Posted on 11/21/2004 9:15:31 AM PST by yonif
(IsraelNN.com) Security forces today lifted a press ban, permitting the publication of a report stating that during the past three months, thirty-three planned terror attacks were averted.
Ten attacks were averted in September, fifteen in October and the remainder in November.
Among the terrorists in custody are two PA policemen who planned to kidnap an IDF soldier and detonate a car bomb inside pre-1967 Green Line Israel.
Policemen? And the world wants to give them money to crack down on terrorists....how will they do that if they are terrorists themselves?
Ping.
Israel has had fantastic success in reducing the number of terror attacks.
I remember the one where they hit the terrorists while they were training on a soccer field. I wonder how many innocent lives that saved.
Interesting .... and quite the Miraculous coincidence on this, the Solemnity of Christ the King.
Policemen? And the world wants to give them money to crack down on terrorists....how will they do that if they are terrorists themselves?
Surely our performance at Waco or our apprehending of the terrified "Little Elian" put to rest any notions that those who terrorize cannot also be Good Policemen.
If not ... there's always the way we incorporate the GRU and KGB into our customs and anti-terror efforts before the dust of the Wall even settled.
In 1989 edition of the National Drug Control Strategy, President Bush made it official:'We must be prepared to share our knowledge and our concern with the Soviet Union and Eastern European nations and be willing to engage them in cooperative counterdrug activities". (36)In this strategy document, there was no recognition of the role of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe countries in drug-trafficking and in creating the very sickness the strategy was designed to cure.Towards the end of 1989, the DEA made a formal proposal to the Soviets for the DEA to conduct 'advanced narcotics investigations' for about 30 anti-narcotics professionals from Soviet customs, the Ministry of Interior and the KGB. As one DEA official, Paul Higdon, explained: 'We're looking at them as policemen - these guys are cops with a mission similar to ours'. Not to be outdone, US Customs is proposing a formal information-sharing agreement, similar to the ones we have with most of our Western allies'
Those are not news.
Shabak together with Shin-Beith and IDF special forces stop 10-30 terror attacks every month since the creation of Israel.
If you check the statistics you will discover that IDF stops more than 95% of the terror attacks against Israel, and the security wall is doing the same thing.
Without those top trained and expirienced forces we couldnt live here.
And thats the target of terror.
Oh and of course I forgot about the Mossad who is playing a major role in stopping terrorism against Jews and Isralis ubroad!
By the way some IDF elite forces are constantly going around the middle east to stop actions aimed against Israel (every day or two).
We hear maybe about 0.00001% of their success and missions.
For the MSM, success at preventing terrorist attacks is called 'relative calm' and seen as proof that the terrorism threat is 'over-stated'!
See this description from about a year ago:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Why_the_-Calm-$.asp
Thats exacly what I was talking about
Interesting website! I'd never heard of them before - thanks for the link.
With Arafat's death, terrorist attacks will be less likely to happen.
I doubt it. Arafat may be dead, but his ideology of murder continues and the new PLO body without Arafat continues to sponsor and harbor that ideology of murder.
Yeah, people will never get over it. Still, Arafat's death is a good thing. Sadly PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are operating and need to be destroyed.
Unfortunatey, those obsessed with bringing order out of the chaos they catalyze and perpetuate more often than not appear to be possessed of the idea that this idea is a good one. To wit:
But I raised it in the context, and I don't want to delay all of this, but I raised it in the context -- I came back from a conference on terrorism back in 1980. I was over in, not Berlin, I was in Bonn, and I went to a conference on terrorism and I spoke there, Henry Kissinger was there, Helmut Schmidt was there, and as I came out of the hotel I saw the hotel was surrounded by APCs, armored personnel carriers. And all the soldiers or policemen had automatic weapons.I looked at that and I said, I wonder, would any American city allow VIPs to be protected by virtual tanks in the street? And it had been just after a guy named Schleier, a banker, had been assassinated, stuffed in his trunk of a Mercedes car, so there was real tension over there, and there was some real protection underway. I said no, it will never happen in the United States.
Then I said well wait a minute. What happens if the terrorists come to the United States and the bombs start going off, the killing starts here?
Would we as the American people, say protect our liberties or protect our lives? We've never had to have that debate at this point.
And so when you have an Oklahoma City bombing that's taken place, and you have others who may not be domestic but international, what will be the reaction of the American people?
Will they say the government's responsibility is to protect us, and we say absolutely, but how do we do that?
Do we do it through the local police? The National Guard? The Guard and Reserve? Or do we call upon the military in extremists to provide protection and to help with what they call consequence management?
DefenseLink -- Cohen Breakfast Meeting with Reporters in Washington, D.C. (1/11/2001)
To my way of thinking, the concepts of policeman, militia and military are and should remain absolutely distinct.
A Policeman is a fulltime resident of that selfsame community for which he serves as guardian of their safety and enforcer of their values ... which values may or many not be the same as:
As for militias ... as George Mason said: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them ... [the militia] is the whole people except for a few public officials."
I'm sure anyone understanding of how critical it is for Israel Settler communities to remain armed and defend their own understands perfectly why this nation's founders intended that all able-bodied Americans be armed for their own defense. It wasn't just a matter of the Injuns they were clearcutting from the land they'd claimed for themselves or resisting the Redcoats who sought to rule them from a world away but, primarily, as a prophylactic against their own Government.
I think the founders understood that our Constitutional Republic, like most governments, would grow decadent and corrupt, intoxicated with its own power (as evidenced in spades by the excruciatingly hypocritical "Emancipation Proclamation") or decay into the tyranny that is the volonte generale of "democracy" which we seek to spread worldwide like a virus.
As for the military, the lines of what once was an institution confected strictly for the defense of the nation have been blurred beyond repair where: (1) we take a "pre-emptive" approach to conflict worldwide, (2) we pervert their role into that of "peacekeeper" ... serving punch, building playgrounds as good PR and sticking around indefinitely in the various US Globokop outposts we create but never dismantle; and (3) we turn these military forces on our own per the in extremis rationale of Cohen & Crew.
Once upon a time, when this nation faced danger, men and boys and young women drilled with rifles in school gyms, took target practice together and patrolled their own neighborhoods OPENLY ARMED.
Nowadays, all we ask of the citizenry is to hand over their weapons, keep an eye on and report each other for any Suspicious Activity and let the Government -- whose no-knock profile looks increasingly like that of the "evil Soviets" or "evil Nazis" I was taught about in school -- take it from there.
Yeah, I hope I do open a can of worms. Better late than never.
**********************************************
American in Israel ... if you don't mind my asking an off-topic question, what are some of the Good reasons the Israelis don't just raze the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the temple?
This has been bothering for a couple of days and I figured I'd take the first opportunity I got to ask someone who might have some thoughts on subject.
I've taken a look at some of the sites devoted to the ongoing hassles and proposed compromise build designs but I really don't quite understand why the Dome stands at all. Americans demolished some ancient and truly irreplaceable Muslims shrines in Afghanistan. There's been plenty of destruction of Christian churches by the KLA sorts (we backed) and, ostensibly, the Iraqi insurgents.
Given those acts and the way Israel has for various security reasons walled off the holy sites, held Bethelehem under siege and accosted Vanunu in "sanctuary" within some Anglican church while everyone was hanging on Arafat's death, I don't understand why they don't just demolish the place, call it day, brace for whatever backlash may happen and rebuild the Temple.
Frankly, once I started thinking about it, it only bothered me more and more. Have you got any thoughts on that yourself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.