Many people believe our water or our food will be the next target. On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Eric Vought <evou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Fred B. Ellison wrote: > > Advice from an Israeli Agent >> >> AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ !! >> > > Now, this, on the other hand, is a well-reasoned piece. It is not overly > reactionary, deals with the threat frankly, makes it clear that our current, > idiotic security policies and reliance on expensive techno-spy-gizmos do not > work. More comments interspersed where appropriate. > > >> [Background snipped] >> >> Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try >> and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down >> quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we >> have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that >> are truly effective. >> > > Definitely true. Why repeat something which worked before when you can > attack where no one is looking? > >> >> For example: >> >> 1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new >> explosives are made of plastic. >> > > It is fairly easy to conceal weapons made of glass or polymers as well, > but, be that as it may, our security at many airports will not even find > metal weapons consistently. I know of military folks who got a crew-served > machine gun past TSA among three people as a security test. Security audits > of airports consistently fail even when the local security people are > (illegally) tipped off about the audit in advance. Failures can be as high > as 50% even when TSA knows the exact day and location of the test. > > 2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. >> Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of >> idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids >> on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid >> explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all >> travelling naked! >> Every strategy we have is reactionary. >> > > I am expecting exactly this response. I think, however, it would be the > point where citizens finally refuse to comply or officials start losing jobs > as quickly as Senate Democrats. > > 3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. >> >> Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they >> will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people >> are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of >> explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to >> watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a >> drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In >> Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport. >> > > BINGO! Our airports are also not currently designed to move security to the > perimeter without creating new, exploitable choke points. The other > consequence of security-at-checkin is that private aircraft can be loaded > with explosives and/or hijacked. Given the number of small, local and > regional airports, however, we can only do so much at that level and the > charter/private air system represents a valuable check against TSA policy. I > know of a number of biotech companies who went to using private/charter > flights post-9/11 because it was cheaper then paying expert employees who > flew often (and had a high pay grade) to wait in line in security. Adding up > to several hours of wasted time on both ends per employee can get expensive > quickly. > > Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent >> and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where >> large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, >> big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also >> include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well >> as, rural America this time. The interlands ( Wyoming , Montana , etc.). >> > > Very likely. This has always been the major vulnerability. > > The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the >> country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, >> including rural areas. >> >> Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the >> larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can >> simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away. >> > > Right, but how do we secure parking lots and parking ramps? We certainly > cannot search every car and a Constitutional challenge would be proper if it > was attempted. Unfortunately we have become accustomed to our personal > automobiles in the US. Many cities are actively antagonistic to public > transportation to local malls and attractions (not wanting to attract > "undesirables": anyone who doesn't own and drive their own car obviously > fitting in that category). A greater reliance on public transport would > reduce the car traffic to vulnerable points. A man with a suitcase in a mall > is unusual. No one notices if the suitcase is in a trunk. > > Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence >> circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American >> citizens' with the facts. The world is quickly going to become 'a different >> place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will >> become totally irrelevant. >> > > Not all of the changes would be unwelcome. A revitalization of local > transport (e.g. trolley lines) in big cities would be a good thing and the > increased foot-traffic associated with a security mindset can revitalize > downtowns and main streets. I have seen it do wonders where it is attempted. > A reduction of mega-malls and more reliance on small, local markets would > both enhance security and rebuild strangling town economies. Greater citizen > situational awareness and basic emergency preparedness is also a good thing. > > The trick is to emphasize the changes that citizens will make in their own > interest rather than centralized, expensive, authoritarian solutions--- like > militarizing our cities--- which seldom work anyway. If malls start blowing > up, going to a corner farmers' market is a healthy solution, treating malls > like airports (and how do you deal with a sporting goods store IN the mall?) > is not. If cars start blowing up, encouraging public transport and foot > traffic is a healthy solution. Searching all cars at cross roads is not. > > If you do go down the militarization route, it always creates a caste > structure. Senators do not want have their cars searched at checkpoints and > neither do rich bankers. They quickly create exceptions to allow them to > breeze through while everyone else waits. This quickly breeds resentment, > makes government look illegitimate, and makes recruiting easier for the > terrorists and criminals opposing the government. > > On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned >> about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America >> will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a >> front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have >> an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their >> destiny'. >> > > I also agree with this, There are too many cheap ways to accomplish > destruction without resorting to nukes. Nukes are flashy but I do not see > them being used in the near future. If they are, it will likely be at > transportation hubs where they can be brought in via international shipments > and used to destroy harbors/rail centers. The cost of that to our > import-dependent society will be way out of line with the number of > casualties. > > He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America >> should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, >> instead, 'home-grown', having attended and been educated in our own >> schools and universities right here in the U.S. He says to look for >> 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . >> These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our >> language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we >> Americans won't know/understand a thing about them. >> > > True. And we have not made any effort to understand them. Profiling this > kind of student may be next to useless, however, since the number of > students who have reason to travel to these areas (as part of exchange > programs, religious/missionary excursions, humanitarian efforts, > archaeology, internships, etc.) is quite large. I mean, probably a third of > my graduating class would have been implicated by such a profile. The Middle > East is of very high economic importance right now and that makes it of > educational importance to many students. It is also the home of several of > the world's major religions. The real trick is to stop breeding extremists, > and that is a cultural problem. > > Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about >> the terrorist threats we will inevitably face. America still has only a >> handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, >> and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON. >> > > Agreed. And, in order to accomplish that, we need to not alienate the > Arabic and Farsi speaking, culturally or religiously Muslim Americans we > will need to help us train this new generation of intelligence gatherers. > The more we alienate the people who came here fleeing tyranny in their own > country and who truly believe in our ideals (more than many of us seem to), > the more blind and helpless we become. Trusting people is very risky, but it > is also the only way to go. > > So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence >> perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and >> technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland >> 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an >> infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust 'aware' >> citizens to help. We >> > > Amen to that. We have depended on expensive toys for too long. They have > not served us and we keep buying more. We need information, not just gobs of > contextless data we do not understand. Look at the MIAC report that everyone > got upset about here. It is not just the content which was inflammatory but > the total lack of quality in the information and production. There was no > attempt to identify sources for 'research', rate their reliability, or > identify their biases. There was no attempt to examine multiple facets of > groups or symbols. Not only was it insulting, it was insulting that our > taxes paid for it. > > need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. >> government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our >> government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll >> panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a >> deadly mistake. >> > > Indeed. The problem with top-down centralized emergency management is that > the centralized structure is a prime target for attack. Additionally, people > who were not trusted by the authority will not trust the authority. > Emergency management must be bottom-up with appropriate top-down > intelligence sharing. And bottom-up means it starts with us as individuals. > > Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by >> placing an empty briefcase in five well-travelled spots in five major >> cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to >> check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase! >> >> >> In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well >> 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by >> citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be >> quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. >> >> >> Unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for >> their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or >> for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, >> inevitably, the best first-line of defence against terrorism. >> >> >> Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in >> America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' >> without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had >> no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get >> there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!) >> > > This has been a problem at times even with major snowstorms, let alone > terrorist attacks. Yes, it needs to be considered. Every school should be > able to function as a disaster shelter and the older students should have > enough training to help out when necessary. > > He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon >> within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist >> emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand >> that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel >> . >> >> Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by >> phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a >> plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and >> follow. >> > > FRS/GMRS radios are a good option and that is what the band was essentially > created for. We are GMRS licensees. Radios are cheap. Automated relays > operate in some areas. CBs also work quite well and CBs in single-side-band > (SSB) mode can have considerable range. > > Coded-squelch systems used by most FRS/GMRS systems do not provide any > security, but they make it much easier to sort out other conversations or > interference during a chaotic situation. most CBs do not have such niceties. > > We also need to think more about ARES-operated (HAM Radio) relays that > people know to go to. For instance, there would be a station in Springfield > where people could go to have messages relayed to family members in nearby > towns or to/from major shelters. People out of contact with their families > tend to panic and do stupid things. > > But, yes, having some basic options agreed before-hand makes it unnecessary > to have to communicate and sort it out in the emergency. > > Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the >> event of another terrorist >> attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will >> immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used >> by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. >> >> How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot >> speak to each other? You need to have a plan. >> >> >> If you understand, and believe what you have just read, then you must >> feel compelled to send this to every concerned parent, guardian, >> grandparents, uncles, aunts, whomever. Don't stop there. In addition to >> sharing this via e-mail, contact and discuss this information with >> whomever it makes sense to. Make contingency plans with those you care >> about. Better that you have plans in place, and never have to use them, >> then to have no plans in place, and find you needed them. >> >> >> If you choose not to share this, or not to have a plan in place, and >> nothing ever occurs -- good for you! However, in the event something does >> happen, and even more so, if it directly affects your loved ones, then this >> e-mail will haunt you forever. >> >> >> >> >> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up >> now. = >> >> >> >> -- >> This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no >> responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. >> If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it >> or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, >> you will be here forever. >> > > Sincerely, > > Eric Vought > "Faith does not absolve us from trying to understand our world and make > moral distinctions with the eyes and brain given us. Religion is as much > responsibility as direction: Duty not Distinction." > > > -- > This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no > responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. > If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it > or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, > you will be here forever. > -- "no cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight for it" ~Will Turner~ ~Pirate's of the Caribbean @ World's End~ "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~Goethe www.moliberty.org http://417-political-pundit.blogspot.com The power to tax involves the power to destroy. ~Justice John Marshall~ Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.) A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. ~Justice John Marshall~ -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
