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.
This is probably one of the most difficult things, because it makes attributability and, therefore, capture and punishment, extremely difficult. One of the things that has always been used to reject the possibility of terrorism in events such as Flight 800 and the other recent downing (Flight 587?) is that nobody claimed responsibility. I've never found this very convincing, and knowing that this is now part of terrorist policy makes it even less convincing.
Particularly if we're continuing to play the "Islam means peace," charade.
The Japanese kamikazi pilots were giving us the general idea back in 1945.
Alternately, we could identify those people who have been giving financial support to radical Islamic clerics, and for each American killed, assassinate an equal number of radical Islamic clerics and their financial supporters. Eventually, giving aid to radical Islam will be seen as a very unhealthy activity
I seem to recall that Klebald and Harris (Columbine) in their ultimate "end scenario" would have wanted to take hostages from the school to the airport- have a plane fly them to New York and at the last minute force the plane to crash into the city- possibly into the WTC. Oddly enough, when I was in 8th or 9th grade (20 yrs ago), I remember a kid sort of jokingly talking about coming to school with his deer rifle, shooting the principal and perhaps a few teachers and afterwards doing the same thing- hostages/airport/crash plane into tall Atlanta or perhaps even NYC buildings. "Go out with a bang" he said.
So I imagine if an American teen or two can contemplate doing that, so could terrorists and that notion has been out there in the public realm since Columbine at least.
For example, Catholics are forgiven sins by saying an assigned number of prayers, Jews are given leave to ride on the Sabbath if the synagogue is too far.
I think the radical Islamic clerics will just change the rules to accommodate the desired ends.
Now, now, Sabertooth! We don't want to impune the reputation of ALL if them. We only have to worry about a small percentage of them, the Wahabbi radicals. Estimated to only be 10% of all Muslims. Therefore only 100-125 million of them world over. Nothing to worry about.
Locked and loaded.
Is it just too simple not to let any arabs into the US?
They're probably the ones who gave them the idea(s) in the first place, but there is little you can do about it, anyway.
Why wait for another American to be killed?
Iraq: Invade and conquer their country. Kill the radicals. Set up a democratic government.
Iran: Invade and conquer their country. Kill the radicals. Set up a democratic government.
Saudi Arabia: Invade and conquer their country. Kill the radicals. Set up a democratic government.
Repeat as necessary world wide until the radicals are annihilated.
Good one!
They were an elite group of pilots who believed they were doing it for their Emperor (who was believed to be a god). They were trained to give up their life for the Emperor.
Now, please explain to me what's different about the current terrorists??
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.