Free Republic

1) Declaring the entire religion a "terrorist organization"
2) "Filling concentration camps"
3) "making this the most unpleasant place in the world to be mooselimb"

There were several positive replies to this post and a couple unrelated posts in the same vein.

What some call "a dream". I call a living nightmare.

Terrorism involves the indiscriminate targeting of civilians - - men, women, and children  - - to achieve a particular end.

I won't post to a thread where people openly advocate terrorism, others silently approve, and the rest simply say nothing.

I thought that could only happen with a jihadi thread . . . or a mosque . . .

We should practice what we preach . . .what if we were to give the folks on this board 24 hours to denounce certain posts . . .or else . . .? 

You who are without sin can go cast that first stone at your local mosque.

After this coming attack, I'm sure there will be no shortage of self-righteous volunteers. It is a great pity that they will not be able to see that they will have become what they so hate themselves.

They will have become jihadis themselves.

News flash - - Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Malvo were black, Mr. Padilla was hispanic, and there are plenty of "lily white" terrorists as well (Gadahn for instance).

When you start to fill your "concentration camps", won't they start to look like America?

Won't it be America that you have imprisoned? 

And when the "concentration camps" fill, and the attacks increase because of the monstrous injustice you have inflicted on the innocent, will you have to resort to some type of "final solution". After all, there can be no coexistence?

Can there?

After all, the "entire religion" is a "terrorist organization". And terrorists must be found out and destroyed.

Don't they?

At the end of time, we will be held accountable for every word we have spoken (and written). I will have much for which I will have to answer, but I will not allow myself to be held accountable for this.

Watch carefully, as the terror escalates *there*, what you are seeing *here* is the birth of little baby jihadis, conceived in fear and hate, dividing the world into "us" and "them", and advocating our own "holy war" against "them" - - not against the killers, not against their sponsors - - just "them".

Even with Sodom and Gommorah, God said He would spare the place - - that entire putrid cesspool, if He could find ten just men.

Will he find them here? And will he spare us?

A word to the wise - - if you believe you will one day be called to give account for what you say and do - - every careless word - - then you should be most alarmed at what you are seeing here - - broadbrushed demonization of an entire class of Americans (millions who bear the misfortune of being called "Muslim"), encouragement to discover the locations of local mosques, and calls to terrorize and imprison the innocent. And this is just the start . . .

Asteroids, "prophetic utterances", and conspiracy theories are one thing.

Advocacy of terrorism is another.

I don't post to jihadi threads, so I won't post to what some would like to make a mirror image.

Parting advice for the dark days ahead:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good".
(Romans 12:21)

"This EOM posting is in fact mostly old news.

Everything following these lines is exactly the same as the posting from January 28, 2004"


Flights Canceled as New Air Terror Concerns Raised
By Sara Kehaulani Goo and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 31, 2004; 7:45 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A839-2004Jan31.html?nav=hptop_tb

. . .Intelligence indicating al Qaeda terrorists are seeking to release a chemical or biological agent on board an airliner, or transport a radiological device in cargo, prompted the cancellation of six international flights scheduled for Sunday and Monday . . . The range of possibilities, as described by three intelligence officials, include releasing an undetectable biological agent such as smallpox or anthrax on board a plane that passengers would then unknowingly spread; releasing a chemical agent to debilitate the passengers and crew so the plane could be hijacked; and sneaking a radiological device inside a piece of luggage. . .

"Much of what you said has been said often since we began in November"

ok

"19 targets mayhaps?"

Possible. But they would have to be clustered in just a few cities if that were to be the case. They abandoned the west coast targets on 9/11 because of coordination problems, and the more extensive plans become, the more resources needed and the more risk they run of compromising operational security.

"19 suitcase nukes?"

I am pretty sure I was the first one to post on "suitcase nukes" (or "small atomic demolition munitions" (SADMs) - - including "backpack nukes") back on an earlier TM thread (though many have mentioned it on other FR threads since 9/11). Within a few days, a rumor started that 30-40 devices were prepositioned in American cities. It is not a credible threat. Many reasons, but the most glaring is the number. Just one would be an attack unlike any other in human history. It would require years if not a decade of planning. A much more extensive support and security operation than anything involved with 9/11. And compartmentalized so well that all the arrests since 9/11 have not managed to stumble across anyone with adequate knowledge to roll it up.

I like to think "outside the box" as well as the next person, but it's a numbers game at this point. If they had tried that before 9/11 (smuggling multiple SADMs with state support), it might have had a better chance because we were nowhere near as alert to the threat as we are now.

And if we buy the theory that the KGB had that many here at the end of the Cold War, you have to believe that after over a decade of searching, we have not uncovered them, and that an already behemoth-sized plot necessary to detonate all of them would have to be made even larger by having an ongoing maintenance and reconditioning program as few of them would likely work properly by now.

That being said, I think that it is likely they will continue to attempt a nuclear detonation on American soil. But I think they will not risk detection with something that grandiose (19 targets, or 30-40 targets). Three targets would be more feasible. (Or just one would probably have the desired effect for them. The rest would be overkill) If they really want to try to kill millions, they will do bio. But they place their host/sponsoring country (s) at risk of total annihilation, so there is a restaining factor on that end as well.

The Soviets did this on their SS-18s (we nicknamed it the "Satan" I think). After the initial targets here were hit with nukes, they had follow-on missiles with bomblets with bio-engineered, airborne smallpox (natural smallpox is spread only at close range) MIRVed on the SS-18s to clean up those of us who were unfortunate enough to survive the first wave of nuclear first strikes.

Nuclear is merely psychological. The portable weapons are low yield. If you think about it, the first plane that struck on 9/11 had the explosive power of 250 tons of TNT ( a quarter kiloton). SADMs are on the order of a few kilotons. "City busters" on missiles are hundreds of kilotons or even megaton-sized H-bombs (Instead of knocking down a few city blocks you make one big crater of the entire city). So hitting 30-40 targets with SADMs (even if you could) would probably not kill what one well-aimed city-buster could. It doesn't make sense.

If they are going to the trouble of setting up more than a handful of targets, it will be bio, not nuclear. But they have been focused on carrying off a nuclear detonation here for many years.

I heard a rumor (not sure how credible) well before 9/11 (at least a couple years) that somone had tried to ship a device into a major port and was caught. So (if true) this cat and mouse game has been going on for a while. And there have probably been attempts since 9/11. Law of averages - - no one can either be right all the time or wrong all the time. We will someday get sloppy, or they will get "lucky". But if you sit and think how many resources would be needed to smuggle just one (let along nineteen or forty), you'll see the problem they face. Every additional person you bring into planning and execution increases the risk you will be compromised.

The larger threat of a multiple attack right now is missiles sourced from the same state-sponsors of terror that enable the terrorists.

Martyrs are just another alternative delivery mechanism to missiles. But when all-out war comes, martyrs still have value, but it is degraded as the need for deniablity is lost (and has been to some extent since 9/11) and open war creates the possibility of missile launches (whether ballistic or offshore cruise missiles)which are much more effective.

"Any bio/chem represented by the number 19?"

I don't know.

"3 10's?"

sorry, i didn't follow

(Paraphrasing)

Attack your opponent "like a storm" with a combination of measures. For instance, decapitate or disrupt the executive, legislative, and military leadership, target financial nodes, induce mass terror and hysteria, launch concurrent computer network attacks (Code Red and NIMDA), launch a biological attack (anthrax in the postal system). . . and most imporant, synchronize the attacks . . .

Last excerpt follows:

"This then is our real hand of cards . . ."

From "Unrestricted Warfare" (1999)

"The game has already changed, and what we need to continue is ascertaining a new type of fighting method within various uncertainties. It should not be that type of single prescription for treating the symptoms and not the disease, but rather a hybrid type of learning widely from the strong points of others and gathering advantages so as to allow a pear tree to bear both peaches and apples. This then is combination. We had actually shown this card already above.

What we have still not spoken of is another term: addition.

Addition is the method of combination.

In a boxing arena, a person who from start to finish uses only one type of boxing method to fight with an opponent is naturally not one who can combine straight punches, jabs, swings and hooks to attack his opponent like a storm. The principle of this can be said to be extremely simple: one plus one is greater than one.

The problem is that such a simple principle which even a preschooler can understand has been surprisingly unclear to many persons responsible for the success and failure of the security and warfare of nations. These people can excuse themselves saying they are using the method of combination boxing to attack opponents. They have never forgotten the addition of technology with technology, tactics with tactics, weapons with weapons, and measures with measures. Moreover, they can also contemptuously come to conclusions and combinations which cannot be considered to be anything new. This has been done from Alexander to Napoleon and even up to Schwartzkopf. They do not know that their ability to understand or not understand combinations is not the key to the problem. What is truly important is whether or not one understands what goes with what to implement combinations and how to combine.

Lastly, but certainly not the most important point, is whether or not one has thought of combining the battlefield and non-battlefield, warfare and non-warfare, military and non-military which is more specifically combining stealth aircraft and cruise missiles with network killers, combining nuclear deterrence, financial wars and terrorist attacks, or simply combining Schwartzkopf + Soros + Xiaomolisi [transliteraton 1420 5459 6849 2448] + bin Laden.

This then is our real hand of cards.

Whether it is combination or addition, both are but empty frames. Only when blood or cruelty are added in is the situation able to become severe and begin to be shocking."

the key to maximizing terror . . .

From "Unrestricted Warfare" (1999)

"New Terror War in Contrast to Traditional Terror War:

Due to the limited scale of a traditional terror war, its casualties might well be fewer than the casualties resulting from a conventional war or campaign. Nevertheless, a traditional terror war carries a stronger flavor of violence. Moreover, in terms of its operations, a traditional terror war is never bound by any of the traditional rules of the society at large.

From a military standpoint, then, the traditional terror war is characterized by the use of limited resources to fight an unlimited war. This characteristic invariably puts national forces in an extremely unfavorable position even before war breaks out, since national forces must always conduct themselves according to certain rules and therefore are only able to use their unlimited resources to fight a limited war.

This explains how a terrorist organization made up of just a few inexperienced members who are still wet behind the ears can nevertheless give a mighty country like the U.S. headaches, and also why "using a sledgehammer to kill an ant" often proves ineffective. The most recent proof is the case of the two explosions that occurred simultaneously at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

The advent of bin Ladin-style terrorism has deepened the impression that a national force, no matter how powerful, will find it difficult to gain the upper hand in a game that has no rules. Even if a country turns itself into a terrorist element, as the Americans are now in the process of doing, it will not necessarily be able to achieve success. . .

Be that as it may, if all terrorists confined their operations simply to the traditional approach of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and plane hijackings, this would represent less than the maximum degree of terror. What really strikes terror into people's hearts is the rendezvous of terrorists with various types of new, high technologies that possibly will evolve into new superweapons."

another gem . . .

From "Unrestricted Warfare" (1999)

"More murderous than hackers--and more of a threat in the real world--are the non-state organizations, whose very mention causes the Western world to shake in its boots. These organizations, which all have a certain military flavor to a greater or lesser degree, are generally driven by some extreme creed or cause, such as: the Islamic organizations pursuing a holy war; the Caucasian militias in the U.S.; the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult; and, most recently, terrorist groups like Osama bin Ladin's, which blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The various and sundry monstrous and virtually insane destructive acts by these kinds of groups are undoubtedly more likely to be the new breeding ground for contemporary wars than is the behavior of the lone ranger hacker. Moreover, when a nation state or national armed force, (which adheres to certain rules and will only use limited force to obtain a limited goal), faces off with one of these types of organizations, (which never observe any rules and which are not afraid to fight an unlimited war using unlimited means), it will often prove very difficult for the nation state or national armed force to gain the upper hand. . ."

planes, trains, and automobiles . . .

From "Unrestricted Warfare" (1999)

"However, a new concept of weapons is different. This and what people call new-concept weapons are two entirely different things. While it may be said that new-concept weapons are weapons which transcend the domain of traditional weapons, which can be controlled and manipulated at a technical level, and which are capable of inflicting material or psychological casualties on an enemy, in the face of the new concept of weapons, such weapons are still weapons in a narrow sense.

This is because the new concept of weapons is a view of weapons in the broad sense, which views as weapons all means which transcend the military realm but which can still be used in combat operations. In its eyes, everything that can benefit mankind can also harm him. This is to say that there is nothing in the world today that cannot become a weapon, and this requires that our understanding of weapons must have an awareness that breaks through all boundaries. With technological developments being in the process of striving to increase the types of weapons, a breakthrough in our thinking can open up the domain of the weapons kingdom at one stroke.

As we see it, a single man-made stock-market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor or scandal that results in a fluctuation in the enemy country's exchange rates or exposes the leaders of an enemy country on the Internet, all can be included in the ranks of new-concept weapons. A new concept of weapons provides direction for new-concept weapons, while the new-concept weapons give fixed forms to the new concept of weapons. With regard to the flood of new-concept weapons, technology is no longer the main factor, and the true underlying factor is a new concept regarding weapons.

What must be made clear is that the new concept of weapons is in the process of creating weapons that are closely linked to the lives of the common people. Let us assume that the first thing we say is: The appearance of new-concept weapons will definitely elevate future warfare to a level which is hard for the common people -- or even military men -- to imagine. Then the second thing we have to say should be: The new concept of weapons will cause ordinary people and military men alike to be greatly astonished at the fact that commonplace things that are close to them can also become weapons with which to engage in war. We believe that some morning people will awake to discover with surprise that quite a few gentle and kind things have begun to have offensive and lethal characteristics. . ."

. . .The small-scale, flexible, and quick "Expeditionary Force," not only used for military attacks but also able to carry out non-warfare tasks, has become the new style of establishment striven for by each military branch as well as a convenient and effective tool in the hands of the U.S. government. We have discovered that, because there are these highly proficient "killer mace" [sha shou jian 3010 2087 9505] forces and a dangerous, worrisome trend has even been brought about, in handling international affairs the U.S. government has become increasingly fond of using force, makes moves more quickly, and seeks revenge for the smallest grievances. . . .

"The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover. The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed. In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . .

[Written on 17 January 1999, the 8th anniversary of the outbreak of the Gulf War]

The 9/11 cells were a type of "Assassin's Mace" expeditionary force.

I'll post some excerpts of the book later. Too much for one post.

As you'll see . . .

"Assassin's Mace"

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf

. . .China’s leaders recognize that China will not be able to engage in direct military
competition with the United States for the foreseeable future, giving rise to a priority
emphasis in the military modernization program on preventing effective intervention by
superior U.S. forces in the first instance. This emphasis involves using asymmetric solutions to blunt U.S. intervention or deny access to the theater of operations, including development of so-called “assassin’s mace” (shashoujian) and “trump card” weapons. . . .

"I worry about the bio more than the nuke."

The gift that keeps on giving.

Especially genetic weapons (genetically-engineered biological weapons).

They do exist unfortunately.

Is it every fourth mile or every fifth mile of our own interstate highways that have to be straight-line? Wonder if the same metric applies over there.

Eisenhower was a very smart guy.

"I have a hard time believing they could set a specific date 6 months in advance."

I agree. But the current threats seem to be an extension (or continuum) of things that began to emerge late last year.

I would imagine that dates (when?) are flexible, but targets (where?) less so, and the operation itself (how?) even less. But the more you can disrupt the timing, the more time you buy for yourself to uncover the harder dots to connect and even to stumble across other totally unrelated operations in the pipeline.

The threats back then may have applied to operations whose timing has been disrupted but remain live threats. So even if the timing is of historical interest, it may have value for the future.

The "Cave of Darkness" business was in late December or early January if I remember correctly.

The first version signed off with the "Black Death Brigades" (or something like that) and 19/19/19/21.

Then a newer version came out with 19/19/19/23.

Three targets (eg. NYC/DC/LA)?

Thanks.

The link doesn't work, but saw the story this morning.

Shot across the bow so to speak. Maybe a warning to give them a wide berth as they ramp up their exercises (as the Chinese did during their historic maneuvers that began in the spring of 2001 and ended a few weeks before 9/11 when they forced down the P-3 over Hainan).

The Iranians may exploit coming chaos by reopening the Shatt al Arab issue and provoking a crisis that could lead to intervention in the southern Shiite portion of Iraq. Rumsfeld had to warn them off after the war last year as they tried to move the border about 20 clicks.

The Iranians also began a border buildup in the weeks after the first Gulf War. Bush 41 has been slammed since then by many on the right for stopping the land war after 100 hours.

While I support the current President on the justness of this war without reservation, I think Bush 41 has been vindicated on his reluctance to drive on to Baghdad and occupy Iraq (which was much stronger at the time). It would have invited a far more chaotic situation than what we are even seeing now (though this full intervention was necessary to remove the regime), provoked Iranian intervention (which we may see yet in full view and which has been taking place covertly with thousands of Iranian operatives entering Iraq over the past year directing attacks and building networks), and risked a global crisis (the USSR was very much alive at the time and Gorbachev had been coopted by hardliners on the Politburo months before). Some of the worst characters on the Politburo were even discussing a last ditch attempt to save the crumbling USSR by initiating WW III.

Fortunately, we have a good friend in Russia today (though many renegade ex-KGB and ex-military are arming the bad guys). They may have saved thousands of lives here at home with their help.

So given the opportunity, time to do this right.

"19/19/19/23"

(Cave of Darkness threat)

23

Given the relationship between Iran and North Korea, the worst-case scenario should be considered that the Iranian "ace-in-the-hole" is a North Korean ICBM. While it has not been adequately flight tested, the TD-2 (with a light enough payload) could be configured to go roughly 10,000 km (western third of the US from North Korea; eastern seaboard, DC and NYC included, from northwestern Iran). A three-stage Taepo-dong (if it worked - - a big "if") would cover all of CONUS.

The 29 targets mentioned by Iran and the missiles may be related . . .
Iran has been crawling with North Koreans for years.

"Thirteen Days" is on tonight (8pm CDT on CBS). Great flick.

Yes, one of the best articles on the SA situation I have read . . .

But I disagree with part of the analysis (that near-term action against the House of Saud will be constrained by hesitancy to endanger funding sources), and the premise that they want to calibrate action to avoid an external intervention. I believe intervention is exactly what they are trying to provoke (as with 15 of 19 hijackers).

We lose sight of the forest through the trees. If they just wanted to drive out expats they can just gun them down quietly. A lot quicker and safer (for them). "No muss no fuss." Takes a lot of trouble to make a global drama out of killing one individual. But isn't that the point? There are American soldiers killed by bullets and IEDs every week (actually, closer to every day). But you cannot achieve the effect through a bullet or bomb.

No outrage. No mass outpouring of emotion and rage.
No mass reaction (effect).

But a beheading . . . now there you can have an effect . . .

If someone mailed you a package of cookies, and the return address was marked "al Qaeda" would you eat them? But we'll chow down on their propaganda. Like making national radio and newspapers in WWII available to "Tokyo Rose".

What reaction are they trying to achieve? The audience is not the expat community in SA. The audience is us. They want us to do their work for them (provoke us to "holy war" and take down the bankrupt Saudi regime ourselves.) And then to them go the spoils.

Other than that, it is a good read.

This might be a better link to find the actual article:

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0406/04061901STR.asp

Back to the Future . . .

"Kinda like the difference between a Movement to Contact and a Reconaissance in Force? Or between a "Police Action" and a "War?"

. . . or between an "exercise" and a "deployment"

poe-TAY-toe/puh-TAH-toe

"In chaos there is opportunity?"

As the adage goes, the Chinese character for "crisis" combines the two characters representing "danger" and "opportunity".

That proverb is applicable in more than one way to more than one player in more than one crisis at the moment.