[KLUG Members] The purpose of terrorism

[Michael W. Holdeman]

BS,
I agree almost wholeheartedly with your comments. Precision surgical strike, 
this is what sets us apart from the rest, our ability to perform these 
precision strikes is a very powerfull and yet controlled tool against these 
types of attacks. Yes I'm sure "some" innocent blood Will be spilled, this is 
a sad fact of war, and this is a war, a war against terrorism in America. 
What I disagree with is a warning. We should NOT warn the poeple responsible, 
they have their warning already just quote President Bush. Thats good enough.

What I do wish is that the policy of not assasinating these folks when we 
have the proper intelligence that they are involved in this type of activity. 
Could have saved a lot of lives this week.

Mike


On Wednesday 12 September 2001 09:20, you wrote:
> 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