OK, I am not arguing that it doesn't exist, just that it isn't a very significant organisation. Security experts can debate on its changing strategy as well.
It just seemed odd to me that an organisation which is allegedly as strong and powerful as Al Qaeda is supposed to be launching the 9/11 attacks would have quit when its enemy was on its knees (or down on the ground). Despite what people will say, 9/11 was a victory for the terrorists since the east coast of the united States shut down for the day and US air traffic was pretty much shut down for a week. It seems that an organisation with such strong skills at organising such a task would have planned to keep kicking while the giant was down. Instead, the attacks pretty much stopped.
There was the Beltway Sniper attacks a little over a year later that paralysed the US Capital area, but that was just a loner. We can also argue that the Fort Hood Shooter was "Al Qaeda inspired" instead of just another crazy with a gun. Not to mention at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US, Fort Dix and Quantico, that have been thwarted so far.
My point, however,is that the ability to terrorise large segments of the US population using a firearm is pretty well known, yet no one has been successful. This is an avenue for terrorism that has remained wide open despite an alleged "war on terrorism". Additionally, is the amount of gun carnage and the fear it creates also terrorism? I know that citing to VPC for a link between guns and terrorism won't persuade the unpersuadable. In fact, a few more DC sniper incidents wouldn't persuade them, but that's irrelevant since the point is that guns are tools and they are tools that terrorists can use for their ends.
Also, I have to admit it was odd that no one took credit for 9/11. Most terrorists will take credit for their actions. It seems as if the 9/11 attacks were attributed to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda as a reason for all sorts of other actions which make no sense in a "War on Terrorism". Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone (e.g., Oklahoma City) and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb."
The Oklahoma City bombing was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage. This was an act of home grown terrorism perpetrated by some one who was upset at the federal government's handling of the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident (Oddly enough, people of this mindset scream for "gun rights" to fight government tyranny).
It's easy to look for the bogeyman outside of your country, but harder to deal with internal threats to national security.
Anyway, my point is that whatever threat "Al Qaeda" is to the United States is minimal. The US's illogical reactions to 9/11 prove that to be the case. The problem is that these reactions have utilised US (and other countries' resources) in activities that have not been productive. That's fortunate since Al Qaeda would be having a field day if it were truly powerful.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
06 December 2009
In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed
I found this whilst trying to get info on a certain Jewish "Gun Rights" organisation. It's from altmuslim! It's also been something that I have been saying since 9/11.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.
The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.
However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.
This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.
The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.
The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.
In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.
So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.
Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at http://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.
The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.
However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.
This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.
The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.
The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.
In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.
So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.
Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at http://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
01 December 2009
Are .50 Calibre Sniper rifles used in crimes?
Really now!
The .50 BMG cartridge is used in long-range target and sniper rifles. A skilled sniper using this round can effectively neutralize an infantry unit by eliminating several targets (soldiers or equipment) without revealing his precise location. The long range (1 mile+) between firing position and target allows time for the sniper to avoid enemy retribution by either changing positions repeatedly, or by safely retreating.
A McMillan Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle was used by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong to bring off the longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when he shot a Taliban combatant at 2,430 meters (2,657 yards) during the 2002 campaign in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't it make sense that criminals and others who might have less than noble intent be interested in such a weapon?
The Violence Policy Center documents 4 actual uses of .50 BMG rifles by criminals as well as 18 additional cases in which a .50 caliber rifle was recovered from the possession of a criminal without the gun having been used in a crime. The General Accounting Office report "Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime," GAO Office of Special Investigations letter, August 4, 1999, stated that there was a nexus between the .50 and terrorism, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international and domestic drug trafficking, and violent crime.
While these rifles may be large and difficult to conceal, they are still usable by terrorists and those who would want either high-powered destructive capability (i.e., they are used for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)) .
This destructive ability can be utilised by terrorists to destroy chemical plants and refineries. For example:
In a May 2005 report to Rhode Island’s attorney general, former National Security Adviser Richard A. Clarke warned about the potential use of 50s by terrorists in attacks on liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and tankers in the United States, “Weapons and other capabilities needed to conduct an attack on an urban LNG off loading facility or an LNG tanker can be readily obtained in the US, according to US Government reports....Fifty caliber rifles with antiarmor shells are readily available in the US.”
In April 2006, it was inadvertently revealed on an Air Force base website that government security entities specifically identified 50 caliber sniper rifles as a threat to the oxygen tanks that supply the medical facilities aboard Air Force One.
A Barrett Firearms marketing brochure from the late 80's boasted that its 50 caliber sniper rifles were capable of destroying aircraft with a single shot. The company brochure released by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence stated that jet engines and helicopters "are likely targets for the weapon [50 caliber sniper rifle], making it capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."
The marketing brochure has now become a damning and embarrassing admission by the gun lobby and 50 caliber manufacturers who are now attempting to deny and obfuscate the terrorist threat posed by these lethal weapons. Although Barrett Firearms still markets and sells the model 82-A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle -- the model highlighted in the company's brochure -- Barrett Firearms has tried to mislead the media by stating that the brochure referred to rifles only available to the military, an assertion that is simply not true, these weapons are available with little or no restrictions.
The .50 round was used by the Branch Davidian cult members in Waco, Texas where four ATF agents were killed. The Davidians fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents during their initial gun battle on February 28, 1993. The weapons' ability to penetrate tactical vehicles prompted the agency to request military armored vehicles to give agents adequate protection from the .50 caliber rifles and other more powerful weapons the Branch Davidians might also have possessed.
In addition to the criminal misuses and terrorist interest, we have incidents such as the one at the Texas Motor Speedway in early November 2008 where Jill King Moss, 62, was hit in her arm by a .50-caliber bullet that pierced the roof of her RV. Fort Worth police investigators had reason to believe the bullet came from a long distance away given the bullet’s trajectory. A person who was target shooting five miles away from Texas Motor Speedway between 10 and 11 a.m might have been the shooter!
The answer is "yes" these weapons have been used and are possessed by criminals. Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s. We can only guess as to when one will be used by a terrorist. It doesn't take too much intelligence to know how much havoc a sniper can cause. After all, Ten people were killed and three others critically injured in various locations throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia during a three week period in October 2002. Don't you think that terrorists would do this again in the US?
The question is really why would anyone defend unrestricted civilian ownership of such a rifle given its potential for misuse? Additionally, if there are terrorist uses of this weapon in the United States, as there have been in other countries, how will those who defend access react?
The .50 BMG cartridge is used in long-range target and sniper rifles. A skilled sniper using this round can effectively neutralize an infantry unit by eliminating several targets (soldiers or equipment) without revealing his precise location. The long range (1 mile+) between firing position and target allows time for the sniper to avoid enemy retribution by either changing positions repeatedly, or by safely retreating.
A McMillan Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle was used by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong to bring off the longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when he shot a Taliban combatant at 2,430 meters (2,657 yards) during the 2002 campaign in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't it make sense that criminals and others who might have less than noble intent be interested in such a weapon?
The Violence Policy Center documents 4 actual uses of .50 BMG rifles by criminals as well as 18 additional cases in which a .50 caliber rifle was recovered from the possession of a criminal without the gun having been used in a crime. The General Accounting Office report "Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime," GAO Office of Special Investigations letter, August 4, 1999, stated that there was a nexus between the .50 and terrorism, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international and domestic drug trafficking, and violent crime.
While these rifles may be large and difficult to conceal, they are still usable by terrorists and those who would want either high-powered destructive capability (i.e., they are used for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)) .
This destructive ability can be utilised by terrorists to destroy chemical plants and refineries. For example:
In a May 2005 report to Rhode Island’s attorney general, former National Security Adviser Richard A. Clarke warned about the potential use of 50s by terrorists in attacks on liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and tankers in the United States, “Weapons and other capabilities needed to conduct an attack on an urban LNG off loading facility or an LNG tanker can be readily obtained in the US, according to US Government reports....Fifty caliber rifles with antiarmor shells are readily available in the US.”
In April 2006, it was inadvertently revealed on an Air Force base website that government security entities specifically identified 50 caliber sniper rifles as a threat to the oxygen tanks that supply the medical facilities aboard Air Force One.
A Barrett Firearms marketing brochure from the late 80's boasted that its 50 caliber sniper rifles were capable of destroying aircraft with a single shot. The company brochure released by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence stated that jet engines and helicopters "are likely targets for the weapon [50 caliber sniper rifle], making it capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."
The marketing brochure has now become a damning and embarrassing admission by the gun lobby and 50 caliber manufacturers who are now attempting to deny and obfuscate the terrorist threat posed by these lethal weapons. Although Barrett Firearms still markets and sells the model 82-A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle -- the model highlighted in the company's brochure -- Barrett Firearms has tried to mislead the media by stating that the brochure referred to rifles only available to the military, an assertion that is simply not true, these weapons are available with little or no restrictions.
The .50 round was used by the Branch Davidian cult members in Waco, Texas where four ATF agents were killed. The Davidians fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents during their initial gun battle on February 28, 1993. The weapons' ability to penetrate tactical vehicles prompted the agency to request military armored vehicles to give agents adequate protection from the .50 caliber rifles and other more powerful weapons the Branch Davidians might also have possessed.
In addition to the criminal misuses and terrorist interest, we have incidents such as the one at the Texas Motor Speedway in early November 2008 where Jill King Moss, 62, was hit in her arm by a .50-caliber bullet that pierced the roof of her RV. Fort Worth police investigators had reason to believe the bullet came from a long distance away given the bullet’s trajectory. A person who was target shooting five miles away from Texas Motor Speedway between 10 and 11 a.m might have been the shooter!
The answer is "yes" these weapons have been used and are possessed by criminals. Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s. We can only guess as to when one will be used by a terrorist. It doesn't take too much intelligence to know how much havoc a sniper can cause. After all, Ten people were killed and three others critically injured in various locations throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia during a three week period in October 2002. Don't you think that terrorists would do this again in the US?
The question is really why would anyone defend unrestricted civilian ownership of such a rifle given its potential for misuse? Additionally, if there are terrorist uses of this weapon in the United States, as there have been in other countries, how will those who defend access react?
12 November 2009
Liberators of the World?
There are a few things on my mind right now with the main one being the United States's image to the rest of the world.
I know this poster tends to annoy rabid Americans, but it relates to the point I want to make here. That is, it is hard for the US to want to persuade the rest of the world to follow its example if it presents an ugly image of itself.
The caption: De U.S.A. zullen de Europese Kultuur van de ondergang redden which translates as "The USA shall save European Culture from Destruction"
Not that this poster doesn't have its ironic twist since it was published by the Nazis who did their bit for destroying European Culture (e.g., Baedeker Raids that destroyed two cities I've lived in, Exeter and Coventry, as well as Bath, Norwich, York,and Canterbury). The poster was originally called "Kultur Terror" ("Culture Terror"). Although, it is difficult to find info on Leest Storm. There is the theory that this was a Flemish SS Magazine "Storm". Well, the Nazis did have a paper "Der Stuermer"
I can argue that the Nazis were just as bad as the threat they raised in this poster, but that's not the point.
The point here is the image that the US projects of itself to the outside world. The Nazis were using everything that was "not-European" to scare the Europeans into supporting them. Of course, that's about like having the EU send out directives on fish and chips that turn them into something that is "not British".
People may want to resist, but not in the way you want them to resist.
How can the US try to take the moral high ground when it has a hard time actually practising the ideals it claims to practise: such as religious tolerance, free elections, an impartial and fair court system. In addition, the rest of the world has universal health care, gun control, longer vacations, and other progressive ideas, which some in the US decry as Socialism.
But how does the US intend on spreading its values to the Muslim world if the US doesn't tolerate Muslims at home?
The Taliban celebrated the Fort Hood massacre as a victory even if the shooter didn't have any ties to an Islamic fundamentalist group.
I have some serious problems with the US reaction to terrorism. It develops an aggressive posture which is counterproductive to the proper course of action. Terrorism is supposed to induce fear, and any reaction other than normal behaviour gives the terrorists a victory.
It was moronic for the East Coast to shut down on 9/11. Even more idiotic to stop air travel. I tried to live my life as normally as possible, but everybody crawled into their hidy holes.
Likewise, repercussions on US Muslim's for the act of one insane person give the Muslim extremists a victory. The extremists want to see US Muslim's polarised against the mainstream culture.
But, Muslims in the US are patriotic. Here are a few of them who died fighting for US ideals.
Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Spec. Rasheed Sahib, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, accidentally shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq.
Maj. James Ahearn, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a bomb in Iraq.
Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq.
Some African-American soldiers who fought to defend democracy in WWII were lynched still wearing their uniforms when they came home. There is a story about a black woman who refused to salute the American flag and scorned her father, a veteran, because he did. Her father explained that he did not stand to honor the nation as it was, but the nation as it could be if only it embraced its own ideals.
The real enemy is not Islam, but those who would use violence to achieve their goals. These violent extremists can be of any race, creed, or colour.
People should remember that prior to 9/11, the most devastating terrorist attack on the US was perpetrated by two white, Christian Men: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. There are other groups that expouse beliefs like those held by Timothy McVeigh. In fact, a frightening aspect is tht those beliefs have become mainstream.
It is time that the US should not be seen as the nation as of violence and bigotry, but the nation as it could be if only it embraced its own ideals.
I know this poster tends to annoy rabid Americans, but it relates to the point I want to make here. That is, it is hard for the US to want to persuade the rest of the world to follow its example if it presents an ugly image of itself.
The caption: De U.S.A. zullen de Europese Kultuur van de ondergang redden which translates as "The USA shall save European Culture from Destruction"
Not that this poster doesn't have its ironic twist since it was published by the Nazis who did their bit for destroying European Culture (e.g., Baedeker Raids that destroyed two cities I've lived in, Exeter and Coventry, as well as Bath, Norwich, York,and Canterbury). The poster was originally called "Kultur Terror" ("Culture Terror"). Although, it is difficult to find info on Leest Storm. There is the theory that this was a Flemish SS Magazine "Storm". Well, the Nazis did have a paper "Der Stuermer"
I can argue that the Nazis were just as bad as the threat they raised in this poster, but that's not the point.
The point here is the image that the US projects of itself to the outside world. The Nazis were using everything that was "not-European" to scare the Europeans into supporting them. Of course, that's about like having the EU send out directives on fish and chips that turn them into something that is "not British".
People may want to resist, but not in the way you want them to resist.
How can the US try to take the moral high ground when it has a hard time actually practising the ideals it claims to practise: such as religious tolerance, free elections, an impartial and fair court system. In addition, the rest of the world has universal health care, gun control, longer vacations, and other progressive ideas, which some in the US decry as Socialism.
But how does the US intend on spreading its values to the Muslim world if the US doesn't tolerate Muslims at home?
The Taliban celebrated the Fort Hood massacre as a victory even if the shooter didn't have any ties to an Islamic fundamentalist group.
I have some serious problems with the US reaction to terrorism. It develops an aggressive posture which is counterproductive to the proper course of action. Terrorism is supposed to induce fear, and any reaction other than normal behaviour gives the terrorists a victory.
It was moronic for the East Coast to shut down on 9/11. Even more idiotic to stop air travel. I tried to live my life as normally as possible, but everybody crawled into their hidy holes.
Likewise, repercussions on US Muslim's for the act of one insane person give the Muslim extremists a victory. The extremists want to see US Muslim's polarised against the mainstream culture.
But, Muslims in the US are patriotic. Here are a few of them who died fighting for US ideals.
Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Spec. Rasheed Sahib, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, accidentally shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq.
Maj. James Ahearn, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a bomb in Iraq.
Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq.
Some African-American soldiers who fought to defend democracy in WWII were lynched still wearing their uniforms when they came home. There is a story about a black woman who refused to salute the American flag and scorned her father, a veteran, because he did. Her father explained that he did not stand to honor the nation as it was, but the nation as it could be if only it embraced its own ideals.
The real enemy is not Islam, but those who would use violence to achieve their goals. These violent extremists can be of any race, creed, or colour.
People should remember that prior to 9/11, the most devastating terrorist attack on the US was perpetrated by two white, Christian Men: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. There are other groups that expouse beliefs like those held by Timothy McVeigh. In fact, a frightening aspect is tht those beliefs have become mainstream.
It is time that the US should not be seen as the nation as of violence and bigotry, but the nation as it could be if only it embraced its own ideals.
09 November 2009
When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.
I have to admit being flooded with outrage about the Fort Hood shootings. There are loads of reasons for this.
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
"If you drive around the United States today, other than security measures in place at airports, you will see very little has changed in the last eight years," said Faddis, who has visited several U.S. military bases in the past year while researching an upcoming book on homeland security, "Willful Neglect".
"We remain wide open to attack. That is true in the nation as a whole, and it is true on military bases as well," said Faddis, 51, who retired in 2008 as chief of the CIA's weapons of mass destruction terrorism unit. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he led a counterterrorism team into northern Iraq in search of an al Qaeda base. He has authored two withering critiques of his former employer, most recently "Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA", published last month.
“They know how to secure an installation,” says Faddis. “They are not failing to do so because they do not know what to do. They are failing to do so, because somehow, some way, we have convinced ourselves that an attack cannot happen here.”
"You may have to show a photo ID at some locations, but even that is not always true. Even if you have to show an ID, a civilian driver's license will often suffice," he said. "Most bases remain open to civilian visitors with even the most cursory of explanations for why they are coming on post. "
Even the Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters for both the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and the super-sensitive National Security Agency, has porous security, said Faddis, who has visited the sprawling post within the last few weeks. "There are no barriers (at the gate)," he said. "If you want to stop, you do so. If you want to go by the gate and onto the base at 60 miles an hour, you do so.
"Once you are on base," the former CIA official continued, "you go wherever you want. There are no armed guards. There are no checkpoints. There is no visible security. Even entering buildings, the only kind of security you are going to see is the kind designed to deter unauthorized personnel who are trying to sneak in, steal secrets. and sneak back out.
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
12 September 2009
September 11 – An Opportunity to Evolve Our Humanity
OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/September-11---An-Opport-by-Olga-Bonfiglio-090909-711.html
September 9, 2009
September 11 – An Opportunity to Evolve Our Humanity
By Olga Bonfiglio
It's been eight years since 9/11 and much has changed in this country since that dark day.
What didn't change, however, was our inability to take time to reflect on the meaning and implications of this tragedy.
Instead, we panicked to the point that we still are unable to view the day clearly or logically, let alone respond to it responsibly. In some instances we have been willing to give up our civil liberties in the name of national security and fold against an aggressive presidency that was adamant about swooping up as much power as it could—ostensibly to protect us from the terrorists. The result? Terrorism has neither been reduced (as if it could be measured) nor have our fears of it subsided despite an investment of nearly $1 trillion on two wars. And now, after a year into the financial crisis, our uncertainties about jobs, health care and middle class life have only multiplied.
But let's look at one notable moment when people attempted to deal with the horror of 9/11: New Yorkers were helping each other and being nice to each other. They cried together and comforted one another in the midst of death and loss. Likewise, citizens from all over the world sympathized with America and genuinely felt badly that terrorism had come to our shores. It looked as if there might be a “great turning” response to violence.
But once the politicians and the media got a hold of 9/11, they resorted to the usual rallying cry for revenge and retaliation. Americans acquiesced by waving their flags and displaying them on their cars, their houses, on their lapels, everywhere. (One older German woman told me it reminded her of Hitler and the Nazis.) Such activity helps to win public support but it ended up a missed opportunity to respond to tragedy in a new and different way.
Truth be told, Americans don't deal well with tragedy. After the initial shock is over and the recovery effort begins, we generally resort to going on with our lives as though nothing happened. The fallout of this approach is that we are overcome by sadness, anger, fear, or denial over what has happened—and it stops there.
Confronting September 11 remains illusive for most Americans partly because we have been unable as a nation to understand or inquire about why the perpetrators of this heinous crime would do such a thing—and partly because we unwittingly entered the realm of the “terror dream.”
The “terror dream,” which Susan Faludi discusses in her book of the same name, is the American frontier-wilderness story where we are attacked by “uncivilized enemies” in our struggle to settle the North American continent. This story line is full of victimized women and children, Wild West six-gun shoot-outs, hyper-masculinity, and epic heroism.
This “captivity narrative” became a popular literary genre from the mid-17th to the late 19th century but it lives on today through what psychologists call a “transgenerational transmission of trauma” where survivors of a tragedy are left feeling humiliated and enraged. They often repress their grief and fail to allow for any collective grieving because to do so would require taking responsibility for the trauma. Instead, the survivors pass on their feelings of helplessness, shame, and rage to subsequent generations who then carry these feelings unconsciously as a potent memory and marker of their identity. It's as though subsequent generations lived through the trauma themselves so that when another tragedy strikes, the feelings of the past are automatically projected on to it.
America's response to September 11 was to go to war against the terrorists first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq because we were essentially replaying an old story where we saw ourselves as victims of an “Indian attack” so we had to fight back to survive. George W. Bush assumed the role of a Dodge City marshal in a Hollywood Western who promised to “smoke out” those responsible for the attacks—and Americans willingly followed the script in an attempt to make sense of the tragedy with something familiar.
The problem with revenge and violence, however, is its detrimental effect on our humanity, as we saw in the horrendous situations of Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha, and Guantanamo. Meanwhile, most Americans glaze over the fact that war in Iraq has resulted in at least one million Iraqi deaths, mostly civilians (based on the 2006 Lancet Report), and the wasting of 4,342 American soldiers with nearly 31,500 wounded. An unprecedented percentage of our soldiers have committed suicide or deserted their ranks. Many of their marriages and friendships have ended. Veterans are denied benefits they were promised, including health care for non-physical wounds like post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The war has also inflamed religious fanaticism and apocalyptic thinking at home as justification for continued war and violence.
Today, we are a nation exhausted by war to the point that we avoid talking about it! In fact, the war has largely disappeared from view. Coverage of war in 2007 occupied 23 percent of news content compared to 3 percent in 2008, according to the American Journalism Review (June 2008). During the presidential primaries and general election, the subject of war barely came up. President Obama's promise to end the Iraq war has led to a step up of the Afghanistan war.
So how might we approach 9/11 in a more meaningful way? Here are a few ideas, but please add more.
1. Join with others to talk about what you TOGETHER can do to substitute fear, hatred or denial in your family, neighborhood or community.
2. Refuse to watch the repetitive “news alerts” or inflammatory pundits by turning off the radio, TV, and the Internet. Recognize that such coverage is intended to agitate emotions, especially anger and fear—and to sell ads. Don't let yourself be manipulated by people making money off you.
3. Lobby your congressional representatives to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the present, it's clear that we are going to have to deal with terrorists in our world. However, let us confront them by pulling ourselves together first. Violence, fear, shame and resignation are getting us nowhere.
As peacemakers, we can make a difference everyday by seeing to it that the spirit of cooperation and understanding operates in our local communities, which in turn can spread across the nation and the world. This is a golden opportunity to evolve our humanity.
Author's Bio: Olga Bonfiglio is a professor at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and author of Heroes of a Different Stripe: How One Town Responded to the War in Iraq. She has written for several national magazines on the subjects of social justice and religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
