Hello:

What do you suppose the world would be like today if we had declared 9/11 to have been a criminal act rather than a military one? Would we be safer today? Would we be at war? With who - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, anybody?

I suspect those on the right would say that we'd be speaking Arabic and our women would be wearing burkas. Those on the other side would say that Ben Laden would be in jail or dead. Our Constitution would be in tact, and we wouldn't be at war with anybody.

Frankly, I don't know. Speculate for me.

excon

I think there is little doubt that our military response to 9/11 has made few friends in the Middle East. Not only that, other countries in the region (Iran) have been able to exercise more power and influence because of our unpopularity. The US has only opened itself up to more attacks by fueling extremist groups hatred of Western society. Perhaps the conservatives believe that we are fighting for a noble cause, but ask an Iraqi if he feels the same way.

War may have been inevitable, but I think we should have treated it as a criminal act in the beginning. I believe we would have at least had an easier time getting backing from other countries, so that we wouldn't have had to "go it alone," for the most part. Anyway, hindsight is 20/20.

It is true that we have made it more difficult for the governments in the region to cooperate with the US. I don't know if we would have been able to capture Ben Laden, but because we are so unpopular, I could see governments (such as Pakistan) hesitating to piss off their populace by turning him over.

Ok I like to speculate since you can't be wrong.

Let's say the Goracle won and he followed the Clintonoid playbook. He would've immediately made a finger pointing speech proclaiming the criminals would be brought to justice. He would've taken some military action however . Surplus cruise missiles would've been directed in the general area that Michael Scheuer said OBL was last seen at . The attack would've damaged some homes and killed some innocents so Gore would make the decision to suspend the attacks.

Meanwhile ;Scheuer may have in fact pinpointed the location of OBL but since there was no extradition agreement with the Taliban there would've been no legal basis to abduct or rendition him. Scheuer would at that point beg for a commando unit to put a bullet between OBL's eyes but unfortunately National Security Adviser Sandy Berger would not permit it.

An investigation would drag on and despite finding a connection with the previous WTC attacks and possibly the connection to al-Qeda planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ;still it would be determined that no actionable intel was present that justifies military intervention . We could get bogged down . The investigation would've pretty much led to a dead end. When the Goracle petitioned FISA to intercept communications between AQ and domestic sources he is turned down. Bin Laden stops using his sat phone so those leads die.

Emboldened by a lack of meaningful response OBL gives the go ahead to the next series of attacks on US soil . These involve the use of Iraqi WMD being secretly stored in the UN .

Let's see,

Before 9/11, every terrorist act committed against the USA had been declared a criminal act rather than a war crime. That included the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Marine Barracks bombings, the consulate bombings, the hijackings and bombings of various planes, driveby shootings against the FBI and CIA headquarters, shootings in the Empire State Building, attacks against the White House and Capital Buildings, sniper attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, assassinations of religious leaders in Brooklyn, etc. Despite rigorous investigation and prosecution of these "crimes", the acts of violence continued, both inside and outside the USA.

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.

So, the conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is this: prosecuting international terrorism as a crime does not prevent terrorist acts from occurring again and again. However, handling terrorist attacks as acts of war and pursuing war against the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks can be much more effective as a deterrent. Perhaps it will not be 100% effective (though it has been so far), but it is better than what we were doing before.

So we don't have to do a what-if scenario. We have 60+ years of historical data to draw a conclusion from. No, we wouldn't be wearing burkhas or speaking Arabic. But we would have suffered roughly 6-12 major terrorist attacks (assuming an average of 1-2 attacks per year, which was the average for the 60 years prior to 9/11) against the USA. By contrast, we have suffered NONE. No speculation needed. We have facts on which to base our conclusions, so there is no need to speculate.

Elliot

Let's see,

Before 9/11, every terrorist act committed against the USA had been declared a criminal act rather than a war crime. That included the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Marine Barracks bombings, the consulate bombings, the hijackings and bombings of various planes, driveby shootings against the FBI and CIA headquarters, shootings in the Empire State Building, attacks against the White House and Capital Buildings, sniper attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, assassinations of religious leaders in Brooklyn, etc. Despite rigorous investigation and prosecution of these "crimes", the acts of violence continued, both inside and outside the USA.

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.

So, the conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is this: prosecuting international terrorism as a crime does not prevent terrorist acts from occurring again and again. However, handling terrorist attacks as acts of war and pursuing war against the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks can be much more effective as a deterrent. Perhaps it will not be 100% effective (though it has been so far), but it is better than what we were doing before.

So we don't have to do a what-if scenario. We have 60+ years of historical data to draw a conclusion from. No, we wouldn't be wearing burkhas or speaking Arabic. But we would have suffered roughly 6-12 major terrorist attacks (assuming an average of 1-2 attacks per year, which was the average for the 60 years prior to 9/11) against the USA. By contrast, we have suffered NONE. No speculation needed. We have facts on which to base our conclusions, so there is no need to speculate.

Elliot

So, what you are saying, and let me make sure I have this correct, is that the best course of action for the US is to continue an indefinite war against all acts we consider to be terrorism? Because, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Also, there have never been major terrorist attacks like that of 9/11 in the US, previously. That is, from an outside source. So, I don't see how you could justify your position. Also, I would like to see some raw numbers, that would include all terrorist attacks against the U.S in the last 50 years, compared to the number of Am soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001.

Just because nothing major has happened in the last 6 years, doesn't mean that a far worse attack isn't going to happen, considering we've stirred up even more hate and extremism with our military campaign.

So, what you are saying, and let me make sure I have this correct, is that the best course of action for the US is to continue an indefinite war against all acts we consider to be terrorism? Because, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.


Feel free. That's your right. But history is clearly on my side.



Also, there have never been major terrorist attacks like that of 9/11 in the US, previously. That is, from an outside source. So, I don't see how you could justify your position. Also, I would like to see some raw numbers, that would include all terrorist attacks against the U.S in the last 50 years, compared to the number of Am soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001.


As you wish.

1954 March 1: U.S. Capitol shooting incident by Puerto Rican nationalists, wounding five Congressmen.


1970 - The first mass hijacking occurred in 1970, the so-called Dawson's Field hijackings, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine seized control of two American planes and one Swiss airliner, all bound from Europe to the United States. The Pan Am, TWA and Swissair planes were blown up on the ground in Jordan and Egypt.


1972 December: A travel agency in Queens, New York is bombed; the incident is attributed to FIN, a Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro.


1972 December 11: New York City. The VA-Cuba Forwarding Company is bombed. Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro suspected.


1974 September 8: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner. Attributed to Abu Nidal and his terror organization.


1974 December 11: A bomb set off by the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN in East Harlem, New York permanently disables a police officer.


1975 January 24: FALN bomb the Fraunces Tavern, killing four and injuring more than 50.


1976 September 10-September 11: Croatian Freedom Fighters hijack a TWA airliner diverting it to Gander, Newfoundland, and then Paris demanding a manifesto be printed. One police officer was killed and three injured during an attempt to defuse a bomb that contained their communiques in a New York City train station locker.


1976 September 21: Orlando Letelier assassinated in Washington by Chilean government.


1977 March 9: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized by members of the militant African-American Muslim Hanafi sect and over 100 hostages taken. One bystander is shot and killed, and Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest. After a two-day standoff all hostages are released from the District Building (city hall), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center.


1977 August 3: Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN in Manhattan, New York bombs the offices of Mobil and a building containing Defense Department security personal killing one and injuring eight in the Mobil offices. In addition the group warned that bombs were located in thirteen other buildings, including the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center resulting in the evacuation of one hundred thousand. Five days later a bomb attributed to the group was found in the AMEX building


1979 June 9: Puerto Rican nationalist organization FALN exploded a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.


1979 - US Embassy in Pakistan attacked by mob mistakenly blaming the US for radical Islamic faction hostage crisis in Mecca


1979 November 4: Iran hostage crisis, a 444-day standoff during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States inside the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Continued from above...



1980 March 15: armed members of FALN raided the campaign headquarters of President Jimmy Carter in Chicago and the campaign headquarters of George H. W. Bush in New York City. Seven people in Chicago and ten people in New York were tied up as the offices were vandalized before the FALN members fled. A few days later, Carter delegates in Chicago received threatening letters from FALN.

1980 June 3: A bomb destroys most of the exhibits in the Statue of Liberty story room. No one is arrested, but Croatian separatists are suspected.

1981 May 16: One dead in an explosion in the toilets at thePan Am terminal at New York's JFK airport. The bombing is claimed by the Puerto Rican Resistance Army

1982 August 11: A bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, enroute from Tokyo to Honolulu, killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.

1983 - Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, 63 killed.

1983 - Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983, 305 killed.

1983 November 9: U.S. Senate bombing. A time bomb consisting of several sticks of dynamite explodes at the United States Senate in response to the U.S. invasion of Grenada. No one was injured, a group known as the Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

1984 - Twenty-two people were killed (two of them American) and seventy were wounded when a van loaded with four hundred pounds of explosives exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Awkar, Lebanon. Islamic Jihad (code name of Hezbollah) claimed responsibility for the bombing in a call to the media.

1984 The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

1985 - TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver killed

1985 - Achille Lauro hijacking, wheel-chair bound American killed by Palestinian terrorists

1985 October 11: Arab anti-discrimination group leader Alex Odeh is killed when a bomb explodes in his Santa Ana, California office.

1986 - Four Americans were killed and nine people, including five Americans, were injured when a bomb exploded aboard TWA Flight 840 as it traveled from Rome to Athens. The aircraft was able to land safely at Athens airport.

1986 April 6, a Berlin discotheque bombing killed a Turkish woman and two U.S. servicemen and injured 230 people, including more than 50 American servicemen.

1987 - A car bomb exploded outside the back gate of the U.S. Embassy in Rome and rockets were fired at the compound from across the street. One passerby was injured in the attacks.

1988 April 12: Japanese Red Army terrorist Yu Kikumura was arrested at a rest stop on the New Jerseyturnpike in possession of pipe bombs on his way to New York.

1988 December 21, Pan Am Flight 103, outbound from London for New York with 259 people aboard, was destroyed by a bomb while over Lockerbie, Scotland. All aboard the aircraft were killed as were eleven persons on the ground.

1990 November 5: Assassination of Meir Kahane head of Israel's Koch party and founder of the American vigilante group the Jewish Defense League in a Manhattan, New York hotel lobby by early elements of Al Queda.

1992 January 25: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others, see FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.

1992 February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra'/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front

1993 June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot

1994 March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City

1995 March 8: Terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, armed with automatic rifles, murdered two American consulate employees and wounded a third as they traveled in the consulate shuttle bus.

1996 - Khobar Towers bombing: 19 American servicemen killed

1997 February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

Still continued...

1998 August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,
1999 December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

2000 October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda,

2001 September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capital Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda.

Please note that I have deliberately avoided listing any domestic terrorism in the above list. All the attacks listed above are international terrorist attacks. I left off the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, various attacks by the KKK and the Black Panthers, etc, during the time period in question. Those would nearly double the count. But those have also been stopped by Bush's combined methods of vigilance at home and military tactics abroad.



Just because nothing major has happened in the last 6 years, doesn't mean that a far worse attack isn't going to happen, considering we've stirred up even more hate and extremism with our military campaign.

I agree, and I acknowledge that the threat continues to exist, despite any action we take at home or abroad. That would be true whether we used military tactics or criminal prosecution to fight terrorism. That is not a reason to choose one method over the other. But do we stop fighting crime because the threat of crime still exists despite anything we can do? Do we stop fighting cancer because it still remains a deseaase that kills? Do firemen stop fighting fires because there's always a chance that anothe fire is going to break out anyway? Obviously not.

So the choice isn't between fighting terrorism and not fighting terrorism. The choice is whether to fight it by using criminal prosecution or to fight it via military tactics. The former has been an historical failure. The 40+ incidents that I listed above prove that beyond a doubt. The latter method has a 6-year track record of 100% success. Even if some new attack is successful against the USA, it doesn't change the fact that military tactics have had a better record of stopping terrorism in the USA over the past 6 years than criminal prosecution did in the prior 40 years.

So... do we go with the proven and effective method of dealing with terrorism, or do we go back to the old way that didn't work? I know what I choose.

Elliot

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.




Elliot,

I'm one that supports using the military right here at home in larger roles. That I know is another subject for another time. Anyway personally I think the reason we have foiled other attempts, including busted terrorist cells in major cities, is because we are currently on guard. In that respect I don't think it matters if it's under the headline of criminal or terrorist activity. After those two towers went down right before our eyes, we finally became alert.



Bobby

Still continued...

1998 August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,
1999 December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

2000 October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda,

2001 September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capital Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda.

Please note that I have deliberately avoided listing any domestic terrorism in the above list. All the attacks listed above are international terrorist attacks. I left off the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, various attacks by the KKK and the Black Panthers, etc, during the time period in question. Those would nearly double the count. But those have also been stopped by Bush's combined methods of vigilance at home and military tactics abroad.




I agree, and I acknowledge that the threat continues to exist, despite any action we take at home or abroad. That would be true whether we used military tactics or criminal prosecution to fight terrorism. That is not a reason to choose one method over the other. But do we stop fighting crime because the threat of crime still exists despite anything we can do? Do we stop fighting cancer because it still remains a deseaase that kills? Do firemen stop fighting fires because there's always a chance that anothe fire is going to break out anyway? Obviously not.

So the choice isn't between fighting terrorism and not fighting terrorism. The choice is whether to fight it by using criminal prosecution or to fight it via military tactics. The former has been an historical failure. The 40+ incidents that I listed above prove that beyond a doubt. The latter method has a 6-year track record of 100% success. Even if some new attack is successful against the USA, it doesn't change the fact that military tactics have had a better record of stopping terrorism in the USA over the past 6 years than criminal prosecution did in the prior 40 years.

So... do we go with the proven and effective method of dealing with terrorism, or do we go back to the old way that didn't work? I know what I choose.

Elliot
Elliot

And since 2001 September 11; surly you must have those statistics, or did you stop counting.

It seems to me that would be important.

Elliot,

I'm one that supports using the military right here at home in larger roles. That I know is another subject for another time. Anyway personally I think the reason we have foiled other attempts, including busted terrorist cells in major cities, is because we are currently on guard. In that respect I don't think it matters if it's under the headline of criminal or terrorist activity. After those two towers went down right before our eyes, we finally became alert.



Bobby
Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Giving me a list of casualties of terrorism unrelated to the threat at hand, does not do much to bolster your argument. The fact is, this is not terrorism instituted by governments, but religious extremists. We are surely giving these people a reason to fight, and they don't fight with conventional weaponry. One of the reasons we haven't had any major attacks on US soil, is because they don't need to come here to attack us. As near as I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job at the moment.

That we cannot sustain the type of fighting we are currently employing. We do not have the man power, funds, or will of the people to do so. This is a short-term answer to a long-term problem, and we've made it more difficult and costly on ourselves by using our military.

I do not claim that treating 9/11 as a criminal act would have solved all our problems, but I think the future will show that our reaction was a big mistake.

Hello:

What do you suppose the world would be like today if we had declared 9/11 to have been a criminal act rather than a military one? Would we be safer today? Would we be at war? With who - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, anybody??

I suspect those on the right would say that we'd be speaking Arabic and our women would be wearing burkas. Those on the other side would say that Ben Laden would be in jail or dead. Our Constitution would be in tact, and we wouldn't be at war with anybody.

Frankly, I dunno. Speculate for me.

excon
Jefferson answered that… "Men of energy of character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as they feel that effect." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1817. ME 15:109

Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.



Israel and the US don't even compare on security levels. We don't have the Gaza strip located next to Brooklyn. Mexico and Canada are not at our throats daily. True anything can happen at any given time, but I wasn't speaking of doing away with the police. Just an extension to airport security, undercover ops, etc.. I'd rather give the military more work at home, than abroad.



Bobby

That is the job of FBI task forces; the military is for killing people. You may get your wish but if the problem gets that bad it won't be pleasant. I prefer the military come home, go to their respective bases, and continue training.

That is the job of FBI task forces; .

The FBI and other agencies need all the help they can get.




the military is for killing people.

No! Respectfully... I see that as too broad a statement. The infantry 0311 (grunts), Beret and Rangers, Deep Recon, Tank and artillery personnel, fighter pilots, Naval gunners, and the Seals are trained in killing when peaceful objectives cannot be achieved. Most civilians are not intelligent enough to be trained in Deep Recon, Seals or become a fighter pilot. It's a select group and adaptable in learning. Also there are many many other facets of military life and duties (MOS).



You may get your wish but if the problem gets that bad it won't be pleasant.

I don't know that it has to be bad. In view of the fact that the unpleasant occurred on 9/11, I'm suggesting potential helpful work.





I prefer the military come home, go to their respective bases, and continue training.

I do agree on bringing them home.



Bobby

Besides ,the premise of the question is wrong. Anti-terrorism has been treated by the President as BOTH military and as criminal investigation . Another falsehood has been the statement that we go it alone. We have had allied cooperation and have in turn cooperated with allies in both the military and the criminal intelligence gathering .

The Eye of the 9/11 Storm
By Victor Davis Hanson

Another anniversary of 9/11 is near. It's been nearly six long years since a catastrophic attack on our shores, and we've understandably turned to infighting and second-guessing - about everything from Guantanamo to wiretaps.

But this six-year calm, unfortunately, has allowed some Americans to believe that "our war on terror" remedy is worse than the original Islamic terrorist disease.

We see this self-recrimination reflected in our current Hollywood fare, which dwells on the evil of American interventions overseas, largely ignoring the courage of our soldiers or the atrocities committed by jihadists. Our tell-all bestsellers, endless lawsuits and congressional investigations have deflected our 9/11-era furor away from the terrorists to ourselves.

All this tail-chasing comes only with the illusory thinking that the present lull is the same as perpetual peace. Have we forgotten that experts still insist that another strike will come, carried out by those already here or shortly to enter the United States?

Look back at jihadist near-misses in this country since 9/11 - along with a disturbing recent Pew poll that found one in four younger Muslim-Americans approve, at least in certain circumstances, of suicide bombing to "defend Islam" - and the dire predictions seem plausible.

Recall the jihadists arrested in Albany and near Buffalo, N.Y. or the recently uncovered plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Past foiled targets included the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Brooklyn Bridge, JFK Airport in New York and the New York Stock Exchange.

Some angry loners - mouthing jihadist propaganda or anti-American slogans - simply act on their own to try to kill Americans. Iranian-American college student Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar hit several University of North Carolina classmates with his car in March 2006. Last summer, Omeed Aziz Popal was arrested for a hit-and-run rampage in San Francisco. And Naveed Afzal Haq is charged with shooting several women last summer at a Jewish center in Seattle.

Recall also the American residents and citizens with direct connections to al-Qaida's terrorism network.

American Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah al-Muhajir) was just convicted by a jury of terrorist conspiracy. Khalid Abu-al-Dahab, a key al-Qaida recruiter, operated out of California's Silicon Valley. "Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman advised Egyptian jihadists from his American jail cell - after his conviction for helping to plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. U.S. visitor and asylum-seeker Ramzi Yousef was convicted of the same crime. His partner, the indicted American citizen Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to pre-war Iraq. Another American, Adam Gadahn, regularly narrates al-Qaida communiques.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed - mastermind of the 9/11 mass-murder and the Daniel Pearl decapitation - studied in North Carolina for a number of years. Egyptian-American and U.S. Army veteran Ali Mohamed helped plan the destruction of American embassies in East Africa. The convicted "20th-hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui attended flight school in Oklahoma.

Two things seem clear here. One: There have been, and are now, plenty of Islamic terrorists and their helpers in the United States. And two: We are dangerously shortsighted about the ongoing threat they pose.

Meanwhile, Islamic-American organizations and sympathetic civil-liberties associations file lawsuits about supposed American security excesses and illiberal vigilance.

Last fall, for example, several imams were taken off a flight from Minneapolis when the group's erratic behavior scared fellow passengers. After the incident, one of the so-called "flying imams," Arizonan Omar Shahin, called for boycotts of the involved airline and legislation to stop supposed anti-Muslim profiling.

But the brazen Shahin, it turns out, is more than just a bullied Islamic scholar; he's also helped raise funds for an organization that the U.S. government has tied to Hamas.

Our experts are too often in denial or disarray. Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clark, former CIA operative Michael Scheuer and former CIA director George Tenet now make widely publicized strident attacks on ongoing efforts to stop terrorists and level charges against others - and each other. They rarely talk with any humility, much less apprise us of what we can learn from their own failures to stop the 9/11 jihadists during their long tenures.

In short, six years of quiet at home since 9/11 have fooled some into thinking that terrorists pose little danger here - or that we may be doing far too much rather than too little to stop such killers. No matter that this past week a jihadist plot to destroy U.S. facilities in Germany was thwarted.

Others make the mistake of endlessly re-fighting the past six years - who let al-Qaida grow?; who "lost" Osama bin Laden?; who fouled up postwar Iraq? - instead of concentrating on the storm ahead.

Before 2001, the excuse for American complacence and in-fighting was naïveté. But what will be the reason for the next successful strike against us by the jihadists?

More naïveté - or is it simple hubris?

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].

Besides ,the premise of the question is wrong. Anti-terrorism has been treated by the President as BOTH military and as criminal investigation . Another falsehood has been the statement that we go it alone. We have had allied cooperation and have in turn cooperated with allies in both the miltary and the criminal intelligence gathering .



Tom-

I agree. We can see elements of both doing their work. Although the military allied cooperation diminished somewhat over the past few years. I'm headed to work. Everyone have a good day. :)



Bobby

Elliot

And since 2001 September 11; surly you must have those statistics, or did you stop counting.

It seems to me that would be important.

Um... roughly... ZERO!! That was my entire point, DC. Before 9/11, we suffered attacks by international terrorists roughly every year, sometimes twice a year or more. Since 9/11, the number has gone down to zero.

Elliot

Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.

Actually, no they don't. In Israel proper, violence is minimal. Only in the "occupied territories" does the violence continue. That was not always the case, of course, but it is now. There were two things that made this true: the building of the security fence and Israel's military operations in the West Bank and Gaza. In other words, forward deployment to attack the terrorists in their own back yard (as Bush is doing with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan) and increased security measures at home (can anyone say "Patriot Act"?) are working together to decrease violence in Israel. The Israelis are using the same tactics that we are and having the same result... an increase in security and decrease in terrorist activity at home.

And Israel is still one of the freest countries in the entire world. I have never heard an Israeli complain about any losses of rights. They still vote, worship, gather, speak, protest against the government and produce press in complete freedom. Even the peace-now crowd that is against operations against the Palestinians doesn't claim that the government has taken away any of their liberties.

Elliot

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Giving me a list of casualties of terrorism unrelated to the threat at hand, does not do much to bolster your argument.

The threat at hand is international terrorism. Every example that I gave you is an example of international terrorism. Furthermore, virtually every terrorist attack against the USA since 1978 or so has been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. In what way are these "unrelated" to the current war against Islamic terrorism?


The fact is, this is not terrorism instituted by governments, but religious extremists. We are surely giving these people a reason to fight, and they don't fight with conventional weaponry.

Really? And what was the reason for them to attack during the 40+ times they attacked us prior to our invading Iraq? They don't need excuses to attack us. They've been doing it without any excuses for 40 years. Now that we are finally fighting back, you call it "giving them a reason to fight".



One of the reasons we haven't had any major attacks on US soil, is because they don't need to come here to attack us. As near as I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job at the moment.

Not against American civilians, they aren't.


that we cannot sustain the type of fighting we are currently employing. We do not have the man power, funds, or will of the people to do so.

The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.

As for manpower, the standing US military is made up of 1.4 million people, according to DOD statistics. We currently have less than 200,000 troops there. We can not only sustain the current troops levels in Iraq, we could increase them if we had to, and still maintain a presence in Iraq for decades. The claims of a shortfall of manpower are full of crap... a red herring meant to divert us from staying in Iraq.


This is a short-term answer to a long-term problem, and we've made it more difficult and costly on ourselves by using our military.

Over the past 4 years, we have killed thousands of terrorists, captured thousands more, broken up major cells, crippled the terrorists' ability to attack us here at home, freed 50 million people from tyrannical regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopped Libya's WMD program, and sustained major military operations against terrorists in two countries, and intelligence operations against them in many others. Exactly how much is all that supposed to cost, and at what level of difficulty? I'd say we're getting off cheap, all things considered. But that's just me looking at the big picture.


I do not claim that treating 9/11 as a criminal act would have solved all our problems, but I think the future will show that our reaction was a big mistake.

Perhaps. I would have personally chosen Iran and Syria as my targets. But the fact is that no matter what target we would have chosen the enemy would have flocked to that location to fight us as they did in Iraq. In the case of Iraq, however, al Qaeda and the Abu Nidal organizations were already present, and given Saddam's intrasigence where the UN Resolutions were concerned, and his violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, Iraq was a legitimate target.

But if you are trying to argue that we should not have taken any muilitary action in response to the deaths of 3000 American citizens, and that that would have been a better option than taking the fight to the enemy in the Middle East, you are being naïve. For 40 years, we took no effective military action against terrorism in the USA. The result was more terrorist attacks. But since military action was undertaken, the number of attacks has dropped to ZERO. The proof is in the pudding.

Elliot

The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.Hello El:

How is it, that the media is responsible for Bush losing?? But Bush is da man when he wins?? It's the SAME media, isn't it?

You guys slay me.

excon

I didn't say that the media is responsible for Bush "losing". Especially since he hasn't lost. But they are responsible for the mood of the civilian population, which is poor DESPITE Bush's successes.

The threat at hand is international terrorism. Every example that I gave you is an example of international terrorism. Furthermore, virtually every terrorist attack against the USA since 1978 or so has been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. In what way are these "unrelated" to the current war against Islamic terrorism?

What you seem to be missing, is that terrorist activity and the perpatrators of this activity are not constant. We are no longer dealing with small terrorist groups that occasionally manage to attack us every once in a while. We are forging many small cells together, who have had no problem enlisting new members. They have more money, better weapons, and more motivation than ever before to attack us. This isn't the same game. You CANNOT defeat terrorism with the military. It is impossible. Terrorism exists because the groups cannot fight against another nations military, and if you cannot see the problem with using the military to fight terrorism...



Not against American civilians, they aren't.

You seem to think that terrorist only want to attack civilians. The reason they do this, is because it's opportunistic. Now we have people over there, so they attack the most opportunistic targets, which happen to be our soldiers.




The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.

I don't know where you got that, perhaps the "will of the people" means conservative groups, because I haven't seen any numbers that would support that statement.


As for manpower, the standing US military is made up of 1.4 million people, according to DOD statistics. We currently have less than 200,000 troops there. We can not only sustain the current troops levels in Iraq, we could increase them if we had to, and still maintain a presence in Iraq for decades. The claims of a shortfall of manpower are full of crap... a red herring meant to divert us from staying in Iraq.

Why do you think we're only going to be fighting in Iraq in the future? If you think this will stay contained to Iraq's borders, you need to reassess the situation.




Over the past 4 years, we have killed thousands of terrorists, captured thousands more, broken up major cells, crippled the terrorists' ability to attack us here at home, freed 50 million people from tyrannical regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopped Libya's WMD program, and sustained major military operations against terrorists in two countries, and intelligence operations against them in many others. Exactly how much is all that supposed to cost, and at what level of difficulty? I'd say we're getting off cheap, all things considered. But that's just me looking at the big picture.

Killed thousands of "terrorists," right. They said we killed a few more Viet-Cong than we actually did as well. Lets ask the people over there if they agree with those numbers. You seem to believe we can trust media reports sometimes, but not at others.




Perhaps. I would have personally chosen Iran and Syria as my targets. But the fact is that no matter what target we would have chosen the enemy would have flocked to that location to fight us as they did in Iraq. In the case of Iraq, however, al Qaeda and the Abu Nidal organizations were already present, and given Saddam's intrasigence where the UN Resolutions were concerned, and his violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, Iraq was a legitimate target.

For military action against the country, Iraq was not a legitimate target.


But if you are trying to argue that we should not have taken any muilitary action in response to the deaths of 3000 American citizens, and that that would have been a better option than taking the fight to the enemy in the Middle East, you are being naive. For 40 years, we took no effective military action against terrorism in the USA. The result was more terrorist attacks. But since military action was undertaken, the number of attacks has dropped to ZERO. The proof is in the pudding.

Again, I still don't see how you can use this to bolster your argument. The terrorists of today, are not the terrorists of yesteryear.

Hello El:

How is it, that the media is responsible for Bush losing??? But Bush is da man when he wins????? It's the SAME media, isn't it?

You guys slay me.

Ex, surely you wouldn't argue that the incessant hand wringing, caterwauling and doom and gloom from the media, Democrats in congress and Hollywood lefties had no significant effect on the mood of the American people?

What you seem to be missing, is that terrorist activity and the perpatrators of this activity are not constant. We are no longer dealing with small terrorist groups that occasionally manage to attack us every once in a while. We are forging many small cells together, who have had no problem enlisting new members. They have more money, better weapons, and more motivation than ever before to attack us.

And they still haven't been able to do so.


This isn't the same game. You CANNOT defeat terrorism with the military. It is impossible.

The letter written by Abu Musab al Zarqawi to al Qaeda leadership, published in June 2006 would seem to indicate otherwise.:

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces.
This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:
1) By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
2) By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
3) By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4) By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5) By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardising its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.
6) By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.
7) By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

These are Zarqawi's words, not mine. Full text of the document can be found here (http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10047347.html).


Terrorism exists because the groups cannot fight against another nations military, and if you cannot see the problem with using the military to fight terrorism...

Gee, this is a new one on me. After 20 years of studying military history and military science, I have finally come across a new argument. We shouldn't use our military to fight terrorism because the enemy can't fight against our military. I guess Sun Tsu was wrong... don't use the enemy's weaknesses against him. If he can't fight against your army, you should accommodate him by using some other method to combat him so that he can fight back more effectively.

In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic.

If the terrorists can't fight against our military, that is the specific reason to force them to have to confront our military, at a place and time of OUR choosing. We choose the ground, we choose the tactics, we choose the timing, and we outnumber and outgun the enemy, with a better-trained force. This is straight out of military science 101.

The terrorists cannot abandon Iraq without it destroying their ability to recruit and conduct operations elsewhere. They must continue to fight there in order for them to have any hope for a future. Thus they are forced to try to hold their position in Iraq, where our troops destroy them wherever we come in contact with them.

We choose the methods of attack, because our military has greater flexibility, training and equipment. If we wish to surgically strike the terrorists, we can do so. If we want to carpet bomb them, we can do that too (not saying we should, just that we can). If we want to go toe to toe with them using guerilla tactics, our special forces (SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, etc.) will tear them new ones. If we want to use the same tactics of hidden bombs to take them out, we have the best military engineers in the world trained in explosives and demolition. There is no method of fighting that the terrorists can use that we can't use better than them.

In short, the enemy cannot abaondon the field of battle. They can only hide and be hunted and destroed or face us and be destroyed. Using the military to fight terrorism is EXACTLY what we should be doing.


You seem to think that terrorist only want to attack civilians. The reason they do this, is because it's opportunistic. Now we have people over there, so they attack the most opportunistic targets, which happen to be our soldiers.

And when they do, they die. I'd rather have the terrorists attack a soldier in Iraq who is armed and trained to defend himself and has the backup forces to do so than an unarmed civilian on Main Street, USA. Cold-blooded as it sounds to most civilians, that is the soldiers' job... to face the attack so that civilians don't have to. That is what the military exists for, and why billions of tax dollars go towards maintaining that military.


I don't know where you got that, perhaps the "will of the people" means conservative groups, because I haven't seen any numbers that would support that statement.

Several polls in June, July and the beginning of August showed a turnaround in the numbers, with more and more people supporting the surge, General Patreus, and the US military operations in Iraq as a whole. If I can find them again, I'll post them. But I had previously posted those numbers here and on another board.


Why do you think we're only going to be fighting in Iraq in the future? If you think this will stay contained to Iraq's borders, you need to reassess the situation.

I don't. Eventually the terrorists will realize that Iraq is a losing situation for them. They'll go elsewhere. And when they do, we need to be ready to follow them no matter where they go and start the process all over again, as many times as is necessary. But if the terrorists leave Iraq and peace breaks out there, then it would only prove what I have been saying... military action against terrorism works.


Killed thousands of "terrorists," right. They said we killed a few more Viet-Cong than we actually did as well. Lets ask the people over there if they agree with those numbers. You seem to believe we can trust media reports sometimes, but not at others.

I could make the same argument to you. You seem to think that we can believe the media when it has bad things to say about the war and the situation in Iraq, but not when it reports on enemy casualties.

But I don't trust the media. I check their claims through military websites, independent bloggers, and where possible, raw data. I also use coroboration from multiple media sources.


For military action against the country, Iraq was not a legitimate target.

It most certainly was. But that is an argument that has been picked apart hundreds of times over the past 4 years, and I don't feel like doing it again now. Read my prior posts on the subject.


Again, I still don't see how you can use this to bolster your argument. The terrorists of today, are not the terrorists of yesteryear.

Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists. The bomb-making methods are more sophisticated, their communication techniques are better, but the motivations, the recruitment techniques, the targets of recruitment, and the targets of terrorist activities are exactly the same. The MOVEMENT is the same. There is no significant difference between Abu Nidal of the 1970s and 1980s, Osama bin Laden of the 1990s and 2000s, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the present. Their motivations are exactly the same. The terrorists of today are exactly the same as the terrorists of yesteryear.

Elliot

Gee, this is a new one on me. After 20 years of studying military history and military science, I have finally come across a new argument. We shouldn't use our military to fight terrorism because the enemy can't fight against our military. I guess Sun Tsu was wrong... don't use the enemy's weaknesses against him. If he can't fight against your army, you should accomodate him by using some other method to combat him so that he can fight back more effectively.

In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic.

If the terrorists can't fight against our military, that is the specific reason to force them to have to confront our military, at a place and time of OUR choosing. We choose the ground, we choose the tactics, we choose the timing, and we outnumber and outgun the enemy, with a better-trained force. This is straight out of military science 101.

The terrorists cannot abandon Iraq without it destroying their ability to recruit and conduct operations elsewhere. They must continue to fight there in order for them to have any hope for a future. Thus they are forced to try to hold their position in Iraq, where our troops destroy them wherever we come in contact with them.

We choose the methods of attack, because our military has greater flexibility, training and equipment. If we wish to surgically strike the terrorists, we can do so. If we want to carpet bomb them, we can do that too (not saying we should, just that we can). If we want to go toe to toe with them using guerilla tactics, our special forces (SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, etc.) will tear them new ones. If we want to use the same tactics of hidden bombs to take them out, we have the best military engineers in the world trained in explosives and demolition. There is no method of fighting that the terrorists can use that we can't use better than them.

In short, the enemy cannot abaondon the field of battle. They can only hide and be hunted and destroed or face us and be destroyed. Using the military to fight terrorism is EXACTLY what we should be doing.

I'm sure that's what the British were thinking while losing the war for American independence. The ability to kill terrorists when the process of killing them creates more, is not going to win the war. We are fighting the mythical Hydra here, and unless the US wakes up to this, we are fighting a losing battle. Just because we are currently making "progress" doesn't mean that we are going to win the long-term.

You can be as sarcastic as you like, and point to the multitude of military strategy books you have read all you want. But, because the military cannot win against terrorism, none of that knowledge can be applied here.




I don't. Eventually the terrorists will realize that Iraq is a losing situation for them. They'll go elsewhere. And when they do, we need to be ready to follow them no matter where they go and start the process all over again, as many times as is necessary. But if the terrorists leave Iraq and peace breaks out there, then it would only prove what I have been saying... military action against terrorism works.

That is one scary paragraph there. I cannot fathom how someone could actually believe what you just wrote.




I could make the same argument to you. You seem to think that we can believe the media when it has bad things to say about the war and the situation in Iraq, but not when it reports on enemy casualties.

I am well aware of this, which is why I'm skeptical of everything I read, and read multiple outlets in an attempt to better inform myself.




Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists. The bomb-making methods are more sophisticated, their communication techniques are better, but the motivations, the recruitment techniques, the targets of recruitment, and the targets of terrorist activities are exactly the same. The MOVEMENT is the same. There is no significant difference between Abu Nidal of the 1970s and 1980s, Osama bin Laden of the 1990s and 2000s, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the present. Their motivations are exactly the same. The terrorists of today are exactly the same as the terrorists of yesteryear.

Believing that, is the reason we will lose this war. I don't recall, during the times listed, any large and sustained attack on Islamic people, or continued occupation. Regardless of what we call it, that is how they see it. Fighting religious wars has sure ended well in the past, yes sir.

Hello again:

I think you're BOTH right about terrorism. You can't fight it with the military, and you can't ignore it.

Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Terrorists operate somewhere with some nations approval either tacit or not. Bush's GOOD WAR, the one in Afghanistan, was based upon the premise that the regime is held responsible and went to war against the regime who themselves AREN'T terrorists, but they support 'em and they have army's.

If the terrorism occurs in isolated pockets where the regime has no knowledge of their activities, those terrorists should be treated as criminals, and we shouldn't invade those nations.

If we're serious about terrorisim, AND WE'RE NOT, then terrorism would be defeated that way.

But, when we give a wink and nod at the REAL sponsors of terrorism, like Saudi Arabia, then we're going to lose, lose lose - just like we're doing.

excon

It must be noted that I am not against a military presence. However, the all out war against terrorism that we have begun is not going to solve this problem. Not only that, it will make it worse, that is (I believe) an absolute fact.

We are just going to have to wait and see what the future holds, because it is there that our arguments will be tested.

I'm sure that's what the British were thinking while losing the war for American independence.

Different situation. First of all, until the Battle of Saratoga, the Brits were kicking our collective butts quite handily. Second, the great equalizer was the fact that the Americans had good generals, good equipment, and were equivalent to the Brits (or close enough) in terms of tactical and strategic ability. Third, they outnumbered the Brits. And fourth, we had the help of the French (the last time the French were actually useful in a fight). Of those four factors, only one is true of the situation in Iraq: the terrorists have outside help from Iran. It's still not enough to overcome all the other advantages we hold.


The ability to kill terrorists when the process of killing them creates more, is not going to win the war. We are fighting the mythical Hydra here, and unless the US wakes up to this, we are fighting a losing battle. Just because we are currently making "progress" doesn't mean that we are going to win the long-term.

The terrorists are having recruitment problems. They are losing support in Iraq. This isn't a hydra. It's more of a T-Rex... it's already dead, the brain just hasn't gotten the message yet.


You can be as sarcastic as you like, and point to the multitude of military strategy books you have read all you want. But, because the military cannot win against terrorism, none of that knowledge can be applied here.

And yet you offer no proof from history to back up this claim that a military force cannot defeat terrorism, whereas I can offer quite a few examples of cases where a military force has defeated guerrilla movements that use the same tactics as the terrorists. Military science proves otherwise.


That is one scary paragraph there. I cannot fathom how someone could actually believe what you just wrote.

To quote Yoda: "And that is why you fail."

That is why you still think that a military force can't defeat terrorism... you aren't willing to take the actions necessary to do the job. I am. The military is. That's why I know that they can and will win. You can't believe it because you would never do it. I do believe it because I would. And that's why I would win and you would lose.


Believing that, is the reason we will lose this war. I don't recall, during the times listed, any large and sustained attack on Islamic people, or continued occupation. Regardless of what we call it, that is how they see it. Fighting religious wars has sure ended well in the past, yes sir.

Really? You never heard of how Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, the Mongols, the Ottomans and the Brits attacked Islamic countries, conquered them in the face of strong guerrilla resistance, maintained control, defeated the guerrillas, and continued their occupations for decades, even centuries? I've heard of those cases. Then there's the way the military powers in China and North Korea and Vietnam have done the same there against guerilla resistance movements in those countries. The Iranian government is in the process of doing the same in Iran... care to take bets on whether the Iranian military can put down the anti-government resistance if the USA fails to get involved? They've done it in the past. Saddam did it against the Kurdish resistance after the first Gulf War. There are any number of cases of terrorist and guerilla movements being thoroughly and utterly defeated by military forces.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single case of a guerilla/terrorist movement that has been successful at accomplishing its goals. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the USA in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan, and those were only because of political situations at home, not because of the strength of the guerrillas in fighting these military forces.

Put simply, military force has ALWAYS been successful at fighting terrorist/guerrila movements if those running the war are willing to take the necessary actions to win that war. With the "surge", we are exhibiting that willingness. And there has never been a successful guerrilla force that has defeated its military enemy without outside assistance. Only in the past few years has this idea that "military force can't beat terrorist groups" become "popular", and then only among those who do not understand military history. The reality is quite different from this popular opinion.

Elliot

Um... roughly... ZERO!!! That was my entire point, DC. Before 9/11, we suffered attacks by international terrorists roughly every year, sometimes twice a year or more. Since 9/11, the number has gone down to zero.

Elliot
You forget, no, I’m sure you don’t, you will call it something else…John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed ten people and wounded three more-for three weeks in October of 2002 they terrorized Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia, and mesmerized the local and national media.
A series of articles in The Washington Times described John Allen Muhammad’s conversion to Islam, and his later break with the Nation of Islam; but the NOI was not militant enough for Muhammad, later he become involved with a group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra (Arabic for “community of the impoverished”), a terrorist organization founded by a notorious Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani.

“The group was founded in New York by Sheikh Gilani in New York in 1980. Its current headquarters is in Hancock, New York, and it has various compounds, or Jamaats, scattered throughout the United States and Canada, notably in Colorado, New York, Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia.”
Gates of Vienna: Jamaat ul-Fuqra in Virginia, Part 1 (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/10/jamaat-ul-fuqra-in-virginia-part-1.html)

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war; and it is a pity the press play it all down.


And the guy who shot up Louie B. Armstrong Airport (who was shouting Allahu Akbar, and yet was later reported as a "disgruntled employee")

Bombings at OU and Georgia Tech, UCLA--to mention two. More out there which we're not hearing about?

And all the while, the media soft-pedaled the connection to Islamism!


The post you wrote about Israel is so distorted I will not even comment more on it.

Really? You never heard of how Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, the Mongols, the Ottomans and the Brits attacked Islamic countries, conquered them in the face of strong guerrila resistance, maintained control, defeated the guerrilas, and continued their occupations for decades, even centuries? I've heard of those cases. Then there's the way the military powers in China and North Korea and Vietnam have done the same there against guerilla resistance movements in those countries. The Iranian government is in the process of doing the same in Iran... care to take bets on whether the Iranian military can put down the anti-government resistance if the USA fails to get involved? They've done it in the past. Saddam did it against the Kurdish resistance after the first Gulf War. There are any number of cases of terrorist and guerilla movements being thoroughly and utterly defeated by military forces.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single case of a guerilla/terrorist movement that has been successful at accomplishing its goals. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the USA in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan, and those were only because of political situations at home, not because of the strength of the guerrillas in fighting these military forces.

Put simply, military force has ALWAYS been successful at fighting terrorist/guerrila movements if those running the war are willing to take the necessary actions to win that war. With the "surge", we are exhibiting that willingness. And there has never been a successful guerrilla force that has defeated its military enemy without outside assistance. Only in the past few years has this idea that "military force can't beat terrorist groups" become "popular", and then only among those who do not understand military history. The reality is quite different from this popular opinion.

Elliot

I will not say that your argument lacks merit, but I cannot agree with your reasoning. I concede that in the past, countries have been successful in putting down extremist resistance. However, I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism. It is rather easy for one terrorist to do a lot of damage to civilian targets inside the US. These people are willing to kill themselves to take out others. I don't see how attacking them in Iraq, is going to help keep us safe here. It takes very little energy to build an explosive device and set that off in a crowded place when the person has no qualms with surviving the attack.

You cannot fight an idea with a gun.

I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism.
It won’t; it will only help organizations like the following to recruit new members.

The war on terrorism must be fought by the same means they use: Secrecy, infiltration and murder.

The FBI and CIA are the only hope.

“The JF, in its early phase, sought to counter what is perceived as excessive Western influence on Islam. It also concluded that violence was a significant aspect in its quest to purify Islam. In its ideological moorings, the Fuqra regards as enemies of Islam all those who do not follow the tenets of Islam as laid out in the Koran, including those Muslims who they consider as heretics as well as non-Muslims. One of Gilani’s works published by the Quranic Open University in the US and seized in a 1991-investigation instructed his cadres that their foremost duty was to wage Jehad against the ‘oppressors of Muslims’. Members of the group are described as Islamist extremists with much hatred toward their ‘enemies’.”

Jamaat-ul-Fuqra, Terrorist Group of Paksitan (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/terroristoutfits/jamaat-ul-fuqra.htm)

I disagree because you have missed an important distinction. AQ needed State support to carry out almost all their attacks. They still require friendly sanctuary which they temporarily have secured in a region in Pakistan and have been attempting to acquire in Iraq . When they were in Somalia they attacked from there .When they were in Afghanistan they attacked from there .

It is a complete misnomer to call this effort a war against terrorism. I consider it a big failure of the Bush Administration that until recently they have been reluctant to name the enemy .

I disagree because you have missed an important distinction. AQ needed State support to carry out almost all their attacks. They still require friendly sanctuary which they temporarily have secured in a region in Pakistan and have been attempting to acquire in Iraq . When they were in Somalia they attacked from there .When they were in Afghanistan they attacked from there .

It is a complete misnomer to call this effort a war against terrorism. I consider it a big failure of the Bush Administration that until recently they have been reluctant to name the enemy .
They can hold-up forever in Pakistan for all I care; what I don't want, and we do have, is Islamic compounds across America.

PREVIEW: Sheikh Gilani's American Disciples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=996&%20R=4F5BEE4B)

You are aware that most of the inhabitants of Islamberg are not foreign jihadists but are domestics who were converted in prison.

I will not say that your argument lacks merit, but I cannot agree with your reasoning. I concede that in the past, countries have been successful in putting down extremist resistance. However, I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism. It is rather easy for one terrorist to do a lot of damage to civilian targets inside the US. These people are willing to kill themselves to take out others. I don't see how attacking them in Iraq, is going to help keep us safe here. It takes very little energy to build an explosive device and set that off in a crowded place when the person has no qualms with surviving the attack.

All true. And all of which is the reason that I say that another attack is inevitable. But none of that changes the fact that so far, it has indeed worked. Regardless of whether there is another attack today in the USA, the fact is that for 2,186 days, the longest period in 40 years, we have not suffered an attack. The current methods may not be 100% effective, but they are MORE effective than what was done before.


You cannot fight an idea with a gun.

Tell that to the Mongols. Or the Romans. Or the Greeks. The Soviets. Or even the Nazis. They all used military force to kill ideas all the time. People have been using overwhelming military force to kill ideas, or at least force them underground and into hiding, as long as war has existed... which is pretty much all of human history. And if the idea is forced into hiding, it isn't being used to attack US civilians. And THAT is the goal, keeping US civilians safe from attack.

Elliot

You are aware that most of the inhabitants of Islamberg are not foreign jihadists but are domestics who were converted in prison.
I have read that; also that “SHEIKH GILANI found his first American recruits by raiding the ranks of an existing American Muslim organization, the Dar ul Islam. At a Brooklyn mosque, Gilani, sporting ammunition belts, preached Islam as the path to a better life and called for fighters to join the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Under the guise of studying Islam, some of his followers were initiated into the international Islamist movement. Their campaign of crime on U.S. soil began almost at once.

“There is no ironclad evidence that Fuqra's American members today are part of the international conspiracy that threatens us. Rather, the ties are circumstantial and suggestive. What should be made, for example, of the fact that several weekend residents of Fuqra's headquarters compound at Hancock work during the week as toll collectors at New York City bridges and tunnels--considering that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers had plans to blow up the George Washington Bridge and Hudson River tunnels? We also know that in the early 1990s Gilani's U.S. recruits signed an oath saying, "I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah's sake." At the least, it is clear that Daniel Pearl was digging into a very interesting story.
PREVIEW: Sheikh Gilani's American Disciples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=996&%20R=4F5BEE4B)

Tell that to the Mongols. Or the Romans. Or the Greeks. The Soviets. Or even the Nazis. They all used military force to kill ideas all the time. People have been using overwhelming military force to kill ideas, or at least force them underground and into hiding, as long as war has existed... which is pretty much all of human history. And if the idea is forced into hiding, it isn't being used to attack US civilians. And THAT is the goal, keeping US civilians safe from attack.

Elliot

All of the groups(excluding the Soviets) you have mentioned ended up being destroyed by that mentality. In that, the process allowed them to overextend themselves enough that they couldn't protect themselves at home.

We have to tread lightly here. I have no problem with religious communities being formed so long as they are not subversive. The Amish ;Mormons ,some Jewish groups tend to prefer to live in enclaves.

The Branch Davidians were also a group I thought had a perfect right to live in a separated community . I know of no compelling reason why they were attacked. What I have heard about Islamberg bears investigation however . Nearby residents complain of paramilitary activity going on .As an example... Since there are a lot of former inmates there it should be investigated if the extensive use of firearms violates parole provisions.

Since there are alot of former inmates there it should be investigated if the extensive use of firearms violates parole provisions.Hello again, tom:

BEING with another felon violates parole, so there's probably no parolees there. Too bad. You'll have to find another reason to check 'em out.

excon

OK thanks for the clarification . From what I hear from the locals it sounds like a war up on the mountain on a daily basis.

Hello again, tom:

Felons, even those NOT on parole, can't own a firearm. Call the ATF.

excon

Hello again, tom:

BEING with another felon violates parole, so there's probably no parolees there. Too bad. You'll have to find another reason to check 'em out.

excon
Remember Daniel Pearl, he was checking them out before they checked him out, permanently. :D Secrecy is the hallmark of the sect and the members are trained, among other things, in the use of aliases.

Hello again, tom:

Felons, even those NOT on parole, can't own a firearm. Call the ATF.

excon
If we had a Clinton back in the White House we'd just let ATF go and... :D


“The ATF had the Red House colony under surveillance for a couple of years before making last fall's arrests. After September 11, authorities decided to move without further delay. At a bond hearing for Vincente Pierre on September 28, 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher told the court: "Individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y. and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y. are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.. . We have information from an informant that one individual [from Red House] did further his training by going to Afghanistan."

”And apparently the travel isn't all one way. At the same hearing, Pierre testified that Red House has hosted "many Muslims.. . From Pakistan, Arabic." Pakistan, of course, isn't an Arab country, but plenty of Arabs have gone there to learn to use a gun.”
http://gabriellecusumano.townhall.com/g/6525e47c-5902-4a92-81cd-ab081da11797

All of the groups(excluding the Soviets) you have mentioned ended up being destroyed by that mentality. In that, the process allowed them to overextend themselves enough that they couldn't protect themselves at home.

No, they were destroyed not by that mentality, but rather by having LOST that mentality and becoming complacent, either to foreign threats or domestic ones. Nero fiddled as Rome burned. He became too complacent to take action against threats to Rome. The same for all the others. Except the Soviets; they simply collapsed from their own economic weight.

Elliot

and the members are trained, among other things, in the use of aliases.Hello again, DC:

If they're on parole, using aliases and packing heat, there should be a warrant out for them, or their PAROLE OFFICERS should be in the slam.

excon