Captain's Quarters -

They also traced some of the people to Trinidad.

From:
4 Charged In Plot To Blow Up Fuel Lines At JFK
WNBC.com
http://www.wnbc.com/news/13431721/detail.html?dl=mainclick

excerpt:

According to sources, the suspects have been identified as: Russell Defreitas, Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir.

Re: RBMN at June 2, 2007 12:39 PM

I posted before I finished my comment, but that's probably just as well, on second thought.

Thanks for the n/t Capt'n!

Don't forget:

Adnan Shukrijumah is one of your ties to both Trinidad and Guyana.

And don't forget this incident (I still remember it!); to explain how Trinidad is also home to Muslim radicals!

Muslim Coup D'etat in Trinidad

Maybe our government is awake after all. I added a link to your post to my roundup here.

Just another bit of evidence as to why wiretaps are critical to national defense...

But maybe we should wait until the NYT weighs in on the issue... (sarc)

Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir...

This just proves the need to frisk and wand blue-haired Minnesota grandmothers!

Just sounds like a basketball team to me

online analyst said

"But maybe we should wait until the NYT weighs in on the issue... (sarc)"

This is just another Chimpy McBushitlerhalliburton hoax to jerk up his job approval numbers.

Just another bit of evidence as to why wiretaps are critical to national defense...

This case was cracked with good old-fashioned police work: informants, infiltration, and legal wiretaps.

Recently, Al-Qaeda have been threatening an attack on the US "worse than 9-11". Could this have been the plot they were talking about?

The real light at the end of the tunnel is that if we are all lucky, John Edwards will be elected President and all of this terrorist malarky will just all go away!

/sarc off

As someone who lives in the town where these pipes begin (Linden, NJ), I can tell you that many in my area have been concerned for a long time over the lack of apparent security at our refineries. It'll be interesting to see how our local government acts, if at all. I wonder what my liberal NJ local and state government is going to do now. Nothing I imagine.. they're wasting time gearing up for a citywide crackdown on illegal fireworks from June 29th - July 8th. After ticketing people for going 5 miles over the speed limit or not wearing seatbelts.

Glad they have their priorities in order.

The NY Times has finally gotten their talking points from Howie "Jet Screamer" Dean on how to "report" this story:

excerpts:

"But a spokesman for Buckeye Partners, the company that operates the pipeline, said that an explosion at a fuel-tank farm at the airport would not ignite the pipeline.

“It’s not like the pipeline is a stick of dynamite and the whole thing would blow up,” said Roy Haase, the Buckeye spokesman. “Pipelines don’t blow up.”

snip

"One law enforcement official played down Mr. Defreitas’s skills as a terrorist, calling him “a sad sack” and “not a Grade A terrorist.”

I live in Queens. Ethnically, the borough is heavily Asian (Chinese and Indian), although there is a mosque in Jackson Heights, some of whose members have been militant enough to attract the attention of the press.

The public response of the Bloomberg Administration to extremist Muslim views has been appeasement. From http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008982:

"One remarkable thing about New York after 9/11 is how tolerant the city has been of its own Muslim community after fanatics, acting in Islam's name, destroyed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of innocent people. Read "Discrimination Against Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians in New York City Since 9/11," however, and you'd almost think the real victims of 9/11 are Gotham's Muslims, 69% of whom, the report reveals gravely, "believed they were the victim of one or more incidents of discrimination or bias related harassment" in the years since the attack. What's needed to end this injustice? You guessed it: lots more government activity, including the hiring of more Muslims for "public-service positions.""

Bloomberg's appeasement policies will be tested.

"Officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com that they heard repeated references to "Adnan" during the extensive wiretaps...."

Wiretaps....? Wiretaps....? Wowzer.

“Pipelines don’t blow up.”

Ever? Right....They don't leak, either.

Just keep repeating the Michael Moore mantra:
There is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat.

Oh, and tap your ruby slippers together for effect.

The Liberals are SCREAMING today. "This attack would never have been pulled off, it wasn't feasible, there was no danger, etc."

When the hell will these people learn there's a war on? There are millions of Americans out there who will not accept the fact we're fighting to save their lives from terror attacks just like this on a daily basis. I'm sure using box cutters to hijack planes into the WTC wasn't "feasible" either, right?

If we succeed these traitors accuse our law enforcement and homeland security forces as being reactionary, overzealous, wasteful. But if even one of these cells pulls it off, those same law enforcement and security people will be branded as incompetent fools who ignored all the warning signs.

To millions of either ignorant Americans or actively anti-American partisans out there, YOUR neighbors, YOUR co-workers, YOUR life doesn't mean a thing to them. There is no way America can win this war in their eyes. And they will do everything they can to see us all lose.

Once again, the Law Enforcement model works.

unlike the Military Iraqnam model.

12 to zero now?

Gaffo: Yep, the "law enforcement" model really works!

Let's see, while we adopted the Clinton/Gore "law enforcement" model:

Attacks against the United States/it's interests:

1) WTC '93

2) AmEmb Bombings East Africa

3) Khobar Towers

4) USS Cole

5) Millenium Plot (caught by MISTAKE!, not by anything Clinton/Gore/CIA/FBI/LE did!)

6) 9/11

Yep, that good old "law enforcement" model REALLY works, for sure!

Now, let's contrast that, since President Bush started HIS "model" on 9/12...

a) ..........................................

Chirp.........Chirp.............Chrip..............

Yeah.....PLEASE let me have that good old "Law Enforcement" model back, PLEASE!

Gaffo, you really need to WALK AWAY now; this is embarrassing for you; you come to a gunfight UNARMED, and you lead with your chin when you get into a fight....but then again, as a Leftist, I'm not surprised....

Sigh..................................

Lightwave, Mark Steyn indirectly addressed that liberal argument in his Sun-Times column just three weeks ago. A good read.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/382787,CST-EDT-steyn13.article

gaffo sez:

"Once again, the Law Enforcement model works."

LOL. If that were true, Clinton would have tried to arrest bin Laden, not track him and almost attempt to kill him-several times- before backing down-several times.

Please continue posting here, gaffo. You're great comedy relief.

PS to gabbo

Would you have approved if "law enforcement" had been used to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

Examples of such would be:

1. Terrorist profiling at the airports. 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and his colleague were in fact "profiled" and almost stopped at the Portland (Maine) Jetport when they tried to board their connecting flight to Boston on the morning of 9/11. The guy had massive doubts about them both-but then bowed to political correctness and let them get on the plane. He's regretted it ever since.

Of course, if Bush had tried doing this and no attacks happened, gabbo here would scream bloody murder and try to impeach the Chimp (TM)

2. What if Bush had used wiretaps to find out what the 9/11 perps were plotting? Once again, gabbo would object.

Face it, Clinton used the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism for 8 years. 9/11 was the result (and remember, bin Laden wanted to carry out the 9/11 attacks on Clinton's watch, but Atta said they needed much more time to train. He was right, as they got 3 out of 4 targets).

Great work by all responsible for catching these bastards before they could strike!

Really bad timing for those who support the shamnesty bill. Really bad timing for those who support the "open borders" policy. Really bad timing for the Rosie O'Donnell's of this country who believe 9/11 was an inside job. Really bad timing for those who believe we are not at risk, we are not at war.

Really good timing for those of us who are demanding real immigration reform; real homeland protection; real border security; legal immigration; enforcement of our LAWS....

Lightware says, "I'm sure using box cutters to hijack planes into the WTC wasn't "feasible" either, right?"

Actually, I believe that very possibiltiy was bandied about in the intel community even before the attacks.

These newly captured would-be terrorists seem like yet another set of schmoes with big dreams and small I.Q.'s. That said, I'm happy they are off the street. Law enforcement is to be commended for functioning as it should.

I do have to wonder though, why people here are resistant to the notion that these guys perhaps weren't such a threat as they could have been if they had the brainpower of a house cat. It seems like some here want to play up every single threat for reasons that escape me. You guys do know that terrorism fails to work if the target population simply refuses to be afraid, do you not?

I'm glad they caught these guys, and if these guys were serious, they deserve serious jail time.

Having said that: The spokesman for the pipeline company is correct. You can't trigger some kind of chain reaction, Death Star-style, in a buried fuel line, because there isn't enough oxygen around to sustain the burn front. You may get a heck of a nasty fire at one end of the pipe, but it's unlikely to spread far and it's fairly easily controlled by working the right valves.

Even the fuel tanks aren't going to burn as vigorously as one might suppose, because it's hard to mix that large a volume of fuel with enough oxygen. They could burn merrily if ignited properly, but they are unlikely to fireball.

The fact these guys lacked the competence to pose as serious a threat as they wanted to pose doesn't excuse them. But I suggest the rest of us, while politely applauding the law enforcement authorities involved for their good work, should keep our own blood pressure down.

Shochu John,

You really are that stupid, aren't you....

Tens of thousands of civilians around the globe, have been murdered by these brain dead house cats, just in the last few years. Geeez, how can you Liberals be so blinded by your failed ideology & your hatred? Tell this crap to the thousands of families that have lost loved ones to suicide bombers, road side bombs, the bombing of railroads, the bombing of building, emptying their machine guns at civilian gatherings (weddings); the list is far too lengthy for anybody with an I.Q. above 99 to have missed.

You must be related to the big Gaffe-o....

Keemo sez, "You really are that stupid, aren't you...."

Well, I'm hardly smart enough to start my frothing rants off with playground insults, but I get by.

"Tens of thousands of civilians around the globe, have been murdered by these brain dead house cats,"

Slow down, there, Turbo. I was talking about THIS particular group of toons, not every terrorist act since the beginning of time. Quoth the mastermind of this little plot, "Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow ... they love JFK -- he's like the man. If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It's like you can kill the man twice." Wow, last time I heard reasoning that compelling, it was punctuated by the speaker taking a bong rip.

However, thank you for illustrating my point. We capture a couple of imbeciles in way over their head on a half-baked terrorist plot, and here you are hurling insults any anybody who has the nerve to point out exactly how dim they are. Why? is there a reason you want to play up the threat here?

Yep, the lefties are dismissing this one as wannabes who couldn't have really done anything (like those guys who wanted to hijack planes with boxcutters and fly them into buildings). And Bush is an evil fascist, so any terror would be justified.

Of course had they succeeded, it would have been Bush's fault (not the terrorists).

Shochu John

Clinton taught you well.

An oil pipeline that certainly didn't blow up, nope, uh-uh...

I believe it is difficult to blow up a pipeline if the valves are well controlled. Certainly to achieve the level of destruction to my neighborhood envisioned here would require an assault on the valves.

We blew up lots of Russian pipelines in the 80's which brought their natural gas industry to its knees. Mitterand learned of a Russian plan to steal the computer code from the U.S. to run the pipelines. He told Reagan and Casey who arranged for the code to have buried instructions which after about six months caused the valves to misoperate randomly. Eventually, the Russians had to shut down and uninstall the code and write their own.

From CBS news:

Isha Kadir, the Guyanese suspect’s wife, said her husband flew from Guyana to Trinidad on Thursday. She said he was arrested Friday as he was boarding a flight from Trinidad to Venezuela, where he planned to pick up a travel visa to attend an Islamic religious conference in Iran.

Hugo & the devil from Iran working together once again... It's high time we start looking much more closely to the relationship many left leaning Americans have with Hugo Chavez...

Now we see where that sicko troll came from;

Shock: Liberals Don’t Believe JFK Plot Was Real

Just like with the Ft. Dix plot, they’re at it again at the Huffington Post:

* I am FAR more afraid of being falsely imprisoned by Homeland Security than I am of being attacked by terrorists.
* Yeah right, when politics heats up, be very affraid. Wouldn’t it be nice if they took out CHIMPLAND IN CRAWFORD, when all the assholes were there. Who would care, I would say give them the medal of freedom.
* Son of Satan-Chaney’s boys have been at it again. Whenever things aren’t going their way, the trot out another bogus terrorist story for the fear effect.

Nice isn’t it? Not glad that JFK wasn’t destroyed, just too busy attacking the President.
Un-American scum. (Polipundit)

>>This just proves the need to frisk and wand blue-haired Minnesota grandmothers!

You just let Kathleen Ann Soliah through!

You make a hole for these creeps, and they'll crawl through it. We just added Guyanan grandfathers to the "common sense" terrorist profile...

RE: Shochu John (June 2, 2007 9:36 PM)

I do have to wonder though, why people here are resistant to the notion that these guys perhaps weren't such a threat as they could have been if they had the brainpower of a house cat. It seems like some here want to play up every single threat for reasons that escape me. You guys do know that terrorism fails to work if the target population simply refuses to be afraid, do you not?

These guys were a threat though we can't know the full extent of the consequences of their designed plot. Maybe they kill thousands, or hundreds, or tens... or maybe just one. Perhaps that one is your mother or son or brother... or even you. Their klutzy plan won't seem quite so incompetent when it's up close and personal.

Why is it though that so many commenters on the sinister side here reflexively define terrorists in our midst as bumbling fools at a minimum or defend them (passively or actively) and place blame upon government agents tasked with defending a nation's citizens? Shochu John, can you answer that? Is it because terrorism doesn't exist or that there is no possibility of another 9/11?

Just like a dumb bomb can make a fine mess, a "dumb" terrorist can do the same. Some of us want to prevent that mess rather than clean it up, however "inconsequential".

Jesus Christ - who the fu@k brought up Klintoon??

not me.

Oh ya - you clowns did.

BTW, the Law Enforcement Model I refer to is the one that has caught at least 12 high level plots POST 911.

morons.

Klintoon is not the President, your moronic Boy King who is fu@king around in Iraqnam doing nothing constructive is.

Ostriches all.

Law Enforcement model is not US centric - most 1st world nations have good law enforcement and have stopped plots before they happen.

you idiots who ignore this fact disshonour all policemen who are keeping thier citizens safe.

you jokers are too busy hating Klintoon and playing GI joe to see reality.

keep it up!!

2008 will be a good year ;-).

"What does that even mean? If we don't act "terrorized", then jihadists will just quit what they are doing. . ."

You got it.

"Look at Israel and their rapid response to acts of terrorism."

Precisely. And yet Israel continues to get attacked? Why? Because they have been successfully goaded into responding time and time again. The old Israeli strategy of providing aid to Hamas has finally paid off. They started a Palestinian civil war. All they have to do now is not interrupt that civil war, but they don't have the discipline. They can't help but respond militarilty to the rockets being fired out of Gaza. That is only remiding the Palis who they are supposed to be fighting. If they were smart they would ignore all Pali provocations and just let them destroy themselves from the inside. A little patience is all that is required.

Let me outline this. Terrorist attacks have three goals:

1. To cause the terget populace to capitulate to demands.
2. To provoke a response that further alienates the tareget population (us) from the recuritment population of the terrorists (the Muslims of the world)
3. To gain notoriety back home.

None of these can be accmplished particularly well without the cooperation of the target population (us). #2 is really where we got hammered on 9.11. Fear of terrorist attacks (allowing ourselves to be terrorized) is the reason the population was sold on the Iraq war, which has only benefitted al Qaeda, et al. We have not done any better with #3. By making 9.11 the very centerpiece of our entire foriegn policy for six years running, it only makes the original attack that much more legendary. It is the reason why Iraqi insurgents have affiliated themselves with al Qaeda. They have the name recognition and prestige.

The material damage done by 9.11 was negligible. 3000 people and a cluster of Manhattan buildings, while a terrible loss, is not that significant when compared to the size of this country. What made those attacks truly devastating was the fear. People were afraid to travel, so the economy suffered. People were afraid of more terrorist attacks, so they signed on to whatever ill concieved and tangentially related war was put in front of them (Iraq). If people had simply refused to be afriad, the 9.11 attacks would have been an abject failure for those who perpetrated them.

Yet, you yourself promote fear with statements like this, "[m]aybe they kill thousands, or hundreds, or tens... or maybe just one. Perhaps that one is your mother or son or brother... or even you." Why indeed are you trying to accomplish terrorist goals for them by making your fellow countrymen afraid? It is devstating for the credibility and prestige of Islamic terrorists if we keep catching their would-be terrorists and exposing them for the imbeciles they, in fact, are.

So let's yuck it up. Let's get the whole world laughing with us. With the purveyors of terror stop spreading fear and become only the subject of comedic derision, they will have lost, and we will have won.

RE: Shochu John (June 3, 2007 11:24 AM)
...And yet Israel continues to get attacked? Why? Because they have been successfully goaded into responding time and time again...

And what is the precise amount of time of no response that is required to induce passivity? Five years of constant assault? Ten? A generation? Two or more? No one has such a crystal ball and a nation cannot sit idly by while an antagonistic party, particularly a party with a fanatical religious fervor, reigns down attack after attack. If someone is threatening your family, do you just walk away? If they strike your family? Do you just walk away? If they kill your family, do you just walk away? How many cheeks do you have and what degree of passivity is appropriate until you say enough is enough? And what do you do when that enemy is an irrational beast that will not stop until it has killed you and taken all that you own?

"All they have to do now is not interrupt that civil war[?]" "A little patience is all that is required[?]" Are you kidding me? When the civil war ends and a leading power gains control, they'll set their sights on Israel... again. It doesn't matter what Israel does. Their existence is provocation enough. There isn't enough patience in man to accept those conditions.

As far as promoting fear and being paralyzed by it, that is nonsense. I function with some extra attention to the environment around me. I travel like I did but look for odd behavior. So does the nation. See how it prospers in spite of the "fear" that I induce by my recognition of dangerous actors in our midst? Remaining cognizant is not some foolish exercise, and, thankfully, "hysterical" people are watching so that the likes of Fort Dix do not become another Beirut, so that the likes of foolish passivists can remain blissfully detached while responsible citizens defend them even though they shirk their responsibility in protecting a nation.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." In this case that something isn't yet a something that will destroy the nation. Unchecked terrorists certainly can, especially if you don't fight back. There's nothing written in stone that the caliphate must end at the Mediterranean.

Keep following the line fed to you by bin Laden that he is enjoying our response and that al-Qaeda wants us in the ME. I figure he'd prefer to fight the infidel in the battlefield since it's such a glorious and rewarding act, but instead he's scurrying out of sight as his proxies fight for his glory. Now that is something about which I'm certain he laughs. His dupes are dying by score for virgins bin Laden knows do not exist. I can readily travel with little paranoia across this nation and conduct business in the open. I wonder, can bin Laden in his?

Mr. McEnroe,

I followed your link and saw a pipeline burning. This picture was taken after somebody blew it up with a bomb and before they turned off the flow. Please note that the fire isn't following the pipeline, but is just burning the oil that is spilling.

Original AD:Look at Israel and their rapid response to acts of terrorism.

A clarification here is in order. "Response" refers to the way in which Israelis have their crews come out ASAP to remove any vestiges of mayhem after an attack. They render assistance/emergency aid, have layers of support sweep in and out, and rebuild quickly to get back to normal. That's the coping mechanism they've mastered regardless of any subsequent military response in theater. They remain vigilant to the inherent danger, carry on "normally," and respond militarily as necessary.

"And what is the precise amount of time of no response that is required to induce passivity? Five years of constant assault?"

Probably less. Who is to know? It has never been tried. We do know that responding only leads to the continuation of the conflict ad infinitum. That HAS been tried.

"No one has such a crystal ball and a nation cannot sit idly by while an antagonistic party, particularly a party with a fanatical religious fervor, reigns down attack after attack. "

Why not? We know that responding accomplishes nothing. So why keep doing it? In any case, it is not sitting idly by to fomet civil war amongst your enemies so as to occupy them. It is just a more artful way of protecting yourself.

"When the civil war ends and a leading power gains control, they'll set their sights on Israel... again. It doesn't matter what Israel does."

Well that's why nobody can be allowed to win. If one party looks like its winning, back another party. The British had this strategy perfected once upon a time. It was exceuted perfectly to create the Irish civil war. They played it out over and over again in various colonies. Pit the locals against each other and they won't rebel against the crown.

This is not to say its an easy streatgy to pull off, but the Israelis did it. They backed Hamas against the PLO to foment a civil war and now, at long last, they have their civil war. It's the most strategically sound thing they have done in decades. Now, they are trying their best to ruin it by thinking with their emotions instead of their minds, which brings us to yet another one of your points, such as it is.

"If someone is threatening your family, do you just walk away?"

If that is the best way to defeat them, then yes.

"As far as promoting fear and being paralyzed by it, that is nonsense. I function with some extra attention to the environment around me. "

Indeed, and, while terrorists are dangerous and it pays to look out of them, (this I have never denied), the fact remains that the terrorists caught here are utter imbeciles. "[F]uctioning with extra attention to the environment around " you is all well and good provided you perceive that environment as it is, and not through a lens that perceives every last idiot with a hatred and a dream being a threat to western civilization.

"Keep following the line fed to you by bin Laden that he is enjoying our response and that al-Qaeda wants us in the ME."

He'd be stupid not to. It's difficult for him to send terrorists to hit the U.S. It is easy to kill Ameicans when they line up in the heart of Iraq, especially when Iraq is simulatenously the newest and best recruiting and training ground for Salafi militants.

"I can readily travel with little paranoia across this nation and conduct business in the open. I wonder, can bin Laden in his?"

You are once again hung up on symbolism and emotional appeal. Bin Laden is a marked man. He knows this and I'm sure he expected it. If he wanted to conduct business out in the open he would have stayed in Saudi Arabia living off his family's money. This is not important to him. What is important is fighting his jihad against us. If you want to hurt bin Laden, hurt his cause. If you want to help bin Laden, radicalize the middle east with your blundering foreign policy.

"Response" refers to the way in which Israelis have their crews come out ASAP to remove any vestiges of mayhem after an attack. "

I use "response" or "respond" universally to mean a military retaliation. Please read my comments with that in mind.

Islam: a religion of peace.

(And monkeys might fly out of my butt, Wayne...)

Probably less [than five years]. Who is to know? It has never been tried. We do know that responding only leads to the continuation of the conflict ad infinitum. That HAS been tried.

That's one interpretation. Another is that giving an inch results in the taking of a mile. I would argue that Israel's self-preservational response has mitigated an even worse conflagration. And why should Israel be the one always playing passive? Should the world not expect their antagonists to turn their cheeks once in a while? Isn't building a wall some sign that you're trying to be a good neighbor? Yeah, this is simplistic analysis, but the behavior patterns we are observing from afar are rather basic responses. You'd think the Palestinian factions would understand Israeli's trying to distance themselves with a buffer, but those very factions aren't interested in buffers. They want war. With Israel. Until Israel is gone. And they'll play tag-team with each other to do it while having their own civil war to see who gets to control the outside "humanitarian" loot. Turning cheeks to these triangulators is not a viable option.

"If someone is threatening your family, do you just walk away?" If that is the best way to defeat them, then yes.

I think you missed my point. That was the first statement of a series of statements with an implied understanding that that someone was not intent upon stopping at a mere threat. That someone was going to continue to escalate the aggression until you submitted, by death if necessary. In this context, you seem to be endorsing Dhimmitude. Is that how far you'll submit to "live"?

...the fact remains that the terrorists caught here are utter imbeciles [...] not through a lens that perceives every last idiot with a hatred and a dream being a threat to western civilization.

I guess they're imbeciles to be discounted when caught (and their idiotic plans halted), masterminds to be feared when not (and their carnage fulfilled). And who has the foresight to know which is which when it is hindsight that determines their brilliance? I hope you share your profiling skills with the FBI and CIA.

It is easy to kill Ameicans when they line up in the heart of Iraq, especially when Iraq is simulatenously the newest and best recruiting and training ground for Salafi militants.

Easy? Easier by convenience but not easy. And that training ground is a pretty deadly one. Better they train there with the most powerful military in the world testing their battle skills than here in the soft underbelly with relatively free movement... excepting for vigilant citizens. I guess you have been reading about how Sunni's are now turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even that worm is turning.

You are once again hung up on symbolism and emotional appeal. Bin Laden is a marked man. He knows this and I'm sure he expected it. If he wanted to conduct business out in the open he would have stayed in Saudi Arabia living off his family's money. This is not important to him...

Me hung up on symbolism and emotional appeal? And in the same breath you mention Bin Laden? He is a master of symbolism and emotional appeal. And I don't think he thought he'd be this marked. Disliked, yes, but he anticipated the paper tiger return to form and not actually persist to the extent that it has. Money and power is as important to Bin Laden as any man, perhaps moreso. He tried to wrest control (power/money) in his domain but lost, and now he has a poisonous resentment for being rebuked. He wants as much control as he can get but doesn't want to die doing it. He is no ideologue in a pure sense. He's a capitalist hijacking religion and wielding it as his cudgel.

Jesus Christ - who the fu@k brought up Klintoon??

not me.

Oh ya - you clowns did.

BTW, the Law Enforcement Model I refer to is the one that has caught at least 12 high level plots POST 911.

morons.

Klintoon is not the President, your moronic Boy King who is fu@king around in Iraqnam doing nothing constructive is.

Ostriches all.

Law Enforcement model is not US centric - most 1st world nations have good law enforcement and have stopped plots before they happen.

you idiots who ignore this fact disshonour all policemen who are keeping thier citizens safe.

you jokers are too busy hating Klintoon and playing GI joe to see reality.

keep it up!!

2008 will be a good year ;-).

(Hands Gaffo a handkerchief) you got some foam on your chin friend.

Don't jump the gun on this "plot".

You will find it's not what some people think it is.

The main idea behind the "plot" is laughable. Piplines don't work that way.

Wait a few weeks then review the "plot" again.

So schochu, what would you do if you and your family were threatened with immediate danger? No time to look for government help, either.

Please enlighten us.

Using your logic, you'd....do......nothing.

Don't jump the gun on this "plot".

You will find it's not what some people think it is.

The main idea behind the "plot" is laughable. Pipelines don't work that way.

Wait a few weeks then review the "plot" again.

Anyone who thinks that the terrorists are in the lead in the contest of instilling fear needs to answer a few questions:

1. Why are they hiding behind women and children?
2. Why are they hiding in caves?
3. Why are they scared to wear uniforms?

"I would argue that Israel's self-preservational response has mitigated an even worse conflagration. "

I would be interested in seeing you argue that.

"And why should Israel be the one always playing passive? Should the world not expect their antagonists to turn their cheeks once in a while?"

I have been implicitly "advising" the Israelis up until now because that is the point of view we started with. My advice for the Palis would be to renounce violence and find themselves a Ghandi. Colonialism is passe. They can stop Israeli colonization of their land by playing to the cameras. Block access to or construction of settlements. There is absolutely no reason those who are being forcibly evicted from their own land need to be losing a PR war, yet that is precisely what the Palis are doing by blowing up civilians.

"Isn't building a wall some sign that you're trying to be a good neighbor?"

Sure, if it is on your own land. Were I involved in a spat with my neighbor, it would likely help if I put a fence up, but it probably would not help if I used my fence to claim his pool.

"You'd think the Palestinian factions would understand Israeli's trying to distance themselves with a buffer, but those very factions aren't interested in buffers. "

See above. That is not a buffer, my friend, that is a limited conquest. You cannot colonize and claim part of someone's land and then act all indignant that they do not respect the buffer that you have just carved for yourself out of their land.

"They want war. With Israel. Until Israel is gone. And they'll play tag-team with each other to do it while having their own civil war to see who gets to control the outside "humanitarian" loot. "

You impute the maximalist demands to all Palis from now until the end of time. This is unrealistic. As the conflict is stepped down with Israel, emotions will stop running so high and those who demand the destruction of Israel will fall in number. Certainly, there are the hard core types who will stop and nothing less than the destruction of Israel, but these are not a long term sustainable majoiry or even plurality of the Palistinean population, provided the conflict is stepped down.

"Turning cheeks to these triangulators is not a viable option."

You keep talking about turning cheeks. I do not. I advocate that Israel stop striking back militarily, stop "retalitating", because it is counter-productive. This is a strategic move, not a grander lesson about forgiveness.

"I think you missed my point. That was the first statement of a series of statements with an implied understanding that that someone was not intent upon stopping at a mere threat. That someone was going to continue to escalate the aggression until you submitted, by death if necessary."

You seem to be forgetting who has the power here. The Palis have suicide bombers that they can occasionally get to their targets and the world's worst rockets. They have escalated as much as they can. Do you think they are restraining themselves somehow? If not, what makes you think they have the power to force anyone to submit?

"In this context, you seem to be endorsing Dhimmitude. Is that how far you'll submit to "live"?"

Ah, "Dhimmitude", the right blogoshphere's most overused and ultimately meaningless word. Terrorism is used because the side that uses it is weak. They cannot project power. Ergo, there is no point to surrendering to them unless you are afraid of their random acts of violence. If you are not afraid of them, they hold no power. They do not have the capabilities to force anyone to submit.

"I guess they're imbeciles to be discounted when caught (and their idiotic plans halted), masterminds to be feared when not (and their carnage fulfilled). And who has the foresight to know which is which when it is hindsight that determines their brilliance? I hope you share your profiling skills with the FBI and CIA."

I am little confused by this comment, as I do not think it addresses any point that I actually made. Let's see what I did say, "These newly captured would-be terrorists seem like yet another set of schmoes with big dreams and small I.Q.'s. That said, I'm happy they are off the street. Law enforcement is to be commended for functioning as it should." It seems to me that I expressed no quarrel with the fact that these idiots were captured and will be incarcerated. As a separate point, looking at them, they appear to be morons. This does not detract from the fact that law enforcement is properly pursuing all potential terrorists, regardless of intelligence level. What point is it that you are trying to make here?

"Better they train there with the most powerful military in the world testing their battle skills than here in the soft underbelly with relatively free movement... "

Better for them they train there, indeed. Our opening up of Iraq added thousands of fighters to the Salafist ranks. Even if huge numbers are killed, those that remain are battle hardened and ready to make trouble in one soft underbelly or another.

"Me hung up on symbolism and emotional appeal? And in the same breath you mention Bin Laden?"

You brought him up.

"He is a master of symbolism and emotional appeal."

No argument here.

"And I don't think he thought he'd be this marked. Disliked, yes, but he anticipated the paper tiger return to form and not actually persist to the extent that it has. Money and power is as important to Bin Laden as any man, perhaps moreso."

Were it only that it were true! Then we could buy him off. Alas, I fear he believes the rubbish he spouts.

Shochu wrote a bunch of inanities based on some flimsy premise of history, which has never to mk knowledge ever been successful. It sounds like the sheep response to a wolf eating the flock. I've never heard of the sheeps passivity stopping the wolf from continuing to target the sheep when it gets hungy.

Name 3 historical examples where a country simply ignored the fact that it was being attacked from within, and allowed the attacks to continue, and that proved to be a winning strategy.

Because terrorists dont' attack simply because they like watching stuff explode. They are trying to achieve an objective. And terorrism is an effective tool. Now, when we were driven out of Mogadishu and Osama used that as a lesson he said we were paper tigers and would not fight back for long without giving up. Did such knowledge decrease his desire to commit to terrorist acts or increase it?

You're arguing something ahistorical, something that is against how countries have ever behaved toward one another and even against science (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and common sense (that a tactic that's succesful in achieving ones goals would cause the practitioner to use that tactic less).

To address a few of your points. You write:
I have been implicitly "advising" the Israelis up until now because that is the point of view we started with. My advice for the Palis would be to renounce violence and find themselves a Ghandi. Colonialism is passe. They can stop Israeli colonization of their land by playing to the cameras. Block access to or construction of settlements. There is absolutely no reason those who are being forcibly evicted from their own land need to be losing a PR war, yet that is precisely what the Palis are doing by blowing up civilians.
Finding a Ghandi in that crowd is like finding a virgin on a porno set. But this response that you bring up points out how foolish what you're arguing actually is. Because as you say, they aren't heeding your advice. It's not like peace accords havent been tried before, they have but have been rejected out of hand. But your advice is being ignored. For the Israelis to turn the other cheek might be a good policy when facing a ghandi, but if turning your cheek only leads to your oppoent targeting your other cheek what's the value of such a response?For the Israelis to stop responding itwould require a ghandi to be in the Palestinians midst, advocating non violence and having a large following able to remove the extremists influence from their midst, and for them to have renounced violence, neither of which has occured or will occur. So, should Israel carry through with your cockamamie tactic despite the fact that the other side has no desire to stop carrying out their tactics.Now as to your notion that they are being deprived of their land, which borders are you referrring to, the post 1967 borders or the pre 1967 borders? How about the 1948 borders? Is all of Palestine including what is now Jordan, along with Israel Palestinian land? Because prior to 1967 Jordan had annexed the West Bank and Israel wasn't occupying it, and the Palestinians were still at war with Israel. So please clarfiy for us which borders are acceptable, and what precisely belongs to the Palestinians. I'll also note that Israel recently withdrew all of its people from Gaza. Did this in fact decrease or increase the violence in the region. Did Hamas not say that they would use that land to increase their targetted attacks against Israel and not renounce violence beucase they got back their land? If the Palestinains got the west bank would Hamas not then use that land as a base to continue further attacks against Israel to reclaim the rest of historic palestine as well as drive the jews into the sea? Woudln't the idea that they were able to get land from Israel be a sign to them that their tactic of violence worked? Therefore why would they stop fighting?

Sure, if it is on your own land. Were I involved in a spat with my neighbor, it would likely help if I put a fence up, but it probably would not help if I used my fence to claim his pool. Why is this their land? Who is they by the way? Palestinians or Jordanians? or are tehy the same thing anyway. Again, go back to 1948 and their was a partitiion in effect where there was a proposal to give land to the "palestinians". This was rejected out of hand because even back then the "Palestinians" were out to destroy Israel. It wasn't their land, it was and is disputed territory. There has never been a Palestine country, so to suggest that the land is theirs is false. Why shouldn't the land go to Jordan for example. They did annex it from 1948 to 1967 after all. And of course while they were occupying the land the Palestinians continued to wage wars not against the Jordanians, but against the Jews.

You keep talking about turning cheeks. I do not. I advocate that Israel stop striking back militarily, stop "retalitating", because it is counter-productive. This is a strategic move, not a grander lesson about forgiveness. So what should the reaction be? If the reaction is not military in nature, wouldn't the palestinians having successfully carried out attacks and not gotten a response think that their attacks had been successful. WHy would they then decrease attacks and not increase attacks further.

You impute the maximalist demands to all Palis from now until the end of time. This is unrealistic. As the conflict is stepped down with Israel, emotions will stop running so high and those who demand the destruction of Israel will fall in number. Certainly, there are the hard core types who will stop and nothing less than the destruction of Israel, but these are not a long term sustainable majoiry or even plurality of the Palistinean population, provided the conflict is stepped down.
Or they will be considered effective and increase in number, because by carrying out their violence and not getting a response which didn't hurt them they would feel that they were effective and that their actions achieved positive results. Who would be stepping down the conflict with Israel by the way. Is that the nonexistent Ghandi figure who has yet to appear in the area. How about we have a discussion about stepping down the conflict with israel when he gets here. Until then lets deal with realiity on the ground. As it stands now Hamas and Fatah run the show. And you're not going to get a stepping down of tensions with Israel. Even if Fatah had the best intentions, Israel could not sign any peace treaty with them if they couldn't reign in Hamas.

You seem to be forgetting who has the power here. The Palis have suicide bombers that they can occasionally get to their targets and the world's worst rockets. They have escalated as much as they can. Do you think they are restraining themselves somehow? If not, what makes you think they have the power to force anyone to submit?
They are not just suicide bombers. They are heavily funded by Iran and other countries. As evidenced by the last conflagration in Lebanon, when Israel retaliated they were able to achieve a stalemate at least in the media. In fact they were trounced. But not having been destroyed outright they are able to use their "victory" as a rallying cry that they were able to withstand Israel, that Israel isn't as strong as we think and that ultimately Israel will be defeated. Whether their goals are realistic or not it

Ah, "Dhimmitude", the right blogoshphere's most overused and ultimately meaningless word. Terrorism is used because the side that uses it is weak. They cannot project power. Ergo, there is no point to surrendering to them unless you are afraid of their random acts of violence. If you are not afraid of them, they hold no power. They do not have the capabilities to force anyone to submit. One attack caused Spain to withdraw from the war on terror, and impacted their elections as but one example. Spain didn't submit to Allah, but they did appease the totalitarian thugs and allowed them to achieve their results. But these types of attacks are not some intangible thing. I'ts not like the monster under the bed. If an attack is succesful it can disrupt lives. It can wreck economies, it can cause people to lose loved ones. Then on top of that to suggest that govt's shouldn't respond to deal with those threats is the same thing as submitting. Because it completely invalidates the value of govt.

Were it only that it were true! Then we could buy him off. Alas, I fear he believes the rubbish he spouts. If he believes the rubbish he spouts then doesn't that invalidate your entire argument? Because he's not going to stop carrying out his attacks because he believesthat one, america is a paper tiger and that he ultimately holds all the cards and that two they will ultimately prevail against the great satan and that carrying out successful attacks and not getting a response or getting a response of weakness will only get more people, who agree with his position, to join the cause.Also if we are going to take peoples words seriously then we should note that Al Qaeda view the war in Iraq as the primary front against the great satan,and Hamas has stated their goals to be the complete destruction of Israel. Even getting Hamas to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist is like pulling a camel through the eye of a needle. But if we are to take them at their words, then clearly they will not stop fighting us or the Israelis if we stop responding to their attacks.

"Terrorism is used because the side that uses it is weak. They cannot project power. Ergo, there is no point to surrendering to them unless you are afraid of their random acts of violence. If you are not afraid of them, they hold no power. They do not have the capabilities to force anyone to submit."

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank God of the WISE!

Suchu John,
I am intrigued by your classification of the people caught as “schmoes with big dreams and small I.Q.s.” I am curious about something: do you believe that people who can cause massive damage, even start wars are brilliant masterminds? What gives you that impression? And what does it matter what the I.Q.s of people who would like to blow up oil tanks and pipelines is? I’m genuinely curious.
There seems to be a theme running through the comments, not just yours, about how stupid the people that have been caught are. It seems to be a mechanism for discounting their importance. The implication is that stupid people can’t commit horrible acts or bring a country to its knees.
It’s an a-historical belief. Somehow the people who took over nations or led them into wars are classified as “smart,” (except of course for “W”). There is little evidence for this. There is a great deal of evidence that they were ruthless, and that they believe in something very much.
What is this fixation on the need for the criminal – or terrorist – mastermind? Have we watched too many movies?

the two groups caught in the Us - this one and the Miami one - do seem moronic.

the UK one that planed the liquid-mixing bomb to blow up several planes in flight - seemed quite brilliant.

then the ones in Rome who dug the tunnel .......maybe smart.

maybe the US ones are dumb and the European ones are smart?

shochu wrote:
"Terrorism is used because the side that uses it is weak. They cannot project power. Ergo, there is no point to surrendering to them unless you are afraid of their random acts of violence. If you are not afraid of them, they hold no power. They do not have the capabilities to force anyone to submit."
That's not really accurate now is it. Countries like Iraq and Iran have used terrorism to wage proxy wars against their enemies, allowing them to wage acts of war and reaping the benefits, without having to declare war.
Individual terrorists may not be able to project power, but they are often agents of those who can. And groups like Al Qaeda don't need to control a country to exert their power. Al Qaeda was able to use a country, afghanistan asits base of operations. The Taliban certainly were able to extert power over Afghanis, and Al Qaeda was able to use the protection of the Taliban's control of Afghanistan to maintain a safe haven for itself, despite the fact that only a few countries even recognized the Taliban as legitimate.
In actuality, terrorists don't need to project power to be successful, thus are not weak at all, despite being small in number.

It is obvious to anyone with any technical knowledge that petroleum tank farms and pipe lines don't explode as a few posters have pointed out. They do burn very well if the structures are broken and the spillage is ignited. It seems likely that the baggage handler believes the opposite and may also be mentally deficient. He may have been recruited by the other three and the mysterious Annan because of his intimate knowledge of JFK, his apparent fervor and his apparent stupidity. He was likely a suicide bomber recruit. The others may not be at all stupid.

The plan was probably to shut down JFK for an extended period of time by a very big bond fire with a limited number of casualties. There is a very large and dense tank farm at JFK. The pipe line from Linden is likely to be the only one servicing JFK. It is vulnerable to long term disruption because it crosses the very wide Hudson river. That would make repairs at that location more difficult and time consuming.

When I lived in LA, a small plane crashed into a very large reservoir of a very heavy petroleum product, which I think is called bunker fuel, at the Chevron refinery in El Segundo. The plan area of the reservoir was as large as a few football fields. If you had this stuff in a bucket, I think you would have difficulty igniting it. It burned really well when the plane crashed into it. The fire burned for several days and was very visible from my home in Palos Verdes ten miles away. The flame was about a quarter of a mile high. The smoke was visible well into Arizona, four hundred miles away. My neighbor, an engineer at the refinery advised me that the burning was near the bottom of the tank and the biggest fireworks would happen at that point. There was a small amount of water at the bottom of the reservoir. When the fire got near enough to the water, the water vaporized and sent gouts of fuel into the flame zone. The temporal increase in burning caused fireballs. This was spectacular but DID NOT INVOLVE EXPLOSIONS.

To respond to jr.

"It sounds like the sheep response to a wolf eating the flock. I've never heard of the sheeps passivity stopping the wolf from continuing to target the sheep when it gets hungy."

Which is a silly analogy, as you say,

"Because terrorists dont' attack simply because they like watching stuff explode."

Wheras a wolf will eat simply because it is hungry. It does not want the sheep to do anything. Terrorists attack because they want something. They want the target population to behave differently in response. As you say,

"They are trying to achieve an objective. And terorrism is an effective tool. Now, when we were driven out of Mogadishu . . ."

Ah hah, so the terrorists expected a behavior change and they got one. Thus Osama hoped for a similar behavior change. He didn't get it, but he got something almost as good. He provoked a reaction that served to benefit his cause. This is one of the primary objectives of any guerilla war, as I discussed above. Thus, does it not follow that to avoid adding value to terroist attacks, we ought not only not capitulkate to demands, but not be provoked into an ultimately counterproductive reaction?

"Name 3 historical examples where a country simply ignored the fact that it was being attacked from within, and allowed the attacks to continue, and that proved to be a winning strategy. "

Ignored, not so much, avoiding the retaliation in kind is what I am talking about,as it never ever works. The main example, is again the 1920's IRA and Britian. The British were being attacked by the IRA. So, instead of launching some sort of military response, they simply offered them a treaty that they knew half would accept and half would reject. They then settled back as the IRA destroyed itself from within and that solved the problem for almost 50 years. Not bad for not firing a shot.

"Finding a Ghandi in that crowd is like finding a virgin on a porno set."

I'm not saying it's likely. By the same token, I'm not saying its likely the Israelis can stop retaliating against Pali provication long enough for their plan to foment civil war to actually be successful in the longer term.

"For the Israelis to turn the other cheek might be a good policy when facing a ghandi, but if turning your cheek only leads to your oppoent targeting your other cheek "

No, it would be current policy under the current situation because 1. retaliating does not decrease the likelihood you will be hit in the near term and 2. it prolongs the conflict in the long term. As I keep saying, if you want to decrease attacks, keep them as busy as you can fighting each other. Retaliating does not now nor has it ever worked.

"As it stands now Hamas and Fatah run the show. And you're not going to get a stepping down of tensions with Israel. "

You obviously don't understand the concept of fomenting a civil war. Let me try to clear it up. Hamas and Fatah are at each other's throats. Israel would be well advised to keep it that way. So, keep alternately aiding them and stewing up provocations on the part of the other to make sure nobody ever wins. In the meantime, respond to no attacks directed against you. If the fighters find that the latest death in the family or latest indignity suffered by their communities is at the hands not of Israel but at the hands of the other faction, they will attack that faction instead. Slowly but surely, the Israel/Pali cycle of violence is replaced by the Hamas/Fatah cycle of violence.

You are further confused by the Palistinean Ghandi suggestion. The advice given above is what the Isrealis should do strategically to advance their interests in the current situation, providing the Palis do not change at all. "Find a Ghandi" is what the Palis should do in the current situation provided the Israelis do not change at all. I am not positing some sort of fanciful world here where the Palistineans embrace peace and the Israelis are responding to that reality.

"They are not just suicide bombers. They are heavily funded by Iran and other countries. As evidenced by the last conflagration in Lebanon, "

I think you are confusing the Palistneans with Hezbollah.

"One attack caused Spain to withdraw from the war on terror, and impacted their elections as but one example. Spain didn't submit to Allah, but they did appease the totalitarian thugs and allowed them to achieve their results. But these types of attacks are not some intangible thing. I'ts not like the monster under the bed. If an attack is succesful it can disrupt lives. It can wreck economies, . . ."

This is exactly my point. Terrorist attacks only work because the target population is successfully terrorized. The target population can refuse to be terrorized. The economy does not have to be disrupted if people go about their daily lives like it never happened. The government does not have to capitulate to terrorist demands if the citizenry refuses to alter their votes based on terrorist actions. And, this is relating back to 9.11 and our case more than Spain, the population should not be goaded into a war thaty only helps the enemy. My point is that you defeat terrorist attacks by making them strategically unsound. You make them strategically unsound when they fail to accomplish any of their goals. The targeted population has total control over whether that happens.

"If he believes the rubbish he spouts then doesn't that invalidate your entire argument? Because he's not going to stop carrying out his attacks because he believesthat one, america is a paper tiger and that he ultimately holds all the cards and that two they will ultimately prevail against the great satan and that carrying out successful attacks and not getting a response or getting a response of weakness will only get more people, who agree with his position, to join the cause"

Not at all. If his attacks fail to accomplish anything, that is, the U.S. does not change the policies they want changed nor do we do anything stupid that would alienate the Muslim world, the attack becomes pointless. Perhaps some people will be up for executing pointless attack after pointless attack in the hopes that maybe something will happen eventually, but they are not nearly the same amount of people who will join the ranks of those willing to attack us because of the last attack's success in both frightening the population and goading us into a treasure-sucking guerilla war in Iraq. No matter what OBL believes, he is but one man, and if he wants to get followers to do his bidding, he's going to have to demonstrate some results. We have handed him results on a silver platter.

I think I see your point, shochu....you seem to be suggesting that if we stop acting like we care about 3000 dead americans, terrorists will just throw in the towel....if we insist on ignoring every single provocation, they'll just shrug their shoulder and go back to whatever third world toilet they crawled out of....is that about it?

Then perhaps you can point me in the direction of ANY (that means EVEN ONE) example in HISTORY of such a strategy EVER working....no? I didn't think so.

The ONLY way to defeat people who want to die in the service of their ideology is to help them achieve their goal....meaning kill them. This is the way it has always been done, and in every single example where the "target population" made total war against such an aggressor, that aggressor was defeated....dead men make no bombs....when (if?) you ever get some historical perspective on this issue (or any other I suspect) you should come back here and make a reasoned argument....until then, you're wasting your time....the utopian vision you have of the palestinian people has never existed, will never exist, and you can't make a case that anyone among them thinks you're on to something. The same goes for any other islamist fascist, try as you might to make them more appealing.

basically what schochu is arguing is willfull ignorance. Ignore the crater where the WTC used to be. Just go about your day as if nothing happened. And dont expect a govt response either as that will only provoke them more. If we just pretend like nothing happened enough times they'll forget all about us and grow bored.

How will that play for both politicians and the public at large? Let's see. If one side is in power and this occurs on their watch the other side will say that a response is needed and they were incompetent for not dealing with the issue before it happened. Some truthers will come out of the woodwork and say the govt knew about it all the time and the populace will demand that something be done so that it doesn't happen again. Having an administration say "Our plan is to ignore what happened and go on as if nothing occured. We don't know how long we'll have to go on doing this, or how many attacks we'll have to endure, to see results, but please ignore reality and dont' expect any govt response. Thank you and have a nice day" would lead to an adminstration that was not only around for one term but one that would be impeached, assassinated, overthrown. Anything to get them out of office so that the entire country wasn't destroyed while waiting for some kind of response that wouldn't come.

I can't believe you're actually arguing this with a straight face. I thought it was satire for a minute, but then realized that you're actulaly serious.

You write:
No matter what OBL believes, he is but one man, and if he wants to get followers to do his bidding, he's going to have to demonstrate some results. We have handed him results on a silver platter.
Um, not sure if you're aware of this, but carrying out successful terrorist attacks is achieving results. Being able to say you've brought down the World Trade center and successfully targeted the Pentagon are both achievable results that are well demonstrated and can be used as recruiting tools for would be jihadists. Successfully taking out the WTC and damaging the Pentagon and then not even getting a response from the US would be even more results that the terrorists could crow about. See the big bad great satan? See what big paper tigers they are and how easily they can be hurt? And see how they won't do anything to us in return? Watch the jihadists flock to that organization, one that not only achieves results but is impervious from harm. What's their health plan like?

I sometimes think I'm talking to myself in here.

Runawayy says,
"I think I see your point, shochu....you seem to be suggesting that if we stop acting like we care about 3000 dead americans, terrorists will just throw in the towel....if we insist on ignoring every single provocation, they'll just shrug their shoulder and go back to whatever third world toilet they crawled out of....is that about it?"

Off by a mile. Quoth me, "Ignored, not so much, avoiding the retaliation in kind is what I am talking about,as it never ever works. The main example, is again the 1920's IRA and Britian."

Runawayy goes on, "Then perhaps you can point me in the direction of ANY (that means EVEN ONE) example in HISTORY of such a strategy EVER working....no? I didn't think so."

SEE ABOVE. You could have just read what I wrote. I spelled it out clear as can be.

jr says, " Ignore the crater where the WTC used to be. Just go about your day as if nothing happened."

A bit simplistic, but step one is indeed the refusal to be afraid. In other words, stop putting fuel on the fire by giving the terrorists what they want. Step two is coming up with a workable plan to stop such attacks that is not blind flailing retaliation. That is, do not give them the very reaction they are trying to provoke.

"Successfully taking out the WTC and damaging the Pentagon and then not even getting a response from the US would be even more results that the terrorists could crow about"

Indeed, but they have far more to crow about now that the U.S. retalitation has swelled their ranks more than they could have ever have hoped. It's the difference between bad and worse, you see.

Shochu wrote:
A bit simplistic, but step one is indeed the refusal to be afraid. In other words, stop putting fuel on the fire by giving the terrorists what they want.
First off, responding by taking the fight to them is not bowing into cowardice. Second, having terrorists successfully carrying out attacks and not having a response also puts fuel on the fire by giving terrorists what they want. What do they want? To damage and humble america and to not be killed. To grow in strength. They carry out a successful attack and their ranks swell. There's a reason that Osama was the most popular name in the ME after 9/11.Because nothing succeeds like success. Carrying out successful attacks agaisnt the great, weak, limp, paper tiger that wont fight back and not suffering any losses or casualties both weakens the US and strengthens Osama's hand. And increases the recruits.
Think of it like a boxing match. One guy goes in to take a puch and cuts the other guys eye. Will this cause him to fight less or fight harder? He's drawn blood. He's put the other fighter on the defensive, Is he now going to go in for the kill or decide to stay back in his corner because he proved his point? Of course you'd cousel that the fighter who was just punched in the eye not throw any punches back but go on as if he wasn't even in a boxing match. You don't get it. If we play coy and not attack back OSama is still going to attack if its in his benefit and if we are weak. Us not attacking him is not going to prevent him from attacking us.Now you say we shouldn't put fuel on the fire by giving terrorists what they want. IMplicit in your argument is that by us attacking Afghanistan we've fueld the fire. Except when we didn't attack Afghanistan and Iraq we had 19 hijackers fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon killing 3000 people. What fueled tat fire? It certainly wasn't us going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq as such events hadn't occured yet. Maybe it was containment of Iraq? Hadn't containment worked up till now? Wasn't that the reason we didn't have to go to war, because we successfully contained Iraq? No newspapers highlighted the NIE to say that our containment of Iraq increased global jihad, but considering OBL used that as a sjustification to plot 9/11 maybe it just points to the selective use of quoting the NIE out of context when it suits people. The fact is that it didn't take a war to provoke OBL to plot 9/11 so your whole argument gets flushed down the toilet like the crap that it is. And if we did not respond to OBL in any way he wouldn not cease to plan attacks on us and other western countries. What succeeds better than success? Are you telling me that in your bizarro, double speak world OBL successfullly taking out the WTC would decrease global jihad? The better he gets at carrying out attacks the fewer converts he'd get. He's just so good at strking blows at the great satan that doggone it, noone wants to be his friend. (Sarcasm off)

Step two is coming up with a workable plan to stop such attacks that is not blind flailing retaliation. That is, do not give them the very reaction they are trying to provoke.K/b>
Ah, so what is that workable plan that is not blind flailing retaliation. The blind flailing retaliation is obviously your characterization, but i'm assuming it means using military force. Of course, as already stated, it didn't take a war to provoke their actions in the first place regarding 9/11 did it? Two points here, if they are trying to provoke the reaction by blowing us up and we don't give in and don't fight back wouldn't that mean that they would ahve to continue to provoke us again so as to achieve their objective? You acknowledge that OBL,sadly believes what he says. I think you would further acknowledge that he's pretty dedicated. Therefore, it would be illogical for him to attempt to provoke a response and then when not getting one, give up and crawl into his cave and die. Especially after gaining all those new recruits like adam gadaan who are in awe at the new big man in the ME who struck a blow at the Great satan, a spectacular blow. The second point is this, suppose we didn't flail out blindly but came up with perfect plan to stop the attacks. Wouldn't that have to involve stopping Al Qaeda from carrying out the attacks in the first place and also prevent them from carrying out attacks in the future. Well then once you came up with that great plan of yours (which I'll note is completely devoid of any actual detalis) then once you carry out the plan you are giving them the reaction that they are seeking. Do you think OBL will say "wow that plan is so ingenious, I can't help but love the US after all and henceforth will cease all attacks, such was the beauty of their plan. I had sought to bring the US into war, but the plan was so perfect that I will henceforth disband the jihadists and will now go to Palestine and preach nonviolence like Ghandi". (Maybe OBl is the Ghandi figure to which you referred, he's just waiting for the great plan to be converted). OF course not. If its a great plan it means that we would have to kill or neuter Al Qaeda effectively. Consdidering its not in OBL's interest to be killled or neutered, teh better the plan is the more it would provoke him to react so as to not a, die and b, not achieve his objective and c, lose his power base. He's not going to stop being the jihadist becasue he woudl cease being someone who matters, therefore he needs to continue striking blows agasint the great satan otherwise his dreams of the great caliphate will never be realized. Now one blow will not kill the US, but if we go bac to the analogy of the boxing match a fight isn't one punch. He's going to keep on punching till he brings down his opponent. He's going to punch and punch and punch. If the other boxer knows whats good for him he's not going to have his head in the clouds spouting off inanities about not wanting to provoke the guy who is punching him in his rib cage. Gee, maybe if I ignore the punches he'll realize that punching me is futile and he'll lie down for the ten count. Meanwhile the audience watching one side punch away and the other side pretending it isn't happening or not punching back which side do you think the audience will have its money on or be betting against?

Indeed, but they have far more to crow about now that the U.S. retalitation has swelled their ranks more than they could have ever have hoped. It's the difference between bad and worse, you see. Yeah, OBL in a cave not showing his face for two years, the spokesman for Al Qaeda being milquetoast Adam Gadan, the Taliban routed and having to try to make a comeback as oppose to be controlling afghanistan, OBLs lieutenants and planners like Khaleid Sheik Mohammad capured, enforcers like Zarqawi, killed and his replacement also killed before anyone even remembers his name. He's doing just dandy. if the goal was to get the US out of the Middle east then he certainly succeeded, considering now the US army is there in droves beating the crap out of his organization . Wow quagmire. We can't win there, you say. But compare this war to real quagmries and its a walk in the park. We have 3000 dead.Compare that to Vietnam where nearly 60,000 US troops died. Or compare WWII where 405,000 troops died. And we survived those. Yet some turbaned guys hiding in caves or wielding car bombs can drive us running and screaming in fear?

And on one hand there might be more jihadists but they are all more diffuse and ineffective, spread out but with no leadership or the know how that Al Qaeda brougth to the table. And they are bound by the same laws of war that the US. They can suffer from demoralization, they can suffer from attrition. If people keep flocking to the jihadist cause and keep winding up dead, with no end in sight and no goals accomplished they can lose heart. if the number in Iraq goes down, and the number two becomes nubmer one and then he gets taken out, they can only keep promoting people to that spot for so long before people are reluctant to fight for the organization especially when they are not achieving the plan but only causing more and more people to go down in flames. Even the insurgency in Iraq is not limitless. People grow weary of foreign jihadist using their neighborhoods as war zones when they get nothing out of the deal. It takes years to defeat an insurgency and the insurgency in Iraq is historically not that great, the insurgency a small percentage of Iraqis (compared to the population as a whole) and more and more being fought by al qaeda and foreign fighters who are as much occupiers as the americans. ONly they're not bringing the ability to vote or the potential for oil sharing revenue. They're brutally killing Iraqis and blowing up their infrastructure. Since you and your side have been saying all along that IRaq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and are secular, I can' t imagine them being too happy to be forced to live under Taliban like conditions and be forced to cut their beards, or have their heads chopped off. In other words, by being forced to continue to fight the Americans, OBL and company are also wearing out their welcome from the populace that is getting more and more tired of their thuggery. So you might say that attacking Aghanistan and Iraq has increased terrorists, but terrorists who become more brutal cause more people to recoil from them. As you stated eariler regarding the Palestinians, they're losing the PR war by continuing to engage in such brutality. People look to results. What has supporting jihadists brought many of the people but more misery, more occupation of ME lands by the infidel, more death of family members etc etc etc. For some diehards who just want to die as martyrs, they're not going to be disuaded from fighting whether we are fighting them or whether we run from them. If we run from them they'll think they're winnig if we fight them back they'll do their best to fight back.It's a fight to the death for them, which is why it should be a fight to the death for us too. But there is also a large segement of the population who are not quite so radical who just want to get by and who are being drawn into this conflct and haiving their families slaughtered for something they don't care about. So the welcome mat is not perpetually extended to OBL and his crew anywhere. if they have recruits keep flocking to the cause who keep getting taken out fewer people will flock to the cause. If they cause more of their ment to die and don't achieve the results theyre' looking for more of them will grow disheartened and not flock to the OBl and his crowd. Because its his success that fuels his zealots to want to fight for him, not his failures.
Being forced to hide in a cave and have adam gadaam carry out the message, carrying out piddling little attacks as opposed to the grand catastrophic attacks that OBL was known for, having 2/3rds of your leaders killed or captured, being stuck in Iraq having your number one representative killed, then replaced,then killed then replaced then killed etc etc. isn't doing much for Osama's reputation at the moment.

I have to be brief this morning for the sake of time, but I will try to keep up my end of the discussion:

"First off, responding by taking the fight to them is not bowing into cowardice."

It's certainly bowing to fear. Why? it is a completely irrational and ill thought out response to an attack that got popular support simply because of fear. You can tell because W invoked 9.11 over and over again to marshall public support even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11

"Second, having terrorists successfully carrying out attacks and not having a response also puts fuel on the fire by giving terrorists what they want. What do they want? To damage and humble america and to not be killed."

Really? Terrorists don't want to be killed? Is that why the hijackers survived 9.11. Correction, you, I, and most Americans don't want to be killed. The folks who subscribe to OBL's worldview have a more flexible view of life.

"There's a reason that Osama was the most popular name in the ME after 9/11.Because nothing succeeds like success. "

And there is a reason that terrorist groups in Iraq are now flying his banner. Because our idiotic response made things worse.

"You don't get it. If we play coy and not attack back OSama is still going to attack if its in his benefit and if we are weak."

I never claimed Osama could be deterred. It is now and always has been a numbers game with his followers. He wants more battle trained followers, which he has now because of Iraq, wheras we would prefer he have fewer and less useful followers. Ultimately, we would prefer that he be dead, but we've somehow screwed that up too.

" The fact is that it didn't take a war to provoke OBL to plot 9/11 so your whole argument gets flushed down the toilet like the crap that it is."

See above. You once again miss the point. This is not about deterring OBL, its about the number of followers he has. Clearly, blowing up the WTC is going to gain him some notoriety and followers. We helped him by our response, which gave him more.

"Ah, so what is that workable plan that is not blind flailing retaliation."

Backing a Northern Alliance takeover of Afghanistan was a good one, risky in terms of American bombs falling on Muslims, (the provoked reaction). It's always good to get others to do your wet work for you so as to not fall into the trap of pushing folks into OBL's camp. Failing to get the aforementioed OBL in the process, not so slick. Putting prices on the heads of these people, also good.

"Do you think OBL will say "wow that plan is so ingenious, I can't help but love the US after all and henceforth will cease all attacks, such was the beauty of their plan. I had sought to bring the US into war, but the plan was so perfect that I will henceforth disband the jihadists and will now go to Palestine and preach nonviolence like Ghandi". "

AGAIN again again again. OBL's goal is not to provoke a response that further alienates the US. from HIM. That ship has sailed. But from his target recruiting population.

"OBLs lieutenants and planners like Khaleid Sheik Mohammad capured, enforcers like Zarqawi, killed and his replacement also killed before anyone even remembers his name"

Yes, and there are always more to replace him. Thinking of al Qaeda as an organization of individual bad people that we can destroy by destroying those people and then we're done is silly. It is and always has been about their support and how many new followers they can attract.

"Being forced to hide in a cave and have adam gadaam carry out the message, carrying out piddling little attacks as opposed to the grand catastrophic attacks that OBL was known for, having 2/3rds of your leaders killed or captured, being stuck in Iraq having your number one representative killed, then replaced,then killed then replaced then killed etc etc. isn't doing much for Osama's reputation at the moment."

Silly. This is working out great for OBL. Leaders are expendable. There was no Al Q franchise in Iraq before this. The entire thing is gravy. If it were wiped out tomorrow, it still would be a net gain over 2001 because of the damage it did while it existed. It is better to think of al Q less like a fixed organization and more like a method for channeling anti-US sentiments into violence.

Shocku wrote:

Really? Terrorists don't want to be killed? Is that why the hijackers survived 9.11. Correction, you, I, and most Americans don't want to be killed. The folks who subscribe to OBL's worldview have a more flexible view of life.

They don't want to be killed. They want to die for a cause. There's a difference. terrorists want to die for the cause, but they don't want to die for a meaningless gesture. Their deaths are supposed to produce the grand gesture strike the mortalblow at the great satan. However not too many jihadists want to simply die without doing something big. And unless al Qaeda can produce that grand gesture they become also rans and one hit wonders. Certainly more people might scream death to america, but words and actions are different. Action require dedictation, planning, and resources and experience, which is why Al Qaeda was so effective. Having Al Qaeda neutered doesn't negate terrorism, but it does make terrorist acts more diffuse and innefectual. this is not to say that Al Qaeda is completely neutered, only that they have been decimated and demoralized. Its not all gravy for them right now.

And there is a reason that terrorist groups in Iraq are now flying his banner. Because our idiotic response made things worse.
Are you suggesting that people wouldn't be flying his banner after 9/11? His success made things worse, not our response. His success also added to terrorists who flocked to the cause. Check the timeline. 9/11 happened before Iraq. Now you can say that there is al Qaeda in Iraq and they weren't there before. However, by acknowledging that they are there now flying his banner, only proves that Iraq is the primary front on which we're fighting Al Qaeda. So it would be stupid to withdraw from teh prime front where we are fighting Al Qaeda. Thanks for pointing out the fact that Iraq is the prime battle in the war on terror, or the war against Al Qaeda.

I never claimed Osama could be deterred. It is now and always has been a numbers game with his followers. He wants more battle trained followers, which he has now because of Iraq, wheras we would prefer he have fewer and less useful followers. Ultimately, we would prefer that he be dead, but we've somehow screwed that up too.
You make it sound as if its all gravy for Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda is bogged down as much as we are. They are losing leadership, they are getting trounced militarily, they don't have unlimited jihadists willing to die in Iraq as their numbers are dwindling as we keep kiling them. As the left is fond of poitning out, Iraq was/is secular, so the same rationale for why OBL and Sadaam could never work together is the same reason why its not cut and dried that OBL will have Iraqi followers there. He's trying to impose a religiosity there that most people are not willing to accept, and he's (or rather his agentss) imposing it on a populace through extreme brutality, and this is pissing people off. So in short, his banner is a very heavy one to wave in iraq, and just as we can be stuck in a quagmire so can Al Qaeda. For every day that they haven't driven out America and haven't forced the Iraqis to submit its another day that they too have to deal with demoralized troops and diminishing resources, and exhaustion, and no end in sight. I know your side likes to only paint the "quagmire" as one way, but believe me, this war of attrition goes both ways, and Al Qaedas influence is not unlimited there, or anywhere.

See above. You once again miss the point. This is not about deterring OBL, its about the number of followers he has. Clearly, blowing up the WTC is going to gain him some notoriety and followers. We helped him by our response, which gave him more.And we also took away followers by having them killed over and over. And if we didn't take the fight to him, he would have gained more because he was able to strike a blow that wasn't countered, so he would seem to be untouchable. And that success would lead to more operations which if similalrly uncountered would lead to more converts. Repeat ad infinitum. This isn't rocket science.

Backing a Northern Alliance takeover of Afghanistan was a good one, risky in terms of American bombs falling on Muslims, (the provoked reaction). It's always good to get others to do your wet work for you so as to not fall into the trap of pushing folks into OBL's camp. Failing to get the aforementioed OBL in the process, not so slick. Putting prices on the heads of these people, also good.
It's good to get others to do the wetwork, unless they can't get the job done. How long would it take the northern alliance to get the job done, that would open the risk of the US being accused of trying to undermine the afghanistan regime in the world community which as it would play out over a long period of time and involve plenty of anti american propaganda from botht the jihadist and of course the left it would similarly play into the hands of the jihadist, the northern alliance would be the american stooges (notice how Chalabi has been discounted for example), and there's nothing to suggest that if OBL could wage an insurgency against the US that he couldn't pull off a similar feat against the Northern Alliance, where his jihadists would be battle trained as well. And of course the NYT would leak all the info about our attempted coup in afghanistan, and our secret plans to go to war, and similalry the anti war crowd would be up in arms about our meddling with foreign govts etc etc etc etc etc. In other words, again, your "plan" would produce the exact same result.
If it got too hot for him he could simply move off to Pakistan or boogie on to Baghdad etc etc etc. Of course getting others to do your wetwork requires relying on others to get the job done, and their competency or even their dedictation to the task may not be the same as yours.look at how difficult it is to get Pakistan involved

Yes, and there are always more to replace him. Thinking of al Qaeda as an organization of individual bad people that we can destroy by destroying those people and then we're done is silly. It is and always has been about their support and how many new followers they can attract.

If everytime a new leader steps up he and his henchmen are killed by the infidels in some gunfight as opposed to striking at the heart of the great satan, they will be perceived to be innefectual over time. OBL has influence becuase he was able to carry out a grand strike. being stuck taking out a few soldiers with car bombs is low rent. And if to get that done, hundreds are arrested or killed, have little in the way of supplies are getting stuck in fire zones with a better equiped army, have a populace that is turning on them, all I'll say is their recruitment will not be limitless. Again, quagmire rules also apply to Al Qaeda. I know for you quagmire only works one way, but hate to break ti to you, Al Qaeda is subject to the same rules.

Silly. This is working out great for OBL. Leaders are expendable. There was no Al Q franchise in Iraq before this. The entire thing is gravy. If it were wiped out tomorrow, it still would be a net gain over 2001 because of the damage it did while it existed. It is better to think of al Q less like a fixed organization and more like a method for channeling anti-US sentiments into violence.
That anti US sentiment will always be found and has been around for decades around the world. Iran was preaching death to America since the 70's. And if there was no Al Q franchise in Iraq before, it was in afghanistan before. If they were driven from afghanistan and into Iraq or if they came to Iraq to fight us there, its quite simple that that's the front they will fight us on. They certainly recognize the significance of Iraq, why don't you and the moronic anti war crowd? If the argument is to fight Al Qaeda, then saying, like the democrats do, that we took our eye off the ball from the real fight is arguing a five year old argument. Certainly Al Qaeda feels that winning in Iraq is the key front at this point in their battle against the US. That's where they're fighting us the hardest. not in afghanistan. Suggesting, like obama does, that we should concentrate on the real war in afghanistan would be leaving a front where we are fighting al qaeda to go to afront where they aren't at anymore. It's just counterproductive,and frankly stupid. And again its arguing as if the idea of going to war with Iraq is even relevant at this point.

If Al Qaeda was wiped out in Iraq it would still be a net gain? What kind of poppy cock is that? Followers demand results. Having al qaeda completely wiped out in Iraq, not driving the great satan from the land, causing thousdands of meaningless deaths to followers who thought OBL was the top dog, Im sorry but that will effect the credibility of the organization and the leadership and the influence of Al Qaeda especially when all he could do was cause 3000 or so US deaths, and didn't stop a govt from being formed, and wasn't able to get the new state setup. When OBL carried out a successful 9/11 he was the new messiah of the jihadists. When he gets his followers bogged down in a quagmire he becomes mr. what have you done for me lately.

Please get off this notion that only the US can be routed, can suffer casualties and not become disheartened, suffers attrition, suffers losses in leadership which affect morale. Losing a zarqawi is a devastating loss, because he was so effective. yes someonen can take his place, but that person has to be trained, has to earn his keep, and just like in the job force, there are not unlimited qualified candidates who can do the job effectively. wasn't it by the way your side that said that Al Qaeda was only a small portion of the insurgency? Doesn't that in fact mean that their pool of members is not that large to begin with? therefore every time leadership is taken out or jihadists get killed they have to recruit new members, have them retrained. They aren't getting many recruits from within Iraq, so have to get foreign fighthters from places like Iran. These fighters have to then get acquanted with the situation, have to figure out who the new leader is, he has to figure out where to get the resources from. Again, rules of attrition apply to Al Qaeda too.