Posted on 06/09/2002 3:21:20 PM PDT by vannrox
From: ERRI DAILY INTELLIGENCE REPORT-ERRI Risk Assessment Services-Monday, April 8, 2002-Vol. 8, No. 098-09:00CDT
Opinion/Editorial
TODAY'S CENTRAL FOCUS
Change in Terrorism Tactics Reported; Suicide Bombers Could Have Major Implications
By C. L. Staten, ERRI Sr. National Security Analyst
There would appear to be a paradigm change underway in the methods, practices, and tactics of world-wide terrorism. So far, it would appear that very few observers have documented this phenomena, or given it the proper due in their defensive considerations.
While the press, public, and even public safety community have apparently been looking in another direction, terrorism has changed in a fundamental way. Terrorism in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's was rooted in gaining publicity and public attention for the group sponsoring the attacks. Often innocent civilians were not targeted. It was largely about spreading an ideological or geo-political message. The terrorists often claimed responsibility for their acts. Counter-terrorism thinking was predicated on the fact that one could "negotiate" with terrorists and that they wanted to survive the encounter.
In the 90's that has all changed in a most fatal way. Non-state terrorists of the 90's and in this new 21st century no longer seem concerned about public opinion of them. Instead, they appear only concerned about increasing the body counts of their perceived enemies. And, to further complicate matters, they no longer have an expectation of surviving their murderous attacks. The terrorists of today also do not claim responsibility for their acts. Or, they engage in misdirection about who might have carried it out. The stakes have undoubtedly been raised.
Why is this a paradigm change, the reader might ask? Is it because of an increased number of casualties? No...that is only an terrorist intended by-product of the this latest trend. Instead, what has changed, from a anti/counter-terrorist and national security perspective is the fact that previously unthinkable acts are now possible. A major example of that was provided on Sept. 11th, 2001 as suicide hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. What was previously unimaginable is now possible.
Particularly concerning, in the opinion of this author, is the danger inherent in this fatalistic mentality that would motivate an attacker to voluntarily give his or her life in the execution of a terrorist operation. It opens a whole new range of options to the terrorists that were previously considered unthinkable. Probably the most troubling of these options is the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons...these days commonly called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
If an attacker is voluntarily willing to infect himself or herself with a deadly disease and then purposefully contaminate a planeload of people or public gathering, the difficulty of American homeland defense becomes a much more problematic matter. If an attacker is willing to hijack a truckload of toxic chemicals and crash it into a heavily populated office building, a haz-mat nightmare could be easily created. And finally, if a terrorist operative is willing to expose themselves to high enough levels of radiation that it will certainly kill them, they could detonate a "dirty bomb," large enough to make the central district of almost any major city uninhabitable for a long period of time.
Additionally, as we saw in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, a single dedicated insurgent, who is willing to die in the process, can use conventional explosives to have a measurable impact on almost any building or installation. That could presently include any number of the world's foremost corporations or government offices of various kinds.
This new threat also requires a new way of thinking on the part of the world's military, anti/counter-terrorist, intelligence, and emergency response forces. They must work to prepare for terrorist scenarios that would have been considered "fantasy" before September 11th. As the "bad guys" change their tactics, it is imperative that defenders spend more time "thinking outside the box," in an attempt to thwart the terrorist events of the future. Consideration and realization of potential suicide events must be included in this new strategy.
Israel can stop it, and so can we. Once the politically correct responses have been proven to be a failure. Only then.
And why not? It's us or them, as they have made very clear, at least to people who have read a variety of sources. They think they are so perfect and have God on their side. Well, let's see about that. We'll know who's right soon enough.
Apparently so. The University professors won't let us. Whaaa!
The failure of politically correct responses is NO deterrence to those that concoct them.
They always determine scientifically that insufficient funds were emoloyed in the effort or that those executing the PC
responses were of insufficient purity of mind and the responses must be upgraded to be more PC.
The Islamic mafia rules.
Those profs and their universities are rapidly becoming as much a danger as the terrorists outside our borders or the unknown infiltrators within. The most effective antiAmerican stance to adopt today is the Islamicist position and so the academics are shifting hard in that direction. The Universites are likely becoming centers and havens for terrorists. If we eventually respond properly, the next huge civil rights fight will be over the FBI blockade and search operations on campuses.
OK. But they would have to do more. They would have to develop a comprehensive plan to eradicate the radical movements in their societies, review the plan with the USA, and implement the plan under US supervision. Then, maybe, we give 'em a break, and let them keep their countries as they are.
Iraq though, we still conquer them. They don't get a break.
Iran, we conquer them unless they publicly renounce their previous support of terrorists. And stop financing them.
Regarding that cesspool Saudi Arabia, we should not purchase another gallon of their oil. Buy from Russia. Drill in ANWR. Drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Drill off the coast of California. Drill. Drilll. Drill. And if they don't publicly renounce terrorism and stop supporting terrorist organizations, You guessed it, we conquer them.
You got that right. The socialists still believe that communism is a superior economic system, it just hasn't been implemented correctly (in all the cases where it has failed, which is all of the cases where it has been tried). Their delusion is surpassed only by their tenacity.
Which is why the silent majority of rational, unbrainwashed folks have got to rise up and stamp out the lunacy of the left.
The islamic mafia will rule in hell.
Every time I see that picture, my molars start grinding...
Locked and loaded.
What needs to happen is for the parents, who pay the tuition, to tell the Universities to get right or the tuitions disappear. Same for the alumni associations. No more contributions as long as anti-USA/West and pro-terrorist propaganda spews forth.
I wonder if it would be possible to have a group or a "movement" of everyone who feels that way to chat it up, to start that buzz, in emails and in FR and blogs and posts to forums, etc.? It would be a simple, basically one sentence, or one sentence fragment message. Maybe just a SYMBOL. The word ISLAM with an X over it. NO ISLAMS. No islams IN the USA. No islams on airplanes, no entry into the US. No entry into airports.
No other written rules would be necessary. No laws. Just COMMON SENSE rules tacitly agreed to by everybody who wants to join in. Like the freedom-underground in France and Europe during German occupation. An islam comes to your flight school for lessons----JUST SAY NO. An islam comes to your farm supply store to buy fifteen tons of fertilizer---Duh. And so forth. An islam applies for entry into the USA or to a US college or for a job here. Like you say---how difficult is it.
THEN, ALL lf these resources that the airlines are crying about being stretched so thin (and I am sure they are 100% right---they are being asked to scrutinize girl scouts and 80 year old grandmas with the same level and COST of scrutiny as a 25 yo muslim with two shoe bombs and four boxcutters!)----if you remove mohommedans from the equation, and allow airlines and government to get their arms around security, we just MIGHT be able to survive this and eventually---in a hundred years or so---be able to allow mohammedans back into the country, perhaps with careful observation (ankle bracelets like parolees, daily check-ins with government officers, etc.)
Harsh? Does anyone think that NAZIS should have been treated better or worse than this in 1945? How about commies during the cold war? Yet, ISLAMS are 1 billion strong (millions and millions HERE in the USA, plotting in a mosque on a streetcorner near YOU), every ONE of them SWORN to kill YOU, willing to die to do it, and DARING you to stop them, because they know that the liberals among you are too PC and too self-hating to save man's last great chance, the United States Of America. For anyone who doubts the seriousness of this, please review world history dating from then 7th century A.D. forward. Civilization is at stake.
The corporations (I know because I work for one) demand degrees---the parents' kids must have it as a ticket to get in, to get a job.
The degree is the currency to buy the hall pass to gain entry into the halls of the corporation. The degree has a value that slides all up and down a sliding scale of value determined by the market, so the kids (and their parents) try to get the most bang for their buck) to get the best job their degree will buy basically.
Lots of factors go into the "why" of this. Since "civil rights" and affirmative action and the ubiquity of employment discrimination lawsuits, firms have to cover their behinds and base hiring decisions on external criteria that can be quantified in a courtroom. Things like, "dedication, enthusiasm, loyalty, honesty, works long hours, loves his family, loves his church, loves his community, treats our customers like his own family, treats our company's money like it was his own, highly intelligent, always learning about our competitors to gain an edge...."yadayda......that doesn't mean SH*T in court. That used to MEAN something in the 50's. That'll just add an extra million dollars or two to the plaintiff's settlement if a company trots any of those out as a reason, say, a white guy, was given a job over, say, an incompetent person who was always out on disability, who was stupid, who disrespected customers--BUT who, 1) had a degree, 2) and was a minority.
It's complex. But, universities have us by the short hairs. And if the classes, be they English, Business, or and SAT test, or a GMAT test or whatever, if it's a question or an essay, and if you don't give the Politically Correct answer, if you dare to suggest an answer based on a premise that is not approved by the PC police, it will be graded WRONG. You could have the IQ of EINSTEIN, and you will be scorced as INCORRECT since it is purely subjective, and they have deemed that their *PC* version of reality is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
et. al.
I Understand. But my point is that parents DO have a say in curriculum, if only they would GET involved. I am afraid that they do not. Parents are "pre-occupied" (jobs, mortgages, social activities, etc.), and so they turn over responsibility for educating their children to the socialists. This is extremely dangerous. Wouldn't you agree?
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.