myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Reap as ye sow
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW30, why is it no surprise that you post a NY Daily News hit piece on Secretary of State Kerry? I guess it is easy to make your day with a bit of hateful opinion from the right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be interesting to see what the French think about this. To me, it seems pretty corny, but if it appeases the French, then it's fine with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well said, no comment needed:

Quote:
POSTED: Wednesday, January 14, 2015, 1:08 AM
By David H. Schanzer
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls' declaration that France is at war "against terrorism, against jihadism, [and] against radical Islam" will not have much practical impact on the battle against extremist ideologies.

The distinguishing feature of war is the legal use of lethal force against an identifiable enemy. In this respect, France has been on a "war footing," along with the United States, on and off for 13˝ years. As early as October 2001, France participated in NATO operations in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In 2013, France launched a military operation in Mali against an al-Qaeda affiliate that had overtaken large swaths of the country. And last year, France joined the U.S.-led military engagement against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

In light of this, it is odd that France is declaring "war" in response to a vicious and brazen, but still quite limited, attack perpetrated by three of its citizens, possibly with support from others in and outside the country.

The key steps France needs to take to address the current threat have everything to do with expanding domestic counterterrorism and little to do with the tools of war.
First, France should revise its laws to clarify that any action taken to support known foreign terrorist organizations - including fighting or training with them - is a crime punishable by a lengthy period of incarceration. In the United States, our "material support for terrorism" law has been an effective tool for incapacitating potential terrorists. The law is only triggered by specific actions taken in furtherance of terrorist organizations. If applied properly, it does not violate civil liberties by punishing people for their ideas.

Expansion of the criminal laws in this way will automatically expand the scope of permissible surveillance against individuals with terrorist connections. When this surveillance uncovers evidence that individuals have taken concrete steps to advance terrorist organizations, France must demonstrate a greater willingness to arrest and prosecute them. A tougher approach to criminal law enforcement will incapacitate some individuals, send a message that these activities will not be tolerated, and, hopefully, deter others. This is the only way to alleviate the immediate threat France is facing from homegrown terrorism and returning foreign fighters.

It is, of course, impossible for France and its allies to arrest their way out of this problem. The biggest challenge facing the community of nations aligned against extremism is to develop a set of policies to reduce the number of individuals attracted to al-Qaeda's noxious ideology. Again, the concept of "war" has nothing to contribute to this task.

While there is always a demand from the public that the government "do something" to address security threats, preventing radicalization is not primarily a job for Western governments. Rather, it is a task that must be taken on by Muslim-majority nations, Muslim civic and religious leaders, and Muslim communities around the globe (with behind-the-scenes support from the West). We took a strong step toward recognizing the need for Muslim leadership on this issue by demanding the participation of Muslim nations in the battle against ISIS. But much remains to be done.

Well over a decade after 9/11, we have barely begun to put in place the type of educational and other programs needed to halt the spread of the ideology that Osama bin Laden has proliferated throughout the Muslim world. Commitments of time, money, and our best minds to figuring out how to do this effectively are needed far more than new declarations of war.

A concerted, global counter-radicalization effort is long overdue. But we must also recognize that no level of funding or programming will stem the creation of more Kourachi brothers without reduced violence in the Mideast (including between Israelis and Palestinians), improved governance in the region, increased economic opportunity for isolated Muslims in the West, and diminished anti-Islamic sentiment. This is a tall order. But if these topics are not on our post-Paris counterterrorism agenda, then our leaders are just blowing smoke.

David H. Schanzer is the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security and a professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20150114_France_s_steps_against_terror.html#HKE9P5xGLFFrwhgm.99
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now who would have thought that we'd need something like this 8 years ago? It wasn't suppose to come to this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DOJ pivots from ISIS to U.S. anti-government groups with new position

By Wesley Bruer, CNN
Thu October 15, 2015


Washington (CNN)—Domestic terror groups pose a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda, a Justice Department official said Wednesday.

To help combat them, the department has created a new counsel that will coordinate the investigation and prosecution of anti-government and hate groups.
Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who oversees national security at the Justice Department, announced the new position -- the Domestic Terrorism Counsel -- following a number of violent attacks or plots against the U.S. that he said were motivated by "anti-government views, racism, bigotry and anarchy, and other despicable beliefs."

More Americans have died at the hands of domestic terror than the international terror groups that federal law enforcement focuses so much attention on, Carlin said, pointing to such high-profile attacks as the racially motivated Charleston church shooting in June or the murder of two Las Vegas police officers by anti-government extremists last year.

"Looking back over the past few years, it is clear that domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists remain a real and present danger to the United States," he said. "We recognize that, over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups."

While many similarities exist between domestic and international terror groups, such as recruitment and reach on social media, one difference lies in the way the Justice Department is able to prosecute them.

Groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda, who are inspired by religious extremism, are designated by our federal government as terror organizations, which makes it illegal to support or assist them. But no such statute exist to prosecute white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan or anti-government extremists, forcing federal law enforcement to find more concrete charges to lock them up.

"What causes some confusion is that 'domestic terrorism' is not an offense or a charge," Carlin said. Therefore, domestic terror groups or actors must be prosecuted with firearms or explosives offenses, hate crimes or murder.

It is the hope of the Justice Department that the counsel will not only help to coordinate the prosecution of domestic terrorists, but also "to identify trends to help shape our strategy, and to analyze legal gaps or enhancements required to ensure we can combat these threats," Carlin said.

The Justice Department identified white supremacists as the most violent of the domestic terror groups and Carlin raised concerns that the narrow focus the U.S. has on Islamic extremist terrorism can take the attention away from threats which warrant more resources.

"I do worry sometimes that the coverage hypes the threat in such a way that it induces the fear that the terrorist is attempting to accomplish," Carlin said. "Yet, while we continue to address this evolving international threat of violent extremists, we have not lost sight of the domestic terrorism threat posed by other violent extremists."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/justice-department-domestic-terror-council/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then closer to the current election crap.
Are the dems happy? This is supposed to be their head of the party.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top Party Official Accuses Democratic National Chairwoman of Lying and Questions Her Leadership


R.T. Rybak, the former mayor of Minneapolis and a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on Thursday accused the party’s leader, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, of making “flat-out not true” statements about another top party officer, questioned her political skills and said he had “serious questions” about her suitability for the job.

The broadside from Mr. Rybak, which came in an interview late Thursday afternoon, followed weeks of internal party dissension over the number and timing of the presidential debates it has scheduled, capped by an acrimonious public dispute over whether Ms. Wasserman Schultz had punitively barred a Democratic vice chairwoman, Tulsi Gabbard, from the first debate, held on Tuesday in Las Vegas.

The comments from Mr. Rybak, who was interested in replacing Ms. Wasserman Schultz in 2013 and who was the favored choice of some of President Obama’s aides, were notable in part because he is not known as a public complainer. But by the evening’s end, most of the other party officers issued statements strongly supporting Ms. Wasserman Schultz and calling for an end to the public rancor.

In early September, Ms. Gabbard, an Iraq veteran and a congresswoman from Hawaii, and Mr. Rybak jointly called on the party to hold more than the six primary debates it has planned. Ms. Gabbard has said the party’s officers were not consulted before the debate schedule was set in early August.

The number of debates has outraged supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders and has particularly galled Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, who trails badly in the polls and has clamored for more debates as a way to gain vital national exposure. Mr. O’Malley has loudly suggested that the limited debate schedule was a blatant attempt to help Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose aides had pressed for fewer such encounters; Ms. Wasserman Schultz has denied this.

On Oct. 5, Ms. Gabbard, who as a party officer has not endorsed a presidential candidate, repeated her call for additional debates on MSNBC. The next day, she later confirmed to a reporter, her chief of staff received a message from Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s office disinviting Ms. Gabbard from the Las Vegas debate because of her public remarks. (The party denied that Ms. Gabbard was refused a ticket.)

In a series of televised interviews on Monday and Tuesday, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested that Ms. Gabbard was causing an unwelcome distraction by drawing attention from the presidential candidates, and insisted that she had indeed consulted with the party’s officers before scheduling the debates.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Mr. Rybak weighed in angrily in response, expressing shock that Ms. Wasserman Schultz “would knowingly say something that is flat-out not true.”

“This is not a back-and-forth between a chair and a vice chair,” he said. “This is a chair of the Democratic Party wrongly stating that she consulted with all of the party officers. I was not consulted. I know that Tulsi Gabbard was not consulted. And this is becoming about much more than debates.”

“The Democratic National Committee staff has never been stronger,” Mr. Rybak said in an interview. ”The one thing that could stop us from having a great election coming up is if the chair continues to create these self-made dramas that are below what a chair should be doing.”

“The fact is for many months we have been trying to get the chair to open up and include many more people” in the decision-making process, Mr. Rybak said. “Like many other people, I have kept my mouth shut, and have tried to make the situation work for months. It is becoming increasingly clear that the chair doesn’t have the political skills — or more likely, want to execute the skills — to make this party a big tent. I blame myself for trying to stuff it, and trying to make things work when it’s clear we have a problem.”

“I’ve tried to encourage the chair to open her leadership, because she has great skills, and works harder than anyone,” Mr. Rybak said. But he added, “I will not stand by and have one of the great leaders of our party, Tulsi Gabbard, have her honesty questioned by the chair on national television.”

“I am seriously questioning whether she has the capacity to do what has to be done,” he said of Ms. Wasserman Schultz. “And that’s why I’m doing what I wanted not to do for a long time, which is go public with my serious questions of whether she can lead this party.”

Informed of Mr. Rybak’s remarks, Amy Dacey, the Democratic National Committee’s chief of staff, essentially conceded that Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Rybak had not been consulted about the debate schedule before it was determined.

“There is no signoff or formal consultation process on debates,” Ms. Dacey said in an email. “Rather, our vice chairs were notified just as they are on other major decisions such as the one to select Philadelphia as the site of the convention.”

But she defended Ms. Wasserman Schultz, saying, “No one is as hardworking or more dedicated to electing a Democrat” as president.

“We have a variety of views in our party, but ultimately we all have to come together to support our eventual nominee,” Ms. Dacey said, striking a conciliatory note. “We’re in regular communication with all of our campaigns and discuss any number of issues with members and officers, and while we are always striving to improve upon that, we have a diverse and talented group of vice chairs and the party very much needs their voices moving forward.”

Among them was Henry R. Muńoz III, the party’s national finance co-chairman, who said he had felt included in the process, adding, “The debate about the debates is over and the debate about issues is on.”

Several other officers issued supportive statements of Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ray Buckley, a national vice chair and the leader of the New Hampshire Democratic party, praised her and said, “Distracting attention away from our candidates with public discussions on process is regrettable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/top-party-official-accuses-democratic-national-chairwoman-of-lying-questions-her-leadership/?_r=0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reap







Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For all you code pink types out there, you're not going to like this.
But when you pull the troops out too early (Iraq), you're going to have to go back in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

by Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter pointed to last week's rescue operation with Kurdish forces in northern Iraq to free hostages held by ISIS.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."

This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

During Tuesday's Senate hearing, Carter said Wheeler "was killed in combat."

White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Tuesday said the administration has "no intention of long term ground combat". He added that U.S. forces will continue to robustly train, advise and assist.

A feisty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services committee hearing that the U.S. effort in Syria is a "half-assed strategy at best," and said that the U.S. is not doing a "damn thing" to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.

Carter on Tuesday pushed back against that notion.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the "balance of forces" has tilted in Assad's favor.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW is gleeful and revisionist in his history. I think we should indict his hero Dick Cheney. From the review of Cheney's book by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, who if any should know the depths of his perfidity:

Quote:
Cheney’s selective memory is again on display as he recounts the events surrounding 9/11. Absent are the infamous CIA memo of August 2001,“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the reports of missed signals such as suspicious pilot training, and the fact that the CIA was on the highest possible alert while Bush was cutting brush in Texas and Cheney fishing in Wyoming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good topic for this video:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/03/24/justice-or-murder/
I say karma, and the hell with due process, considering the circumstances in that part of the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Good topic for this video:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/03/24/justice-or-murder/
I say karma, and the hell with due process, considering the circumstances in that part of the world.


I would not feel sad if Israel nuked Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.....or all of them at once. The world would be a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Untli they or a sympathizer fired back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Untli they or a sympathizer fired back.


Trump would call China and Putin.....Hey Puty, you get 1/3, Xinhua gets 1/3, and America gets 1/3 of the oil..... Win win win. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group