Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Askel5
Well, the Soviets are also somewhat rational, the radical Islams have shown time and time again they aren't. If Saddam thinks he's going down, he'll probably use any Ace he is holding. The soviets and ourselves knew that if one bombed the other, we could destroy each other several times over. In the case of Al-Queda and Saddam, they feel they're going down anyway.
46 posted on 10/04/2002 11:04:14 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: rb22982
Well, the Soviets are also somewhat rational, the radical Islams have shown time and time again they aren't.

The rational Soviets of whom you speak asserted absolutely that "the revolution makes no sense without terror".

I spent yesterday reading Claire Sterling's "THE TERROR NETWORK" from 1980. Sterling appears to have been somewhat the liberal and obviously would have liked to restrict her treatment of terrorism to the old guard far right terrorists (like those who, along with the Soviets, helped terrorize the state of Israel into being). Instead, she focuses plainly on the real scourge: Soviet-sponsored terrorists.

Which groups included ABSOLUTELY the Arabs ... from well into the first half of the 20th century.

Judging by the flyleaf, this book was roundly applauded by the right when it came out. The research is impeccable. The conclusions are sound and the facts are plain: Soviets sponsored the bulk of global terror and the purpose of terror was to terrorize ... causing government to end up draconian entities actually ripe for being overthrown.

Makes sense. This was precisely the intent of the terror instigated by the Narodnaya Volya or "People's Will" who birthed the Bolsheviks:

It should be noted that not only did the terror campaign demystify Russian rulers in the eyes of the people but it also caused the Government to overreact.

From 1879 onwards, the Imperial Government introduced a stream of extremely harsh counter measures meant to prevent terror, but which had the effect of alienating moderate groups in Russia.

In the long run this made it impossible for the regime to ever secure the support of moderately conservative and liberal elements in Russian society; so it was left to fall, isolated and alone, in 1917.

--- Richard Pipes

[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]

This has been the model of leftist terror for nearly four decades now ... "liberation" on a scale and with such bloodshed that governments overreacted and the desired revolution and toppling of legitimate governments was effected.

If we know this to be true, I think it behooves us to proceed with absolute caution and in perfect comport with those founding principles which distinguish our nation from all others.

Summary execution -- at home and abroad -- of anyone the Administration deems a terrorist does not appear to fit that bill.

Another quote from the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs:

Shortly after 9/11, George Bush Sr. was reported to have ruminated in public that a "prohibition" on CIA assassinations should be removed since it tied the United States' hand in the face of its enemies. In August 2002, ABC News briefly posted a news report, attributed to Reuters, that the White House had announced with zero fanfare that, with immediate effect, certain individual whom President Bush or other high-level members of his Administration have designed as terrorists, are subject to summary execution by Homeland Security operatives, US Intelligence officers, or in some cases, by US military personnel.

The Presidential Directive applied to both US and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States.

The announcement was made as silently as possible -- late one Sunday evening, from the President's Texas home, in Crawford. Citing security considerations, top Bush Administration officials afterwards declined to comment on the new Directive. No subsequent references to this contneitous decision have been made or are likely.

Frankly, I was surprised to read this when my issue arrived last week. I had missed this somehow. Searching on the internet, I found a copy of the original Reuters story but very little in the way of discussion.

Bush OK's Summary Executions Of Some Designated As Terrorists 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move sure to raise 
outcries from foreign governments, civil liberties 
groups and others, The White House today announced with 
little fanfare that effective immediately, certain 
individuals whom President Bush or other high-level 
Administration members have designated as terrorists 
are subject to summary execution by either Homeland 
Security operatives, U.S. intelligence operatives, 
and in some cases by U.S. military personnel. 

The presidential directive applies to both U.S. and foreign 
citizens, both within and outside the United States territory. 

The White House gave notice of the new policy in as quiet a 
way as possible, making the announcement late Sunday 
evening from Crawford, Texas. The unprecedented move is 
thought certain to generate a firestorm of protest from 
numerous quarters. 
It's possible I missed the discussion somehow on FR but searches of "execution", "Bush / execution | summary | terror" brought up nothing on the story.

Having subscribed to a couple of Story's publications for several years now, I know for a fact he edits meticulously and will even reissued an entire mailing for a minor mis-cite in one issue. A most trustworthy source.

So ... if anyone can dispute Story's account or the Reuters story as posted here (taken from a chat room dated that day with a comment "Does anyone have a problem with this?"), I would sure like to see it.

I know there was lots of talk about and support for taking a page from Israel where the ready assassination of terrorists was concerned but I hadn't realized there had been a presidential directive in this regard.

As much as I too would sorta like the freedom to act thus, I'd always been somewhat proud that it was not our national policy to do ... regardless that it's probably true it was a "hypocrisy is the compliment paid to virtue" sort of thing.

51 posted on 10/04/2002 11:29:53 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson