Islamic Militant Training Camp in Alabama - From 25 July.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Originally posted on another board I frequent. And my mistake - the allegation of the camp's actual intent as an Islamic militant training centre was by British authorities, but it was reported by ABC, not by a British news agency as I'd said in another thread. But it had been several months, after all.

Islamic Militant Training Camp Allegedly Operating in Alabama
By Brian Ross July 25

A training camp linked to Islamic militants has been operating in Alabama, and European law enforcement officials believe Muslim extremists were using it to prepare for a holy war.
British authorities also thought that militants from overseas were training in the United States to take advantage of America's gun laws, sources told ABCNEWS. The looming question for law enforcement is whether there is a connection between the camp and the al Qaeda terror network.
An investigation by Britain's Scotland Yard led to the discovery of the camp in Marion, Ala. The facility is called "Ground Zero USA."
Bullet-riddled police cars and a school bus with mannequin targets are scattered around the property. Inside a huge shed is an equally macabre scene - shot-up mannequins, male and female, in domestic settings, some with red, blood-like stains on them.

Ground Zero's operators promised state-of-the-art, world-class training in automatic weapons, urban warfare, SWAT tactics and martial arts, supposedly to fight terror attacks.

Marion Police Chief Tony Buford said he became suspicious of the use of police cars and buses as targets.

"It was rumored that the camp here was used as training site for possible people that were sent here to do bodily harm to Americans," Buford told ABCNEWS.

The suspected terror ties of the Alabama camp were unknown until after Sept. 11, when officials in London arrested an accused al Qaeda supporter, Zain-ul-Albidin

He is charged with operation of a Web site, under the name of Sakina Security, allegedly recruiting Muslims for an Islamic jihad or holy war. He is now on trial in London.

The site, since taken down by British authorities, described what seemed to be the Alabama camp, including live-fire exercises at a state-of-the-art shooting range in the United States - something that would not be legal in Britain.

"In the United States, it is not illegal for anyone to receive military training, high-grade military training," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda.

The actual owners of camp, who are also British, say it was used primarily to train law enforcement personnel. Officials consider them unwitting accomplices. The camp owners declined to talk to ABCNEWS.

Scale of Secret Camps Unknown

It is not known how many holy war recruits came through the camp or when. But the FBI is now investigating a number of suspected training camps around the country.

"We know of a number of cases where Islamic terrorists came and training in this country in the early 1990s. It is likely that this scale of training is still continuing," Gunaratna said.

The most radical and belligerent of London's Islamic clerics, Abu Hamza, told ABCNEWS in a phone call that America's laws make such paramilitary training easy, "like a picnic."

British intelligence officials told ABCNEWS they are closely examining alleged ties between Hamza, who is said to have recruited alleged "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui, and Zain-ul-Albidin.

Copyright © 2002 ABC News Internet Ventures.

The link is still active:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Dail ... 20725.html

[Next of Kin]

This is quite troublesome...how does a government stamp out these organizations; they're like cockroaches. Step on one and then the others flee and even the one that was squished might not even be dead!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is quite troublesome...how does a government stamp out these organizations; they're like cockroaches. Step on one and then the others flee and even the one that was squished might not even be dead!

Trying to attack the actual organizations is useless, totally useless, though obviously necessary if they're actually inside the USA. We must remember however that our enemy is not terrorists alone, and that terrorists cannot operate without a support structure. That support structure is fully open to assault.

What we need to do is engage in ermattungsstrategie, as it is called in German. Operations of economic exhaustion, an effort designed to destroy enemy coalitions, remove sources of supply, and shake the spiritual will of the enemy.

Taking into account the fact that our military is very good at fighting conventional ground wars, but we are not as good at counterrorism or antiguerilla operations, our targets should therefor be the countries that fund, and provide spiritual support for, terrorist organizations.

We should use the massive ability of western countries to absorb damage in an extended conflict (What we've suffered so far is a pinprick at best) to resist the efforts of the terrorists while we use our armies, intended for stand-up decisive confrontations, to overthrow the governments of the countries that fund them, that provide spiritual will for their efforts, and that provide weapons and arms for their actions.

Then rebuilding those countries with secular and democratic governments, and if necessary with a period of MacArthurian Regency firstly, and instituting a full Marshall-type plan for those countries that we rebuild in that fashion (And thus demonstrating clear advantages to having your country worked over like that), we can remove the bite from terrorism.

In the short term terrorism would get worse. But it would never get bad enough to actually threaten the foundations of western civilization, and by the time we were done, the countries that provide the support to the terrorists would be gone, and would instead be allies. Funding, supplies, recruitment and reinforcement to terrorism - This would all be dried up or at least massively reduced.

And so by being willing to ride out the storm and endure the casualties while we rebuilt the middle east with force, when we had finished doing that, the terrorist organizations would "wither on the vine", so to speak, like the Japanese island garrisons in WWII, from the lack of support and interest in their causes.

That is a real and effectual strategy that we ought to be persuing; the problem is that it requires thinking in the long term, probably a fifty or even eighty year conflict, and accepting up to tens of thousands of casualties at home, and potentially hundreds of thousands or more abroad.

But if we don't do it, the problem will simply continue to get worse, because trying to counter the groups themselves will simply not work. Destroy one and another will indeed take its place.

[Enlightenment]

This is quite troublesome...how does a government stamp out these organizations; they're like cockroaches. Step on one and then the others flee and even the one that was squished might not even be dead!

They're worse than cockroaches. When one kills a cockroach the survivors don't breed another on in response.

So-called 'moderate' Islamics, on the other hand, tend to view any and all efforts to contain radical groups as attacks on Islam and they themselves will radicalize in response. The only way to really deal with this problem is a planet-sized can of anti-human RAID. Death solves all problems.

On a more limited scale, western countries could get a reasonable measure of peace by trading pluralism for pragmatism and outlawing the presense of Islamics within their borders. Deportation and internment should be enough in most cases although extermination has a nice ring to it in heavily infested areas.

And yes, I am dead serious.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is quite troublesome...how does a government stamp out these organizations; they're like cockroaches. Step on one and then the others flee and even the one that was squished might not even be dead!

They're worse than cockroaches. When one kills a cockroach the survivors don't breed another on in response.

So-called 'moderate' Islamics, on the other hand, tend to view any and all efforts to contain radical groups as attacks on Islam and they themselves will radicalize in response. The only way to really deal with this problem is a planet-sized can of anti-human RAID. Death solves all problems.

On a more limited scale, western countries could get a reasonable measure of peace by trading pluralism for pragmatism and outlawing the presense of Islamics within their borders. Deportation and internment should be enough in most cases although extermination has a nice ring to it in heavily infested areas.

And yes, I am dead serious.

I'd like to have more evidence of the extent of the fanaticism in the American Muslim community before I started pushing internment, thank you. And random extermination is never acceptable. In a total war situation you go after anything in the enemy's territory related to the war effort, and you don't care about civilian casualties. But you don't intentionally try to cross them. You may create a very thin line, but you at least don't cross it, howevermuch you bend it.

[Enlightenment]

I'd like to have more evidence of the extent of the fanaticism in the American Muslim community before I started pushing internment, thank you.

http://danielpipes.org/article/68

It seems more than a few 'mainstream' leaders of the American Islamic community have been caught spouting highly racist comments about Zionist control of the US. That's well into fanatic kook territory.

Not to mention the fanatic rantings of the Nation of Islam.

And random extermination is never acceptable.

Even when the victims are on a mission from god to kill you?

If it's them or us (and they are doing their best to make it that way), I'd much rather they got killed first.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://danielpipes.org/article/68

It seems more than a few 'mainstream' leaders of the American Islamic community have been caught spouting highly racist comments about Zionist control of the US. That's well into fanatic kook territory.

Not to mention the fanatic rantings of the Nation of Islam.

I agree, but the question of whether they speak for the majority of Muslims in America is still in doubt. They just have the money and the celebrity.

Even when the victims are on a mission from god to kill you?

If it's them or us (and they are doing their best to make it that way), I'd much rather they got killed first.

We can still wage war rationally, working towards rational objectives, though I admit those objectives may be extreme, rather than sweeping generalizations and mass extirpations.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Zeon I think Bush is doing what you said about invading the host nations of terrorists, but right now no one seems to want to support our anti-terrorist wars. Oh well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Zeon I think Bush is doing what you said about invading the host nations of terrorists, but right now no one seems to want to support our anti-terrorist wars. Oh well.

We have the support we need for the first-phase operations, and I suspect we'll have Russian cooperation after this incident in Moscow ends in the blood that is veritably inevitable considering their counterrorism record. Combined with Britain, Australia, and a few staging point countries in the appropriate regions, that's all we'd really need.

[Darth Wong]

We can still wage war rationally, working towards rational objectives, though I admit those objectives may be extreme, rather than sweeping generalizations and mass extirpations.

I hardly think the current objectives are rational; they still have no plan for what they would do after toppling the current regime. Look at how precarious the situation is in Afghanistan, and how quickly the people there have become disillusioned (indeed, the promises of massive international aid and infrastructure development to avoid repeating past mistakes have pretty much fallen by the wayside already). The only workable approach is containment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I hardly think the current objectives are rational; they still have no plan for what they would do after toppling the current regime. Look at how precarious the situation is in Afghanistan, and how quickly the people there have become disillusioned (indeed, the promises of massive international aid and infrastructure development to avoid repeating past mistakes have pretty much fallen by the wayside already). The only workable approach is containment.

A MacArthurian Regency has been proposed, and with the disillusioned and more secular populace of Iraq, could be effective even without a surrendered central authority figure. Indeed, it would be easier to impose on the ethnically disunited Iraqi people than on the ethnically diverse Japanese people, where a plot against the Regency could more easily propagate.

A Federal Republic or Confederation could maintain the Iraqi State, with the constitution being written as it was under MacArthur's Regency, for the new Iraqi State, while at the same time meeting the needs of those ethnically diverse peoples -- And if they disagree, rebellion is militarily unfeasable, and if we combine the Regency with economy benefits, likely unpopular.

Under an intelligent military governor, there's no reason why a MacArthurian Regency can't work in Iraq, and it has been stated that we're considering one. So we do, in fact, have a plan which can be implemented.

EDIT: Another sign that this is being considered is that we're apparently looking into closing our military bases in Germany. Doing so would give us the manpower to garrison Iraq without keeping the reserves mobilized long-term.

[Next of Kin]

What we need to do is engage in ermattungsstrategie, as it is called in German. Operations of economic exhaustion, an effort designed to destroy enemy coalitions, remove sources of supply, and shake the spiritual will of the enemy.

We should use the massive ability of western countries to absorb damage in an extended conflict (What we've suffered so far is a pinprick at best) to resist the efforts of the terrorists while we use our armies, intended for stand-up decisive confrontations, to overthrow the governments of the countries that fund them, that provide spiritual will for their efforts, and that provide weapons and arms for their actions.

Is it possible to put a strangle hold on, let's say, the funders of Al-Qaeda? Who would the U.S. coalition go after first when their funds come from a stream of wealthy financiers, supporters, sympathisers, charities, arms sales, drug trafficing, and legitimate/illegitimate business. It just seems overwhelming when more than just governments are funding these terrorists.

[Enlightenment]

Is it possible to put a strangle hold on, let's say, the funders of Al-Qaeda?

The prime funding source for al Qaida are the princelings of Saudi Arabia. These same princelings have rather close economic ties to the Bush family.

No one in the US government is going to go after the Saudis because it will mean hurting Fearless Leader's pocketbook.

[Next of Kin]

The prime funding source for al Qaida are the princelings of Saudi Arabia. These same princelings have rather close economic ties to the Bush family.

No one in the US government is going to go after the Saudis because it will mean hurting Fearless Leader's pocketbook.

And no one in the U.S. has called Bush to task on this?!?

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Institute near-martial law in the country. Give the government the ability to imprison suspected terrorists without trial for as long as needed. No-warrant searches and quick-response paramilitary SWAT teams would help as well. Censor all packages going in and out. Outlaw gun ownership. That would help.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Institute near-martial law in the country. Give the government the ability to imprison suspected terrorists without trial for as long as needed. No-warrant searches and quick-response paramilitary SWAT teams would help as well. Censor all packages going in and out. Outlaw gun ownership. That would help.

Ah yes. Eliminate freedom, and sometimes they'd still get through.

Gun ownership, you know, is the foundation of freedom. "The Second Amendment insures the Rest." Without the power to revolt against a tyrannical government the rest of your freedoms are totally useless.

The rest of your proposal just makes it worse and worse, and combined with the banning of firearms would turn the USA into a tyrannical dictatorship.

Why not go after the root of the problem instead? That's what can actually end this, if we have the endurance to persevere in our efforts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Is it possible to put a strangle hold on, let's say, the funders of Al-Qaeda?

The prime funding source for al Qaida are the princelings of Saudi Arabia. These same princelings have rather close economic ties to the Bush family.

No one in the US government is going to go after the Saudis because it will mean hurting Fearless Leader's pocketbook.

I've already demonstrated ways in which the Saudi government could be overthrown resulting in a net profit for the Bush family. But we'll have to wait and see.

[Enlightenment]

And no one in the U.S. has called Bush to task on this?!?

You have got to be kidding. For all intents and purposes the US has no effective political opposition and nothing resembling an vigilant mainstream press. Basically both parties and the press are all on the take, benefiting from a highly corrupt system that no one is going to blow the whistle on for fear of losing their own perks. No mainstream groups are prepared to rock the boat by calling attention to serious problems within the US government.

There was a minor flap when it was revealed that Shrubby ordered the FBI to back off investigating the bin Laden family because it was bad for the Bush family business[1] but the mainstream media didn't see fit to give the story legs.

The only groups in the US who are prepared to draw attention to these kind of abuses are too marginal to have any effect on public opinion. The general public would dismiss reports detailing connections between the Bushes, the House of Saud, and al Qaida as nothing more than antiamerican liberal whining intended to discredit the pResident.

American politics is hopeless.

[1] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms. ... 1030259305

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Look at Singapore. They do ALL of that. And have they had any bombings? No. (Actually they did, in the 1970s, after they just separated from Malaysia and the government was too busy getting the country back together to care. But nothing after that.)

I'm not going to say that methodology is perfect (I want my guns, dammit) but freedom and security *CANNOT*, I maintain and insist *CANNOT* exist together. Every thing else is a compromise.

And while you maintain that "The Second insures the rest", does this mean that if X freedom is not ensured you'll lynch Congress for it? Doesn't that imply "license to bully"?

The only way that could work, if you didn't want the laws, would be to ensure everyone's a Good Citizen, who duly reports all evil and wrong doings to the Police (or something). How much harder would that be?

And what is the root of the problem?

Ultra-radicals? Going after them is like going into the briar patch after Brer Rabbit.

Muslims at large? The solution sounds very much like "ethnic cleansing" to me (No, I don't advocate it.)

Or what are you going to do? Outlaw Islam and kill Allah?

Does this sound totalitarian? That may be true. But realize that dictatorships have very few terrorist incidents.

[Enlightenment]

Gun ownership, you know, is the foundation of freedom. "The Second Amendment insures the Rest." Without the power to revolt against a tyrannical government the rest of your freedoms are totally useless.

Please compare Iraqi gun control policies (hint: everyone has guns) with the quality of their government (hint: it's a totalitarian state). I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

I've already demonstrated ways in which the Saudi government could be overthrown resulting in a net profit for the Bush family. But we'll have to wait and see.

Even if it'd work you're assuming the Bush family has the foresight to think of its financial standing somewhat further down the road than merely in the next quarter. I rather doubt the family is any better at long-term financial planning than other business managers.

[Enlightenment]

Muslims at large? The solution sounds very much like "ethnic cleansing" to me (No, I don't advocate it.)

Why don't you advocate internment and/or deportation? It's far better to abridge the rights of a few than to make the many subjects of an authoritarian state.

Why take away everyone's rights just because a religious minority (in the western world, at least) has a strong and growing desire to kill people? In this situation there is no justification to share the pain; inflict the pain on the group that deserves it and leave everyone else alone.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

quote="Enlightenment"]

Is it possible to put a strangle hold on, let's say, the funders of Al-Qaeda?

The prime funding source for al Qaida are the princelings of Saudi Arabia. These same princelings have rather close economic ties to the Bush family.

No one in the US government is going to go after the Saudis because it will mean hurting Fearless Leader's pocketbook.[/quote]

And who's to say the tangos don't have resources salted away in the form of hardware, favors and hard currency? Interdicting their financing doesn't help much - the people must be eliminated , as must the doctrine.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gun ownership, you know, is the foundation of freedom. "The Second Amendment insures the Rest." Without the power to revolt against a tyrannical government the rest of your freedoms are totally useless.

Please compare Iraqi gun control policies (hint: everyone has guns) with the quality of their government (hint: it's a totalitarian state). I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

Everyone in Iraq does not have guns - Only the Sunni Arab minority population that Saddam Hussein comes from. Naturally there is an attempt to control firearm possesion by Kurds, Shi'ites, and Turkomans, since if you didn't, they could overthrow the central regime by sheer numbers.

Not many Kurds at all except those in the No Fly Zone have guns, and the only Shi'ites and Turkomans who do are in Saddam's paramilitary groups or Army. (IE: They're either committed to the regime for various reasons, in the paramilitary groups, or they're driven into battle "by the lash" in the Iraqi Army, like the old Persian infantry conscripts - Metaphorically and maybe literally considering how bad Iraqi morale is.)

Even if it'd work you're assuming the Bush family has the foresight to think of its financial standing somewhat further down the road than merely in the next quarter. I rather doubt the family is any better at long-term financial planning than other business managers.

Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see.

[CmdrWilkens]

For some reason I detect an extreme example of MacArthur worship. The man was an arrogant ass and not half the military commander he thought himself to be. The greatest service Truman ever did this country was removing him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For some reason I detect an extreme example of MacArthur worship. The man was an arrogant ass and not half the military commander he thought himself to be. The greatest service Truman ever did this country was removing him.

Actually, I agree with you completely on MacArthur. The man should have been sacked after the debacle in the PIs. That doesn't mean that a MacArthur-style Regency is ineffective, however. If anything, it shows that the system devised for it could work even when the guy running it was an arrogant, egomaniacal ass (Though, admittedly, also brilliant in some respects).