Sunday, August 19, 2007

Terrorist Strike Within U.S.

Terrorist Strike Within U.S., A Very Real Threat

Americans should expect a terrorists strike on American soil, possibly with a weapon of mass destruction within the next 10 months.

By de Andréa

This belief, is the combined consensus of the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and independent Intelligence agencies such as North East Intelligence Network

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey says that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. "I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. “A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons is a real possibility.”

Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said in early May that, although unlikely in the near future, al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. A dirty bomb (meaning a conventional bomb containing nuclear material creating radioactive fallout or containing bio material) however is not out of the sphere of possibility.

Terrorists Plotting Now
While Woolsey doubted terrorists would soon be able to acquire a fissionable nuclear explosive device, he warned that terrorists were trying to acquire one, either on the black market from the former Soviet Union, or from North Korea.

The former CIA director said he favored "really tough sanctions" on Iran for another few months, but if that failed to bring Iran's nuclear weapons program to a halt, the United States had no other choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.

He also blasted those in the State Department who believe we can convince the Iranians through negotiations to stop their nuclear programs. "I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that," he said.

When asked what three things we need to do to make America safer, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection. Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.

More Pressure on Iran
Next, he said the United States absolutely must step up pressure on Iran, by focusing on Iran's weak economic underbelly and the wellspring of popular discontent with the regime. In the longer term, Woolsey said it was essentially that the U.S. beef up its military forces and to prepare Americans psychologically and politically for a long war with radical Islamic terrorists, I think this is going to be a long war, and we need to treat it as such, and go on a full war-footing,"

I couldn’t agree more about a full war footing. If one knows their war history one will know that the U.S. has not really won a war since WWII. One of the obvious reasons is that all were undeclared wars. A full war footing to me means a full congressionally declared war, just as the Second World War. This would open up a whole new avenue of Presidential powers that could take the wind out of the sails of Islam and finally put the fear of God into these demonically possessed maniacs.

The countries of Islam import about 40 percent of refined oil products, such as gasoline and diesel. Beginning right now, we need to work with those countries that sell these refined oil products to them, and figure out how to get those stopped. I don’t believe that sanctions by themselves will work, but it will put their economy in a downward spiral.

We also need to broadcast into Iran, and all Middle Eastern countries, in the fashion we used to do on Radio Free Europe during the Cold War into Eastern Europe.
So I would still like to see us try that not half-heartedly but vigorously, and not be deterred at all by the threats and the other steps that they will take.

One must understand that the Persians invented chess, and they are good at it. Their most valuable piece, their "queen" really, is their nuclear weapons program. Syria rises to the level of a rook, since that's a government. Hamas, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah, they're all pawns.

Whether it is the war with Israel or the U.S., they move their subordinate pieces around in such a way as to protect their queen. Once they have a nuclear weapon, the world changes in many extraordinarily and unpleasant ways.

So I believe that for a short time, four to five months, or a year, but it's surely not much longer than that; we can still try tough sanctions, and all the other steps; the right kind of broadcasting, and all the rest. If that doesn't work, then we're in a situation where we have no choice but to take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Military force should always be the last resort but the alternative is unthinkable. We just cannot allow a country like Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Talking to one adversary is usually a good first step, but in the case of Islam, one would want to do it when one has an edge or a threat over them, not when they have an edge over you.

It might have been different right after Baghdad fell, when clearly they were very worried. But I am not confidant that we're not going to have any positive effect from negotiations at this time. What I am saying is, if you're going to negotiate with an adversary, the time to do it is when they are feeling weak and you have just demonstrated your strength.

If our Administration is about to bomb Iran, one will know because of the sudden pullout of our ships in the gulf just prior to an attack. This is because it's a constrained sea, moreover, they have lots of small boats that could be used to attack, and they have cruise missiles with a range to potentially be effective against U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, whereas the open ocean, the blue ocean… is our turf.. That's where we're at home and where we want to be. Our carrier aircraft have the range along with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s to reach targets in Iran even if they're operating from the open ocean as well as from the Gulf.

Their threats of destroying Israel, if they can, are as real as "Mein-Kampf.” Their potential to unleash Hezbollah, which is the world's most professional terrorist organization, much more capable really than al-Qaida or others, could conceivably do a lot of damage in the U.S. as well as various places abroad, including Iraq.

This is certainly not something that should deter us if we have to take action to deter them from potentially having a nuclear weapon.

The director of national Intelligence, Adm. McConnell, FBI Director Mueller, and the president have all warned us that the terrorists want to strike us again here at home.

I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real. It's what Chertoff said about his gut feeling. A lot of people made fun of that, but I think that was a senior government official trying to communicate something without saying here's my evidence, because if he says that, he might have blown the source or method of intelligence.

Various things that he and McConnell and Mueller and others have been saying all suggest that there's a real possibility of something happening and possibly something very bad, late this summer or this fall.

Unless al-Qaida or the Iranians have been able to obtain a loose old Soviet nuke, it's unlikely it would be a nuclear detonation. It might be possible they could get hold of other nuclear material, like cesium or strontium, which is much easier to get hold of, and have something like a dirty bomb. And certainly biological material, like anthrax, is much easier to produce and get hold of than fissionable material.

Moreover, we don't know what the North Koreans might be willing to sell to Iran. They have essentially a joint ballistic missile development program; the Shahab and the Taepo Doing/No Dong is essentially the same missile, certainly with the same ranges.

North Korea has several bombs worth of plutonium, but plutonium bombs are harder to construct than simple highly-enriched uranium bombs. I believe that it's possible that the North Koreans had a HEU program, and at one point they seemed to admit it. But I don't know of any estimates of what they have or what they had.

Certainly, the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small. But they had ADM’s that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.

The thing that we can do in the short order that is most important and that is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want see us shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.

The second thing is the steps I mentioned earlier about Iran, from broadcasting to cutting off their imports of gasoline and diesel and all the other financial and economic steps. Further down the line, I think we need a substantial increase in our military forces, in our overall national stance of going on a war-footing, we need to actually get serious and officially declare war on Islam. That alone would contribute to their respect for us. The mindset that this is just a law enforcement matter is just pure ignorance of the Muslim agenda.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I believe this is going to be a long war; the last big war against Islam took 200 years. We need to treat this as a real war; and go on a full war-footing, declaring war and making it easy for John Doe’s to give alerts when they see the flying imams doing their thing. We also need to support profiling especially when it comes to Middle Easterners, (“sometimes, if it looks like a duck it may just be a duck). We need to work closely with allies in the Middle East, I think particularly with Israel. “Appeasers are playing a dangerous game. For, as history has repeatedly proven, weakness in the face of aggression only leads to further bloodshed”, Says Cinnamon Stillwell a San Francisco writer.

Middle Easterners in particular if not people from all Muslims countries, should not be allowed to immigrate or receive any kind of entrance into this country especially while we are at war with them. This should be a no-brainer, but because of political correctness, we may be incrementally cutting our own throats.

de Andréa

No comments: