« Legislating From The Bench | Main | Provender For Thought »

August 19, 2006

The Inherent Victory Of Terrorists....

.... is in what comes after they strike. The measures necessitated for security purposes -- "screw me once, it's your fault, screw me twice, it's my fault" -- at airports, in government buildings and in places where large numbers of people congregate, such as convention facilities, sports arenas and concert halls.

Here is where terrorism comes into its own. There is more to terrorizing than simply murdering quantities of human beings. Killing those victims is merely a tool to terrorize those who survive and carry the horror of the act with them, in their hearts and minds. To the late, unlamented Chairman Mao's way of thinking, successful terrorism breaks the will of a people to the point that they will capitulate with the terrorists rather than run the risk of enduring more of the same.

The Islamofascists who employ these tactics, however, thanks to the spineless years of the Clinton Administration, fail to realize that they are up against The American Spirit, the same spirit that won us a nation 230 years ago, seized by a relative handful of colonists from what was then one of the strongest military powers in the world, and has since driven this country to being the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

In short, we're not the French {spit!}.

But we still feel the sting of terrorism, even as we fight it tooth and nail, in the security measures we must endure to prevent further acts of Islamic terror against Americans and our freedom loving friends around the world. We feel it whenever we pass through an airport security checkpoint, or enter a stadium for a concert or sporting event and are told we cannot bring in such items as coolers or back packs.

The inconveniences we, as individual citizens, are required to make are picayune compared to those endured by many large corporations and by government agencies, however, in whom are vested the responsibilities of both providing a safe environment for their employees, tenants and visitors on their respective properties, and protecting their own physical assets, which in the government's case means all Americans.

The point here is that we are all victims, in one way or another, of every terrorist act that is perpetrated or even foiled before it can occur, as in the recent, successful preventive operation in England. When a private firm is compelled by events to spend large sums of money upgrading their security venues, the cost is inevitably, and arguably rightly, passed on to the consumer as it is an increase in the cost of doing business.

The events of 11 September 2001 caused serious, if relatively temporary damage to our economy, effectively brought the airline and hospitality industries to their knees for months to come {ask anybody in the convention business about the massive cancellations and the significant drop in attendance that followed 9/ 11 for nearly a year} and slammed home a new awareness of the necessity for taking security seriously.

A case in point is the Sears Tower.

Trizec Properties Inc., the Chicago real estate investment trust that previously owned and managed the Sears Tower, took a hard look at security immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Major changes included beefing up the security staff — it now numbers about 75, including off-duty Chicago police officers on each day shift — and installing metal detectors, X-ray machines and keycard turnstiles in the lobby. Management also increased the number of security cameras and upgraded many of them from analog to digital.

The Skydeck on the 103rd floor was considered particularly vulnerable, because the structural mass of the tower is thinnest at the top, meaning an explosion there could cause the rest of the building to collapse, as happened with the World Trade Center. So metal detectors and X-ray machines were added there as well. New restrictions and protocols were put in place for the garage and loading docks, too, including explosives detection. Phones and speakers were installed throughout stairwells.

While the rank and file Muslim terrorist crows about the murders of Americans and other westerners by him and his cohorts, in his pedestrian viewpoint he is actually missing the "big picture" that really matters to the bin Ladens and other head honchos who use the little fanatics as pawns, and that is these residual effects that come after the act of terrorism. After all, you can't terrorize the dead.

We are at war with an enemy that is a lot smarter than we give it credit for and knows how to play the game from every angle, right down to maintaining public relations agencies such as CAIR and recruiting such internal enemies of the state as the ACLU -- A lovely combination, that: a union of theology-based fascism and blatant Marxism. They employ the Useful Idiots of host states the same way the Soviets did, enlisting via their propaganda the usual collection of air-headed liberals and other leftist entities to sabotage from within our self defense capabilities.

While we have enjoyed overwhelming success since 9/ 11 in preventing further terrorist operations on U.S. soil, any sense of victory we experience at the prospect is merely an illusion -- the enemy has inflicted lasting damage on our society as a whole, and continues to do so as he sets us up, through his exploitation of our own laws, our politically correct politicians, judges, mainstream media and leftist political organizations, for further and undoubtedly unprecedented acts of terror somewhere down the road, but not very far down that road.

Until we embrace Islam as the enemy of mankind that it is and either isolate it, neutralize it or destroy it, root and branch, we will continue to have to make costly, inconvenient or downright disruptive sacrifices of one kind and another in the name of our very survival.

Posted by Seth at August 19, 2006 01:35 AM


Terrorism is costly for all of us, in lots of different ways.

I'm willing to bet that nearly every "high-profile site" has substantial costs, just as the Sears Tower does.

The enemy is not only smart. The enemy is incredibly persistent. Even leftwing Newsweek Magazine said so in the August 21/28 edition:

"Al Qaeda and the Islamic jihadists spawned by radical Islam are nothing if not determined and patient. Struggles against the infidel are never-ending...."

Now, does the West have the same persistence to preserve our civilization?

Posted by: Always On Watch at August 19, 2006 04:56 AM

Great article, Seth. I don't think most people have what it takes to piece together the holistic result of 9-11 and aftermath attempts to attack us. In many ways the terrorists won a great victory because we modified our behavior based upon their actions. We continue to do so based upon the actions of their poodle CAIR.

As a freedom loving and liberty embracing society we have vulnerabilities. Our legal system is predicated upon honety and forthrightness. Deception and twisted arguments easily pervade our system and can quite effectively be used against us - as Islamofascism is actually doing.

I'm afraid until we are completely awakened we will for the most part continue to coast along in our post 9-11 daze with our minds focused on 9-10. When we are finally awakened, I fear our biggest battle will be to convince our Useful Idiot crowd that we can no longer accept modifying our behavior, rather we must modify (or eliminate) Islam.

Great post, very thought prevoking.

Posted by: Old Soldier at August 19, 2006 05:10 AM

Seth, I tried to send a TrackBack ping, but HaloScan wouldn't recognize the URL. At any rate, I've linked to this article over at 'Old Soldier.'

Posted by: Old Soldier at August 19, 2006 05:23 AM

AOW --

In the comment thread on your "Islamic Fascists" post, in reply to a comment by Old Soldier, Cubed linked to his post featuring Col. Peters' directions on how to win this war against Islamofascism, and I think Peters is dead right.

We need to be perpetually advancing and utterly merciless.

As he pointed out, decisive victory is ultimately moral victory in the eyes of the world, whereas lack of victory, no matter how noble the cause, is disgrace.

Instead of worrying about feel-good world opinion, we need to prosecute this war tenaciously, beginning with cutting off the enemy's propaganda venues, prosecuting media outlets that publish classified military and intelligence information and providing those convicted with prison terms for treason, and the Bush Administration needs to start talking more, explaining as graphically as possible the reality of the danger posed by Islam to free societies.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, and our leaders are going to continue being PC within and playing by U.N. rules without, and maybe, just maybe after some group of terrorists manages to slip past our security measures and hit us with another sucker punch along the lines of 9/ 11, our politicians will grow back the spines they temporarily developed on 9/ 12/ 01.

Old Soldier, Thanks --

Earning my living as I do in the Protection Industry, I'm constantly aware of new security measures adopted by firms and govt agencies. At the annual ASIS Seminars and Exhibits, which is the largest security convention in the world, I'll spend most of my time between seminars, workshops and lectures on the exhibit floor, looking over new products and getting contact information from sales reps and small company owners. There's some fascinating technology out there, terrorism has necessitated a whole new marketplace in the security business, for everything from structural materials to access control and surveillance technology. Companies spend tons of money on security now, in many cases it has ceased to be simply "necessary overhead" for insurance purposes, and corporate security departments are becoming increasingly more involved in decision making and increasingly better budgeted within their respective organizations.

As I said in my response to AOW's comment, I firmly believe it's going to take another large tragedy to jump us back to the resolve of 9/ 12.

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 06:02 AM

Old Soldier, thanks for linking.

There was a problem at Mu.nu with spambots slamming us with trackbacks, and I believe they're disabled temporarily.

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 06:05 AM

"In short, we're not the French" ROTFLMAO.
Thank God we're not, but we have a cancer among us...

Posted by: Michael at August 19, 2006 06:31 AM

Excellent! I'm glad Old Soldier linked to this.

We often speak of "going on with our daily lives and not living in fear" as the best way to show the terrorists that they have not won. But the reality is, they have changed our way of life, and we have no choice but to do so, in order to protect ourselves from the reality of terrorism.

New must be reported; but everytime a terrorist act is broadcast, it is another victory for the terrorist. Because it means getting their message of violence out into the public consciousness. I sometimes wonder what if we never allowed any terrorist activity any airtime at all. Would it continue? After all, part of the motivation is to garner as much media attention as possible. They want the spotlight; they want the media to be complicit in their propaganda of terror.

If we only showed more resolve and a harder stance, it would minimize the impact terrorists see that they have on us. But when we broadcast our grief, our fears, our internal political bickering and dissention, they know that terrorism is effective..and that it works.

Posted by: wordsmith at August 19, 2006 06:35 AM

Michael --

We do have a preponderance of liberal "intellectuals" who believe that anything connected with France is the epitome of sophistication and wisdom, but who fall short of doing us the favor of moving there. :-)

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 07:10 AM

Wordsmith --

Welcome, and thank you.

The option of not reporting a terrorist incident would be good in that it would not only deprive the terrorists of the spotlight they crave, but it would also downplay, to them, the importance of the act, a nice, strong dose of humiliation.

On the other side of the coin, it is just as important that the people know the danger we face from terrorism, and keeping the public informed thus will help avoid the complacency CAIR and the Useful Idiot contingent depend on to downplay Islam's threat.

The former would require some serious reform in the mainstream media, who delight in "exposing" everything they can, including military secrets, if they feel that what they're doing is contrary to Bush strategies for fighting the war against the terrorists.

The bickering and so forth, which originates mostly on the left, not only lets them know they're winning, it also encourages them to attack harder and more in hopes of widening the divide still further, destroying the public's confidence in the administration's ability to protect them and electing more Democrats to leadership positions: Could you imagine having John Kerry in the White House and a Democrat majority on the Hill while we're fighting Taliban holdouts and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and al Qaeda + other terrorist elements in Iraq, and our country is a Muslim terrorist target?

Osama and friends would love it!

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 07:37 AM


Clinton was president last century.

But if you want to take a stroll down memory lane don't forget Rummy & RR and their support for both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Neither would be have been quite so potent without the great communicator.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at August 19, 2006 12:06 PM

Hi, Arthur --

Different era, different alliances. It's called global politics and it's been happening for many centuries.

One doesn't always know that ones ally might turn on one in the future, does one? This is an argument liberals love to throw out, even though they neglect to mention that E.S.P. wasn't part of the equation.

However, I will point out that when Osama turned on us, it was during the Clinton presidency, and al-Qaeda managed to do the Cole and a couple of our embassies with impunity -- since fundamentalist Muslims don't drink, they don't get hangovers, so who, exactly, was Bubba targeting when he bombed an aspirin factory?

Hmmm, Mogadishu also comes to mind.

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 01:04 PM

ESP need not be part of the equation.

'Global politics' as you so neatly put it is something the US is very bad at. Backing authoritarian figures has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the post WWII era. Hasn't helped our cause overseas either.

It never required paranormal intelligence to glean that supporting thugs, sorry 'freedom fighters' against the regime in Afghanistan or a dictator like Sadddam Hussein was a bad idea from the get go. Never a question of whether eithher of these bad actors would 'turn against us'. Only a question of when.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at August 19, 2006 02:14 PM

But alas, it did happen, and no matter who one may blame for it, the terrorist acts against our embassies and the U.S.S. Cole went down on Clinton's watch, and he did nothing. he sent troops into Mogadishu and as soon as the enemy drew blood, he pulled the troops back out. He made us appear weak and cowardly. As a result, Osama and Co. were emboldened to attack us again in Sep 2001. Now, Bush, on the other hand, responded -- bin Laden is now laying low and we've killed or captured most of his key people.

Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 02:33 PM

When the Republic was in peril, in Ancient Rome, they turned to a Dictator. This person was given every power to save Rome. He had the the highest amount of lictors with their bundled rods of authority, "fasces", from where we get the word "fascist".

When crisis was averted and Rome was safe, the Dictator had to step down and dismiss his lictors and send his army home. He had to allow the Republic to once again run as before.

Is this a possibility? Dare we need someone who can do this, and who will then retire from power, as the English made Churchill leave?

We've never had to do this sort of thing before. Do you all think a dictatorship will spring forth in order to save Western Civilization?

Posted by: atheling2 at August 19, 2006 10:16 PM

Atheling2 --


While I don't foresee our country {because our form of government wouldn't permit it} opting for an all powerful dictator, per se, I can see, and this after we've had a couple more serious and successful terrorist incidents on U.S. soil, Congress enacting stronger war powers authority to the President, to cut through and above internal political obstructions (read that as interference coming from the left, who seem determined to undermine Bush's homeland security efforts wherever possible using imagined civil rights violations and bogus moral high ground points) and crush Islamofascism once and for all without the potentially suicidal PC idiocy that's helped nobody but the enemy. I believe that the Republican majority on the Hill could bring that about, given their will to do so, but not, unfortunately, without further terrorist attacks lighting a fire under them and powering the will of the American people to support them.

That said, were such a scenario to develop, there would have to be a firm legal understanding that this special authority would end as soon as victory was declared.

The only way we will beat this enemy will be through utter hard-nosed ruthlessness and the willingness to tell the UN and several Euro countries to pound sand, though I don't believe, by that time, that even France (spit!) will offer much resistance as Europe will have more than paid for their lemming-like capitulatory stance toward Islamic extremism.

Posted by: Seth at August 20, 2006 01:12 AM

Yes, I see your point. The way we are fighting now is like with one hand bound behind us. We have two fronts in this war: Islamofascists and the Left.

Concerning Europe and the growing Muslim population there, could something like concentration camps be looming there? After all, history repeats itself.

Posted by: atheling2 at August 20, 2006 10:32 AM

atheling2 --

Europe is a mess at the moment, whether they'd acknowledge it or not, thanks to the EU, socialism and their insistence upon placating Islamists who wish them only harm.

However, I see no possibility of a detention camp scenario over there, unless of course they continue to follow their socialist path to its "logical" Marxist conclusions, in which case all bets are off. :-)

Posted by: Seth at August 20, 2006 11:12 AM

If I understand you correctly, "The only way we will beat this enemy will be through utter hard-nosed ruthlessness and the willingness to tell the UN and several Euro countries to pound sand,.."you suggest what Israel has been doing for the last 60 years. I would submit, that despite huge US military/economic aid, the Israelis have for decades killed and rounded up terrorists and continue to deal with them on a daily basis. Looks like kill one, make three, to me. Any other ideas?

Posted by: BB-Idaho at August 20, 2006 02:23 PM

Welcome, BB --

One thing you do not take into account re Israel is that the global community -- read that as the U.N. and related usual suspects, have seemed to find one way or another to disrupt Israeli security operations whenever they have become "too effective".

Israel has never yet been "permitted" to actually go the distance before the U.S., generally under pressure from the U.N. and European countries, intervened via "peace talks". The fact that none of these diplomatic events has resulted in any lasting peace has not been the fault of the Israelis: If you'll notice, the Israelis have always stuck to the terms of their agreements, as in releasing thousands of imprisoned terrorists and, more recently, evacuating and ceding territory to the so-called Palestinians (funny, there was no such thing as a Palestinian until Israel achieved statehood, LOL), while the Palestinians have never fulfilled a single part of their own responsibilities in said treaties.

The U.S., however, is not "bound" by the same limitations as Israel -- while we are bombarded with criticism when we interrupt the commercial interests of countries like France and Russia in the interests of defending freedom, we are both too wealthy and too powerful militarily to have to worry about anything more than rhetoric.

If we decide to do what needs to be done to defeat terrorism, nobody will dare try to stand in our way with anything more than harsh words.

"Sticks and stones", as they say...

Posted by: Seth at August 20, 2006 02:51 PM