[KLUG Members] The purpose of terrorism

[Bryan-TheBS-Smith]

Patrick Stockton wrote:
> As I sit here at work this morning I am frightened by what I am hearing my
> co-workers say.  Many of them are calling for total nuclear annihilation of
> the middle east.  They want the body count to be even on both sides.

I'm personally sick and tired of the media pointing fingers at
everyone.  The US is currently getting an outpouring of support, and
all blind finger pointing will do is alienate every country we do it
to.  And trying to explain to some Americans the difference between
Islam and Muslim is like trying to explain the difference between
the decifit and debt.  Heck, in both cases, they'll just give you a
one-liner back like "both of them are bad."

And right now, Afganistan is probably the "big target" if we wanted
to his a country.  Unfortunately, there is still no evidence that
this was a Afgani-state sponsored act.  At least what has been
released.

> The funny thing is we are still unsure who caused this.  Sure the pundits
> are quick to blame Osama bin Laden, he's quick, easy, and CIA trained.  But
> keep in mind who caused Oklahoma City.   The purpose of terrorism is to
> cause your enemy to panic, make quick decisions without thinking them out,
> and above all make mistakes.  A car bomb there pulls security forces away
> from here so you can set another bomb off here.

As I've mentioned on other lists, I'm praying that:
1.  Our intelligence community has or comes up with conclusive facts
2.  Our leaders act upon those facts very surgically and decisively

You must have faith in our intelligence community.  They are just
like you and I.  They know the wrongs that can happen with the wrong
info, and they know what exageration of info can do (e.g., Vietnam
-- we learned a lot in that war on how to *NOT* do things).  From
there you must hope the President and others act as they should, in
the best interests of America and the world.  I think they know a
lot more than they are saying, for security reasons at this time.

> In the days, weeks, and months that are to follow questions such as "Why?"
> will stick out in our mind.  We may never know the answers to these
> questions.

Terrorism has several purposes.  In this case, no one is claiming
responsibility.  That pretty much narrows down the purpose to one. 
This act of Terrorism was to drive fear and a belief in no security
to a powerful nation where freedom rules supreme.  The terrorists
want to see our nation turn on itself, as the government screams
chicken little for more security as some of its citizens scream back
chicken little before the government even acts against our freedoms.

We must crush our fear.  We must band together.  We must not point
fingers in our own society.  The citizens and its government must
work together.

I'm appauled at the number of privacy advocates that have taken this
time to lash out at our security measures and their inability to
prevent this from happening.  As much as I believe in some of these
comments, now is *NOT THE TIME* to be discussing them.  We must be
passive and then comment *ONLY* when we see our government taking
away our freedoms -- *NOT* before.

Privacy advocates must "pick their battles" not start a pre-emptive
strike!  Otherwise, they won't be taken seriously when liberty
really is at stake.  And then the terrorists have won.

> We have the technology to make the entire Middle East one
> large hole, but what will that solve?

Nothing.  The strike will be surgical, but decisive and massive if
the violators are so numerous.  You can quote me on that.

> Would our military give warning to the countries we
> bomb, let them move their families to safety before our
> bombs hit, thus proving we are better than terrorists?

Yes, the policy of the United States is to never "sneak attack."  We
may not be "specific" when we warn, but we will warn them one way or
another.  Most of the time, the leaders or organizations are so
arrogant, they fail to realize that we know exactly where they are,
and exactly what we are doing.  And that is their mistake.

Of course that won't stop media criticism.  They'll always complain
and second guess, no matter what we do.  My favorite was the bombing
of the retreating Iraqi military from Kuait.  The media was saying
that was "barbaric".  The fact of the matter is that it was war,
there was no cease fire, and you don't let your enemy regroup back
into a stronger force.

> Or will our bombs fall in the middle of the night while they
> are asleep?

Nope.  When we know, you will be told.  It might be as the air
strikes are happening, and the warning was "private", but it will be
made.  And I don't think this qualifies as a "sneak attack" as it is
well out in the open.

> I am not saying we as a country need to be complacent and allow
> this to happen without incident but skill, grace, and style is
> needed now not midnight paramilitary raids.

The paramilitary raids will come later.  I predict that 6 months
down the road, the US special forces will start raiding all know
terrorist encampments "behind the scenes" and without the approval
of their harboring governments.  I think Bush's stance on taking
issue with the harboring governments will be used to our advantage
later on.

I can see it now ... "Since you are promoting terrorism by harboring
known terrorists, we would feel justified in bombing the shit out of
you.  But instead, we will be civilized, we will infiltrate your
country and take them out for you.  If you have a problem with that,
go ahead and complain publicly that America is invading your country
and killing well-known terrorists--er, I mean citizens, in it and
leaving afterwards."

Again, most of this will be unreported in the media months from now.

> Remember Ghandi who said "An eye for an eye will only make the
> whole world blind."

Ghandi said that in the context of forcing an issue, their issue of
freedom.  So forcing an issue should always be done passively, to
show that you are on higher ground.

Unfortunately, someone else said forced their issue quite actively. 
People are dead, and .  A passive response will only give them
incentive to do it again.

But that response must be against those responsible, surgical and
with a point that those who kill Americans in their homeland will be
hunted and prosecuted.  Let us hope we show the world we are willing
to try them like citizens at the same time we destroy their ability
to make war.

I have confidence in our intelligence and our leadership.  And let
us hope this who incident gets our government to refocus on those
powers granted by the Constitution, and not the "Great Society" it
does not.  I, for one, fear the powers granted to the government in
the "Great Society" more than a strong national and secure defense
as allowed by our Constitution.  But now is not the time to argue
such issues (sorry, didn't mean to start on my soapbox).

We all should realize that a free society provides a level of
national security that no agency or policy can match.  But that
doesn't mean we allow people to carry guns on a plane, where a
single bullet can kill everyone before anyone else can react.  It's
different than having one on the street, in a building or in your
car.

-- TheBS

-- 
Bryan "TheBS" Smith    mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org    chat:thebs413
Engineer   AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc.  http://www.linux-wlan.org
President    SmithConcepts, Inc.     http://www.SmithConcepts.com