Should We Be Reactive Or Proactive?
So the British police halted a terrorist attack this week, which was said to involve the use of liquid chemicals to set off an explosion.
Our idiot media is treating this as if it's something new, when in fact it should have been something we'd long ago prepared for. ESPECIALLY in a post-9/11 world.
This week's plot was in essence a copycat crime, mimicking the 1995 "Project Bojinka" plan to blow up 12 commercial jumbo jets simultaneously over the Pacific using similar liquid explosives. It was developed by Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was identified by US officials as a rising aide to Osama bin Laden.
It was foiled by proactive American intelligence during the Clinton Administration working in cooperation with Filipino authorities, who discovered the plans on a laptop while searching the Manila apartment of Ramzi Yousef, the man who organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The search was conducted two weeks before the scheduled attack dates, Jan. 21 and 22. Yousef would later be captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned by the Clinton Administration, and he remains in jail to this day.
To quote former CIA agent, Larry Johnson:
So this idea of liquid explosives was not new.
One therefore asks, here in America, what laws did the Republican Congress pass and submit to the Clinton Administration to sign in order to make certain that such an attack was not possible in the future?
Answer: none.
What did Clinton do, you may ask?
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tags to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
What has Bush done since 9/11 about this liquid chemical threat, you may ask? Nothing.
Oh, but that didn't stop him from claiming credit for stopping this latest plot, something I'm sure Scotland Yard, who actually IS responsible for this investigation and these arrests, appreciates after all their hard work.
What could George Bush have done, you may ask?
Agent Johnson also recommended that airlines not allow liquids weighing more than one pound on board a plane. Any amount under 8 ounces might cause injury within the cabin, and death to the person carrying the explosive, but would not be powerful enough to bring down the plane. Therefore, airlines could allow any bottles of liquid up to eight ounces, but in the security check, simply require passengers to drink a portion of the liquid to demonstrate it is not an explosive. He also recommends that "all carry on bags be hand searched, no exceptions, and that third party cargo be banned from passenger aircraft. The latter is the real gap in aviation security."
Something to be mindful of, is that the kind of explosives we're talking about here are made by combining two ingredients. An acetate like you'd find in fingernail polish remover, and hydrogen peroxide.
But NOT the kind of 3% hydrogen peroxide you can find in your medicine cabinet. The far more powerful stuff that you can only purchase in chemical supply stores. It is RARELY used by the general public, therefore it is also TRACKABLE, and could be subject to rational REGULATION. If, that is, you're someone who cares about PEOPLE, and not merely a corporate whore, out to protect the chemical companies. But George is a whore.
What COULD have been done? Well, two things. One, regulate pure hydrogen peroxide's use by mandating that distribution and sales records be kept by the chemical companies, so that unusual purchases would send up a red flag. Or, you could develop test kits for airline personnel to test the precise chemical nature of a particular liquid being brought on board. Something as simple as a chemical strip which could be inserted into a liquid which would register any excessive amounts of hydrogen peroxide. That way, passengers could still board with liquid items they need like contact solution, makeup, shampoo, toothpaste, etc., while still adding a layer of secondary security beyond the regulation of the chemical itself.
But why do any of that? Why inconvenience a chemical company or an airline company when you can instead inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers?
Terrorists want three things with their actions. To get attention, cause trouble, and if possible cause pain.
By being reactive to a threat underway, instead of being proactive and dealing with the public availability of these chemicals, you in essence give the terrorist exactly what he wants --- publicity, and trouble for the average person. And if, unlike this time, law enforcement DOESN'T happen to catch the plot underway, you very much increase the possibility that they are successful at their final goal --- inflicting actual pain.
All because big business Republicans refuse to hold corporations accountable for ANYTHING. Indeed, the only ones still living in a "pre-9/11 world", are the Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. In truth, they're still living in a "pre-1995 world."
Another oddity with regards to this case is that Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Agency, who claims to have assisted in thwarting this attack, said they found out about the plot following arrests of several men in Karachi and Lahore, who are said to be associated with the Kashmiri terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba.
The problem with this is, Lashkar-e-Toiba is run and funded by the Pakistani ISI itself.
Because most Americans haven't the faintest clue about the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir, even if they heard Pakistani officials say "these people were associated with Lashkar-e-Toiba", Pakistani Government claims wouldn't even register as suspicious. For those who are aware about events in Kashmir, the official Pakistani claims send up a red flag that makes one question their veracity.
In the light of other blunders with British Intelligence and Police (as well as American ones), closer public attention must be paid not just to terrorists, but apparently to the validity of official claims on the parts of police and intelligence forces who propose to protect us, but who sometimes seem more apt to protect their backsides.
Witness the case of Jean-Charles Menezes, a Brazilian man who was shot 7 times in the head after boarding the London tube, apparently solely for two reasons, he was brown, and simply lived on the same block as someone who was under surveillance for suspected terrorist activities. Police falsely claimed he ran from them, but security camera footage later revealed he'd walked at a normal pace to work, stopped to buy a newspaper, paid for his subway ticket, walked onto the train and calmly sat down, whereupon he was attacked by British officers and shot AFTER he'd been physically restrained. He had no terrorist ties.
And recently, while little reported within the United States, there was the Forest Gate incident in which 200 armed police wearing chemical and biological warfare suits raided a house in East London and shot the resident living there, ostensibly on terrorist suspicions. As with the young Brazilian man, it turned out that the person had no connection to terrorist organizations whatsoever. The "intelligence" that led MI5 to raid the house, originated with Mohammed Abu Bakr Mansha, a man with an IQ of 69.
And here in the U.S. we have the damn fool creation of the Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group (aka PPOG or P2OG), a clandestine military intelligence agency established by the Bush Administration following recommendations from the the US Defense Science Board (DSB) in 2002. In their 78-page briefing entitled "Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism", the role of the PPOG was to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," and, "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target.
In other words, not to calm things down, or discourage terrorist behavior, but rather to PROVOKE potential terrorists into violent action where U.S. citizens could potentially be killed.
We the general public are TRULY in a dangerous situation when we can neither trust the actions of people we KNOW to be insane, like an Osama Bin Laden, or the motivations and accuracy of our own government officials charged with protecting us, or even the mainstream corporate media that claims to give us the full story about both our supposed protectors, and our attackers.
From whom can we count on the truth?
Our idiot media is treating this as if it's something new, when in fact it should have been something we'd long ago prepared for. ESPECIALLY in a post-9/11 world.
This week's plot was in essence a copycat crime, mimicking the 1995 "Project Bojinka" plan to blow up 12 commercial jumbo jets simultaneously over the Pacific using similar liquid explosives. It was developed by Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was identified by US officials as a rising aide to Osama bin Laden.
It was foiled by proactive American intelligence during the Clinton Administration working in cooperation with Filipino authorities, who discovered the plans on a laptop while searching the Manila apartment of Ramzi Yousef, the man who organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The search was conducted two weeks before the scheduled attack dates, Jan. 21 and 22. Yousef would later be captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned by the Clinton Administration, and he remains in jail to this day.
To quote former CIA agent, Larry Johnson:
Binary explosives, and their ready availability, have been a fact since World War II. And we're supposed to believe that George Bush, Tony Blair, and Michael Chertoff have just awakened to this fact? At a minimum, this is a further indictment of the incompetence of Bush and his cronies. They have done NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to deal with this threat even though security professionals have known and fretted about this for years.... Instead of a common sense approach to security, the Brits have hit the panic button.
So this idea of liquid explosives was not new.
One therefore asks, here in America, what laws did the Republican Congress pass and submit to the Clinton Administration to sign in order to make certain that such an attack was not possible in the future?
Answer: none.
What did Clinton do, you may ask?
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tags to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
What has Bush done since 9/11 about this liquid chemical threat, you may ask? Nothing.
Oh, but that didn't stop him from claiming credit for stopping this latest plot, something I'm sure Scotland Yard, who actually IS responsible for this investigation and these arrests, appreciates after all their hard work.
What could George Bush have done, you may ask?
Agent Johnson also recommended that airlines not allow liquids weighing more than one pound on board a plane. Any amount under 8 ounces might cause injury within the cabin, and death to the person carrying the explosive, but would not be powerful enough to bring down the plane. Therefore, airlines could allow any bottles of liquid up to eight ounces, but in the security check, simply require passengers to drink a portion of the liquid to demonstrate it is not an explosive. He also recommends that "all carry on bags be hand searched, no exceptions, and that third party cargo be banned from passenger aircraft. The latter is the real gap in aviation security."
Something to be mindful of, is that the kind of explosives we're talking about here are made by combining two ingredients. An acetate like you'd find in fingernail polish remover, and hydrogen peroxide.
But NOT the kind of 3% hydrogen peroxide you can find in your medicine cabinet. The far more powerful stuff that you can only purchase in chemical supply stores. It is RARELY used by the general public, therefore it is also TRACKABLE, and could be subject to rational REGULATION. If, that is, you're someone who cares about PEOPLE, and not merely a corporate whore, out to protect the chemical companies. But George is a whore.
What COULD have been done? Well, two things. One, regulate pure hydrogen peroxide's use by mandating that distribution and sales records be kept by the chemical companies, so that unusual purchases would send up a red flag. Or, you could develop test kits for airline personnel to test the precise chemical nature of a particular liquid being brought on board. Something as simple as a chemical strip which could be inserted into a liquid which would register any excessive amounts of hydrogen peroxide. That way, passengers could still board with liquid items they need like contact solution, makeup, shampoo, toothpaste, etc., while still adding a layer of secondary security beyond the regulation of the chemical itself.
But why do any of that? Why inconvenience a chemical company or an airline company when you can instead inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers?
Terrorists want three things with their actions. To get attention, cause trouble, and if possible cause pain.
By being reactive to a threat underway, instead of being proactive and dealing with the public availability of these chemicals, you in essence give the terrorist exactly what he wants --- publicity, and trouble for the average person. And if, unlike this time, law enforcement DOESN'T happen to catch the plot underway, you very much increase the possibility that they are successful at their final goal --- inflicting actual pain.
All because big business Republicans refuse to hold corporations accountable for ANYTHING. Indeed, the only ones still living in a "pre-9/11 world", are the Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. In truth, they're still living in a "pre-1995 world."
Another oddity with regards to this case is that Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Agency, who claims to have assisted in thwarting this attack, said they found out about the plot following arrests of several men in Karachi and Lahore, who are said to be associated with the Kashmiri terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba.
The problem with this is, Lashkar-e-Toiba is run and funded by the Pakistani ISI itself.
Because most Americans haven't the faintest clue about the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir, even if they heard Pakistani officials say "these people were associated with Lashkar-e-Toiba", Pakistani Government claims wouldn't even register as suspicious. For those who are aware about events in Kashmir, the official Pakistani claims send up a red flag that makes one question their veracity.
In the light of other blunders with British Intelligence and Police (as well as American ones), closer public attention must be paid not just to terrorists, but apparently to the validity of official claims on the parts of police and intelligence forces who propose to protect us, but who sometimes seem more apt to protect their backsides.
Witness the case of Jean-Charles Menezes, a Brazilian man who was shot 7 times in the head after boarding the London tube, apparently solely for two reasons, he was brown, and simply lived on the same block as someone who was under surveillance for suspected terrorist activities. Police falsely claimed he ran from them, but security camera footage later revealed he'd walked at a normal pace to work, stopped to buy a newspaper, paid for his subway ticket, walked onto the train and calmly sat down, whereupon he was attacked by British officers and shot AFTER he'd been physically restrained. He had no terrorist ties.
And recently, while little reported within the United States, there was the Forest Gate incident in which 200 armed police wearing chemical and biological warfare suits raided a house in East London and shot the resident living there, ostensibly on terrorist suspicions. As with the young Brazilian man, it turned out that the person had no connection to terrorist organizations whatsoever. The "intelligence" that led MI5 to raid the house, originated with Mohammed Abu Bakr Mansha, a man with an IQ of 69.
And here in the U.S. we have the damn fool creation of the Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group (aka PPOG or P2OG), a clandestine military intelligence agency established by the Bush Administration following recommendations from the the US Defense Science Board (DSB) in 2002. In their 78-page briefing entitled "Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism", the role of the PPOG was to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," and, "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target.
In other words, not to calm things down, or discourage terrorist behavior, but rather to PROVOKE potential terrorists into violent action where U.S. citizens could potentially be killed.
We the general public are TRULY in a dangerous situation when we can neither trust the actions of people we KNOW to be insane, like an Osama Bin Laden, or the motivations and accuracy of our own government officials charged with protecting us, or even the mainstream corporate media that claims to give us the full story about both our supposed protectors, and our attackers.
From whom can we count on the truth?
posted by CTF Editor at
6:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home