[antimedia] antimedia: Is terrorism a threat to US or not?....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
Is terrorism a threat to US or not?....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1155262381.shtml


   ....Listening to the [1]news reports about an alleged [2]terror plot
   and the [3]extreme efforts made by reporters to avoid the use of the
   term "Muslim" (one report I heard said a plotter had "recently found
   religion" -- gee, I wonder what religion that would be?) spurred my
   curiosity. I wondered how many times the media and authorities have
   taken pains to say words to the effect of "this was not a terror plot"
   or "no connection to terror was found".
   A search for "connect", "no", "terror" and "plot" found 457,000 hits
   on Alta Vista (my favorite search engine.) It included stories like
   this: [4]NYC Plot: 'Real Deal' Or 'Bravado'?.

     Despite the FBI's announcement that it disrupted a terror plot
     against New York City-area commuter trains Friday, CBS News
     correspondent Jim Stewart has learned that the plans were mere
     "jihadist bravado," according to one senior official.

   Why doesn't anyone ever interview a junior official? (The FBI disputed
   the anonymous official.)
   Or this.[5]Jennings Questions Accuracy of Ashcroftâs Terror Plot
   Warnings. (We've heard plenty of that, haven't we?)
   Or this.[6]No evidence al-Qaida knew of Madrid plot. Of course we all
   know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and
   Al Qaeda [7]claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings, but we
   shouldn't blame them unless we can prove it, right?
   Liberals and the media are not the only guilty parties. Government
   officials [8]often insist that, even though these were Muslims and
   even though they blew something up and killed a lot of people, we just
   can't find any links to Al Qaeda.
   It does seem passing strange, however, that the administration was
   roundly criticized for a [9]"failure to connect the dots", yet
   liberals and the media seem to be going out of their way not to
   connect the dots.
   From Lebanon to Bali, from the Philippines to London, from east to
   west and north to south, Muslim extremists everywhere seem to be
   independently coming up with the same idea -- lets go out and kill as
   many people as we can.
   Perhaps we can agree on a few commonalities all these terrorist events
   and plans have had.
    1. The killers and plotters are all Muslims (or at least claim to be)
    2. They all have the same goal -- kill the maximum number of people
       possible given the circumstances
    3. None of them are concerned about dying -- in fact, most of them
       intend to die in the act of killing
    4. Their targets are everyone who does not agree with them --
       Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists and atheists -- it
       doesn't matter to them
    5. They enjoy the support of a few rogue governments - Iran, Korea,
       Syria and to a lesser degree Russia, France and Saudi Arabia
    6. They get funding from sympathetic parties from all over the world
       -- and not just Muslims
    7. They can act independently, but they have a common goal -- to kill
       -- and a common dream -- the restoration of the caliphate
    8. They all need a source of income to fund their operations --
       preferably untraceable cash
    9. They all need the materials to build bombs
   10. They all need to communicate, at least within their own cells
   11. They all need to go somewhere that large crowds congregate, in
       order to maximize their kill rates

   These facts suggest some common sense courses of action that could be
   taken to defend against their attacks.
    1. Work to cut off their funding
    2. Monitor their communications
    3. Build an international coalition to work against the rogue regimes
       and other helper nations
    4. Build lists of known associates and monitor connecting networks
    5. Monitor the sales of material that can be used to make bombs
    6. Use heightened security anywhere that large crowds congregate
    7. Logical persuasion won't work with them, because they don't care
       about living
    8. Coercion also won't work with them, because they have no fear of
       dying (oddly, this does not apply to their leaders, who seem
       particularly fond of living)

   So how are we doing?
    1. We're working to cut off their funding (exposed by the New York
       Times)
    2. We're working to monitor their communications (exposed by the New
       York Times)
    3. We're working to censure the rogue governments that support them
    4. We're using datamining to connect their networks (exposed by the
       New York Times)
    5. We monitor the sales of anything that can be used to make bombs
    6. We use heightened security at large crowd events
    7. We haven't wasted any time trying to negotiate with them
    8. We've been successful using coercive techniques on their
       leadership

   I'd say the administration has taken the right courses of action,
   wouldn't you?
   Liberals, on the other hand, don't want us monitoring communications
   (too intrusive), don't want us monitoring banking transactions (too
   intrusive), don't want us doing datamining (too intrusive), complain
   about security measures (infective and too intrusive), insist we
   negotiate with the rogue governments (we have to understand their
   position), don't use coercion on prisoners (it's torture) and insist
   that we can negotiate with and understand terrorists who kill their
   own people without hesitation and celebrate death like we celebrate
   birthday parties.
   It's a strange world, isn't it?

References

   1. http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15238686.htm
   2. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005699.htm
   3. http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/08/uk_home_grown_t.html
   4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/07/terror/main1783061.shtml
   5. https://www.mediaresearch.org/printer/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040615pf.asp#1
   6. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7158191/
   7. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114138,00.html
   8. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-09-madrid_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
   9. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/05/17/failure-usatcov.htm