Multiple Terrorist Doctrine
October 26, 2006
Multiple Terrorist Doctrine
By: Frank Borelli with thanks to John Giduck
Not long ago I read through the book, “Terror At Beslan: A Russian Tragedy with Lessons for America’s Schools” by John Giduck (review of the book here). The book so convinced me that we in law enforcement are training for the wrong threat (Active Shooter) that I doubted my own thought process. So, to double check my understanding, this past week I attended a presentation by John Giduck given at a conference in Washington, DC. What I found was that not only did I understand the book correctly, but the situation is worse than I actually perceived it. Understand that all of the following is provided thanks to Mr. John Giduck and his insights into the Beslan incident. I am merely reiterating his material and hope I got it all right out of my notes. Through his presentation, Mr. Giduck explains the terrorist thought process and how the attacks / sieges they’ve committed have been motivated, planned and performed. Yes, I said “sieges”. As Mr. Giduck explained:There are two types of prevalent terrorist attacks -The Decimation Assault – such as suicide bombings, drive by shootings, etc.The Siege – otherwise known as a Mass Hostage Siege.Recent history shows us two that were reported in the popular media: The taking of over 800 hostages at the NordOst Theater in Moscow, and the taking of over 1,200 students, teachers and parents at the school in Beslan.As Mr. Giduck pointed out: the Beslan siege had a larger number of hostages than that of the NordOst theater. Every time the terrorists attack they have to do something bigger and better. Follow that to the logical conclusion and that means that IF or WHEN they take over a target in America, the number of hostages will HAVE to be in excess of 1,200. Now let’s take a look at the popular targets, preferred method of attack and the resultant bad news for the United States:1) Transportation: public transit systems can be attacked to cause interuption in service. The preferred method of attack is a Decimation Assault – suicide (although I prefer the term HOMICIDE) bomber. Poison has been used in other attacks, but the end affect is still roughly the same – there are a limited number of victims and a relatively short burst of media attention.2) Malls: although we have these in abundance in the United States, the number of terrorists required to actually take over, secure and hold a mall would be difficult to mount. Therefore, the preferred method of attack would likely be the Decimation Assault. Not that the numbers of victims would be small. Virtually any urban mall on a Saturday night is packed with potential casualties.3) Places of Worship: bearing in mind that a number of Imams have specifically stated that places of worship are viable targets. Skip Saturday night at the mall and you can hit Sunday morning in the churches all around our country. It is not coincidental that our “heartland” is largely populated by conservative devout citizens. Again, the method of attack would most likely be a Decimation Assault simply because there are very few churches where any terrorist would have a hope of taking more than 1,200 hostages.4) Schools: Here is the bad news. We have schools in abundance. A great many high schools, and even plenty of our junior high / middle schools have student counts in excess of 1,200. I went to a private high school and even it had a student count near 1,000. Add in teachers and staff and how quick can you reach 1,200 or more? Now let’s make it even scarier. We all know how the country reacted to two students killing thirteen people at Columbine. Those were high school students and a teacher. All of them were at least fourteen years old. Look at what the reaction was. Now imagine what it would have been had that been an elementary school and that those thirteen dead had been children under the age of ten. At Beslan, the terrorists had, as their hostages, babies still in diapers and children of all ages. Now consider this: Al Queda trains to hit four targets at once. Why? As Mr. Giduck explains, because even terrorists understand Murphy’s Law: what can go wrong will. If they plan and attempt to execute four simultaneous attacks, they expect at least two to move forward. If only ONE does and they get the kind of media attention they crave, then they’ve succeeded in part of their goal. Now, before I attended Mr. Giduck’s presentation, I would have assumed that there was simply no way that 49 or 50 terrorists could infiltrate the United States, secure weapons, plan the attack(s) and execute them. If you look at the recent news reports you can find – on any given day – reports on how many illegal immigrants are flowing into our country. How many of them could be terrorists? Potentially worse yet, how many terrorists are applying for political asylum from any country and getting temporary or permanent visas? We already know that they know how to get student and visitor visas. Still, how realistic is it to expect that 49 terrorists (the number that took Beslan school) will attack a single American school? Let’s take a look at a relatively small number: 15. Even using as an example only fifteen terrorists taking over a school, the challenges we face are immediate and daunting. First, let’s consider this: who is responsible for responding? Who will negotiate? Who will assault? Do any of our current tactical protocols effectively address the situation? I will answer these in that order. 1) Terrorism is a crime in the United States. Since it is a crime, law enforcement personnel will have to deal with it. Posse Comitatus explicitely prohibits the use of soldiers to affect an arrest, and even though arrest may not be on anyone’s mind, all politicians will have to maintain a civil facade. Any terrorist that wants to surrender will have to be arrested and not executed. Let’s just hope they aren’t wrapped in explosives as they come out with their hands up, chanting to Allah before blowing themselves and anyone nearby into smithereens. So, it will be law enforcement that responds. Eventually the FBI will get on scene and take over. How long will that take? And how much longer will it be before a sufficient number of FBI HRT members are on hand to mount an assault? LONGER THAN WE CAN AFFORD. 2) Initially a local representative will negotiate. When the FBI arrives arrives and assumes command, an FBI agent will negotiate. Here in the United States we have a general rule of thumb: the longer we negotiate the better our chances are for a peaceful conclusion. We have time on our side. With “normal” criminals that’s true. With terrorists, negotiation only provides time for more media to arrive while the terrorists fortify their positions inside the structure. 3) It’s easy to think that the FBI HRT members will make any necessary assault. I’m not sure there are enough of them though. A standard rule of infantry is that it takes personnel numbering 3-to-1 (good guys to bad guys / assaulters to terrorists) to overwhelm a NON-entrenched enemy. If you give the enemy time to fortify their position, it takes closer to 9 or 10-to-1. Okay: so using that 15 terrorist scenario, we need about 150 FBI HRT guys on ready stand by to do the assault. Let’s not forget: we also need 150 FBI HRT agents planning and training for the assault. Oh, and we have another 150 FBI HRT agents getting some down time – they have to sleep too. So that’s a total of 450 FBI HRT agents. Are there that many? That’s just assault troops, too. What about inner and outer perimeter? What about crowd control? What about counter-snipers? 4) Do any of our current tactical protocols effectively address the situation? No that I’m familiar with in law enforcement training. Right now we deliver, on a fairly regular basis, training that DOES adequately address the two-student-shooters model of Columbine High School. I don’t believe our current training is even adequate to have responded to the five-shooter model that was stopped just last week in Kentucky. A four- or five-man diamond (so standard now) is decent against two students who have had no training and who may be quickly overcome. That same four- or five-man diamond would have faced a challenge with five student shooters. OK: so I here some of you mentally arguing, “But more teams form up and come in on a constant basis.” Yep, you’re right. And they move to the sound of shots aggressively – using that diamond formation with carefully trained tactics for checking doors, bypassing IEDs, etc. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Remember that? The diamond is going to fall apart as soon as the team finds itself under any more than one shot or two at the most. Seeking cover will become a primary concern. How many agencies today train their officers to move under fire? Is Fire and Maneuver taught in any police academy? It took Russia’s BEST troops in excess of nine hours to take back the Beslan school. What will our reaction be? Well, here’s how it’s usually been presented in training for Active Shooter / Immediate Response:”When you first arrive on the scene, listen for the sounds of shots. If there is an Active Shooter, advise communications and maintain a good position of observation until enough units arrive to form a team. Leave one officer in charge of communications while the team moves in under command of the first officer who arrived on the team. Move to the sound of shots and neutralize the threat.” What’s going to happen when the 911 call comes in but when the officer arrives at the school he hears no shots? In the event of a terrorist takeover at any school, what our law enforcement personnel should be looking for is:- a couple of large trucks with their motors running in the immediate vicinity.- no children in any windows.- no children evacuating (an emergency where no one is leaving?)- no sounds of gunfire (because the terrorists KNOW how we train – they aren’t stupid)If that’s what we find when we roll up, we had better get our act together hard and fast. Every second that passes guarantees two things: dead hostages and a more securely entrenched enemy.Yes, we’re going to lose cops. I disagree with the basic labelling of “terrorism” in this country. I don’t think it should be considered a crime. I think it should be considered an act of war. That way we could at least get the military to assist. Speaking of that, if the governor declares a state of emergency fast enough, you MIGHT get National Guard troops to help with crowd control. You might get some equipment made available from them.So, understanding that these terrorists are there getting their position hardened, the best thing we can do is attack as fast as we can plan and mount an assault. Yes, cops are going to die. Yes, hostages may die. What is guaranteed is that hostages WILL die if we SIT WAIT AND TALK.For this very reason it is imperative that a new doctrine for response to Active Shooters be developed. “Active Shooter / Immediate Response” tactics and training must evolve into a training methodology that prepares our front line police officers to have some reasonable expectation of effectiveness if they assault into a school being held by terrorists armed with AK74s and explosives. The four- and five-man diamond will not work. In fact, every formation I can think of will fall apart pretty fast. Small unit tactics, applied to fire-team size (four) or even assault pairs (two), have to be developed, put into policy and then trained. What will be even more difficult is the following: cops have to be hardened both mentally and emotionally to face true battle.Let’s be honest: some cops today aren’t warriors. They are civil servants who are dedicated to their jobs and do them well. But we all know a few that would be perfectly happy to man the radio while we go into the building where an Active Shooter is hunting innocent prey. We can’t afford that. The harsh reality of life behind a badge is that we are the front line defense against anyone and anything that threatens to harm the innocents of our community. If we take the oath to Protect and Serve, we’d damned well better be as good as our word.As the Russian Special Forces say, “If not me, who?” When the terrorists come to threaten and harm our children, I ask you: If not me, who? If not YOU, who? I’d like to thank John Giduck for the work he’s doing spreading much needed information to the law enforcement community in our country. It’s information many don’t want to hear because they are too busy hiding their heads in the sand. They’ll fall where they stand when the time comes. Thank you, John, for your information and motivation. Mr. John Giduck provides instructional services to the United States Special Forces for various topics. He is also president of the Archangel Group, a nonprofit organization that provides consulting and training at all levels of public safety and military operations.
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
ACT, P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Email: info@americancongressfortruth.com
British Airways Allows Hijab But NOT Cross
October 14, 2006
Nadia Eweida: BA said she had failed to comply with their ‘uniform regulations’
A committed Christian said today she planned to take legal action against her employers British Airways after the airline ruled that displaying her crucifix breached uniform rules
Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA’s dress code.
BA’s chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with “uniform regulations” despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie.
Miss Eweida, who has an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is suing her employer for religious discrimination after being suspended from work without pay for two weeks.
She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone “diversity training” – including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace.
But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, which is smaller than a ten pence piece, was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith.
She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA’s Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs.
“Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens.”
Her case comes at a time of intense debate over the rights of individuals to express their belief – following Jack Straw’s call for Muslim women to remove their veils.
Earlier this month it emerged BBC governors had agonised over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain around her neck while on air in case it might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation.
She then sought permission from management to wear the chain – but was turned down.
When Miss Eweida, who is unmarried, refused to remove the necklace she was offered the choice of suspension with pay or unpaid leave, pending a disciplinary hearing.
Following a meeting with her managers on 22 September 2006, Customer Service Manager Caroline Girling told Miss Eweida in a letter: “You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request.
“British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform.”
“I would like to say how disappointed I am in this decision and the lack of respect shown by BA towards the Christian faith.
“British Airway can be great again, but it needs to treat Christians fairly. I am not ashamed of my faith.”
Her case is being supported by her union, the TGWU, and she has hired Paul Diamond, a barrister specialising in religious affairs and an adviser for the Keep Sunday Special campaign, to represent her at her employment tribunal.
BA is already at the centre of a criminal investigation into alleged price-fixing – which has led to the resignations of two executives.
A decade ago it attempted to ditch its traditional Union Flag tailfin in favour of an ethnic design – which provoked the anger of Baroness Thatcher.
Andrea Williams of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship said: “The forces of political correctness are such that an individual needs to be very determined to protect their rights.”
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
ACT, P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Email: info@americancongressfortruth.com
North Korea and Iran: Will Any Lessons Be Learned
October 12, 2006
A nuclear Iran is even more of a threat than North Korea. In East Asia, North Korea lacks allies and can be contained by an alliance of surrounding states. However, in the Middle East, Iran’s close links to Syria and its support for Hizballah make containment more difficult. In addition, in contrast to North Korea, Iran has large oil revenues to finance a major weapons program.
North Korea and Iran have extensive military links and, after both Russia and China reduced the flow of technology, Pyongyang became the main source of Teheran’s ballistic missile technology and components.
Iran has followed the North Korean diplomatic strategy of negotiating and appearing to offer some flexibility in order to buy time for completing the production of nuclear weapons. There is still time for concerted international action. Stiff sanctions and total isolation may force Iran to freeze its nuclear program, but if this fails, military action will become necessary.
A credible threat of an international coalition prepared to use force will make the Iranian leadership pause and reconsider the risks. It may also lead to internal pressures inside Iran, where the general public might understand the risks of becoming targets of military attacks by an international force.
The United States will still have to lead – there is no alternative on the horizon. In whatever framework works best, the world powers must act swiftly to halt the Iranian program before it can reach the final stage. Instead of the “grand bargain” in negotiation with a revolutionary Iranian regime, a grand coalition is necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and to prevent the total collapse of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
North Korea’s apparent test of a nuclear explosive culminates over ten years of diplomatic failure, for which all of the world powers share blame. Now that the deed is done, there is increasing talk in the United Nations and major capitals about containment and tightening sanctions on Pyongyang, in the hope that this draconian regime will collapse. China, which has in the past been North Korea’s major patron and protector, has begun to change its position. The Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations called for “punitive actions,” marking a major shift in policy. At the same time, there is concern that North Korea’s action will touch off a regional nuclear arms race, spurring other countries, including South Korea and Japan, to quickly produce their own nuclear weapons.
In parallel, the acute challenges posed by Iran’s effort to follow North Korea’s path to nuclear weapons have been highlighted. Both countries have violated their commitments as signatories to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and used ostensibly civilian facilities and materials obtained for research and power generation to produce deadly weapons of mass destruction.1 And both are major sources of instability and violence in their regions, exporting terror and violence.
The Difficulties of Containing a Nuclear Iran
Like the North Korean regime, the Iranian leadership – now headed by the extremist President Ahmadinejad – has revolutionary goals that seek to promote a different world order, and to destroy the centrality of democratic values. Both regimes support, fund, and train terrorist groups – Iran’s close alliance with Hizballah in Lebanon led to the recent destructive war after a cross-border attack by Hizballah left eight Israeli soldiers dead and two kidnapped. Ahmadinejad’s explicit genocidal threats to “wipe Israel off the map” go even farther than those of his predecessors.
For this and other reasons, a nuclear Iran is even more of a threat than North Korea. In the East Asian region, North Korea lacks allies and can be contained by an alliance of surrounding states. However, in the Middle East, Iran’s close links to Syria and its support for Hizballah make containment more difficult. In contrast to North Korea, whose limited resources make rapid expansion of a nuclear force difficult (despite the willingness to starve the population), Iran has large oil revenues to finance a major weapons program, which will be very difficult to contain.
In addition, fear of the consequences of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and a general arms race would quickly lead to similar efforts by other regional powers, including Egypt (whose leaders have recently stated their intention of re-starting a “peaceful” nuclear effort), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. This would mark the complete collapse of what remains of the NPT regime, and be far more dangerous and destabilizing than the situation created in East Asia by the North Korean nuclear test.
The Teheran-Pyongyang Connection
North Korea and Iran have extensive military links and, after both Russia and China reduced the flow of technology, Pyongyang became the main source of Teheran’s ballistic missile technology and components. In addition, published reports attributed to intelligence sources have found evidence of nuclear cooperation between these two rogue states. Although North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is believed to be based on separated plutonium recovered from a reactor, and Iran’s efforts are based on enriched uranium produced by centrifuge technology purchased from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan, both North Korea and Iran are pursuing multiple approaches and paths, providing the rationale for sharing technology.
Iran has followed the North Korean diplomatic strategy of negotiating and appearing to offer some flexibility in order to buy time for completing the production of nuclear weapons. The apparent successful conclusion of the North Korean project, and the reported explosion of a test device, provides an additional impetus for Iran to continue in this direction. In addition, Iran has adopted the North Korean practice of building massive underground facilities located in mountainous terrain and protected by meters of concrete. North Korean advisors were reportedly spotted in Lebanon, and the vast tunnels built by Hizballah may be evidence of these links.
Policy Options on Iran
One of the central factors in fifteen years of failed efforts to prevent North Korea from completing and testing a nuclear weapon was the absence of a credible threat to use force. In the early 1990s, when the first signs of activities related to building nuclear weapons were detected, the dominant view was that the regime in Pyongyang was only using the nuclear threat as a bargaining ploy. Reflecting the popular intellectual trends in Europe and North America during this period, policy-makers used the principles of social psychology to ague that primary emphasis should be placed on “understanding the needs” of the North Koreans. They opposed threats to use force, and called for negotiations accompanied by guarantees that North Korea would not be subject to attempts at regime change.
In Washington, the Clinton Administration coincided with the belief in “the end of history,” following the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. And for many European leaders and analysts, the threat of military action was unthinkable. The result was an “historic compromise,” in the form of a framework agreement, based on cooperation and continuing negotiations, which gave the North Korean leadership time to finish making nuclear weapons.
The successor Bush Administration recognized that this approach had failed, and that revolutionary regimes (the “Axis of Evil”) sought far more than dialogue and recognition. But after 9/11, the Americans focused most of their energy and power – military as well as diplomatic – on Afghanistan and Iraq, hoping to make them examples of the return to realpolitik. Tactical mistakes and faith in a quick transition to stable democracy, particularly in Iraq, foiled this effort, providing many Europeans, for whom America-bashing is a religion, with a reason to celebrate. In the process, the U.S. lost leverage against North Korea and Iran.
At the same time, no other power stepped forward to lead the effort against the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. Europe (with the exception of Tony Blair) continued to promote dialogue and negotiation, as did the Japanese government. China and Russia, whose power and influence has grown considerably in the world, maintained foreign policies based primarily on maneuvering for advantage in opposition to America. As a result, while the U.S. could not act independently to stop North Korea, no other power stepped forward to show any leadership.
In the case of Iran, there is still time for concerted international action. Stiff sanctions and total isolation may force Iran to freeze its nuclear program, but if this fails, military action will become necessary. A credible threat of an international coalition prepared to use force will make the Iranian leadership pause and reconsider the risks. It may also lead to internal pressures in Iran, where the general public might understand the risks of becoming targets of military attacks by an international force. While President Ahmadinejad and other members of the regime support suicide bombers and terror attacks affiliated with Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, the Iranian leaders are not suicidal themselves and have been cautious in avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or the U.S.
In whatever framework works best, the world powers must act swiftly to halt the Iranian program before it can reach the final stage, again following the North Korean model. Instead of the “grand bargain” in negotiation with a revolutionary Iranian regime, a grand coalition is necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The alternative is global instability and the potential for unimaginable destruction.
* * *
Note
1. India and Pakistan, which tested nuclear weapons in 1998, were not signatories of the NPT and, as such, did not violate this international agreement, in contrast to the case of North Korea and Iran. Israel is not an NPT signatory and has not violated any commitments, tested weapons, or declared itself a nuclear power.
* * *
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
ACT, P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Email: info@americancongressfortruth.com
Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing
October 2, 2006
Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing
Suicide bombers follow Quran,concludes Pentagon briefingTasked with pinpointing motivation, analysts findterrorists ‘rational actors’ following ‘holy book’
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what’s driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.
Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it’s their “holy book” the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.
In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.
“The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder,” the White House maintains in its recently released “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism” report.
But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They’ve found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, “rational actors” on the Islamic stage.
In Islam, it is not how one lives one’s life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.
“Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor,” concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, “Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers.”
Suicide for Allah a ‘win-win’
“His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God,” the document explains. “The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.
“And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah,” the briefing adds. “Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam’s enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action.”
The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or “holy” warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where “beautiful mansions” and “maidens” await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).
CIFA staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at U.S. military installations at home and abroad.
The Pentagon unit is especially concerned about a new wave of suicide bombings hitting Afghanistan.
Suicide bombings have killed more than 200 people in Afghanistan this year, up from single digits two years ago. On Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest and killed 18 outside an Afghan government compound. Last week, a suicide bomber riding a bike killed at least four NATO soldiers. And earlier this month, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, killing 16 people, including two American soldiers.
500 suicide bombers in reserve
The U.S. command in Afghanistan now warns that a suicide bombing cell is operating inside the Afghan capital. Meanwhile, the Taliban’s top military commander told ABC News he has 500 suicide bombers at his disposal.
“We have so many of them that it is difficult to accommodate and arm and equip them,” Mullah Dadullah Akhund said. “Some of them have been waiting for a year or more for their turn to be sent to the battlefield.”
The emergence of a suicide cell in Kabul troubles military analysts because suicide attacks are the most effective weapon Muslim terrorists can use against the West. The Rand Corp. predicts they’ll pose a serious and constant threat to the U.S. for years to come.
The U.S. intelligence community is growing increasingly worried, as well.
“Most jihadist groups will use suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement asymmetric warfare strategy,” warns the just-declassified executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat. “Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.”
Many scholars and media pundits, however, insist Muslim suicide bombers are not driven by religion.
“Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims,” claims Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago. “Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism.”
He says U.S. foreign policy is more a factor than faith.
“Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands,” Pape said.
But what about the recent video by Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaida, warning fellow Americans to convert to Islam before al-Qaida attacks again?
“He never mentions virgins or the benefits Islamic martyrs receive in Heaven,” Pape asserted.
In fact, Gadahn notes 36 minutes into his speech that Allah reserves the highest rewards – “honors and delights” – for martyrs in Paradise.
“[He] promised the martyr in his path the reward over and above the reward of the believer,” Gadahn said. “He has promised them honors and delights too numerous to go into here.”
The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their “love of death” and “sacrificing life for Allah.” Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.
Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in Paradise. “Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out ‘Come hither, friend of Allah,’” according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled “THE LAST NIGHT.” “They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing.”
But are the virgins scriptural or apocryphal? French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it’s not a myth or fantasy of heretics.
He says there’s no doubt the Quran “promises virgins” to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it’s a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.
“It’s obviously connected to religion,” said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, “Suicide Killers.” “They really believe they are going to get the virgins.”
He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he’s interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran “in which it’s absolutely written that they’re going to get the girls in the afterlife.”
Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.
And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting “George Bush and Tony Blair” is “just” and “the greatest act of martyrdom.” Earlier, he said it’s “the straight way to pleasing Allah.”
And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.
Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine’s annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam,” according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project.
“Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide,” Ahmad asserted. “They kill themselves for Islam.”
Osama bin Laden has encouraged “Muslims brothers” to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.
“I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah,” he said in 2003, “be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah.”
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and
financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
ACT, P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Email: info@americancongressfortruth.com
