veryone wants terrorism to go away, and everyone wants to live in peace (I'm making a gross overgeneralization in both statements, but just play along). The problem comes in achieving these goals. There are obviously terrorists out there, and the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is drawn differently depending on who is drawing it, but even when there's agreement about who is a terrorist, the method that should be used to fight them is open to great debate. Well, it should be, but it seldom is, at least not in the US since 9/11 kicked off Dubya's great and thus far completely unsuccessful War on Terror.

Not only have the current methods not caught the terrorists, they have alienated almost all worldwide support for the effort, and actually done a great deal to increase worldwide terrorism, and especially to increase the potential numbers of terrorists, as the US' international actions stir up basically everyone to resist them.

More recent updates are added on top.

January 6, 2004

In Monday's blog I was pretty critical of the way authorities are handling the various terror threats of late.  I think it's stupid to cancel flights instead of trying to capture the terrorists on the planes, especially when the intelligence pointing to them is so often flawed.  Almost as if it were created specifically to taunt me, here's an unbelievable story about a vagina-bomb plot.

A BRITISH Airways flight to America was cancelled at the last minute yesterday because a female al-Qaeda operative planned to blow up the jet over the US capital. FBI agents learned she planned to smuggle the bomb on board inside her body and detonate the device as the Boeing 777 flew into Washington. The suspected plot by Osama bin Laden's fanatics was foiled with less than two hours to spare. BA were advised to cancel flight 223 from London Heathrow at 1.15 pm. They had already checked in most of the 180 passengers. The same flight was grounded on Thursday after the US intelligence was passed on to British authorities.

A senior Scotland Yard source said the would-be bomber planned to hide up to 12 oz of plastic explosive in her vagina.

It's interesting and perhaps even frightening... if you believe a word of it.  This report is in the Daily Standard, one of the more outrageous British tabloids, and while it's not quite on the absurdity level of Weekly World News and their Elvis' Clone Baby Weds Bigfoot type stories, this one sounds pretty fishy.

There's no follow up, for one thing.  They say they caught it just two hours in advance, so they must have known the name of the woman, right?  Or at least had a general description.  Didn't they arrest her and search her? Or did they just cancel the flight and let her slip away to launch another nefarious hoochie attack in the future?

January 5, 2004

There are more and more news items about flights being scrapped due to "security worries" about potential passengers. So far all the authorities (in France, England, Mexico, and the US) have done is inconvenience thousands of holiday travelers and question a bunch of people who they then let go due to insufficient evidence of anything.

The safety net tightened around air travel Friday as British flights to Washington and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were canceled, while law enforcement officials acknowledged that some delays were caused by mistaken identities. Mexican authorities also reported another cancellation.

Given the generally wretched state of US "intelligence," from ignoring all warning signs and not worrying about anything until 9/11 happened, to hunting all over Afghanistan for months with no real anti-Taliban success, to lying and being clueless about Saddam's WMDs, I'm surprised that any foreign governments would take anything the FBI or CIA said about foreign nationals seriously. And from the rest of the article, you see why they perhaps won't take future ones seriously, if the warnings keep being so worthless.

The mistakes were apparent in France, where a police official said six cases of mistaken identity were behind the pre-Christmas grounding of six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles over terrorism fears.

The names of six passengers sounded similar to those of terrorist suspects provided by the FBI, prompting the French government to ground the planes, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Pierre Debue, director of the French border police, said U.S. officials have asked France to check out a few suspicious names on passenger lists nearly every day since Christmas Eve.

One turned out to be a 5-year-old child, and another was a prominent Egyptian scientist, he said. The Wall Street Journal reported that two other suspected "terrorists" turned out to be an elderly Chinese woman and a Welsh insurance agent. 

Okay, mistakes on this one aside, my basic question remains the same, from when I first heard about flight cancellations; why are they canceling them?  I mean the whole p;oint is to catch terrorists and stop them from blowing up planes, or hijacking them and flying them into the Eiffel Tower or Wal-Mart world HQ or the White House or Caesar's Tahoe or other important monuments, right?  So why cancel them?  Why not put about half a dozen armed guards on the plane, screen every bag and carry on item double carefully, etc?  It's not like we fear X-men powers from the would-be hijackers or something; they're mortal humans with no special magical abilities, and if we don't think our metal detectors and searches can find hidden weapons and that our air marshals can stop attackers... well I guess we're all pretty well fucked next time in the air, eh?

Even if you don't have the plane take off, why not load it up, send it out on the runway, and then stop it and search the suspected people? Why cancel it in advance and let everyone know it's cancelled?  Wouldn't the hijackers arriving at the airport with their hidden bombs/weapons see that and vanish or throw their stuff into the trash, just delaying their plot a few days/weeks/months?

I suppose that the security types are just going by their little lists of what to do and who to not let fly, and that like most things in a bureaucracy CYA is a primary motivating factor. Working secretly and intelligently below the headlines and actually stopping terrorism and catching suspects is no fun; making headlines by appearing to do something dramatic (like canceling a flight) is more fun, and if a plane goes down you can at least point to your public acts as a defense.

Of course if the plane goes down and word gets out that there were hijackers responsible who were on a previous flight that you cancelled, allowing them to slip away rather than being caught in the act... well you'd hope it's like 9/11 part two, and that you can get Bush to bury the report on it also.

December 22, 2003

The-Cabinet-Secretary-Who-Cried-Wolf is at it again, and the national threat level has been raised to "high" for the holiday season.  As you'll probably recall, they instituted this Homeland Security Program (a name that still gives me an Orwellian shiver of dread) after 9/11, and for the first month or three played musical threat levels, raising and lowering it from orange to yellow and back again on an almost daily basis.  After a few weeks of paying attention, American citizens and media grew used to it and ceased giving a damn, and since then they haven't monkeyed around with the threat level color very much, realizing that no one was paying attention.

After briefing President Bush on Monday, Ridge reiterated to reporters that the intelligence community considered the new threat "the most significant threat" to the country since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We've never quite seen it at this level before," Ridge said.

At the same time, he sought to reassure the public that tightened security measures were in place and they should not alter their holiday travel plans.

"If you've got holiday plans, go," Ridge said.

Ridge's comments came a day after he announced that the government was elevating the national terror alert warning to "Code Orange." The upgrade from "Code Yellow," or "elevated" status, followed warnings that the terrorist organization al-Qaida may be plotting attacks against the United States during the holidays. The new designation indicates a high risk.

So it's the most serious threat ever (since they weren't paying any attention to terrorist threats prior to 9/11) and the warning system is at the second highest setting... but if you've got any holiday plans, don't worry about it.  Does this not raise the question, "Why the hell have a warning system if it doesn't mean anything?" in your mind as well?

The whole thing looks to me like just a way to keep people scared/worried about terrorism, thus keeping public support for anti-terrorism efforts (or what pass for them) strong, while also providing a "cover your ass" excuse for the people in charge, if/when something bad does happen?

"Mr. President, Al Queda irradiated lower Manhattan from a hijacked Goodyear blimp.  Any comment?"

"Well, we had that orange light warning thing on.  You all were warned!"

October 30, 2003

TIKRIT, Iraq - American soldiers carried out pre-dawn raids Thursday in Saddam Hussein's hometown and detained more than a dozen suspects, some believed to be involved in setting up a new terrorist cell, the U.S. military said.

Under the cover of darkness, 4th Infantry Division troops fanned out across downtown Tikrit, 120 miles north of Baghdad, raiding six houses.

U.S. forces had "reliable intelligence" that the suspects were involved in establishing a "new terrorist network in Tikrit and planning terrorist attacks against coalition forces," Lt. Col. Steve Russell told The Associated Press after the operation.

However, unlike most Americans and apparently the entire US media, I am able to see their side well enough to appreciate that they might fancy themselves exactly that. 

October 20, 2003

I posted last week about the rather Crusader-like comments by General Boykin, a man who is somehow in charge of the US' anti-terrorism campaign worldwide.  This Salon article recaps his initial comments, and posts his "apology," which is a rather pathetic attempt at a damage-controlling lie.

A decorated veteran of foreign campaigns, the three-star general said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." After the man was captured, Boykin said he told the man, "You underestimated our God."

Boykin's statement said that comment was misinterpreted.

"My comments to Osman Otto in Mogadishu were not referencing his worship of Allah but his worship of money and power; idolatry," Boykin said. "He was a corrupt man, not a follower of Islam."

Even if you (hypothetically speaking) agreed with his militant Christian comments, would you overlook the fact that 1) he's lying (and not very well) with his "misinterpreted" crap, and 2) he's clearly unfit for a job that requires him to constantly work with foreign governments and armies, especially since many of them are followers of the religion he clearly regards as idolatry.

The 2nd point is one I find interesting; where do you draw the line between wanting someone of your faith to do something important, and realizing that someone of your faith is a bad choice for the job? I guess that depends on how strongly you believe in your faith, since if you are really devout you won't care about practicalities, since you'd rather the important job fail than admit that a person who shares your delusions faith is unfit for the job. I think this is a debatable point, however.

I'm trying to think of a counter-example, from my atheist perspective.  Say I'm running the country and I have to pick someone to run a program that negotiates with some militant band of right wing Christian extremists.  I'd be a fool to pick a hardcore atheist for the job, or a woman, or a black, or anyone from a group that the people I'm trying to negotiate with hate with an evangelical passion, right?  I'd want someone who was at least a Christian, and probably white and male, just so they could at least talk with him, and their differences would be minimized.  And I'd have to do that to give the negotiations a good chance at success, even if I had a black, female, atheist who I thought would be great for the job. I mean it's just common sense, right?  You could look at it as caving in to the irrational demands of the other guys, and I'm sure my political opponents would try to portray it as that, but this is about succeeding in an important task, not something unimportant to sabotage with petty and stubborn bullheadedness.

October 18, 2003

This one depresses me, even as it confirms the worst fears and expectations of pretty much everyone who isn't actually a member of the Bush Administration. A report on the state of the world says that the Iraq war has been a big boost to al-Qaeda.

...war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al-Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability," it said.

"The immediate effect of the war may have been to isolate further al Qaeda from any potential state supporters while also swelling its ranks and galvanizing its will."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

Of course this is exactly what everyone who opposed the Iraq war said, going in.  It had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and nothing to do with 9/11.  In fact it was turning our attention from Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, which was sure to let the actual terrorists regroup, and attacking one of the more secular Arab states, which was sure to radicalize the Iraqis.  This is one of those times when it sucks to be correct.  Wouldn't it be nice if Bush's little neocon fairy tale had come true?  I mean sure, everyone hates Bush, but putting that aside, what if the Iraqis really had welcomed the US troops and their rapid and peaceful transition towards democracy had served as an inspiration for the citizens of all the oter  other theocratic tyrannies in the Middle East, and in 10 years the whole region was democratic and free and their economies were flourishing while the Mullahs who enslave and victimize them in with religion, much as the church did throughout Europe in the Dark Ages, were out of power and universally-despised?

Oh well, it didn't work out so well in Iraq, but it's sure to in Iran, or Syria, or wherever else Bush decides to invade before the 2004 presidential election when he needs a foreign adventure to distract the American public from his disastrous domestic policy.  Right?

See, I would like to travel the world with Malaya someday, and it would be a lot easier to do so if we didn't have to disguise our country of origin at all times due to the worldwide terrorism and hostility towards Americans that Dubya and his pack of merry fools are so busily stirring up.

October 17, 2003

So the ex-special forces guy in charge of the US' worldwide efforts to fight terrorism is... a fanatical Christian.

WASHINGTON - Pentagon (news - web sites) leaders on Thursday spoke up in support of a top general who has told church audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan and that Muslims worship idols.

Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin has made several speeches — some in uniform — at evangelical Christian churches in which he cast the war on terrorism in religious terms. Boykin said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Boykin did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.

The problem here, if I need to point it out, is not the guy's eagerness or excitement.  It's that the fight against terrorism is a worldwide effort that requires cooperation from authorities in numerous other countries, and we need people in charge of it who can get along with them, especially with Muslims.  All of the key arrests thus far of al-Qaeda guys have been made by other countries, mostly Pakistan, in cooperation with the US.  How likely are they do keep helping out with the US leadership so clueless about cultural issues?

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.