It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can terrorists operate independently?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Check out these links, i'm starting to think Dubya knows what he's doing.

www.defenddemocracy.org...


The claim that Iraq is a theater in the global war on terrorism is supported by the emerging science of mapping social networks, including terrorist organizations. The Belmont Club, which is rapidly becoming my favorite blog dealing with the terror war, posted a discussion on September 23 showing why eliminating state sponsorship of terrorist groups is critically important. "Because security comes at a price in performance and flexibility...you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor."


belmontclub.blogspot.com...
(the link above is quite long, the relevant piece is about 1/4 of the way down under the title 'Dark Networks')


Looks like invading Iraq might have helped the war on terror after all. All we need to do now is to get Iran and syria to stop their funding of the terrorists
(threats, regime change, revolution, diplomacy?)

So what does everyone think, is there anything in this social network stuff, will regime change etc work or can the terrorists operate independently?



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Looks like invading Iraq might have helped the war on terror after all. All we need to do now is to get Iran and syria to stop their funding of the terrorists
(threats, regime change, revolution, diplomacy?)

So what does everyone think, is there anything in this social network stuff, will regime change etc work or can the terrorists operate independently?


Without an organization you will have a collapse of the system. All cells must be organized according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: All non-managed or random systems always pass to a state of greater disorder. It's how any economy works how any structure works.

If you had a lone individual out there what would be his motivation? What would be his funding, his supply, his target? The Iraqi leadership was actually curbing terrorism not aiding it. By suppressing extreme muslims in Iraq and I do not mean by torture, the Iraqis were keeping the masses at bay and is why they did not suffer car bombings and the like due to the fact Sadaam would kill anyone rearing up 'groups,' or activists.

The think tanks responsible for conjuring up the fantasy of destabilizing the middle east and fighting a war of terror on someone elses soil was nothing but a theory or the 'just do something' philosophy.

There are roughly 24,000,000 people in Iraq who are 97% MUSLIM, 3% christian or other cultural religions. Iraq's two largest ethnic groups are Arabs and Kurds. So here you have it a culture based on the teachings of Mohammed - Islam. Who is the center of Islam? Mecca and Medina where all commands flow.

Mecca in Saudi Arabia is home to Kaaba the central shrine of Islam where all muslims on the planet pray towrds. If you live in the west you pray towards the shrine, if you live in the east you pray towards the shrine - 5 times a day.

It is the culture in general that is not only manipulated for the purposes of evil men and men who seek revenge, but this very culture rewards those who martyr themselves for the cause of Islam. Palestinians are paid sums of money from $5,000 and up for the martyr of themselves against Israeli IDF soldiers. There will always be mercenaries, business directives, and a host of leeches who will utilize the martyr to express their will or take advantage of the purpose of Islam to their own diabolical ends as we did in Afghanistan against the Russians.

The culture has been the same since 6th century C.E. The goal: convert the unbelievers and if they do not convert use the sword to kill them. So there will never be an Islam without extreme muslims. When people say extreme that is the politically correct way of saying terrorist muslim, or muslim who blows himself and others into oblivion.

Every year muslims make the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca to the shrine from all over the globe. The Hajj is one of the duties of Islamic faith, requiring all Muslims to make the journey to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

There are over one billion muslims in the world.

So back to Iraq we have a country that is 97% muslim who believe the principles of Islam and will fight to the death to enforce these principles. The question begs how can a democratic society survive in a 97% muslim society? It cannot - the muslims will see to that if it takes them a thousand generations.

Terrorists, or extreme muslims, will never be without logistics, huge funding, human and technical support, armamenta and above all a system of recruiting and employment benefits to support the cause.

Moreover, terrorist cells will always be supported from Mecca and abroad as this is the cornerstone of fundamental thinking - the troops on the front line. Young muslims will always respect the jihadists and their tales of whooping arse for the cause.

To 'misunderestimate,' as President Bush has said, the terrorists would be foolish. We have not only underestimated them but have freed an opressed muslim society who now has in it's possession the richest country of the world buying it's huge surplus of oil and goods to fund their cause - the cause of Islam.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I agree with some of the points you make but am a little confused by your assertion that a society that is 97% muslim cannot operate as a democracy. Indonesia has a population which is 88% muslim and operates OK as a democracy.

As for the social networks and the war on terror, it seems to me that the governments are focusing on state sponsored terrorism rather than hunting down individual terrorist groups, which is what the social networks theory recommends. This will limit the size and organisation of the terrorist organisations, taking them one step up the entropic ladder and while they will still be able to carry out attacks, the attacks will be of a lesser magnitude than would otherwise be possible.

As for Iraq, I believe that the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq were contributory factors in the decision by Col. Qadafi to give up his WMD and end libyan state sponsored terrorism. Pakistan may also be considered a case in point with the Afghan invasion (although there are rumours the Pakistan security agencies still aid the terrorists). I believe the war in Iraq may also help to nudge Syria onto the same path:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Quote: 'Riad Daoudi, an adviser to the foreign ministry, says: "We are under pressure. We are worried.

"We are worried, but we are trying to do our best. We are always willing to discuss the US concerns and Syria is ready to go half-way." '

If Syria does stop sponsoring terrorists (or at least partially), the middle east will become a much safer place and will serve to isolate Iran. I'm actually quite optimistic about this, if i had 200,000 troops in my backyard telling me to choose between the terrorists and the fate of Saddam, i know which i would choose.

(p.s. sorry for the late reply but we had a power cut literally 5 seconds after i posted the topic
)



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Looks like invading Iraq might have helped the war on terror after all. All we need to do now is .....


All you need to do know is realize that you cannot fight ' a war on terror'. Are you going to make sure that nobody is ever terrified ever again? It's an abstract fooking noun.

George Bush Doesn't "know what he is doing" as you said. Think hard. Will invading middle eastern countries improve the hatred from the Islamic world which leads to terror? No. They have motives for Gods sake, this war is bullshoes.


edit: profanity *sorry folks*

[edit on 13/10/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   
vincere7:
The culture has been the same since 6th century C.E. The goal: convert the unbelievers and if they do not convert use the sword to kill them. So there will never be an Islam without extreme muslims. When people say extreme that is the politically correct way of saying terrorist muslim, or muslim who blows himself and others into oblivion.

What was the culture like before 6thC? Did they just knock on doors wanting to have a chat with people?
And then to conclude that therefore no more change is possible in their culture and always harbour fundamentalists is fallacy, it does not follow neccessarily from the one and only premise (you should really have two premises, bit of a hint there).



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
can they operate alone? yes. can they do much damage? not likely.

just look at the domestic fanatical environmental terrorists we have here in the US. they operate either alone or in very small groups of 2-3. they are only slightly destructive, but their destruction is expensive. so far, they have been extremely lucky to have not killed anyone, unless a few pending investigations can prove they did.

they get their format directly from the stories of the mujahedin. they idolize these guys. if they can operate alone, so can other terrorists. of course, it will be harder to get weapons and it will take longer to set up the events, but then you also have to consider- Ted Kczinski.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Can terrorist operate independently?

Yes. They have and still do.




seekerof



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
So can the anti-terrorist...

With out a doubt people, any one can function in a terror based capacity. On the other hand the same can be said about defending our selves from them, it is everyones responcibilty. Placing the blame on a lame government is no excuse.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
All you need to do know is realize that you cannot fight ' a war on terror'. Are you going to make sure that nobody is ever terrified ever again? It's an abstract fooking noun.


I believe everyone that knows what the "War on Terror" is, knows what it means.

"War on Terror" does not mean stopping a midnight stalker in Central Park!


The Liberals will twist and pervert everything they can put their hands on and make it sound utterly ridiculous.


[edit on 13/10/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Yeh but the point is that this is a unwinnable war and the people who are putting it into motion have other ideas about what the want to do with this "war on terror" . These things have to do with dominance, supremecy, oil, and power. Not terror. To get the people to go along with morally questionable plans, first you have to get em' scared. TERROR! ARRH


The Liberals will twist and pervert everything they can put their hands on and make it sound utterly ridiculous.


I aint' no Liberal, but the things these guys are saying is s c a r y ( which is a bit better than ridiculous)

What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

just a few bits a bobs. . . . . .

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception".


Have a read.
America's Bid For Global Dominance



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This 'Rebuilding Americas defenses' is one of the things that got me looking into this. I'd heard a lot about it but a couple of nights ago I actually read the whole thing and it was a bit of a surprise. I was expecting some grand war plan to subjugate the peoples of the world but what I found was a strategic defense review detailing some ways to modernise the American armed forces and the best ways to deploy them in the future.

Sure, there's some stuff in there about forward operating bases in the middle east, but haven't the US had these kinds of bases for years? I don't think it's a plan to take over the world, at the worst, it advocates using US forces to ensure a stable oil supply (for the world, not just the US). The link to the full document is here:

www.newamericancentury.org...

It's a bit long but it's worth a read.

As for the war on terror, should we call it 'The ongoing battle of wills/military superiority with malevolent forces who seek to subvert our way of life through violence and intimidation'? The war on terror is a bit more catchy.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Here is something you probably didn't know Chris. William Kristol the director of the New American Century is the son of Senator Kristol. He is also the editor of the weekly standard, the 'white house paper.'

Thomas Donnely, the author of the New American Century was an editor who had never served in the military but was fascinated with war campaigns as he wrote a novel about panama which is taught in the war college. He was an editor for Army times.

This neo conservative document was pushed on Bush by Wolfowitz. Bush rejected it until after 911. Then whole heartedly accepted the documentation as it was part of sufficient evidence for offense. That's how the white house works through agendas brought to the table by think tanks and thats how men grab power in the white house - through the think tank.

Once the document was accepted guess who got funding? Kristol received about $3,000,000.00 and of course status. What did Tom Donnelly get? This will blow your mind.

They made him a director at Lockheed Martin the most advanced military aircraft maker on the planet. From editor to Director of Lockheed Martin. You might ask yourself what the hell does Donnelly know about jets? Give a dog a bone.

The new American century is a civilian philosophy of how our armed forces SHOULD operate and at what capacity. However the document does not tell the deed. It is the harebrained theories of guys like Kristol who influence the Bush administration on forms of engagement and is why the CT experts were ignored. I do not believe the Iraq agenda was Bush's, I believe he was sold on it by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Thanks for that, vincere7, i wasn't aware of any of that, i guess you just have to read between the lines sometimes.




top topics



 
0

log in

join