American terrorists?

[Tiassa]

So what happened here? I must have been obliviously drunk or something because I didn't hear hide nor hair of this on CNN or any of the majors. Three people have been arrested in Texas on suspicion of all sorts of stuff, including one weapon of mass destruction (sodium-cyanide bomb), over 100 other bombs and a half-million rounds of ammunition.

But the government also found some chilling personal documents indicating that unknown co-conspirators may still be free to carry out what appeared to be an advanced plot. And, authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation. (Riggs & Bensman)

Did I just miss this story, or are we that worried about the Arab face of terrorism?

• Riggs, Robert and Todd Bensman. "CBS 11 Investigates Poison Gas Plot." CBS11TV.com, November 26, 2003. See http://cbs11tv.com/investigations/local_story_330180036.html

 

[jps]

Terrorism from non-islamic-extremist sources may well be a comparable threat to terrorism from them, at least within the US. The fact that the response to incidents like this one is so subdued seems to lend support to the premise that our response to terrorism has more to do with politics than actual security.

How come there was no war on terror after the oklahoma city bombing in which right-wing extremists were declared enemy combatants? For that matter, why are these people who actually stockpiled all these weapons getting a fair trial while jose padilla was simply disapeared?

 

[Mr. Chips]

The current administration wants us all to believe that they have made the world a safer place. News of terrorism attempts (successful or not) does not meet this propaganda desire and as mainstream media is working to mislead the public in keeping with current administration desires, go figure. The fires in California of only a short time ago were the worst in California recorded history. A few short months before a captured alquaida operative stated that they were planning to set fires in the Western US. News broadcasters have reported that many of the blazes were apparently set by arsonists. I still hear the claims that there has been no terrorism on US soil since 9-11-01. Lies and damned lies.

BTW, I voted for the first. I really don't make any distinction between Amerigoans or Alquaida (translated as Base) members. We are all humans and the psychosis to take human life is not monopolized by any cultural or ethnic heritage, IMHO.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by Mr. Chips
A few short months before a captured alquaida operative stated that they were planning to set fires in the Western US. News broadcasters have reported that many of the blazes were apparently set by arsonists. I still hear the claims that there has been no terrorism on US soil since 9-11-01. Lies and damned lies.

Thats very interesting. Can you give a link to more info about this?

 

[Mr. Chips]

Well, I believe the alquaida operative claim was an ABC news radio story. The other assertions I made were from various television news stories here in Calif. It was claimed that a van was seen with someone throwing out burning objects along where major parts of the fires broke out.

 

[Tiassa]

Fire fire fire fire, fire fire fire fire works! Fireworks!

JPS

Found this; I actually tracked it from a conservative bulletin board via Google to the AP (USA Today), and then this, apparently the actual story broken by the Arizona Republic's Judd Slivka in July, 2003:

National forests in the West were considered targets for al-Qaida attacks, according to an FBI memo to law enforcement agencies dated June 25.

A senior al-Qaida detainee told federal investigators he had developed a plan to set midsummer forest fires in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, according to the document, obtained by The Arizona Republic.

"The detainee believed that significant damage to the U.S. economy would result and once it was realized that the fires were terrorist acts, U.S. citizens would put pressure on the U.S. government to change its policies," the memo said.

The unidentified detainee said he hoped to create several large, catastrophic wildfires at once, mimicking the destructive fires that swept across Australia in 2002, according to the memo.

The Forest Service took note of the warning, a spokeswoman said, but didn't really change any of its policies or operating patterns.

In fact, many forest law enforcement officers contacted by The Republic had no idea the warning had been issued at all.

• Slivka, Judd. "Al-Qaida targeted Western forests, memo says." Arizona Republic, July 11, 2003. See http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0711forestterror11.html

A note on the title: It's a reggae song, the artist escapes me. It was in heavy rotation on a short playlist at some random internet radio station I listened to for a change of pace. I can't find the lyrics, so I can't tell you who does it.

Postscript: Mention of how I found the article should not be taken to imply that it was difficult. Rather, it took less than forty seconds. More to the point, I think this is the originating article of all wire coverage that would come afterward.

(Edit: Uh ... whoops.)

 

[Tiassa]

Disappeared, indeed

For that matter, why are these people who actually stockpiled all these weapons getting a fair trial while jose padilla was simply disapeared?

For whomever wants it:

• Hentoff, Nat. "Bush's Vanished Prisoner." The Village Voice, October 10, 2003. See http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0342/hentoff.php

It's a curiously jumbled set of considerations that goes here. Because I find it curious that the ethnic face of terrorism prevails so greatly. Back when I first started looking around various bb's and fora, I came across a number of ultimately paranoid sites; Sciforums has yet to match some of them, but just barely. My classic example is the extinct Parascope.com. But once upon a time, and it will take some research to find this, a couple of guys were busted somewhere in the western or midwestern U.S. (I know, vague) for acquiring and accumulating biohazardous materials which I believe included anthrax and botulism. At the time, only conspiracy theorists seemed to have hold of the story, and it was to defend the right of these people to have these things. The details are sketchy, so I won't try to recount them.

Consider a short list:

• Texas Freemen
• Militia relations to the Oklahoma City bombing
• Eric Rudolph
• Paul Hill
• A Spokane, Washington scoutmaster with ricin°
• Some guys in Texas with a weapon of mass destruction°
• Allegations against "Jose Padilla"° ....
• "Creativity Movement" (formerly World Church of the Creator)

What are some of the issues of the War on Terror?

• "Arabs"
• "Islamism"
• Saudis
• Saddam Hussein
• The legend of Osama bin Laden°
• The legend of Saddam Hussein°
• Drugs
• Charity operations
• Four med students at a Shoney's in Georgia

What "terrorism" has occurred closest to me?

• On June 11, 2001, the office of Dr. Doug Attig--who was a guest speaker in a bioethics class at my Catholic High School in 1990-91 (I forget the exact date)--was bombed by person or persons unknown. Nobody was injured in the blast. See Feminist Majority Foundation for the first link to the story I found.

• See also: Abortion Watch 23 (Note: This is a .PDF download.) This newsletter notes 30 acts of terrorism from 1997 - 2001 against abortion clinics, including 19 arsons and 11 bombings. Its pages even include notes on Threats of Mass Destruction°.

I well understand that there is a war to be fought against terrorism, but I prefer the idea "war" Americans fought against poverty--though we cannot carry all the world's relevant demands that way--as compared to the "war" against drugs. We've had wars against diseases, wars against illiteracy, and so forth. Perhaps the War on Terror could learn something from those "wars," as one of longest, firmest planks in my platform is that education, economy, and better opportunities in life are the best weapons we have against terrorist recruiting. We cannot win this War on Terror with the gun, merely hold the line.

That said, all else aside, I'd say Americans are more consistently a danger to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The "Arab face" of terrorism is easier to ward off. That we don't know what to do about our homegrown terrorists doesn't mean they're not a problem, but I admit that in general the idea that it's better "their" children than "ours" prevails, not only in America, but that's what's relevant right now.

We exaggerate the "Arab face" while trying forcefully to ignore the homegrown problem. It is only when a McVeigh or Hill crows proudly about his actions that Americans really seem to notice. Clinic bombings? The general public discourse reserves them to the abortion debate, not the terrorism debate. What the hell is up with that? Oklahoma City? The initial reports of Arab suspects turned out to be wrong; I've never followed up on where they originated. Four med students in a Shoney's? I've said much about my feelings on that in the past; best if I don't get started here. "Creativity Movement"? At least with "World Church of the Creator," it was easy enough to recognize a sinister name. Now they sound like a bunch of freaking hippies, including a house mantra ("rahowa"°).

I can't yet pinpoint the trigger device, because it's subtle and hardly definitive. But as long as we're worried about securing the Homeland ... well, what's up? Get these things taken care of; get the lethality out of certain issues troubling Americans. Put issues in their proper perspective. Just accomplishing this easier-said-than-done task will greatly change our perceptions of the War on Terror, and our consciences and therefore our actions will reflect those changes.

I'll even take a 3:1 ratio of international/domestic coverage of the War on Terror insofar as we need to be talking about the homegrown problem ... how much can be determined after we decide to talk about it at all.

When it's a homegrown terrorist, the people seem rather quite satisfied to have faith in the system and otherwise turn a blind eye. Well, not so much blind, but they need to have their eyes peeled looking for the "Arab face" of terrorism in America.

Notes:

° ricin - Admittedly, the suspicion is that he intended to kill his ex-wife, or some such, but there was enough ricin to do lots of damage.
° weapon of mass destruction - I know nothing about sodium-cyanide bombs; if anyone cares to disagree with its classification as such, I'm not going to hold this particular line, as it is the phrasing of the news media. I took a quick dip into Google and didn't find anything that would immediately settle the issue if it came up, but I'll look harder if I need to.
° "Jose Padilla" - Some columnist somewhere took issue with whether he should be referred to as Jose Padilla or Abdulla al Muhajir. I don't recall what the resolution was; people still use Padilla. Good enough for me.
° The Legend of Osama bin Laden - Firstly, while I accept the idea that bin Laden is alive and sending communiques, I will not be surprised if, in the end, we find out he's been dead for a while. Every time I try to answer the question of where people think he is or whether he's alive or dead and why, I get even more confused. He becomes a myth or legend of sorts, larger than life. (Something about a 6'4 Arab wandering around the Pakistani border shouldn't be so hard to find?)
° The Legend of Saddam Hussein - Deposed, but apparently not done, the measure of Hussein is becoming nearly as spectral as bin Laden.
° Threats of Mass Destruction - It should be noted, before you rush out to download the PDF on those grounds alone, that detail consists solely of anthrax hoaxes.
° "rahowa" - Racial Holy War.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

JPS: re Oklahoma

Originally posted by jps
How come there was no war on terror after the Oklahoma City bombing?

Actually, they did something better. The country had smarter leadership for a long time. (Remember, the last President was a Rhodes Scholar. This one can't read a teleprompter.)

Instead of declaring a "war" on an unidentifiable group of people that would have taken colossal collateral damage (especially after having done that very thing in Waco), the government took the more sensible approach of what is called "hardening the target."

Go drive up to any government building today. I mean it, go and see if you can drive up to any government building today! You can't! You can't get close enough to do any serious damage with a car bomb.

They're all surrounded by two-ton concrete planters, by massive works of abstract art made of steel and concrete, and in some cases by big ugly concrete constructions that look like giant jacks. There's no way to get near one with a car any more.

The only way you can do serious damage to a government building now is to attack it by air. Of course, someone actually did that.

It's hard to stay one step ahead of the terrorists. But this is clearly a case where a good defense is far more effective than an offense, and far less likely to kill the wrong people.

 

[jps]

Re: JPS: re Oklahoma

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
Actually, they did something better. The country had smarter leadership for a long time. (Remember, the last President was a Rhodes Scholar. This one can't read a teleprompter.)

True, but I think if 9/11 had occured under Clinton, although we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, we probably would still have attacked Afghanistan, and if Oklahoma city had occurred under Bush, I think we'd have seen a much more subdued approach than what we saw in response to 9.11

 

[Overdose]

Before this everyone has to ask this question : Would 9/11 occur under Clinton administration?

 

[clark04]

I'm not worried about any terrorism period. I'm well stocked up with plastic and duct tape - just like Dubya said to do.

 

[hypewaders]

American collective sentiment can more easily make comforting assumptions about foreign and especially Arab and Islamic threats than it can about domestic threats. The collective psychological defense mechanism at work regarding domestic terrorism defaults to greater denial and ignorance because it cannot play as easily on religion, racism, and nationalism.

In the cases of "foreign" and domestic political violence (both actually begin with a nation's policies), it is unfortunate that our society recoils from seriously examining the legitimate and addressable concerns fueling sizeable movements spawning factions that turn murderous. It is even more unfortunate that we have a government that channels public ignorance and fear regarding these problems into agendas that in many cases are multiplying our trouble.

We are learning the hard way that "war" and "jihad" as their meanings have been so prominently twisted are highly counterproductive ways to channel collective intent and effort.

We are reaching a point where any effort we wish to advance or posture strongly about is labelled a "War on ____" or a "Jihad on ___". This terminology is indicative of a turbulent phase that will only end when sufficient disruption of peace and prosperity triggers its rejection, by which time phrases like "War on Drugs" will seem not only passee, but grotesque icons of obsolete groupthink.

Our terminology, attitudes, and actions all tremendously influence the results of our continuing sociopolitical experimentation. When negative metaphors describe our largest and even most well-intentioned collective efforts, the results will always be tainted. To say the least, "War" is not the answer.