Terrorism 2.0: Can We Fight It With Obama In Charge?

Maybe Mumbia isn't Terrorism 2.0, perhaps it's 3.0 or some such derivation. We've gone from taking hostages at an Olympics, to Entebbe and hi-jackings, to large-scale bombings, 9/11 and now this. The torture is said to have been unspeakable.

David Altman at Ynet says we need to learn some lessons from it. But can we?

Today, we see the emergence of a dark, new, and different army, with new branches that include all the components of a military, yet still utilize the terror doctrine. The advantage of terrorist armies is first and foremost the fact they are not subjected to any law or international convention. They do not face any pressure and they are not accountable to anyone.

 They tie the hands of the responding force, which is the only side subjected to conventions pertaining to human rights, war captives, and the targeting of civilians.

We have a craven media that is said to have put people at risk with the same reckless abandon that the NY Times employed in exposing the latest counter-intelligence secret of the Bush administration. It's not yet clear if they'll do the same thing to Obama.

But will they need to? Based upon Obama's remarks regarding 9/11, he seems to think we can defeat terrorism by speading the wealth.

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

 – Barack Obama, Hyde Park Herald, Sept. 19, 2001.

I'm unsure as to whether or not they could pull off this kind of attack in America. But I do know they would like to and there are reasons for concern. Compounds linked to radical Islam have made the news and there's always Canada for training them. We know that's been done. And certainly there are enough mosques for the radical sort to establish themselves. Heck, one group is notorious for trampling the flag in NYC and taunting passersby.

All that is lacking is the will and we know they have that.

I can't predict whether we ever see an attack of this type in America one day. But I doubt our police forces will respond much better than they did in Mumbai. Hopefully our SWAT and quick deploying special ops types would fair a little better. Still, the damage to the American psyche would be great.

And if it did happen, particularly from a sort of homegrown terrorism, even in part, I will predict a fairly harsh response against the government and perhaps even moderate Muslims in our midst from many Americans.

That community seems to have problems calling for change.

NEW DELHI: Muslims protesting online against violence and fundamentalism find themselves cornered by radical elements in their community.

An online post says that the only way to avoid bigotry "is for the Muslims in India to police their own. All too often, it's an 'open secret' in our communities as to which elements among us support such things, and unless we clamp down on our own extremists, I think it's awfully hard to cry foul when the backlash begins."

If nothing else, watch for gun sales to continue to grow. 

Comments

[mark l.]

"An independent commission has concluded that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901921.html?hpid=moreheadlines

the commission was a product of the 9/11 panel findings...

It appears that Obama has been warned against pretty much everything. I'm sure he can stop it all with a good speech.

I'm hearing that India had two direct warnings within the past month from the US govt that they would be attacked from a waterbourne mission.

jharp-apparently you have never read the aug6 pdb.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

" We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."

somehow, that doesn't seem to be the same thing as you have deluded yourslef into believing:

"I was specifically referring to the August 6th warning given to Bush, "Osama bin Laden determined to attack the U.S." with planes and Bush ignoring the warning and going to Crawford to clear brush."

bush was in crawford when he got the memo. The hijacking report was three years olds and lacked corroboration. It says nothing about multiple hijackings and crashing them into targets.

If that counts as a specific warning, then obama better pray to allah that we don't get attacked. I sense I will be far more forgiving of his 'inaction' than you.

[Lala]

Here is a very good article from Melanie Phillips - the whole piece is at the link below

The Mumbai atrocity is a wake-up call for a frighteningly unprepared world

By Melanie Phillips
Jewish World Review Dec. 2, 2008 / 5 Kislev 5769

Those who believe that Islamist terror can be halted by addressing grievances around the world are profoundly mistaken.

With these atrocities, moreover, Islamist attacks have moved much closer to war than conventional terrorism.

The Iranian-born foreign affairs specialist Amir Taheri has pointed out that the Mumbai attacks embody the plan outlined by a senior Al Qaeda strategist after the U.S. decided to fight back following 9/11 — a decision that the Islamists had not expected.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1208/phillips120208.php3

[Lala]

And here is Mark Steyn's take in part -

But we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the ideology. It's the ideology that determines whether you can find enough young hotshot guys in the neighborhood willing to strap on a suicide belt or (rather more promising as a long-term career) at least grab an AK-47 and shoot up a hotel lobby. Or, if active terrorists are a bit thin on the ground, whether you can count at least on some degree of broader support on the ground. You're sitting in some distant foreign capital but you're of a mind to pull off a Mumbai-style operation in, say, Amsterdam or Manchester or Toronto. Where would you start? Easy. You know the radical mosques, and the other ideological front organizations. You've already made landfall.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1208/steyn113108.php3

[Old Trooper]

Worst President Ever: You obviously failed US History. The Programs like WPA, remember FDR, actually prolonged the Great Depression. Obama stated that he did intend to cut back Defense Spending. We will end up with a pre 1941 Military and We know how that worked out.

On Bailouts, no country ever accomplished that nonsense without raising TAXES. No country ever taxed itself into Prosperity. You do not create jobs by increasing the size of Government, you just create a tax burden. Obama never ran a business, had to produce a marketable product, never ran anything larger than a Senate Staff or had to meet a payroll and show a profit for stockholders. Those things that he has never done is what built America. When business is not taxed into the ground, they prosper, create jobs and Great Society inspired social welfare programs are not required on the scale that he proposed during his campaign.

If the economy is to get out of the current mess it will not happen through the efforts of someone that got elected to office that is clearly trying to operate above his skill level. He is an expert at spending OPM, thats other peoples money. I expect the economy to get worse during his term of office and that requires no crystal ball, it requires business sense that he does not posess. He spent almost 3 years in the Senate and 2 years of that was devoted to his Presidential campaign.

In 3rd Qtr 2009, I predict American voters to have a huge case of buyers remorse. By then, you will know his skill level. Two years of a Democrat Majority and a total failure of oversight by those clowns set us up for this mess. Congress runs the ecomy through their actions, not the Presideny by Executive Order. You must have slept through your Civics and Economics Classes.

Hey Dan, thanks for creating the jharp blog here. Reading his tripe, foul language, bar room rants
and childish insults reminds me of the kids I went to school with that spent most of their time in detention.

[Old Trooper]

If you haven't figured it out yet, Islam is a 7th Century Death Cult.
I spent 8 years in the Middle East and have seen that first hand.
Sharia Law is pre-medieval and has kept women in a role of third class citizens for centuries.
If you want to see civilization, liberty & freedoms that you enjoy go away, allow PC tolerance
to let Islam prevail. There can be no civilization if Islam is allowed to triumph.
They aim to take Western Civilization down by any means necessary, be it economically or through terror.

[Fred Beloit]

Say Worst, did you really mean this?
"He's [Obama's] not going to try to ram legislation down people's throat, he's going to try to build coalitions and govern through consensus." [Note: Mr. Obama is CEO of The Office of the President Elect (a Non-governmental organization].
How is he going to build a consensus if he keeps ignoring you Daily Cause and Muffpost style revolutionaries and extremists? Won't you be disappointed if folks like you and Harpo don't have a voice in Obie's administration?

[Lala]

Obama promises to sign the FOCA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

Will Catholic hospitals have to close because they will not perform abortions?

[Philip McDaniel]

Good to see you, Old Trooper.

[Anon]

Obama is not going to do anything beyond a symbolic troop draw down in 16 months, this was always the case and the lefties who really thought he was going to pull all or most troops out were delusional.

So far, signs are okay on Obama's team, experienced and centrist, but we still don't know what his solution to the economic collapse is going to be and that was always, for me at least, the real danger zone.

I was never afraid Obama was going to sell the country to Al Quada or shutter the doors of DOD or do anything crazy from a foreign policy perspective.

The damage he can do is to the domestic economy and future competitiveness of the country if he saddles us with even more entitlement programs and top down government bureaucracy.

[Worst President Ever]

You may want to check out the damage Bush / Cheney have done - you know, the guys that were going to run the country like a business - they're about to rack up our first ever trillion dollar deficit. But they're fiscal conservatives. Really.

As for Obama, I'm going to be a helluva lot happier with his policies than Bush's. He's going to get us out of Iraq - and it's not going to be some symbolic move. He's going to push through some sort of major jobs program. He'll do something on health care, cause he has to to fix the budget and the country wants something done. And once the economy's turned around, he'll fix some of the inequalities in the tax code. He'll also probably do something on energy.

It's certainly interesting to see that Hillary is now a centrist, rather than the left-wing wacko conservatives accused her of for years.

[JustOneMan]

Barrys cure for terror...

"build coalitions and consensus" gee if we can get everyone to agree that all non radical muslims should be killed in ths name of Allah...everything would be just fine....

[mark l.]

"As for Obama, I'm going to be a helluva lot happier with his policies than Bush's. He's going to get us out of Iraq"

really? it would appear he will do so in three years, unless he disagrees with the recent agreements reached between Iraq and the US. Has he expressed the desire to alter the three year agreement?

"You may want to check out the damage Bush / Cheney have done - you know, the guys that were going to run the country like a business - they're about to rack up our first ever trillion dollar deficit."

a trilion dollar deficit...nominally large, but historically not so big as a % of gdp.

FDR's debt/gdp?

1942- 14.2%
1943- 30.3%
1944- 22.7%
1945- 21.5%

US GDP for 2006 was 13.13 trillion.

FDR's spending spree at today's gdp would be an equivalent of
1.86 trillion, 4 trillion, 3 trillion, 2.8 trillion.

World War II was the reason for ALL that expenditure? NO- Inflation adjusted, it cost 3.6 trillion.
http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/economic-and-financial-news-nov-28-2008-world-war-2-was-relative-bargain

That still leaves a financial expenditure equivalent of 8 trillion dollars over 4 years, excluding the cost of WWII, or an average of 2 trillion per year in today's numbers.

[Worst President Ever]

A trillion dollar deficit - pretty big for a guy that claims to be a Fiscal Conservative. Real Fiscal Conservatives only spend what they make.

Perhaps you missed this - Obama's not president yet and the agreement you're talking about was negotiated by Bush, not Obama. And the agreement hasn't been signed yet. And even if Bush does sign it, and tries to bypass Congress, Obama's free to renegotiate it or withdraw early.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Is Mark really too stupid to understand the difference between being expressly warned that X event was about to occur and ignoring said warning, and X event happening without an express warning to ignore? I know that wingnuts are too obtuse to understand subtle distinctions between scenarios, but the distinction he fails to grasp here is a whopper.

We might be approaching absolute-wingnut here.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

This is just table-setting for the next 4 years: (1) Bush was never a conservative; (2) everything Bush got wrong during his 2 terms is Obama's fault; (3) Clinton = still bad.

[PA]

"The 911 attacks we were warned about."

A warning, lacking actionable detail is pretty worthless.

Here's a "warning". I challenge you to do something about it. "Someone is going to be murdered with a firearm in Los Angeles in the next five days during a drug deal."

There's more detail there than was in the 9/11 "warning" you speak of. You got a location, you got a time frame, and you got the specific nature of the attack and type of weapon that will be used.

Good luck, let us know how you make out preventing that murder.

[Lala]

So, WPE, there was a specific threat? Since there are 5000 flights per day in the US. What should have been done?

[Worst President Ever]

I didn't post about 9/11 - I have no idea whether the attacks could have been stopped or not. There were certainly missed opportunities. And some of the post-9/11 testimony from Bush administration officials and ex-Clinton officials didn't inspire a lot of confidence. Condi Rice actually testified that they couldn't imagine anyone flying planes into skyscrapers.

[mark l.]

"too stupid to understand the difference between being expressly warned that X event was about to occur and ignoring said warning, and X event happening without an express warning to ignore?"

what specific warning are you talking about?

the link to the pdb is available in previous post...

I'll repeat the primary point-

obama has been warned about almost every possible attack. If he fails to prevent any of them, he is no better than bush.

the only scenario where the comparison can be made is where we successfully stop an attack...

how is obama going to stop a gas attack on a subway, or 10 armed gunmen from sneaking across the border and shooting up civilians? It is impossible.

The ultimate irony? Napolitano, his new Homeland security chief has already failed to stop a mexican drug cartel from crossing the border, dressing up as a SWAT team, and assasinating a US citizen in her home state. If al-queda chooses a similar action/attack, should she get the blame, or obama?

[Lala]

my remark was meant for THC not WPE, sorry.

[seekeronos]

"--- No I don't agree you stupid jackass. The 911 attacks we were warned about.

I was specifically referring to the August 6th warning given to Bush, "Osama bin Laden determined to attack the U.S." with planes and Bush ignoring the warning and going to Crawford to clear brush.

And as a result 3,000 Americans were killed.

Don't recall FDR getting a similar warning. ---"

...

Well, there was a certain radar report that was misread for a flight of B-17s coming into Wheeler Army Air Base (but may have actually been the incoming first wave of IJN aircraft en route to Pearl Harbour) that was suppressed.

And then, there is the entirely plausible idea that Roosevelt and certain members of his Congress pushed the right levers and cornered a fuel-starved Japanese Empire into a fight to pull our economy out of a funk.

Of course, engineering, fighting, and winning a war works a heck of a lot better when you:

(a) fight an enemy that doesn't have nukes (nor likely will acquire them inside the the time it takes to win the war)

(b) actually have a powerful manufacturing base that has at least 25% or greater of the world's manufacturing output

(c) can more or less control that output by Executive Order.

[jharp]

"I didn't post about 9/11 - I have no idea whether the attacks could have been stopped or not."

I did. And my point was Bush ignored the warnings. He didn't do a goddamn thing except clear brush. He didn't even think the warnings were worthy of him cutting his vacation short.

And of course not all attacks are preventable.

[mark l.]

"He's going to get us out of Iraq - and it's not going to be some symbolic move."

didn't he keep Robert Gates, current sec of defense?
how about selecting Clinton, as sec of state, or Joe Biden as veep?

both voted for the Iraq War.

Irony?

since July 2008,
casualties in Iraq-92.
casualties in Afghanistan-145.

so what is obama's timetable and exit strategy on Afghanistan?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008457899_usafghan02.html

"the Pentagon already is planning to send more than 20,000 additional troops. Pentagon officials say that force would include four combat brigades, an aviation brigade equipped with attack and troop-carrying helicopters, reconnaissance units, support troops and trainers for the Afghan army and the police."

sounds like the messiah is throwing 20k into the fire. and I thought he believed surges don't work.

He's going to lose over 1000 soldiers in his first term, on a war that simply cannot be won. genius.

timetable, exit strategy...he has neither.

[Anon]

I can't buy at all the idea that we/FDR in any way forced the Japanese to attack us...what I do buy is that he knew an attack was coming and let it happen because an attack was the only way to get the U.S. into the war which he desperately wanted to do in order to save England.

It is true that Bush did ignore warning about an Al Quada attack but it is unlikely that even if they had told the CIA and FBI to go on alert that it could have prevented the WTC attack.

[mark l.]

"there is the entirely plausible idea that Roosevelt and certain members of his Congress pushed the right levers and cornered a fuel-starved Japanese Empire into a fight to pull our economy out of a funk."

the specific knowledge element is unknowable. The understanding that Japan was allied with Germany and that we were forcing them into a confrontation was obvious. Still, we kept our pacific fleet in one location and did little to be prepared. Do I blame FDR? for forcing the conflict or being ill-prepared he has far more culpabilty than Bush...yet I still refrain from reproachment.

under the jharp theory, fdr is an even greater fool than bush.

[jharp]

I oppose Obama's Afghanistan position. Hopefully he isn't as hard headed and stupid as Bush and understands that it is OK to admit a mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/world/asia/02strategy.html?_r=1&hp

[Worst President Ever]

Obama's president - he gives the orders, Gates, Clinton, etc. carry them out. Having a cabinet of strong personalities that are willing to disagree with Obama is good for all of us.

Personally, I hope he doesn't commit a bunch of troops to Afghanistan. I think that would be a mistake. But I'm actually going to wait to see what he does before I start condemning him.

Plus, it's a bit hard to take anything Mark posts seriously. He wrote post after post refuting poll numbers showing Obama was going to win. We all know how that one turned out.

[mark l.]

"He wrote post after post refuting poll numbers showing Obama was going to win."
actually, I had no idea how it would turnout, and guessed.

jharp was in love with the gallup polls, which were waay wrong.

"For results based on the sample of 2,824 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 2,472 likely voters (using Gallup's traditional likely voter model which identifies likely voters on the basis of current voting intention and past voting behavior), the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111703/Final-Presidential-Estimate-Obama-55-McCain-44.aspx

They had obama winning by 11%, he won by 7%, well outside the moe of error.

In the sense that I was correct that their polling was bad, I remain correct.

some points come into clarity with jharp and wpe present...

bush spending bad, fdr spending good. When obama offers that his spending represents the 'new deal', doesn't bush deseerve the credit if obama offers no new method of resolving the financial crisis, other than throwing more money on it? not if you are a democrat.

bush should have known about 9/11, fdr is excused for losing the pacific fleet in one attack.

Iraq is a disaster, Afghanistan is going to be easy and essential to our security.

I can respect any individual who can be consistent in the rxn to 9/11 v. pearl harbor, govt spending in 1940 v. 2008, Iraq v. Afghanistan. To seperate your opinions based on party affiliation among these events and wars is not anywhere near rational thought.

in for a penny, in for a pound.

[Worst President Ever]

You predicted Obama was going to lose. You weren't just WAY outside the MOE, you were dead wrong.

[jharp]

"Yesterday, President-elect Obama said that “16 months is the right time frame” for withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, noting that he would “listen to the recommendations” his commanders on the ground. Asked today if he considered himself “at odds” with Obama on the timetable, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he “would subscribe to what the President-elect said yesterday in Chicago.” Pressed by reporters on the length of the time frame,” Gates said that Obama “framed it just right yesterday.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/02/gates-obama-withdrawal/

[mark l.]

"You predicted Obama was going to lose."

find it...

good hunting.

[Jim Treacher]

"He's not going to try to ram legislation down people's throat"

Agreed: Wrong direction.

[jharp]

Mark l,

You are an idiot. The pollsters were accurate.

You have learned wingnuttery well. Pick one poll that was outside the margin of error and that makes you right.

Your other remarks are beyond stupid. Even for you.

[Worst President Ever]

Here ya go:

****
are voters going to turnout in a period where we are told that we face financial crisis and elect the guy with the least experience?

this is going to be a landslide for mccain.

Posted by: mark l. | Friday, October 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM
***

http://riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/so-where-do-things-stand.html

[jharp]

For Mark,

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/today%27s%20polls

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/morning_status_update_for_1104.php

[jharp]

Good one, WPE.

Very funny.

[mark l.]

jharp-
in that tiny brain of yours...

how do you reconcile the confidence you have in obama's intellect when compared to bush's?

by record, bush is in the 130's. obama has yet to offer any record...

we do know that he believed he served on the senate banking committee and that he believes there are 57 states.

If bush is a moron, then can we not agree that the statement,

"out with the old chimp, in with the new one" is pretty accurate?

"Your other remarks are beyond stupid. Even for you."
'57 states', stupid?

[mark l.]

curious george, bush, david gregory, and obama standing next to each other...

would the least retarded monkey step forward?

not so fast barry...

[Worst President Ever]

Mark's not just a buffoon - how about that McCain landslide prediction? - he's a dick, too.

[mark l.]

any truth the the rumor that his secret service agent is called, "The Man with the Yellow Hat?"

[jharp]

"how do you reconcile the confidence you have in obama's intellect when compared to bush's?"

1) by listening to the men speak
2) by educational backgrounds (Obama self made President of Harvard Law Review) (Bush's daddy got him into Yale where he earned C's when not destroying brain cells with liquor)

need more?

[stanford and binet]

ahhh...

the jharp standard of intelligence testing.

Still, only a retard would believe we have 57 states.

if you had actually listened to obama speak, you might have heard him say it.

[mark l.]

don't cry jharp-
i'm sure that quite a few of obama's supporters don't know how many states there are...

obama is really two 'firsts' in american hx. African american and retarded.

[mark l.]

don't worry, dan quayle did not now an alternative spelling of potato...
no one made of fun him for being stupid.

I'm sure that in the future it will be forgotten, or maybe we might one day have 57 states.

The irony of a Senator, with a law degree, not knowing how many states there are and you proceeding to tell me how smart he is...

retard vouching for another retard?

[Anon]

See, that is just silly. Obama misspoke, he doesn't think there are 57 states.

I don't doubt his intellect, but intellect and an Ivy League education don't always equal good judgement...there is a long list of Bush advisors who went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and it hasn't helped them.

My questions about Obama are about his ideology and his policies not his intellectual capacity.

[SacTownMan]

More Harpo logic!

"(Bush's daddy got him into Yale where he earned C's when not destroying brain cells with liquor)"

Sorry but we still don't know what Barry's grades were because he never released them and I worry a lot more about the effects of his admitted cocaine use on his brain cells.

President "Crack Head" will need all of his remaining brain cells to make it through the next 4 years!

[WBestPresidentEver]

Harp and others like him why don't you all go bury your heads in the sand. You are a bunch of jerk-offs. Get a life !
President GEORGE W. BUSH is a decent and moral man and he had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks and could have done othing more than was doen to prevent them. Leave him the hell alone.
I hope that when the next attack to our country comes that all of you Bush Basher scumbags will be right in the middle of them. Duck for cover. Obama will appease them just like he appeased you all into voting for him. FOOLS NEVER LEARN.

[Zeigenbach Tapper]

jharp is still the biggest asshole in comment board land. Get a life you sanctimonious dickwad.

[Zeigenbach Tapper]

Oh harpy when you find your dick and learn what to do with it let the whole world of the internet know just like you think everyone on the internet is waiting with bated breath to know what you think about politics.

[Paul]

Pakistan is the hot bed of Jihadi Terror. Whether it was 9/11, or Nuclear leak to Iran, war in Afghanisatan, it has been aiding and abetting terrorism. The world has been fooled by the double speak of its government and Miltary. ISI is the root of global terrorism.

When will the world see the truth and get rid off the root cause of terrorism!