....assuming your prejudices concerning Muslims don't interfere....
....So let's not talk about "little fish" who don't do what Bin Laden told them was their duty. Let's talk about the BIG fish who actually kill Americans . . . and, in this country--out of the millions of Muslims who live here, they turn out to be very few. Don't they? And as for the little fish . . . well, you've slipped into the assumption game, big time. And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME?
My prejudice? Didn't we just get finished 'discussing' how you tip toe around your prejudices by embracing rebranded profiling? You admit to the roll of the little fish, without which the big fish can't fund a cup of coffee, yet you won't quite explain why there is no will to follow the money beyond the prejudices of how you depict intel decisions.
You appreciate examples? What would happen if a spec. counsel would be appointed to 'investigate'? There was a recent one that just disbanded, did they get get their big fish prize, or were the little fish beat down into pleading to process crimes. Did a thirty plus year distinguished General Officer lose his home, savings, anddo just that when his son was threaten?
Big fish bear responsibility, but they never kill, they have little fish do their bidding. Yes, I believe there're are just a handful of big fish, but without prejudice, why can't I ask about the reasoning to enable them through other links in the chain. If there're links in the chain, if there're little fish, then they are breaking the law, right?
Craig: Parlez-vous anglais? Vy govoritye po anglisky? What I "admit to" about the roll of the little fish is that it's darned hard to prove that they know they're funding terrorism . . . especially if the Big Fish helps them out by concealing the real purpose of his "Muslim charity". (Please reread about HSUS and their anti-dog fighting campaign.) Shut down the Big Fish, confiscate the money he was collecting, send him to prison. Problem solved.
You just gave an example of a special counsel who apparently didn't do what you think he should have done. (Of course he had access to material you have not seen . . . as in classified . . . and will never see.) So why would you suggest wasting money on another one? Sometimes, Craig, you do a wonderful job of contradicting yourself.
And chisel this one in stone, when it comes to financing terrorism: Tell me how you prove the little fish knew where their money was REALLY going. Let me try another example on you. I'm walking the streets of La Crosse, Wisconsin, training would-be counterintelligence agents how to follow people. I'm wearing a veteran's cap. A guy approaches me, tells me he's a fellow vet, he's broke, and can I give him $5 so he can get something to eat? Well, I say to myself, maybe he's going to spend it on food . . . but maybe he's going to drink his lunch. So I tell him I'll be glad to walk to McDonald's with him and buy him lunch. At which he walks away . . . and I determine that it wasn't food he was after. Only way I knew for sure . . . looking him in the eye and offering to buy him lunch. Same story with a charity, whether it's HSUS and dog fighting or Poor Widows and Orphans of Palestine. Those donors by mail can't do what I did. They have to take the charitable cause in question on good faith. And is proving a little fish who sent $20 to those orphans was aware that it was going to terrorists worth the effort of prosecuting him . . . when you solve the whole problem by shutting down the charity and throwing the big fish in jail? Why did we make it a much bigger deal when we whacked Bin Laden than when we took out any number of terrorist trigger pullers via drone strike or other means? Because Bin Laden was a much bigger fish and killing him had far greater ramifications than killing all those little fish. Kind like maybe if we'd been able to kill Hitler, we could have ended the war in Europe right there . . . instead of killing thousands of German soldiers (while costing us the lives of thousands of our own soldiers)?
And you're still dodging the issue of why hardly any of the millions of potential Muslim little fish in this country are paying attention to Bin Laden's VERY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE about killing Americans? That's pretty much proof positive that we just plain don't have very many dangerous Muslim little fish in this country.
Craig, I'm thinking that if we put you in charge of the drug war, you'd be focusing on all the little fish . . . every American in possession of just one joint. That'd be committing extensive resources to minor crimes rather than focusing on the big time dealers, especially of more addictive and more dangerous drugs.
