| Can you imagine a gangster tolerating an armed invasion of his territory anyway? Or a racist white/black/hispanic gang putting up with Arabs moving into their area and attacking it? It's not necessary to coordinate an alliance when the gangs have little to offer that they won't do anyway. |
---cacto
| I have a feeling that most of these gangs don't care that much about the war on terror, and there wouldn't be a lot they could do. |
--latour999
I wasn't saying that Arabs would be "attacking" the neighborhoods. The gangs would simply be asked to keep an eye out for whatever looks like terrorist activity. They ought to know it when they see it, right? Besides, I don't know that there would be "little they could or would do anyway". After all, if cops won't even enter certain areas of the cities without a large force, it sounds as if much could be done, if the situation called for it and their help could be pledged.
As I said, what Savage proposed was the same type of thing the Roosevelt Administration worked out with Luciano. Just keep an eye out for anyone suspicious, and if you find someone or something, either let us know or handle it yourselves. And, yes, some sort of deal was cut with the Mob to attain this end, just as there would have to be with the gangs and such if it were done today. They're not exactly red-white-and-blue blooded patriots, no. There would have to be a little give and take in order. As to their racially "tolerating" Arabs in their midst, this is precisely what Savage was alluding to. Any suspicious persons or activities would immediately come under observation in their areas.
| We sren't going to see al-Qaeda troop transports heading to California being stopped by a barrage of bullets from street gangs. |
---latour
I'm sorry, but this attempt at dismissing my point is just silly, on a couple levels. Firstly, no...we wouldn't see that. Secondly, how much have you read about gangs in big cities? SWAT teams in some of these areas often aren't as well-armed as the gangs.
The gangs may not be as disciplined, no, but they wouldn't need to be. They wouldn't be repelling an invading army, for cryin' out loud. They might, however, be exchanging fire with one or more terrorist operatives....something with which they are already well-suited to deal from their day-to-day lives.
As to them simply killing people and crying "terrorist" as an excuse, this might happen, yes, as it may have on the waterfronts in the 40s. But, if their leaders could be convinced, and agreed to help, it is likely that they would listen to them on whole. Gangs are nothing if not loyal to their leaders; after all, anarchy does not breed such successes as we've seen from them.
| I can't even imagine an armed terrorist invasion of North American territory. Seeing a well organized army do an amphibious assault D-Day style, or march north from secret military bases in Mexico would be the exact opposite of their current strategy, and a bad one for them. |
---latour
Once again....this is just silly. You completely missed the point. I'm sorry, latour, and cacto as well---did you read my article before you posted your comments?
Thanks for the props, ParaTed, but unless I missed something in what you linked, as I may have, I still don't see how this idea wouldn't work.
| From my reading, the feds used Lucky Luciano as a link to the Mafia for the invasion of Sicily. This was what I understood to be tha primary reason he was spoken too. Not the unions. |
---SSG Geezer
It was both, actually. They got his help for the Sicily invasions, too, when the time came, yes. For his contacts there.
Thanks for the posts, folks, but you all seem to be missing the point of the article. The part about enlisting gangs, on which you all seized, was secondary. The main point was that all the loud hoo-ha and hand-wringing about our rights being infringed upon is, historically speaking, much ado about nothing. I wanted to point out that such things have happened before, with no long-lasting ill effects.
