maybe we might not want to follow the example of that generation, but still there is a question . How should we deal with it in the present, where the enemy isn't officially at war with us, but still continues to send partisans to disrupt us?
    IMO It should be handled the Same way the US dealt with McVeigh.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You mean not establishing controls, checks of people or ways to track obviously dangerous materials for the convenience of industry until they are used to kill a few dozen people?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You mean not establishing controls, checks of people or ways to track obviously dangerous materials for the convenience of industry until they are used to kill a few dozen people?
    Establish controls? Checks of people? Ways to track?

    Considering the fact that known real and proper suspects are already checked out and tracked by authorities in the US, under the law and approval of the courts of course, I can only assume you are talking about establishing controls, checks of people and ways to track innocent people in an attempt to maybe find something incriminating and/or illegal...?

    Forgive my ignorance but, are you american?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    IMO It should be handled the Same way the US dealt with McVeigh.

    Perhaps you should explain yourself then. If anything the fact that dozens of people died from an easily preventable act means that the government was horribly ineffective at protecting the population--handing such a disaster "the same way" is not only foolish it invites future disaster.

    Yes I'm American. Born in the US, raised in a quaint little fiercely conservative and independent New England fishing town, saved American lives as a weather researcher and forecaster and than dedicated more than half my life studying and putting my life on the line to protect the United States--sometimes just curled up with the dozens of books about our funding fathers that fill my bookshelves, sometime at the wrong end of rifle fire, mortar, rocket or improved explosive attacks. Now I'm studying to become a teacher and inspire the next great generation of American children. The American people can call me back into service at any time because Congress approved my officer commission for life--and I'm obligated to continue to live and uphold the standards of duty and honor to country to the grave. Does that answer your question? Or do you think the several years in Europe, the Middle East or South East Asia all in uniform disqualify me? LOL.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 13th, 2013 at 08:11 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    [
    ......checks of people and ways to track innocent people in an attempt to maybe find something incriminating and/or illegal...? Forgive my ignorance but, are you american?
    It's actually a now-commonly utilized tactic, formerly known as "entrapment". Today's methods employ a less obvious "tack": "Informers" are now an often-used means of Law Enforcement to secure arrests. To be sure, FBI budgets routinely contain tens of millions of dollars, to be used to encourage "Informers", one of the more dubious and questionable tactics, in my opinion, and not to mention "taxpayers' dollars", squandered ridiculously, often illegally, producing proof of effectiveness simply by citing the enormous prison population....... jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    IMO It should be handled the Same way the US dealt with McVeigh.

    Perhaps you should explain yourself then. If anything the fact that dozens of people died from an easily preventable act means that the government was horribly ineffective at protecting the population--handing such a disaster "the same way" is not only foolish it invites future disaster.

    Yes I'm American. Born in the US, raised in a quaint little fiercely conservative and independent New England fishing town, saved American lives as a weather researcher and forecaster and than dedicated more than half my life studying and putting my life on the line to protect the United States--sometimes just curled up with the dozens of books about our funding fathers that fill my bookshelves, sometime at the wrong end of rifle fire, mortar, rocket or improved explosive attacks. Now I'm studying to become a teacher and inspire the next great generation of American children. The American people can call me back into service at any time because Congress approved my officer commission for life--and I'm obligated to continue to live and uphold the standards of duty and honor to country to the grave. Does that answer your question? Or do you think the several years in Europe, the Middle East or South East Asia all in uniform disqualify me? LOL.
    Fox, it is impossible to stop the McVeigh's of the world from attacking governments and nations. They perceive an injustice, a crime and they often feel like an unforgivable wrong has been done to them, their family, friends or other people and they act upon those beliefs. They are also smart enough to find away to attack no matter what a government does.

    The irony in all of it though is that it is often the actions of a government, directly or indirectly, that is the cause/reason given by these people for their attacks, and in response to those attacks, governments go out and infringe upon the rights and liberties of law biding citizens... Of course, creating more and more people whom dislike, and even end up hating, the current government that is infringing upon their rights, freedoms and liberties.

    Example... Look at the push for gun control. Look what it has done to this country. Otherwise law biding citizens, police officers, sheriffs, military men/women, politicians, governors, etc., have told those pushing for gun control that they will not obey, they will not disarm and if need be, they will fight for their right to keep and bear arms.... These actions alone by the current government have create millions and millions of Americans who distrust the current government, and whom might not ever fully trust the government again. That is not a good thing.

    Governments should be more aware, more understanding and consider how their words, intentions and actions effect others. What they should NOT be doing, IMO, is constantly figuring out new ways to divide their nations, disenfranchise people and reduce the peoples freedoms, liberties and rights. It is never a good thing, and it never leads to a good thing IMO.

    IMO, Governments should be working on expanding freedoms, liberties and rights, not reducing them. That will keep the American people, IMO, safer than anything else would or could. Government, IMO, should stay out of the business of trying to put their boots on the necks of people unless it is to uphold freedoms, liberties and rights of others and it does not infringes upon the freedoms, liberties and rights of others.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 14th, 2013 at 06:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It's always one or the other (or a mix). You can't have freedom without a loss of security. You can't have security without a loss of freedom.

    That's just the human condition. It's an utterly unchangeable aspect of it at that. So long as others are free, they are free to hurt you. So long as you wish for others not to be free to hurt you, you also must concede to being restrained from hurting them. Inevitably some of those constraints will infringe on your freedom and lessen your quality of life.

    Also, the more you concede freedom to the government, the more freedom the government has. That means one groups's ability to hurt you continues to grow. At a minimum they'll tax you to death and give themselves additional ways to accept bribes or otherwise be corrupt.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I want to re-cast the problem of terrorism in a historical context, and see what conclusions come out of it. Suppose this is World War II, and the Nazis have begun recruiting American citizens to conduct partisan attacks on American soil. They spout Nazi rhetoric, and sometimes blow themselves up in order to kill civilians on buses and trains, and etc.

    A few of them manage to commandeer some commercial planes, and crash them into the Pentagon and...... um..... Empire State building (since the World Trade Center hadn't been built yet). The fourth one is successfully stopped by the heroic efforts of the passengers.


    How would we deal with this threat?


    Oh wait.... come to think of it.... I already know how we dealt with it the first time.

    Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Maybe we might not want to follow the example of that generation, but still there is a question . How should we deal with it in the present, where the enemy isn't officially at war with us, but still continues to send partisans to disrupt us?




    Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    I found the above link to be interesting reading.
    Last edited by chad; February 23rd, 2013 at 02:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's always one or the other (or a mix). You can't have freedom without a loss of security. You can't have security without a loss of freedom.

    That's just the human condition. It's an utterly unchangeable aspect of it at that. So long as others are free, they are free to hurt you. So long as you wish for others not to be free to hurt you, you also must concede to being restrained from hurting them. Inevitably some of those constraints will infringe on your freedom and lessen your quality of life.

    Also, the more you concede freedom to the government, the more freedom the government has. That means one groups's ability to hurt you continues to grow. At a minimum they'll tax you to death and give themselves additional ways to accept bribes or otherwise be corrupt.
    With all respect, I could not disagree more Kojax. Freedom and liberty for the people does not reduce their security, it strengthens it. People, regardless of where they live, have a nature right to defend themselves. It is this natural right that creates security for the people, and this is why we have the second amendment.

    Prisons: some of the most restricted but violent and unsafe places.

    My neighborhood: Very free and very safe and secure.

    When someone decides to attack, security happens when people decide to defend and protect themselves. When someone decides to attack, security does not happen when people refuse or are forced by the government to not defend and protect themselves.

    Examples:

    9/11.. Foreigners on planes attack and kill 3000 american with box cutters.. What? Government intervention prevents law biding citizens from carrying weapons on planes in the government's name and definition of security and safety.

    Lanza walks into a school where 100's of children are left unprotected and not a single adult there has the protected right to protect and defend them or those children from the lanza's of the world due to government's intervention in the government's name and definition of safety and security.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 23rd, 2013 at 05:07 AM.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I see it that way as well. Those that complain about security are those that are fearful others can and will hurt them.
    In the Army, they used to tell us; "A platoon is only as strong as its weakest member."

    In other words, the weakest member better be strengthened. It wasn't up to everyone else to be made weak for hopes they wouldn't beat up Mr. Weakest.
    Yet, that's what society seeks to do- impose weakness on the people.
    gonzales56 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It's interesting to look at the problem from that perspective, of weakness and strength. Partisanship tends to spring up when one side knows it is weaker than the other. It's kind of like Gomer Pyle shooting his drill sergeant in the movie "Full Metal Jacket".

    We're not afraid of someone using extra-ordinary abilities against us. We're afraid of them using their very mediocre, common abilities in an anti-social way.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Example: A roadside bomb. Not exactly a technological marvel. Maybe some of them are sophisticated, but most are simple electrical circuits connected to an unexploded munition. Sometimes a cell phone might play a role. A person can build one with about a week of training at most.

    Example: Shooting 30 children at a school. Gun ownership is not exactly a pinnacle of life achievement in the USA. Just about anyone can own one. Killing a child in close quarters doesn't require a lot of marksmanship.

    The question isn't whether we should allow weaklings to be picked on. The question is what do we do to prevent them from trying to get revenge for it afterward?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Example: A roadside bomb. Not exactly a technological marvel. Maybe some of them are sophisticated, but most are simple electrical circuits connected to an unexploded munition. Sometimes a cell phone might play a role. A person can build one with about a week of training at most.

    Example: Shooting 30 children at a school. Gun ownership is not exactly a pinnacle of life achievement in the USA. Just about anyone can own one. Killing a child in close quarters doesn't require a lot of marksmanship.

    The question isn't whether we should allow weaklings to be picked on. The question is what do we do to prevent them from trying to get revenge for it afterward?
    Whatever the solution, we know that attacking people who are either law biding or not a threat does not solve anything... Instead, we know that attacking the wrong people creates millions who go from being law biding citizens to being outlaws or from non threats to real threats.

    Weaklings should not be picked on, they should be strengthened. If that is kids at schools being truly protected by police, then that is what needs to happen. However, attempting to remove firearms from law biding citizens, from Americans whom will use those weapons if need be to defend and protect Americans, Law Enforcement, the government and their communities against people who wish to do harm and have no respect for the rights of others, is foolish IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Dealing with the public / Truth in science
    By JoshuaL in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 17th, 2012, 09:46 PM
  2. Dealing with grief
    By PaulMichael in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 20th, 2012, 08:33 PM
  3. Manuscript dealing with relativity and field unification
    By pogono in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 4th, 2012, 12:27 PM
  4. I have two questions dealing with our planets and Jupiter...
    By ThaCrow187 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 11th, 2008, 04:17 AM
  5. Dealing with chronic disease?
    By chronics in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 29th, 2006, 06:48 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •