Lone Wolf attack thwarted in NYC
An unspecified individual and threat was arrested earlier today in NYC after they were reportedly planning a lone wolf attack on armed service members returning home from deployment.
This is a just breaking story,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1104195.html
Looks like the most incompetent and closely surveilled "lone moron" yet.
The Jihadi cause in the US seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To an outsider like me, it does look like the threat from a real organization with state patronage may be the only serious threat. Everything else is just police work and dumb luck (or lack of it). Organizations that used to have state patronage may still have some serious capabilities, but without a sanctuary, a serious well planned attack seems hard to imagine.
And before anyone jumps on me, let me note that I think 9-11 plotters did indeed have a sanctuary and did have training and support from more than one state (including, for some of their helpers, from the US in the 1980s). No self-started group of wannabe jihadis could have done it then and none can do it now.
Of course, there may be a whole secret world of plotters out there about whom I am clueless. But from reading the news, doesnt this look like a fair summary?
I agree there are a lot of incompetent want to bes out there, especially the self actualized the ones who are limited to training via the internet. However, I disagree that without State support we don't have to worry about a serious terrorist attack. Of course depending on your view of serious. I would consider Tim McVeigh's (sp?) attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma a serious attack without a State sponsor. There are plenty of opportunities for ex-military members/police from numerous nations to train indepedent actors (with no state sponsors) to be fairly competent with small arms and to develop home made explosives. The Mumbai attack was state sponsored, but it definitely doesn't have to be. I think of two incidents off hand where one or two attackers without State sponsors caused a lot of mayhem. The bank robbers in L.A. a few years back who wore head to toe body armor and held off a number of police officers for an extended period of time. If it was their intent to kill civilians and a lot of them, they easily could have. The kid at the college/university in W. VA who managed to kill several students before the police responded. Some consider MAJ Hansan's attack in TX a serious attack. A couple of other attacks come to mind overseas. First the chemical in Japan by Aum Shinrikyo, and the right wing Italians who denotated a large bomb in a train station in Bologna that killed over 80 people.
If you're asking if a non-state sponsored group can conduct a 9/11 level attack, I think the answer is a definite yes, but those attacks will outliers not the norm, because most people who gravitate to terrorism are relatively incompetent to begin with, but there are exceptions and for those exceptions there are opportunities for mass mayhem.
you are right about the possibility of mayhem with lone rangers (the Norway Shooter would also qualify). I was wrong. What I would now say (having been corrected) is that whether they kill a lot of people or not, they are then police problems, not military problems. No war needs to be launched to stop such attacks and no war can do anything about them. State-sponsored terrorism is an entirely different problem and is a more logical target for state-to-state confrontation, pressure and even war (though the cost-benefit in favor of war may be relatively rare, dont you think?).
Something like that. As you can see, I am making this up as I go along. I aim to learn.
I can understand the logic behind this statement, but I am not entirely convinced this is true. I definitely agree there is no requirement for large military forces to occupy foreign lands to fight terrorism, but I think there is still a major (I would argue a critical) role for intelligence and special operations forces to continue waging a war against these groups in the shadows. That is sustainable long term (from the cost perspective) and I think ultimately more effective. The example given for this thread was a homegrown threat that clearly was a police problem, but his mentor Anwar Awlaki was an intelligence/SOF problem, as are many others who plan and inspire operations against the U.S. from afar. The police can only act defensively, which doesn't give us much depth when it comes to defense. I think an offensive element for this conflict is critical.What I would now say (having been corrected) is that whether they kill a lot of people or not, they are then police problems, not military problems. No war needs to be launched to stop such attacks and no war can do anything about them.
In Jose Pimental Terror Case, FBI Worries Over Informer
The suspect had little money to speak of, was unable to pay his cellphone bill and scrounged for money to buy the drill bits that court papers said he required to make his pipe bombs. Initially, he had trouble drilling the small holes that needed to be made in the metal tubes.
The suspect, Jose Pimentel, according to several people briefed on the case, would seek help from a neighbor in Upper Manhattan as well as a confidential informer. That informer provided companionship and a staging area so Mr. Pimentel, a Muslim convert, could build three pipe bombs while the Intelligence Division of the New York Police Department built its case ...
Mr. Pimentel, 27, who lived with his uncle in the Hamilton Heights neighborhood after his mother threw him out recently, appears to be unstable, according to several of the people briefed on the case, three of whom said he had tried to circumcise himself ...
In the task force, investigators were concerned that the case raised some entrapment questions, two people said. They added that some investigators wondered whether Mr. Pimentel had the even small amount of money or technical know-how necessary to produce a pipe bomb on his own, had he not received help from the informer ...
There is a practical advantage to bringing the case in New York State court: state prosecutors said they were allowed to charge Mr. Pimentel with a conspiracy, even if he were acting with just the informant; federal law does not permit charging such a conspiracy.
OK, so we may be converging to the same points.
1. A state that clearly sponsors terrorist groups would face at least the possibility of war, if other means don't work. But other means can probably work against most states except a couple of big powers (if you include blockade and such-like in other means) as long as "the international community" knows what it wants and why?
2. A group that operates without direct state support still lives in some state (like Awlaki in Yemen). Either that state takes care of him (which may take us to 1 if they don't) or if they don't have the capacity, then someone or something (these days, thing more likely than one) goes and blows him up? Is that what you are saying?
3. In both cases, occupation is not the first or even the tenth choice.
So what to do about occupations already in progress?
and what if other considerations set aside 1 and 2?
Does the US still occupy countries to get oil or bases or copper mines (or better terms for United Fruit)? This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious. Coming from a left-liberal universe, we were always exposed to the idea that those are primary goals in most interventions. Some (like the United Fruit business) obviously happened, but maybe events in small banana republics in the home hemisphere were never typical of worldwide US actions (i.e., the Left used them for propaganda even where it was not remotely true). In any case, is that the case any longer? does the US ever intervene militarily for these reasons? and if so, how can it ever pass a cost-benefit analysis? and if not, then what was the thought process behind, say, the occupation of Iraq? Just one of those things that happen (as in "#### happens"). Perhaps because it IS profitable for a number of individuals and companies even if it is a huge loss for everyone else?
I personally lean more towards the last two sentences, but am genuinely open to being convinced otherwise.
Out in left field -- maybe
And at home under the guise of support to law enforcement ? Our military would have no problem protecting our borders and supporting our police.Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I realize I'm a bit out in left field, but, what good is it to have our intel and military if they are not covering home plate ?
Short of martial law that is
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan,
If the military is required to protect the homeland by operating in the homeland it can do so (if they're directed to by the appropriate authorities), but the current threat sure as heck doesn't require that and it is unlikely that this particular group will ever require augmenting the police with the military again in the near term with the possible of exception of deploying troops to airports in reaction (not to prevent) a successful attack. I think the local police and feds can handle most of the issues. For the ones they can't they can always ask for help.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks