From: "Andy" <as-AT-spelthorne.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:01:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Agro-terrorism text (fwd)



   rosaphil <rugosa-AT-interport.net>

> well, someone is making some success!
 

Thanks for this - it's kept me hugely amused. Is it serious?? 
Comments below...

Andy

 
> Contemporary history documents the US and the Saudi Arabian governments=92>  symbiotic reliance on each other to ensure the stability of the Saudi re> gime and the Gulf region in general. While the posting of US troops in Sa> udi Arabia was not the cause of the present hostility it could have been > the catalyst that generated the current Islamic terrorist conflict. There>  is no doubt that the US presence in this Islamic holy land has created a>  lot of antagonism with puritanical Islamist factions, who wish to establ> ish a true Islamic state according to Sharia law (God=92s law as disclose> d to the Prophet Mohammed in 610 AD). US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia>  are considered by the absolutist Islamic communities to be allies of the>  Saudi regime, thus enemies of the opposition  fundamentalists=92 cause, > and consequently the attestation of Western =91occupation=92 of their hol> y land. They are determined to see these infidels out of their holy land,>  one way or another. 

Glossing over the general despicableness of the Saudi Royal Family, 
and the need to keep the oil producing dependencies corrupt and 
pliable. I seem to remember that the communists sided with the 
fundamentalists in Iran, though they got stuffed later.


I'm just reading Chomsky's Necessary Illusions and this seems like a 
classic example of what he's talking about, in terms of media 
justifications of despicable US imperialism. Somehow though  I can't 
envisage the score-line: Bin Laden 666 USA 0

On the other hand Iran did beat your Soccer Team in the World Cup, 
which was quite funny.

> Earlier this year, reputedly in Khartoum, the Egyptian Al-Jihad Movement,>  the Egyptian Armed Islamic Group, the Al-Ansar Movement in Kashmir, the > Association of Pakistani Religious Scholars, the Jihad Movement in Bangla> desh, the Afghan military wing of the Advice and Reform Organization head> ed by Osama bin Laden, got together and united to form the Islamic Front.>  The chairman of this new league is none other than Osama bin Laden, and > such a union means better logistical strength and a better capacity to co> ordinate terrorist operations like the recent ones in East Africa. More s> ophisticated offensives are presumably in the offing.

Now, living in this part of London,  I know and work with  some 
Kashmiri separatists and lots of Islamic scholars, and they are a 
bloody sight more civilised than Xtian fundamentalists. I don't think 
they've got anything personal against the people of the  USA, but I 
think they have some justified grievances about USA Gov. Policy


> Many experts in biological and chemical weapons concede that there is rea> l justification for concern that terrorist groups could use these weapons>  of mass destruction in their future offensives. Such a prospect has rung>  counter-terrorism alarms in the intelligence community. The 1995 Tokyo n> erve gas attack that left 11 dead and 5000 injured could be a harbinger o> f what is to come. (In fact there was an even earlier incident of a bio-t> errorist attack, that was kept secret for a long time, which occurred in > 1984. Lunatic cult members put Salmonella into the salad of 10 restaurant> s in Oregon and over 750 people were taken ill.) Countries that are known>  to be presently active in making chemical and bio-weapons include Sudan,>  Libya, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Syria and Russia.

....I'm sure the UK, France and the USA have a few little test tubes 
knocking around. In fact the last case of smallpox in the UK was when 
some accidentally escaped from a lab in Birmingham.

This is great. It seems to me that all the examples cited above come 
from national using their weapons against fellow nationals, so blame 
the Moslems.......duh???

We British have also given the world BSE, but those darn Moslems 
won't eat the beef.



> Tactical nuclear weapons are a distinct threat that can not be neglected.>  They are portable and have less sophisticated safety features than the m> ore powerful Intercontinental Nuclear Ballistic  Missiles. According to a>  report from the French Defense Ministry, security is very lax in Russian>  nuclear facilities and they doubt Russia knows how many are about, are d> ismantled and where they are stockpiled.  The US Department of Energy has>  also found weapon-grade uranium inadequately secured. Alexander Lebed ha> s publicly warned that the Russian military had lost track of more than 1> 00 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be activated by one man and can > kill up to 100,000 people. There are several yet unsubstantiated reports > that some nuclear materials have already been smuggled out of Russia and > Chechnya, and even some tactical nuclear weapons might have fallen into t> he wrong hands.

I'm sorry, but what are we spending our taxes on if our armies are 
that worried about the nuclear threat from these sources.

> The modern Islamic terrorists, known as mujaheddin (fighter), are of many>  different nationalities and are chameleon-like, blending in with their s> urroundings. 

God preserve us, they'll be wearing shirts and suits soon.

>They have infinite patience and can strike when and where le> ast expected. They have no clearly defined agenda

This is bollocks. The agenda is pretty well defined.


> The chances are they will strike where we least expect it. After the Afri> can embassy bombings there are not going to be many US embassy =93soft ta> rgets=94 around, as embassies are on high alert and efforts are already u> nderway to up-grade security or evacuate sites that are particularly vuln> erable. The terrorists are probably now going to look for a new target, o> ne we don=92t expect, and they will most likely employ more sophisticated>  tactics than a car bomb. Arteries of traffic could be a possible target,>  major bridges, train and car tunnels in the US should be secured. Sport > stadiums also offer a tempting target. And if the enemy can not get close>  enough to their target with a car or truck bomb in the future, then a st> and-off weapon, such as a surface to surface missile, would achieve much > the same results. 

What is it with the US and bombs? In London, I've been through more 
bomb scares than I can count and been quite close to one that went 
off. 

> To make things more complex, today=92s terrorist has the convenience of b> eing able to operate in a multidimensional world, where conflict and peac> e blur together, international laws are frequently incompatible, divergen> t and often ambiguous; his battleground is oftentimes his refuge. Develop> ing an effective counterrorism operation in such a fluid field of battle > is not an easy proposition. Without good intelligence it is a hopeless ef> fort.


Again, this is useful - are budget cuts in the offing? With the 
demise of the so-called cold war, all these WASPish spooks need a job 
creation programme. It wouldn't surprise me if Bin Laden was a CIA 
operative.




> Intelligence has to be timely to be of much use. It is our front line of > defense, our early warning system. It is essential to preemptive action. > Today our threat analysis is in need of much improvement (as the Sudan ph> armaceutical strike might attest.) Getting more applicable, timely intell> igence will involve: 1. Improving the coordination of intelligence sharin> g with other countries. 2. Putting more men in the field to collect intel> ligence (HUMIT) to: a) monitor suspects; b) for covert actions against th> e enemy on their territory; c) for long-term psychological operations. 3.>  Simplifying, focusing and refining real-time analysis. 4. Ameliorating t> he monitoring of illegal substances purchased abroad that could be used i> n a terrorist attack. 5. Getting the information to the policy makers in > the most expedient manner possible. 
Do we ever get a cost-benefit analysis of this? It might be cheaper 
to allow Moslems to self-determine.....


> To achieve these security improvements budget priorities will have to be > shifted to the intelligence agencies; even though it might not seem polit> ically rewarding today, it will be in the future.



Surprise, surprise.


> The Clinton administration will buckle under a wave of public 
dissent>  over the killing of innocent people, and to avoid further American blood> shed, will halt further retaliation against the terrorists, choosing nego> tiation instead. Negotiations will lead to a further weakening of America> n leadership and will hinder its ability to safeguard the Middle East. Th> e terrorist expect this script and will do their best to provoke just suc> h a response. God help us if we fall into their trap!


'safeguard' the Middle East!!!! From its own inhabitants!!!!!!


> Peter B. Martin, August 1998
>as