HEY, YASSIR!, Here's your latest "U.S. Foreign aid". It's coming "SPECIAL DELIVERY", compliments of the ADULT PRESIDENT!
Posted on 09/11/2001 6:05:46 PM PDT by Nick Danger
The Declining Terrorist ThreatBy Larry C. JohnsonJuly 10, 2001 WASHINGTON - Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think. At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's. Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries -- Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts. While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year. Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year. Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses. Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it -- Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane. Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions -- outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia -- caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa. The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia -- or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia -- you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear. Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training. The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan. I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful. Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents. Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority. I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.
|
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
HEY, YASSIR!, Here's your latest "U.S. Foreign aid". It's coming "SPECIAL DELIVERY", compliments of the ADULT PRESIDENT!
I hope we respond soon.
A more detailed analysis of Mr. Johnson
Here Mr. Johnson argues for better FAA security measures, not to rely on spies and informants (1995)
CNN
March 5, 1996
Transcript # 276-9
Former Intelligence Official Rebuffs Reaction to Hamas
HIGHLIGHT: Sending an intelligence team to Israel is akin to "sending air conditioners to Eskimos," says Larry Johnson, a former State Department intelligence official who disagrees with Clinton's reaction to Hamas.
Here are some excerpts of Mr. Johnson on CNN CROSSFIRE
August 5, 1997; Tuesday 7:30 pm Eastern Time
Transcript # 97080500V20
BUCHANAN: Larry, you said that the Clinton administration is under a mandate to name publicly organizations that engage in terror or raise money for terrorists and they have refused to do so. You mentioned Hamas and the IRA. I guess you mentioned Sinn Fein.
JOHNSON: Right.
BUCHANAN: What are the other organizations and why has Clinton not done so?
JOHNSON: What I'm told is that one of the major reasons is most of the groups are going -- that would be identified are Arabic and Islamic and they basically think that that might create a political problem. I think the issue is they need to stop worrying less about politics and more about enforcing law. I mean, the fact is last year the president made a big effort to push an anti-terrorism legislation through the Congress on the eve of the election. One of those things was getting explosive detection equipment into airports. This year, they didn't even fund that item in the budget.
JOHNSON: You know, the good news is the overall level of terrorism is down, the prevention is working. We prevented an act of terrorism last week. It appears that the U.S. government's international terrorism rewards program is what motivated the fellow to give up his colleagues. So I think what we need to do is focus on the programs that are there, make those work. I don't think we have to sacrifice freedom.
I believe you also reflected this sentiment earlier on another thread if I remember correctly Nick. Something about not choosing to live in a police state with checkpoints.
Let's look at the end of this article. If bin Laden is responsible L. Johnson is very accurate in 1997.
The New York Times
July 17, 1997, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
Jury Examines Whether Saudi Contributed to Terrorist Groups
By JOHN SULLIVAN
A Federal grand jury in Manhattan is investigating whether a renegade Saudi millionaire known for his virulent hatred of America has been funneling money to terrorist groups in the United States.
Federal agents are trying to follow a trail of money that they believe will lead to Osama bin Laden, a member of one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia who has ties to hard-line groups across the Middle East. Mr. bin Laden, who was stripped of his Saudi citizenship in 1994 because of his reputed ties to terrorists, is believed to be living in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. An official with knowledge of the investigation said that the money had been delivered to groups supported by Mr. bin Laden in Detroit, Jersey City and Brooklyn. The money, which originated in Pakistan and Afghanistan, passed through bank accounts in London and Detroit before reaching the New York City area, the official said.
Officials declined to say what the money was used for or how much was involved.
The investigation by the grand jury, which is hearing evidence presented by the United States Attorney's office in Manhattan, was reported yesterday by The Star-Ledger of Newark. A spokesman for the F.B.I. office in New York, whose agents are trying to track the money, declined to comment.
Mr. bin Laden has made repeated statements against the United States and has a World Wide Web site devoted in part to condemnation of the West, officials said.
Even so, he has never been charged with a crime by the United States, and he has repeatedly denied any direct involvement with terrorism. But in a report released last year, the State Department linked Mr. bin Laden to terrorist training camps in the Sudan and Afghanistan, and said he backed a group that tried to bomb American troops in Yemen in 1992. He was also linked to Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, a convicted terrorist who is now accused of being the mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In the three years before the attack on the trade center, Mr. Yousef lived in Pakistan in a house paid for by Mr. bin Laden, the State Department report said.
In its report, the State Department described Mr. bin Laden as "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world."
Mr. bin Laden, whose fortune is estimated at more than $250 million, became involved with the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970's. After the Persian Gulf war in 1991, he moved to Sudan, where he became more involved with anti-American Islamic groups.
"Osama is a very dangerous character," said Larry Johnson, a former State Department antiterrorist official now working as a private security consultant. "He has a lot of money, and he hates the United States."
Mr. Johnson said Federal investigators had information that showed Islamic fundamentalist groups, consisting mostly of legal noncitizen immigrants from the Middle East, had received money from Mr. bin Laden. There is no evidence that any of the groups have used the money to carry out attacks in the United States, Mr. Johnson said.
Although it is not unusual for terrorist groups to raise money in the United States or to send money to supporters here, Mr. Johnson said, it is rare for foreign terrorists to carry out an attack in the United States.
"The level of terrorist activity within the United States is really very low," he said. Groups typically do not want to trigger the type of response that an attack in America would bring, he said.
"Osama," he said, "may not have the same constraint."
bump
bump
I'm sure the people of Beslan are comforted.
What a prophetic voice this Larry Johnson is:
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
Yes this artice deserves some big bumping.
In hind sight, one might wonder how much the Jihadists paid this troll to write this article?
bump for fun since Larry has been getting in on Nadagate.
"Deserves bumping" bump!
Thanks for the bumping bump.
BTTT.
If you are a victim of violent crime in this country, chances are less than 1/10 of 1 percent that it will be at the hands of Islamists. 99.9% of all crime is committed by people other than Islamists.
A good point is a good point whether it is in the New York Times, or on Rush Limbaugh.
How does this idiot know that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 it precisely because of the steps we've taken to prevent the attacks?
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.