The Killing of Al

The point isn't what he may have wanted; it's what any citizen deserves, regardless of how their citizenship came about.

It's probably true that under this government nothing you're doing now would cause you to be labeled a terrorist, but other scenarios might emerge where you would. For example, let's say you volunteered to work for a group like Executive Outcomes or Sandline, and they were fighting someone like Savimbi in Angola, and the US wanted to support him. Next thing you know D'Torchia is tagged with belonging to a "terrorist" group, and that's all it will take.....

That's how we could lose D'Torchia to a missile-firing drone or an old-fashioned contract killer in the African bush or Kinshasa. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

That's a risk mercenaries have to accept.

I believe that's a direct result of the religion they practice....Islam, not necessarily a reflection of us having "lost our way so badly". I'm not one of those that believe Islam in and of itself is bad, no religion usually is. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

That discounts all the students coming to our country who are NOT practitioners of Islam. Do you think they're all impressed by what they see?

That's a risk mercenaries have to accept. Originally Posted by Booth

Maybe I shouldn't have used those two groups as examples.

Let's say D'Torchia volunteered to join a liberation movement like the Hagana or Pal Mach in Palestine in 1947 and he got tagged as a terrorist that way. Or let's say he joined some democratic liberation movement in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait or Equatorial Guinea, and the US didn't want to see those governments bothered.

Anyone who belongs to a group, or EVEN SPEAKS OUT IN FAVOR of a fighting group fighting someone the US government likes can be tagged as a terrorist. D'Torchia could be targeted for assassination for just speaking out in favor of democratic groups fighting against tyrannies in countries like Jordan or Nigeria.

The longstanding definition of "terrorism" which always included only violent acts perpetrated against civilians for political reasons has now been distorted to include ANY FORM OF COMBAT against anyone the US likes.....or even SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF COMBAT against anyone the US likes.....or purely criminally-motivated violent acts which have no political goals whatsoever....

There are a million otherwise noble things someone like D'Torchia could do with his views and skills in the world where he could be tagged as a terrorist, and then some idiot like Obama will sign whatever's put in front of him, and next thing you know there goes D'Torchia up in smoke, and then Soldier of Fortune has lost it's most valued reader!

The bottom line is that professional soldiers and operators are mature enough to know that ONE MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER IS ANOTHER MAN'S TERRORIST.

Accepting that fact is what separates PROFESSIONALS from all others in the game....and in my world that's what it is...a game. All this talk about "how our enemies hate us," and "all these people that want to kill Americans...."

Pleeeese.

It's a GAME. These kinds of conflicts are a GAME.

Don't become a true believer in anything in international politics or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JUDGEMENT AND BALANCE. And that's when you lose.

The real world is full of ambiguities and is not a morality play or melodrama put forward by government propaganda or YELLOW JOURNALISTS like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN...

The US government's use of the definition of "terrorist" is purely hypocritical and self-serving.

Being sincere in your beliefs and thinking your right won't save you from being labled a terrorist.

It bears repeating because I know the truth....WAR IS A GAME. (it's a game I choose to no longer play at)

That discounts all the students coming to our country who are NOT practitioners of Islam. Do you think they're all impressed by what they see? Originally Posted by Booth

Booth, but how many of "all the students coming to our country" decide to become terrorists and target the United States after returning to their home country?
As we discussed in another post, my wife is a recent immigrant and I can tell you she's certainly not impressed with what she's seen so far in the USA. Not our politics, not our school system etc. That doesn't means she's going back to her country, joining up with a terrorist cell and encouraging people to attack the United States or "kill Americans without hesitation".
So I would stand by my statement that it's the radicals who subvert Islam and use it as justification to attack us that are and continue to be our most pressing threat.

Maybe I shouldn't have used those two groups as examples.

Let's say D'Torchia volunteered to join a liberation movement like the Hagana or Pal Mach in Palestine in 1947 and he got tagged as a terrorist that way. Or let's say he joined some democratic liberation movement in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait or Equatorial Guinea, and the US didn't want to see those governments bothered.

Anyone who belongs to a group, or EVEN SPEAKS OUT IN FAVOR of a fighting group fighting someone the US government likes can be tagged as a terrorist. D'Torchia could be targeted for assassination for just speaking out in favor of democratic groups fighting against tyrannies in countries like Jordan or Nigeria.

The longstanding definition of "terrorism" which always included only violent acts perpetrated against civilians for political reasons has now been distorted to include ANY FORM OF COMBAT against anyone the US likes.....or even SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF COMBAT against anyone the US likes.....or purely criminally-motivated violent acts which have no political goals whatsoever....

There are a million otherwise noble things someone like D'Torchia could do with his views and skills in the world where he could be tagged as a terrorist, and then some idiot like Obama will sign whatever's put in front of him, and next thing you know there goes D'Torchia up in smoke, and then Soldier of Fortune has lost it's most valued reader!

TAE, that last sentence was funny, hahhaha! I will freely admit that I have read SOF. In the late 70's, early 80's they were one of the only sources of information when it came to some of the "bush wars" you frequently talk about. Very little of these wars were covered by the mainstream media and they certainly didn't have an abundance of reporters willing to go into Angola, Rhodesia etc at the time.

The bottom line is that professional soldiers and operators are mature enough to know that ONE MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER IS ANOTHER MAN'S TERRORIST.

True enough. Eric Haney, one of the earlier members of Delta Force wrote in his book "Inside Delta Force" that any operator that didn't have a false passport and money stashed away somewhere, in case the Government turned on them, was a fool.
While I understand his statement, my personal beliefs wouldn't allow me to simply disappear. Should the scenarios you describe ever happen, I would take a different route so to speak.


Accepting that fact is what separates PROFESSIONALS from all others in the game....and in my world that's what it is...a game. All this talk about "how our enemies hate us," and "all these people that want to kill Americans...."

Pleeeese.

It's a GAME. These kinds of conflicts are a GAME.

It's a game right up to the point that you get blown up, shot, disfigured etc in the "game". If you don't believe that there are extremists out there that hate us then maybe you've been away from the "game" a little too long. Hang up your provider business spurs for awhile and jump back in the "game". You may actually run across some people that "hate and want to kill Americans".

Don't become a true believer in anything in international politics or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JUDGEMENT AND BALANCE. And that's when you lose.

The real world is full of ambiguities and is not a morality play or melodrama put forward by government propaganda or YELLOW JOURNALISTS like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN...

The US government's use of the definition of "terrorist" is purely hypocritical and self-serving.

Being sincere in your beliefs and thinking your right won't save you from being labled a terrorist.

It bears repeating because I know the truth....WAR IS A GAME. (it's a game I choose to no longer play at) Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Well they say hindsight is always 20/20.

The point isn't what he may have wanted; it's what any citizen deserves, regardless of how their citizenship came about.

It's probably true that under this government nothing you're doing now would cause you to be labeled a terrorist, but other scenarios might emerge where you would. For example, let's say you volunteered to work for a group like Executive Outcomes or Sandline, and they were fighting someone like Savimbi in Angola, and the US wanted to support him. Next thing you know D'Torchia is tagged with belonging to a "terrorist" group, and that's all it will take.....

Actually, that's not true. If you read Eeben Barlow's (founder of Executive Outcomes) book (Executive Outcomes: Against all Odds) or spoke to any of the guys who worked for them back in the day, you'd know that they all felt betrayed by the U.S. Government at one point or another. That didn't mean the U.S. Government tried to kill them. I CERTAINLY don't like Obama, as anyone on these posts knows, but I don't believe he would target Americans without cause. Your point is (if I understand you correctly) that Americans should NEVER be targeted. I disagree. Once you turn on your own country and try to kill innocent Americans you should cease to be afforded the protections that being a U.S. Citizen brings.
Let's look at it this way. If I join a foreign government's army, the State Department can strip me of my U.S. Citizenship. Even if that Country is friendly toward the United States. Granted, the Government doesn't make it a habit of doing so but they can do so legally. So joining a terrorist cell and advocating the killing of Americans certainly shouldn't afford you more rights than someone that simply decided to join a foreign army looking for adventure.

That's how we could lose D'Torchia to a missile-firing drone or an old-fashioned contract killer in the African bush or Kinshasa. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Ah, but alas so far no one in my Government's coming after me in Trashcanistan.

If an American citizen is among some Talibs and firing on other Americans in combat then they're gonna be killed.

But if an American citizen is somewhere participating in criminal acts like homicide, then they need to be charged, apprehended, indicted, and so forth. It is counter to all our principles of limited government and the rights of the individual to allow anyone in our feckless government to order their killing without any process of law.

I've been a conservative all my life. In 1968 my father voted for George Wallace and Curtiss LeMay because Nixon promised to pull out from Vietnam! That's how right-wing my family was, and we all were involved in the military or intelligence. My relatives in Germany all fought in the war on the German side. When I was younger I was stupid enough to believe that the threat of communism justified various unsavory things my government was then doing [in the name of anti-communism] some of which I foolishly participted in.

As a conservative it took me a while to realize that the law enforcement/national security/military parts of government are just as self-serving, non-heroic, cowadly, and misleading as any other part of the government (if not more so).

It took a while for me to understand that the things used to motivate myself, as well as my family members, were all constructions - they were not true, and not believed to be true by the people who composed them.

There is nothing in the so-called threat from "terrorism" which warrants in any manner the gutting of our principles of limited government and the rights of the individual under the United States Constitution.

If you think this is simply a melodrama between good guys and bad guys then think some more.

You might believe that terrorism is real, but I guarantee you the Phd's from Yale and MIT who run this government don't believe a word of what they're saying.* They all know it's completely phoney, and was constructed for geostrategic and career reasons.

*for that matter neither do Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or any of those ratings-driven guys. The only sincere conservative formerly in media was Pat Buchanon, and now he's writing well-argued books for thinking people -- people who read. Mostly he writes that the US should not have fought against Germany in WWII, and I completely agree with him. FDR did that only because he was a communist sympathizer.

The only sincere conservative formerly in media was Pat Buchanon, and now he's writing well-argued books for thinking people -- people who read. Mostly he writes that the US should not have fought against Germany in WWII, and I completely agree with him. FDR did that only because he was a communist sympathizer. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

So I'm curious how you and good old Pat see this. After Japan attacked our fleet at Pearl Harbor, should we not have declared war on Germany and simply focused on Japan? Or should we have eventually let them have Hawaii too? If we had focused only on Japan, do you honestly believe German U-Boats would not have assisted Japan by going after our ships?
Just curious how you see us staying out of WWII completely without Japan or Germany eventually coming after us?
Ohhhh, but that's right, I see where you're going with this now. We don't declare war on Germany, we let them have Europe, we form an alliance with Hitler AND.....best of all.....for you TAE.....Hitler then gets to complete his solution to the "Jewish problem" therefor no Jewish State is ever formed, therefor your love affair with the Palestinians and Iranians could have a fairy tale ending. Of course, makes perfect sense. Not sure why I didn't see that to begin with!

With the passage of time history is able to better record the actual events and motives less effected by the emotion and propaganda of the time.

History will record that:

1.Britain informed Germany prior to September of 1939 that it would take no action should Poland be invaded.

2.After Germany and the USSR jointly invaded Poland Britain declared war on Germany, but not on the USSR.

3.Between October 1939 and Febuary 1940 Germany attempted many times to negotiate an end to the state of war with Britain and France. After all these efforts at negotiation were rebuffed Germany finally attacked France, Belgium and Holland in May 1940.

4After Britain declared war on Germany the prime focus of SIS/MI-6 activity was to influence opinion and policy in the US to enter the war on their side. Toward this end a special unit of SIS was tasked with running over 3,000 agents in the US toward that end. Among other acomplishments they succeeded in influencing FDR to make the effort against Germany the primarily one. FDR finally turned against MI-6 once the war began when he learned that a speech he made referencing a "captured Nazi map" supposedly carving up the United States after conquest was based on a British forgery. The "captured Nazi map" was a British hoax.

History will record that most of the elements which influenced FDR and the Congress into the policies which led to war with Germany were similar hoaxes and frauds by MI-6.

It was these series of acts by the US which led Hitler to declare war on the US.


I certainly don't agree with Buchanon on everything. My point is that he's a sincere conservative rather than the other phoney ones in the media today. You would never see Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity working in anyone's White House [as Buchanon has] for example, because they are known to be merely entertainers.

I won't get into another full blown WWII debate with you. You appear to have forgotten that you've written these exact view points before when you tried to convince me and others how Mr. Hitler really didn't want to conquer Europe at all.
What I find amusing is your complete avoidance about your viewpoints in regards to the Jews in WWII. Had Hitler not been stopped, had these "repeated negotiations for peace by Germany" been accepted, what would have become of the Jewish people under the German occupied territory....be it Poland or anywhere else?

I won't get into another full blown WWII debate with you. You appear to have forgotten that you've written these exact view points before when you tried to convince me and others how Mr. Hitler really didn't want to conquer Europe at all.
What I find amusing is your complete avoidance about your viewpoints in regards to the Jews in WWII. Had Hitler not been stopped, had these "repeated negotiations for peace by Germany" been accepted, what would have become of the Jewish people under the German occupied territory....be it Poland or anywhere else? Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I'm speaking of the causes of the war, not moralizing justifications for the allied war effort after it was all over.

The holocaust had anything to do with the causes of the war.

The various mass war crimes of killings of non-combatants, including the holocaust as well as the allied firebombing of cities, were the normal sort of things that happen in modern, total war. For example, had NATO and the Warsaw Pact gone to war exactly the same things [and worse] would have happened.

Singling out the holocaust and implying that it was the moral justification for total war against Germany is a distortion. It not only fails to take into account the crimes of the allies [including Russia] but it suggests that the holocaust was a reason for the allies war effort against Germany.

The holocaust had nothing to do with the allied war effort against Germany.

As I've said before many times, even if I'm a moral man it's a mistake to rely on moral reasoning when interpreting international conflict because it can be misleading.

Each side uses moral arguments to rally and motivate their peoples; afterall war is ultimately a moral contest.

But if you put yourself into your adversary's shoes you might learn that he has his valid moral points as well.

But first you have to be aware of what your adversay is thinking, which means you have to look for it.

I'm speaking of the causes of the war, not moralizing justifications for the allied war effort after it was all over.

The holocaust had anything to do with the causes of the war.

The various mass war crimes of killings of non-combatants, including the holocaust as well as the allied firebombing of cities, were the normal sort of things that happen in modern, total war. For example, had NATO and the Warsaw Pact gone to war exactly the same things [and worse] would have happened.

Singling out the holocaust and implying that it was the moral justification for total war against Germany is a distortion. It not only fails to take into account the crimes of the allies [including Russia] but it suggests that the holocaust was a reason for the allies war effort against Germany.

The holocaust had nothing to do with the allied war effort against Germany.

Not once did I say that we went to war with Germany because of the Holocaust. That would be ludicrous since the USA in the beginning was culpable in what later took place by at first refusing Jews fleeing Germany entry into the United States.
Only after Roosevelt became aware of just how serious Hitler was about exterminating the Jews did the policy change. By then it was too late and many Jews couldn't escape overseas anymore.
Having said that, it's ridiculous for you to say that things like the Holocaust "happen in modern war". You cannot compare for one minute the bombing of cities in an effort to put an end to the war with the systematic rounding up of people of one particular ethnic group or religion and exterminating them in mass.
My intention with my post was not to debate with you the causes of WWII, as I've said, we've done that before, I wanted to draw you out on the subject of the Jewish people in WWII. You have now confirmed my beliefs in how you truly feel about the Jewish People. Anyone reading your response that things like the Holocaust "happen in modern war" and that the Holocaust shouldn't be singled out can see that you sound much like the President of the Country you so often defend. That's right TAE, you sound exactly like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with your attempts to minimize one of the most horrific genocides to ever take place in the World.
From here on out you can save any pretense on why you always side with Iran and the Palestinians. Your attempts to deflect by saying you've been to Israel etc mean nothing to me at this point. It's clear by your views on the Holocaust where you really stand.

As I've said before many times, even if I'm a moral man it's a mistake to rely on moral reasoning when interpreting international conflict because it can be misleading.

Each side uses moral arguments to rally and motivate their peoples; afterall war is ultimately a moral contest.

But if you put yourself into your adversary's shoes you might learn that he has his valid moral points as well.

My Uncle was in the Hitler Youth, my mother lived through the bombings of German cities by spending most nights in dark basements while bombs rained down around her. I myself spent over a decade living in Germany and I speak, write and read the language. I think I have a fairly good grasp on the history of that nation in regards to WWII.
Believe what you want about Hitler's motivations. He was a sick man, these days he would have probably been diagnosed as manic depressive or something of the sort. The man's hatred of the Jewish people was so obsessive, his hatred ran so deep, that in his mind he justified why the world would be better of without them. For you to minimize that and try to compare it with efforts to end the war is absurd.

But first you have to be aware of what your adversay is thinking, which means you have to look for it. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

.

I agree with you that Hitler was a very sick and dangerous man. This is what happens when someone lives with a father who beats him so badly that he's in a coma for days, and then send him to war for five years so he can watch as all of his friends die of horrible wounds.

Hitler was a survivor of over 50 battles in the great war.

He had terrible judgement and was ruthless, cruel and malevolant.

His actions led to the destruction of the German state, which is only now been re-built.

However, as bad a person as he was his motives against the British, French, and US were not what propagandists and the media portray.

He definitely sought a hegemony over all slavic lands. He sought to enslave and conquer the Poles, the Ukrainians, Russians and others in the east.

In the west however his actions were defensive, and forced upon him by the British in a re-play of their actions in the great war. Nial Ferguson's book, The Pity of War, is a place to start to dis-entagle British actions which brought about both WWI and WWII.

ps...
Just because someone's malevolant doesn't mean they're really responsible for each and every bad thing attributed to them.

In psych ops the first thing one learns is that the easiest target is someone with a bad reputation. When you can show someone's bad in some way it's easy to get people to believe they're also responsible for other things you'd like to blame them for.

If this is a question of morality I'd put the bad character of Hitler up against the bad characters of Churchill, Stalin or FDR any day. All of them killed civilians indescriminately and remorselessly.

If the Warsaw Pact and NATO had gone to war you would have seen murder and genocide rise to levels heretofore unimagined.....and even Jimmy Carter would have conducted it.

Thanks TAE, I think what you addressed above, and more importantly what you DIDN'T address (the Holocaust) just about says it all. A recurring theme that I notice in most of your threads is this. The minute someone steps up and challenges you with facts, you simply ignore those facts and start down a different path. This simply weakens your credibility on the issues.

The problem I have debating with you is that what you accept as credible "facts" I cannot accept because they are not from credible or scholarly sources.

When I encounter this I move on, which is not ignoring your data; it's just that it's not credible compared to my own sources.

You also have a tendency toward making insulting broad statements about the way I debate instead of simply debating further, and that's not mature or constructive.

If you're going to simply insult me or suddenly declare yourself an anti-intellectual then there will be no debate.

I'll rely on MIT, Rand, and Yale for my information while you sling around popular sources like Soldier of Fortune magazine, or writers about various wars who are not scholars but money-driven journalists.

As far as the holocaust is concerned I failed to reply because I addressed the point that it wasn't a cause of the war, wasn't really known to anyone save the perpetrators, and had little bearing on the ISSUES of the war.

I'm debating the issues, not the morality of the actors. Nor am I interested in lamenting the Jewish lives lost in the holocaust because it's a matter overly-covered in the popular media and therefore wildly distorted.

There were almost as many non-Jews as Jews slaughtered by the German police, army, SS, etc. in the holocaust but you, D'Torchia, conveniently forget to mention them.

Furthermore, and as mentioned, the allies also slaughtered non-combatants of the Axis powers in ways they knew to have been war crimes as well, so I don't see the point in singling out the German ones.

In total war these things unfortunately became commonplace and normal.


ps.....

I'm considering posting some pics from the Sierra Leone war. Should I? Please respond.