« Key Republicans Wavering on Iraq Milestones | Main | What it Means to Really Support the Troops »

The Fort Dix Six

from Powerline:

Six Islamic militants have been arrested and charged with plotting an attack on New Jersey's Fort Dix. All are immigrants; four are from the former Yugoslavia and one each came from Turkey and Jordan. Three were described as illegal immigrants.

This is another instance where law enforcement was on to the group from an early stage, and the plotters were arrested before their plans had gotten very far. In January 2006, a shopkeeper told the FBI that one of the men had asked him to burn a DVD of a "disturbing" video that showed, among other things, the group taking target practice while yelling "Allah Akbar." By March 2006, the FBI had already infiltrated the group with an informer. When the militants tried to buy automatic weapons, the seller was the FBI.

(emphasis mine)

So law enforcement worked, We didn't bomb or occupy any of the countries where these idiots came from and the plot was defeated. There's a lesson here for those willing to learn.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.4/5 (5 votes cast)


Comments (23)

Peter F.:

Yes, law enforcement worked HERE as it should. And it works in JUNCTION and as a vital PART of the overall strategy in the war against Islamofaciscm. (Example: The capture of KSM.) But it is NOT the sole means by which state-sponsored terrorism can be fought; the military HAS to play a significant role in dealing with the countries who aide, abet and allow terrorists and terrorist organizations to knowingly operate

To even remotely suggest or imply (as this post does) that fighting terrorism by law enforcement and law enforcement only is flat out ludicrous.

The only lesson here to learn is that you're very good at repeating insipid and pointless talking points.

cirby:

There's a lesson here for those willing to learn.

Yes, the lesson is "when almost all of an enemy's resources are tied up in someone else's country, it gets really, really hard for him to take the fight to your homeland, so he has to rely on low-budget, untrained troops, mostly ad hoc volunteers."

There's also the lesson of "when you keep killing the guys who run a terrorist group, they have to use the folks who were out getting coffee when you blew up their headquarters."

BlueNight:

The lesson is... law enforcement failed.

How can I say that? Half of them were here illegally in the first place, and it was grassroots efforts that initially tipped off law enforcement. Law enforcement worked... once they were within the scope of functioning law enforcement.

Imagine if they were smarter. They would have had only have legal residents. They would kept their plans to themselves. They would have obtained firearms in a different manner. They would have died as martyrs at the gate of the base, taking at least one MP with them.

Congrats and kudos to the FBI for pulling this off flawlessly, with nobody hurt.

U.P. Mam:

Anybody on the Right say "the use of Law enforcement was unnecessary ?"

Or did not have it's place?

Paul Hamilton:

Peter F.: The only one who said "only" is you.

Cirby: It's very unlikely that these idiots were members of any legitimate terror group. When I read that they took their little propaganda film to a commercial site to be copied, I laughed out loud.

BlueNight: Most of the time preventative police work depends on citizens doing their job to inform police of suspicious activity. And they *weren't* smarter. I have the feeling that when all is said and done, this will be about as meaningful as the Miami case -- just a bunch of pretenders who have no clue what they are doing.

cirby:

It's very unlikely that these idiots were members of any legitimate terror group.

Yeah, because you have to have the membership card before you can go out and kill someone in the name of al Qaeda, and AQ is so well known for its stringent hiring practices.

Idiots can kill people, too. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, for example. I've sure they got their "Official Terrorist' IDs before they shot all of those kids, though.

ryan a:

Peter:

But it is NOT the sole means by which state-sponsored terrorism can be fought; the military HAS to play a significant role in dealing with the countries who aide, abet and allow terrorists and terrorist organizations to knowingly operate.

Hmmm. Now tell me Peter, what state is sponsoring the terrorism in Iraq?

And here's a hypothetical question:

Let's say there's a little country, and there is a civil war. And the state troops are being used to root out insugents and rebels. However, during those efforts, entire civilian communities are annihilated in the name of fighting terrorism. This happens again ang again. Should the actions of the government be considered terrorism? Why or why not? What stance should the United States take in such a situation? (This example comes from history)

Peter F.:

ryan:

Hmmm. Now tell me Peter, what state is sponsoring the terrorism in Iraq?

Easy. Iran and Syria. Or do you not read reports from Iraq, ryan? Where do you think Moqtada al Sadr gets his backing from? Where did he run off to recently? Who are S'hia? Answers: Iran, Iran and Iranian.

I can make the same irrefutable case for Sunni/Baathist insurgents.

Now, do you still want to be ignorant and tell me that a majority of the terrorism in Iraq isn't state-sponsored. I didn't think so.

As for your trite, smarmy, condescending and pseudo-intellectual "hypothetical" question that isn't hypothetical at all, the answer would be--if I had a gun to my head and had to answer such a brainless question--would be no. That's as far as I'm going to go because your "question" simplistically assumes what's happening in Iraq is in fact a "civil war", when it is far beyond that (or conventional warfare for that matter). The rest of your leading, baiting and cryptic question is so convoluted that it's difficult to even offer an answer that's even remotely close. Dumb.


Paul:

That's a pretty lame and juvenile response, Paul. Way to back your argument up.

Paul Hamilton:

Cirby: Anybody who makes a video of themselves shooting weapons and yelling Islamic slogans and then takes it to a store to make copies is *beyond* stupid. This is so blatant that it almost looks like they were trying to get caught -- or the whole thing is a sham.

Paul Hamilton:

Not juvenile at all, Peter. *You* said that the police can't do the job alone. I never said they should do it alone. There is a place for the police and a place for the military. In this case, there was no need for any sort of military response and the police handled it just fine.

Paul Hamilton:

Oh, one more thing, Peter. How do you feel about posse comitatus as it relates to homegrown terrorists such as these?

ryan a:

Easy. Iran and Syria. Or do you not read reports from Iraq, ryan? Where do you think Moqtada al Sadr gets his backing from? Where did he run off to recently? Who are S'hia? Answers: Iran, Iran and Iranian.

Ok. So it's all Iran and Syria. Were they backing these terrorists BEFORE we invaded as well?

Also, if Iraqi Shia are so closely linked with Iranians, then why the hell did they fight so hard against them during the Iran/Iraq war?

As for my "smarmy" question, which you assumed to be a backhanded question about Iraq, well, it was about events that happened in Guatemala in the 1970s-1980s.

The Guatemalan government, in fighting with guerrilla forces, leveled entire civilain villages in their war against "terrorism." This had fairly tramatic effects upon the civilian population, of course. Pretty atrocious, if you ask me.

Let me make the question more direct: Did the Guatemalan government commit acts of terrorism?


ryan a:

And for the record: I would not characterize the current war in Iraq simply as a civil war. Here is my breakdown:

A) There is indeed a civil war going on, in that rival factions within the same country are killing one another in an attempt to gain control and power. That's pretty much the definition of a civil war.

B) But the presence of foreign fighters who have joined in the mix for various political reasons certainly complicates the matter. There seems to be some level of support from nearby nations, as well as from non-state organizations (Al Qaeda, etc). Involvement by these groups ranges from concerns about regional control to more global ideological conflicts.

C) On top of all that, of course, is the presence of the US military, which is there to assert its power, influence, and interests.

Peter F.:

Not juvenile at all, Peter. *You* said that the police can't do the job alone. I never said they should do it alone.

Wrong, Paul. Pay attention. I said your post strongly implied that law enforcement alone could do the job of fighting terrorists, otherwise why bother to say it in your post? By saying "We didn't bomb or occupy any of the countries where these idiots came from and the plot was defeated" you strongly imply, whether you like or not, that law enforcement is the best way to combat terrorism. No, you never say it openly, but you strongly imply it.

"posse comitatus"

Now you're attempting to move the argumentative goalposts. I'm not playing. Stick to the subject.

Paul isn't moving anything, Peter. You took what Paul said -- that law enforcement worked in this specific instance, then you created a strawman argument. You apparently would like to believe that Paul meant law enforcement could do it all alone --

-- and even now, when Paul has clarified for you that isn't the case, you won't let go off that strawman. If you'd like to make case that law enforcement can't do it alone, then make it - but don't feel you have to demonize Paul in order to make your case - we can all judge your case on its own merits.

"To even remotely suggest or imply (as this post does) that fighting terrorism by law enforcement and law enforcement only is flat out ludicrous."

Only in your mind, Peter. You're literally grasping at "straws" on this. Why don't you explain why you feel that the "law enforcement only" position is a fallacy -- without unjustly attributing it to Paul?

"The only lesson here to learn is that you're very good at repeating insipid and pointless talking points."

That's childish.

Peter F.:

Ok. So it's all Iran and Syria. Were they backing these terrorists BEFORE we invaded as well?

Do I get to count Hamas and Hezbollah? Even if not, what difference does it make whether it was before or after we invaded? They shouldn't be backing them, period. What part of that don't you get.

Also, if Iraqi Shia are so closely linked with Iranians, then why the hell did they fight so hard against them during the Iran/Iraq war?

Are you really that naive? Hmm, probably didn't have anything to do with Saddam forcing them to fight, now did it.

And for the record: I would not characterize the current war in Iraq simply as a civil war. Here is my breakdown

Whoa, stop right there. Then why bring it up in your lame "hypothetical question".

A) There is indeed a civil war going on, in that rival factions within the same country are killing one another in an attempt to gain control and power. That's pretty much the definition of a civil war.

Your facts, or your perception of what the facts may be, are largely wrong. The large attacks on market places, particularly the ones recently that have occured in Diayala, Ramadi and elsewhere outisde of Baghdad, are predominantly the work Al Qaeda in Iraq. To the point, terrorist acts largely committed against civilians rather than against the government does not make it "the definition of a civil war". Furthmore, Al Qaeda in Iraq has no stated political purpose other than destroying the American-backed Iraqi government. They're not interested in negotiating for my power in parliament, period.

I'll leave you with this thought: How can a rag tag bunch of terrorists/insrugents find the technology and means to build, plant and detonate with percision massive IEDs WITHOUT some kind of formal, government-backed training. Answer: Impossible. If you don't think Sunni/Baathist insurgents and the likes of the Mahdi Army aren't Syrian and Iranian proxy armies then you're seriously not paying attention.

civil behavior:

Why do con men spend so much time defending the imperial oil grab we are undertaking in Iraq?

Why do con men continue to deny they are implementing the same kinds of tactics that they accuse neighbor countries of using?

Why do we bother to argue with con men?

They will never change their minds. They are gaining monetarily from this exercise in death in Iraq.

One word........PNAC.

Peter F.:

I love this! Virtually no argument or presentation presented by a liberal can EVER imply or infer anything beyond what is actually said or written. This argumentative tact is the ultimate deflection of respsonsibilty and is as old as the hills. In short, "you can't hold me accountable for what I implied because I never really said it". The comeback? I'm presenting a "strawman" argument.

Well, nice try. But that dog don't hunt, kids.

Ever heard the phrase "It's not so much what you said as what you didn't say"? While it is cleverly (or accidentally so) phrased, the intended meaning behind Paul's post is clear: Law enforcement is the best way to combat terrorism, not the military. I'm NOT going to go through the machinations again of pointing out just how because I've already done so. But I did not "unjustly" or falsly misrepresent Paul's position, Lee. I did bring the underlying meaning out in the opening, that's for sure.

Moreover, Lee, why the did Paul bring up the issue of "law enforcement", going so far as to bold it in his post and speak to it in his final paragraph, if he was NOT trying to make a point about law enforcement and linking it back terrorism in the first place. Hmmmm?

(P.S. Hope the stents are doing well.)

Paul Hamilton:

Peter: Lee made the case pretty well so I won't repeat what he said, but posse comitatus is a big deal to me, and it's something which is being encroached on more and more as time passes. Your idea that the military should be the first responders to terrorists, even domestic terrorists, would destroy posse completely. Yes, we need a military to deal with terrorist threats on foreign soil, but I will never go along with a domestic military force going after American citizens.

Peter F.:

Your idea that the military should be the first responders to terrorists, even domestic terrorists, would destroy posse completely.

Now who's misreprenting who's ideas, Paul.

I said:

Yes, law enforcement worked HERE as it should. And it works in JUNCTION and as a vital PART of the overall strategy in the war against Islamofaciscm. (Example: The capture of KSM.) But it is NOT the sole means by which state-sponsored terrorism can be fought; the military HAS to play a significant role in dealing with the countries who aide, abet and allow terrorists and terrorist organizations to knowingly operate...

And this isn't a matter of semantics. "In junction", "as a part of...an overall strategy", "significant role"; none of which EVEN implies or infers that the military are the "first responders". Sometimes, yes, they will be; sometimes, not.

Yes, we need a military to deal with terrorist threats on foreign soil, but I will never go along with a domestic military force going after American citizens.

Why are you bringing this up? It is NOT even CLOSE to being an issue. The goalposts are moving, and it's not just my eyes playing tricks on me...

ryan a:

Peter F:

Do I get to count Hamas and Hezbollah? Even if not, what difference does it make whether it was before or after we invaded? They shouldn't be backing them, period. What part of that don't you get.

Look, I don't buy into the idea that all of the conflicts in Iraq can somehow be explained by saying that Iran and Syria are behind it. That just doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that Iran and Syria are supporting not only Al Qaeda, but also rival Sunni and Shia factions? You realize that those three groups hardly share the same political/ideological views, right?

Are you really that naive? Hmm, probably didn't have anything to do with Saddam forcing them to fight, now did it [regarding Iraqi Sunnis and the Iran/Iraq war]

All I know is that they fought like hell against people who hold the same nominal religion in Iran. From what I have read, the Iraqi Shia did NOT want to give ground to the Iranian forces. Surprising, considering the fact that they could have surrendered or joined up with the Iranians at that time and fought against Hussein.

What I'm saying is that it seems to be a pretty big assumption to make when thinking that Iraqi Shia will automatically align themselves with Iran. Nominal religious affiliation does not mean that the people necessarily get along, agree, or want to unite. Hence the Protestants who went around killing one another in Germany and France in the 1700s.

Whoa, stop right there. Then why bring it up in your lame "hypothetical question". [regarding "civil war"]

Haha. Because my lame hypothetical question wasn't about Iraq; you just assumed it was. Try reading next time. That question was based around events that happened in Guatemala in the 1970s-80s. There was basically a civil war in Guatemala going on between the military and insurgents.

Your facts, or your perception of what the facts may be, are largely wrong. The large attacks on market places, particularly the ones recently that have occured in Diayala, Ramadi and elsewhere outisde of Baghdad, are predominantly the work Al Qaeda in Iraq.

So you're telling me that all of the conflicts in Iraq are due to Al Qaeda, and that there is no fighting between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds? Because to my understanding, Al Qaeda is in the mix, basically throwing gasoline on the fire, but they aren't the only players. Additionally, from what I have read, in many cases Sunnis and Shias are actually antagonistic toward Al Qaeda.

If Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds are fighting each other, then we have a civil war going on, based upon the standard definition. The presence of foreign terrorists changes the dynamic, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that there is interal conflict and violence.

I'll leave you with this thought: How can a rag tag bunch of terrorists/insrugents find the technology and means to build, plant and detonate with percision massive IEDs WITHOUT some kind of formal, government-backed training.

Let me leave you with this thought: ask Timothy McVeigh.


Peter F.:

Let me leave you with this thought: ask Timothy McVeigh.

Let's review: A lone nut with help from another lone nut vs. thousands of Islamofascists.

Here endth that stupid comparison.

If Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds are fighting each other, then we have a civil war going on, based upon the standard definition. The presence of foreign terrorists changes the dynamic, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that there is interal conflict and violence.

Civil war....conflict and violence. Make up your mind, which is it. And the Kurds are fighting Sunni and Shiites? Where? When? What battles? And there is NO standard definition of a civil war; if there was one, there wouldn't be a debate about it, now would there.

What I'm saying is that it seems to be a pretty big assumption to make when thinking that Iraqi Shia will automatically align themselves with Iran.

Assumption? Capturing Iranian operatives inside Sadr City with Mahdi Army connections is an "assumption"? And al Sadr sure finds some safe havens in Iran when the heat gets on him now, doesn't he.

Because my lame hypothetical question wasn't about Iraq; you just assumed it was. Try reading next time.

Try not cryptcially and clumsily trying to loosely compare Guatamala to Iraq when the discussion is about Iraq. Get to the friggin point and maybe that won't happen.

ryan a:

Peter:

Let's review: A lone nut with help from another lone nut vs. thousands of Islamofascists.

Here endth that stupid comparison.

Why do the raw numbers matter? You're asserting the idea that terrorists must somehow always require state support, and that's not necessarily the case. McVeigh and Nichols prove that possibility. Peter, here's the question you asked:

I'll leave you with this thought: How can a rag tag bunch of terrorists/insrugents find the technology and means to build, plant and detonate with percision massive IEDs WITHOUT some kind of formal, government-backed training. Answer: Impossible.

Note how you used the word impossible. Well, the "lone nuts" McVeigh and Nichols were certainly able to commit highly destructive terrorist acts WITHOUT state-sponsorship. They could certainly be described as "rag tag," don't you think? This might be indicative of the ways that Al Qaeda is able to commit acts of terrorism without necessarily having much formal state support/backing.

Civil war....conflict and violence. Make up your mind, which is it.

So "civil war" is somehow categorically different from "conflict" and/or "violence"? How so? It seems to me that civil war, like the American Civil War for example, usually includes both conflict and violence.

And the Kurds are fighting Sunni and Shiites? Where? When? What battles?

Way to avoid the fact that the Sunnis and Shias are openly fighting at present. You're right though, currently the Kurds are not openly engaging in fighting or warfare with Sunnis and Shias. The main violence has been between Shia and Sunni factions. Still, that seems to be civil war to me.

And there is NO standard definition of a civil war; if there was one, there wouldn't be a debate about it, now would there.

Well, there are PLENTY of standard definitions, whether or not you agree with them is the question.

Miriam Webster puts it like this:

civil war:-noun; a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

Pretty simple, but that works for me, at least for a general definition. How would you define civil war?

Try not cryptcially and clumsily trying to loosely compare Guatamala to Iraq when the discussion is about Iraq. Get to the friggin point and maybe that won't happen.

Actually, the thread is about the proper ways of dealing with terrorism. You assumed that I was talking about Iraq, and for some reason can't get over that. I asked that question because I felt that the Guatemalan military pretty much did the worst possible thing they could have done, and they couched it in terms of fighting terrorism. And what they ulitmately did was drive the civilian population AWAY from them by creating hatred, fear, and mistrust. So there's an example where the military wasn't the best way to solve a problem, especially since the military itself was commiting acts of terrorism against civilians.

Sure, this can be related to Iraq in some ways, but the US military isn't going around leveling civilian villages intentionally, are they? No, they aren't. Destroying communities and eliminating unarmed civilians was basically the policy of the Guatemalan military--democracy, human rights, and the rule of law be damned. The results were atrocious, needless to say.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.