Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Counter Terrorism - A Disaster

Counter Terrorism – A Disaster

By Dale Dunham

The critical first three steps in countering terrorism are: 1) identify the enemy, 2) recognize and acknowledge the true nature of the threat, and 3) determine what you must do to keep that threat from killing you.

“Terrorism” is a relatively new term. It has come to occupy a predominant position in the language of our disaster preparedness planners as a result of the increase in terrorist killings over the past decade. The most dramatic example is the year 2001 murder of thousands of innocent people in New York and ensuing damage to the U.S. economy. Worldwide, however, terrorist activity has been going on long before the events of 9/11. Since the 7th Century, history is replete with the unwavering, single-minded terrorism of radical Islam: you are one of us, or you are enslaved or dead.

More recently there has been a significant increase in the number and magnitude of terrorist attacks. Most disturbing has been a far greater use of suicide bombers to achieve terrorist objectives.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The terrorists have potential access to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which include nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. If their lives mean nothing to them, ours certainly mean even less. The mass taking of millions of lives, rather than just thousands, becomes simply a matter of numbers.

There is every reason to believe that the United States has so far been spared more attacks only because we are a difficult target. There is no reason to believe that this will continue to be the case.

The greatest disaster threatening America today is the lack of recognition of --and determination to defeat-- the threat to our way of life posed by radical Islam. We on the coastside are in many ways isolated from the mainstream of ideological conflict. There is a focus on local issues and natural disasters to the substantial exclusion of this far greater threat. To remain in denial is to move closer to the same psychological frame of mind as the suicide bomber… suicidal.

We have not taken the critical steps necessary to identify this real and insidious terrorist threat, in part because the main stream media has essentially ignored anything short of an explosion in the editorial room. There seems to be no National will to counter the most serious impending disaster of our time.

There is endless comment on the subject, but the attached, highly abbreviated excerpts provide some insight into the nature of the threat. The full article is available on www.PierreRehov.com.

In an MSNBC interview Pierre Rehov, a French film maker, stated that, “in his undercover interviews, victims of suicide bombers had observed that the bombers were all smiles one second before they blew themselves up.” His further interviews with those who would be a Shaheed (suicide bomber), and their families, led him to believe that this phenomenon “arises from a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of God; and that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization…Extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam, and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists…every victory by Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists and there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.”

The photo of radical Muslims marching through the streets of London during a recent “Religion of Peace” demonstration seem to support Rehov’s observations.

We are already well past the time to take the first two steps to counter Islamic terrorism…the face of the enemy seems obvious. It’s time to openly oppose and confront those who advocate the total destruction of America and our enslavement to a fascist ideology – one based on fear and unquestioning obedience to the irrational dictates of a few radical religious zealots.

The coastside is not a sanctuary!


Big words Dale!

But if you take the big picture view (and study history), you find that Islam is going through a phase that Christians past in the XVII century, the age of the 100 year war and the 30 year war, not to mention the Inquisition. In those times a combatant Catholic Church extended claims for all kinds of peoples and did not shrink back from using terror at home and overseas. Untold millions died.

Why am I mentioning this? Simply, because Islam is going through a similar phase, somewhat belatedly (the Christian wars were triggered by Guttenberg's invention and the following "first information revolution". The Arab word's late entry into the Info Age triggered the current tectonic shift).

While this explains what is going on, obviously it offers little immediate relief. However, taking the long view will make us understand the reasons and temper our reaction. Amen.

I deplore terrorist as much as anyone. Period.

But if you want to fight them, you need to know where are they coming from.

Nothing nurturing there buddy. I hope I made myself clear.

Small problem in comparison to say, well . . . everything else in life.


Thanks for stepping up to the plate on a topic people talk around but do not usually fully consider. I might also add a fourth step, and that is to seriously consider recent tech advances that are readily exploited by this current wave of radical islamic terrorists. Consider the Mumbai hotel bombings in Nov 2008, conducted by a well trained group of 10 that used gps, google earth for rehearsals, continuous communication with their Lashkar e Taiba handlers in Pakistan. Those attacks used technology much more advanced than the Indian police and killed 173 and seriously wounded 308. It is further telling that Pakistan has done little, other than "house arrest", for the leaders of these attacks.

Boring fear-mongering. There are dozens of much greater and more intractable threats to our lives, as measured by what is actually harming and killing people.

Essentially, international terrorism is best and most effectively handled as a criminal matter.

We agree with np, terrorism is a criminal matter. Notwithstanding our courts do not yet know how to deal with terrorists in custody. We decline to either confirm or deny that we are doing anything about this matter. You may have nothing to fear. We will get back to you. Do not call us. Be advised that an informed victim, or any future victim, has a better chance at survival.

Well, I see my comments were pulled. Why? I don't know.

Was I critical of Lady D's view? Yes. Did I support why? Yes.

Not worth another try.

Nothing wrong with critical views, as long as they are made with civility (a strange concept to many around here)...

You're pushing it, Lady D. I was civil.

Your version of terrorism's history has no relevance at all to the very real world issues we have faced for decades and continue to face for the foreseeable future. The idea that these whackos are somehow victims is a crock. Your thoughts that they are just a bit out of the time loop does little to console the daily tragedies the Muslim radicals purport daily around the world.

We've been very fortunate in America, so far. It won't last, and I would not hesitate to take whatever measures I deemed necessary to protect my interests, or maybe even yours under the right circumstances, to eliminate a threat from the radicals you seem to sympathize with.

The idea that we offer tolerance until your clock lines up is as radical in thought as their activities are in reality. I have zero tolerance for them, their ideals and their sympathizers.

"..temper our reaction"? You go ahead and do that, but there is nowhere on God's green Earth you or anyone else could hide if you or anyone else inflicted the terrorist activities we see daily on anyone in my family.

I will never forget 9/11. It was a wakeup call to all and anyone that tries to minimize that day, as you appear to do, has very deep and serious issues.

I think I can simplify this for you readers. The suicide bombers involved in 911 died, case over. The Mumbai suicide guys are dead (except one), case over. If you want to be simple, see how easy life can be.

The crusades are a bit more complicated, too complicated for me to draw analogs. Even if recent Islamic attacks are similar to the crusades and we are just in another cycle we certainly still need to think where this is going. The indoctrination and training for Islamic suicide squads is also very complicated but it would appear we may need to consider who is behind the funding and brain washing of these squads that have been steadily continuing and morphing since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, 28 years ago (Was not al qaeda's #2 also involved in that effort - Ayman al-Zawahiri ) Web Link

Really, why do you have to always take the low road? Really.

My view has nothing to do with condoning any act of terror - get it?

My views is this: those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Simple concept - I hope this will not confuse you unduly.

Fight terror, but fight it not blindly - understand the hows and whys.

Get a grip Lady D. If you don't, people might think you're just trolling for someone to argue with, like we've seen you do on other threads here on TA.

You seem to have a problem with me, where I, on the other hand, have a problem with your comments and 'logic'. I address your comments. You address me.

There is a difference. Try to get up to speed and stay on topic, please.



Lady D--

I think you need to read and understand Dale's first comments

"The critical first three steps in countering terrorism are: 1) identify the enemy, 2) recognize and acknowledge the true nature of the threat, and 3) determine what you must do to keep that threat from killing you."

I see no undue alarm or panic in these comments. Simple and clear steps we need to consider for our own protection. If you see this as panic, you need to explain from whence your panic emerges.

Islam is clearly on the offensive these past 3-4 decades, do you not agree? If not, please provide examples where the Islamists have been on the defensive.

"Islam is clearly on the offensive these past 3-4 decades, do you not agree?"

Of course not. Small numbers of extremists who are unable to institute what they want even in most predominantly Muslim countries do not constitute the mainstream of the religion. Go after the criminals for what they are and stop spinning the relatively small threat into global war. Humanity has many much bigger problems to deal with, including the aggression sponsored by multinational corporations through their paid lackeys in government worldwide. Terrortists would have to go on a worldwide killing spree for a century to equal the death toll due to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for the benefit of the petrocracy.

They need more Target Stores in Bahrain.

Of course, NP, it is always the fault of the evil empire, the U.S. Ho-hum...so what else is new with you? Are you being fitted for an explosive belt? Are you planning some big attack or are you just going to kill us with boredom over reading your same old stories? SO predictable.

OK, that's the last tit-for-tat. Knock it off.

"2) recognize and acknowledge the true nature of the threat"

Of the three, this is most relative. Too many on the left are unable to recognize what the real threat is.

Nipper is one of those."Terrortists would have to go on a worldwide killing spree for a century to equal the death toll due to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for the benefit of the petrocracy." They are on a worldwide killing spree...or had you not noticed?

Heck, Clay, you know that the Nipper and I have so much fun messing around like that; it keeps our minds active and prevents Alzheimer's Disease.

Civilian casualties as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq are in the hundreds of thousands. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are in the tens fo thousands, with much of it resulting from US actions.

So, Casual Observer, you are saying that terrorists have killed hundreds of thousands?

"Rubber..." - could you give us an accurate figure of how many Iraqis were murdered under Saddam....on purpose, not as collateral damage?

As if that makes our murders less reprehensible?

And tell me, wemoan, who propped up Saddam for all those years?

To kill someone on purpose is a more serious moral problem since it involves intent...witness the difference under our law between first degree murder and man slaughter. The Iraqi civilians were not our target, it was unintentional collateral damage.

We sided with Saddam for expediency - he was fighting Iran who was a sworn enemy. You know the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Saddam was a monster, just the same, pretty much like many of the leaders in that part of the world.

I don't think that our soldiers would agree that those who they kill are murdered. Notwithstanding that foolish statement, I believe that, given the opportunity and capabilities, terrorists WOULD have killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) by now. Again...putting your head in the sand (ironic, huh?) does not allow you to "identify and recognize" the threat. That's okay. My son will help to defend and protect your ability to be naive.

Dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on women and children is murder. Regardless of intent.

It is normal to be proud of your children, but don't act as if you're the only one with family serving in the military.

"dropping bombs from 30,000 feet is murder." Would you care to restate that? Clarify maybe?

Seems crystal clear to me.

Wow. So those who pilot the bombers are murderers, as well as those that order the mission? In a time of war?

***Dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on women and children is murder.***

As horrific as it might be, it prevented all of Europe and the America's from 'turning Japanese' a few years back

When a war is based on lies, then those responsible for the murders are those that make the decision to invade. I hold those responsible for such decisions as murderers, but don't hold soldiers responsible, who have no choice but to carry out their orders. I also think that we rely too heavily on air power in places like Afghanistan, where "collateral damage" is all too prevalent and counter productive to our effort of winning hearts and minds.

WWII isn't even in the same category of conflict as our current occupations.

You said otherwise in your initial post. You have, by inference, called all involved in the decision and execution of bombings murderers. I will not waste my time going over the all of the UN resolutions, congressional, and administrative arguments for going to war, but we did. By accusing them of murder is not only outrageous, it is obnoxious. Remember, some of those that made the decisions did so while representing you...they were elected representatives, and whether you voted for them or not, they were representing you. Ergo?

You can read whatever you like into my words, but the fact remains that there was no justification for the war in Iraq.

This thread by Dale was followed up with another thread by Dale (Part 2).

Here's the link: Web Link

Now the picture is complete. Great work.

Hey RMtR:

"You can read whatever you like into my words"

Nice try.

YOU SAID: "Dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on women and children is murder. Regardless of intent."

YO RUBBER SAID: "Would you care to restate that? Clarify maybe?"

YOU SAID: "Seems crystal clear to me."

Point and match go to YO RUBBER.


Yes, it is murder, but that doesn't make the airmen who drop the bombs at fault. Fault lies squarely at the feet of the decision makers that give the orders. And yes, regardless of whether or not Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice meant to kill innocents, they did kill them in massive numbers.

This isn't about winning a pissing contest on TA, it's about trying to make sure we don't wage needless wars in the future and kill people for no reason. Our own troops are included in that as well.


As usual, the simple truths of those like Rubber Meets the Road are incomprehensible to the gullible true believers who peck away at the author's intent without being able to refute the facts.

As for the facts, where are the facts on international terrorism that require more than a coordinated international police effort against the criminals? What terrorist efforts required wars? How many are being harmed by terrorism--even including U.S.-sponsored and -conducted terrorism in the total? Where is the worldwide killing spree some believe the terrorists are conducting, the spree that would add up to the death totals of innocents in wars started for the benefit of the international plutocracy? What benefit has accrued from starting wars against parties and countries not responsible for terrorism on behalf of the petrocracy branch of the plutocracy?

Aw hell, now where'd I put that dictionary?

"Yes, it is murder, but that doesn't make the airmen who drop the bombs at fault. Fault lies squarely at the feet of the decision makers that give the orders. And yes, regardless of whether or not Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice meant to kill innocents, they did kill them in massive numbers."

Okay. So, you're saying that of the 483 U.S. military fatalies in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of 2009, ALL were murdered by Obama/Biden and crew.


"fatalies" s/b "fatalities"

Well, Obama didn't make the decision to invade Iraq, did he? He is trying to draw down troops in Iraq for an eventual withdrawl, isn't he? So he is doing the best he can on that front, though I wish it were happening much, much quicker.

As far as Afghanistan goes, he is going to be responsible for the deaths of US soldiers and the massive amounts of civilian casualties in Afghanistan from the troop build-up that he has decided on. He is also responsible for the deaths of the many civilians killed in the increased Pakistani drone attacks. The build-up is a huge mistake. I hold him responsible for that decision and don't support it. Recent report I read somewhere showed that 40% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by occupation forces. Those murders are on Obama's hands.

"Aw hell, now where'd I put that dictionary?"

Perhaps in your Barbie doll collection or in your school lunch box with the drawing of the superhero on the lid?

As I recall.

The UN had 14 resolutions to stop Saddam.

As I recall.

All of the US Congress and Senators other than Barbara Lee and 1-2 others supported the resolution to invade Iraq. I repeat, all demos and repubs supported the resolution to go into IRAQ.

As I recall.

Colin Powell said "If you break it, You buy it"

Obama did NOT vote to invade IRAQ-----Obama voted PRESENT--

Revisionist History is all the rage. That does not make it right.

"Notwithstanding our courts do not yet know how to deal with terrorists in custody."

Heck, due to the helter-skelter way they picked people up, they can't even tell for sure which ones are terrorists and which aren't. That's why they had to hold them without charges. Now they are releasing some of the ones they can't be sure about and others for whom they can't come up with sufficient charges that will stick. Are some of these terrorists? Maybe. Will some of the released detainees who were not terrorists before become terrorists now? Maybe, if they have nothing left to lose and are pissed off about years of their lives being taken away for nothing.


What are you smokin'?


Where have you been--in a coma? Or solitary confinement?


Do not get into a truck with Scott Brown.

Don't worry, I never take a ride with someone who has more than one face.

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium