billvon 3,110 #1 July 21, 2004 Let's say an FBI agent comes across evidence of a terrorist camp in the Arizona desert. He investigates and discovers that: -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. What should the next step be? (I would be most interested in hearing the comments from the "glass f****ing parking lot!" crowd.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #2 July 21, 2004 Bill they are going to be calling you a troll next "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #3 July 21, 2004 Once fired upon, they should use whatever force is necessary to take the place down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #4 July 21, 2004 Jeez.....those Cali. trolls are the worst send in armed recon drones helicopter gunships.....oh and a couple of rifle co. of Marines backed by armor and Harriers on standby for close support...just in case........and I'm not from the glass F***king parking lot crowd or I would have suggested 1 or 2 FAE'sMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #5 July 21, 2004 > Once fired upon, they should use whatever force is necessary to take the place down. If the result was that most of his followers were killed, would that be acceptable, or should government agents involved in the raid be punished for their deaths? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #6 July 21, 2004 QuoteLet's say an FBI agent comes across evidence of a terrorist camp in the Arizona desert. He investigates and discovers that: -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. What should the next step be? (I would be most interested in hearing the comments from the "glass f****ing parking lot!" crowd.) I seem to recall something like that happening in Waco in 1994. It would never happen to the RIFWs, tho - they're a priveleged, protected class, shielded by the armor of political correctness. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #7 July 21, 2004 Quote> Once fired upon, they should use whatever force is necessary to take the place down. If the result was that most of his followers were killed, would that be acceptable, or should government agents involved in the raid be punished for their deaths? totally depends on the level of resistance offered... negotiation is a first best tactic, open warfare a last resort. Light exchange of small arms fire does not justify a full on raid until all other options have been tried and exhausted...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #8 July 21, 2004 >Light exchange of small arms fire does not justify a full on raid until all > other options have been tried and exhausted... OK, say they hold off on a full raid for three weeks; during that time no progress is made towards the objective of arresting him. How long do you wait until you consider all other options exhausted? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #9 July 21, 2004 hmm depends really.. are they contained? do they have outside comms? how long can their supplies reasonable be expected to last? has power, water etc been cut? have they escalated the level of violence? (ie. are they still firing at the 'besiegers' and with what?) Has anyone from the camp surrendered? Does it appear that they are negotiating in good faith, or is it a lost cause?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 July 21, 2004 Are they white Christians? Note - not implying that would be your criteria, Zen, but it would for a lot of other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #11 July 21, 2004 ooh you know me, i'm all for raiding the christians first... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #12 July 22, 2004 Quote>Light exchange of small arms fire does not justify a full on raid until all > other options have been tried and exhausted... OK, say they hold off on a full raid for three weeks; during that time no progress is made towards the objective of arresting him. How long do you wait until you consider all other options exhausted? Why wait? We are at war with these assholes. They are not worth risking the lives of our law enforcement personnel. NAPALM. you got my goat with this oneDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #13 July 22, 2004 >Why wait? We are at war with these assholes. Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #14 July 22, 2004 innocent until proven guilty remember?? FBI 'evidence' is not proof of anything until a court determines it actual value.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 July 22, 2004 Quote -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. The catch with this Arab Waco question is that in this example, you're establishing the FBI/ATF claims as fact. This is just how it happened last time, but later turned out to be somewhat less than factual. So I'm not sure the answers you get will prove the point you are trying to make. I'm going to pass on this as trollbait until it's better defined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #16 July 22, 2004 Quote>Light exchange of small arms fire does not justify a full on raid until all > other options have been tried and exhausted... OK, say they hold off on a full raid for three weeks; during that time no progress is made towards the objective of arresting him. How long do you wait until you consider all other options exhausted? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, in this your puerile, transparent allegory for the Waco raid? You ARE being a troll, here, in that you're trying to bait those of us right-wing-wackos who condemn the Waco raid into supporting the same thing when the subject is an Islamic extremist. You don't give us much credit, Bill, and I find it very insulting that you seem to think you're so intellectually superior that you can essentially toy with us like this. It's intellectually dishonest of you. I picture you sitting there plotting, saying, "Wait til I turn this around on them and tell them that they just supported the raid on the Branch Davidians! Heeheeheehohoho!" You are putting the cart before the horse because you are not examining why the raid became necessitated in the first place. If this Islamic bad guy could be picked up in town in an uneventful arrest, the rest of the shit would likely never hit the fan. The Feds, in this case (as in Waco) baited the whole scenario into transpiring. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #17 July 22, 2004 QuoteQuote -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. The catch with this Arab Waco question is that in this example, you're establishing the FBI/ATF claims as fact. This is just how it happened last time, but later turned out to be somewhat less than factual. So I'm not sure the answers you get will prove the point you are trying to make. I'm going to pass on this as trollbait until it's better defined. Besides, who gives a shit about the allegely aggravating factors here, like "he changed his name," or "he's been described as unstable"? These are NOT MATERIAL, but Bill uses them to inflame the situation. The allegation of a past shootout is not even material, unless that is why they're seeking to arrest the guy. Likewise, is there something criminal or aggravating by the camp being "composed of his followers"? What, this is not allowed? Shit, I'VE "bought chemicals that can be used to make weapons"! I probably have a bunch of them in my house right now that could make a pretty good boom! (The thing is, I don't even know which combinations to use or how to make them!) One good one that I typically have 10 to 15 gallons of on hand at any given time ... is GASOLINE. "Ooooooh. Look out -- I'm a bad dude!" This whole question was troll-bait ifever there was troll bait. If you want to discuss the rationale for raiding the Branch Davidians, why the hell can't you just raise the specifics of THAT example? Answer: you thought you'd trap us into contradicting ourselves. I can't even say, "Nice try." --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #18 July 22, 2004 QuoteI picture you sitting there plotting, saying, "Wait til I turn this around on them and tell them that they just supported the raid on the Branch Davidians! Heeheeheehohoho!" Not saying the original posting is good or bad; but I kind of doubt that he thought we wouldn't "get it"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #19 July 22, 2004 Quote Let's say an FBI agent comes across evidence of a terrorist camp in the Arizona desert. He investigates and discovers that: ... [Playing devil's advocate] Are the alleged terrorists US citizens? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #20 July 22, 2004 QuoteLet's say an FBI agent comes across evidence of a terrorist camp in the Arizona desert. He investigates and discovers that: -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. What should the next step be? (I would be most interested in hearing the comments from the "glass f****ing parking lot!" crowd.) Surround them and continuously play 'Achy Breaky Heart' over loud speakers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #21 July 22, 2004 Quoteinnocent until proven guilty remember?? FBI 'evidence' is not proof of anything until a court determines it actual value. Hmm, a gopher posting from another planet. Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #22 July 22, 2004 Bill, I would say this is a nice attempt to illustrate inconsistencies in others, but it is a piss-poor comparison to Waco. Try again. Greenies shouldn't post leading questions that a child could see through. Troll. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #23 July 22, 2004 I don't like comparing this to Waco. Waco was handled in too big a rush. It was Washington saying,"Get it over with, let's go home, no more perdiem". With the limited information about the radical Islamic activist, he certainly sucked me.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #24 July 22, 2004 QuoteGreenies shouldn't post leading questions that a child could see through. Why not? Does the color of our screennames mean we aren't allowed to start discussions about things that interest us, even if "a child could see through" it? And why is this a "troll" and other hypothetical threads here aren't? Don't like the thread or the person who started it? Don't read or post to it. Simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #25 July 22, 2004 QuoteYou are putting the cart before the horse because you are not examining why the raid became necessitated in the first place. No, he's putting an Arab/Musliim face on the Waco issue to see if people base their politics on religion and race instead of what they believe is right or wrong. QuoteIf this Islamic bad guy could be picked up in town in an uneventful arrest, the rest of the shit would likely never hit the fan. The Feds, in this case (as in Waco) baited the whole scenario into transpiring. I agree that Waco was handled incorrectly. The question really is, if you believe that way, does your opinion change if they are Arab/Muslim? Why don't you answer his hypothetical? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)