Maybe we should be paying attention

[paland]

Cochise County, Arizona

Border Patrol field agents have shared some disturbing information with the Tumbleweed as well as other civilian sources with the hope the information will make it to the general public.

The Tumbleweed has verified information that a flood of middle-eastern males have been caught entering the country illegally east of Douglas, Arizona. The increased patrols in the Huachuca Mountains area of Cochise County, seems to have diverted the flow of OTM's, "other than Mexicans" east to the Chiricahua Mountains. In the last month, the Tumbleweed has confirmed at least two documented accounts of Border Patrol agents encountering large groups of non-Spanish speaking males in the Chiricahua foothills and on trails along the high mountain areas.

On or about the early morning hours of June 13, 2004 Border patrol agents from the Wilcox station encountered a large group of suspected illegal border crossers, estimated to be around 100, just east of the Sanders Ranch near the foothills of the Chiricauha Mountains. 71 suspected illegal aliens were apprehended; among them were 53 males of middle-eastern decent. According to a Border Patrol field agent, the men were suspected to be Iranian or possibly Syrian nationals.

"One thing's for sure, these guys didn't speak Spanish and after we questioned them harder we discovered they spoke poor English with a middle-eastern accent, then we caught them speaking to each other in Arabic...this is ridiculous that we don't take this more seriously, and we're told not to say a thing to the media, but I have to," said the agent, whose name will obviously remain anonymous.

The agent stated the men were wearing the traditional uniform of migrants - baseball caps, tennis shoes, some had work boots, denim jeans and many had t-shirts with patriotic American flags and slogans. The agent added the following description "A curious thing I noticed was that they all had brand new clothing and they looked as if they had just been to the barber shop, you know, new haircuts. They were clean cut and they all had almost the exact cut of mustaches."

The information was corroborated by a local rancher in the area who reports that sightings of groups similar to these are on the rise. The rancher also reports that groups of heavily armed paramilitary drug smugglers have also been seen in the same area.

"We've had groups in the hundreds coming through again. They were gone for awhile but now they're back. And of course we have the drug mules again and many are carrying automatic weapons. Many other ranchers in the area have been frustrated with the lack of response from Border Patrol. After calling over and over again, to the Wilcox headquarters, we might get a response a few hours later. We call them in to the Border Patrol, we only have the Wilcox station, and they're so darned far away. By the time they send in the helicopters these groups are long gone. I don't know how many they catch but they're coming through here heavy right now."

On or about the evening of June 21, 2004, agents from the Wilcox Border Patrol station apprehended 24 members of a larger group of Arabic speaking males located just east of the Pierce/Sunsites area of Cochise County. At least half of the males escaped capture and disappeared into the United States.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Cochise County, Arizona

Border Patrol field agents have shared some disturbing information with the Tumbleweed as well as other civilian sources with the hope the information will make it to the general public.

The Tumbleweed has verified information that a flood of middle-eastern males have been caught entering the country illegally east of Douglas, Arizona. The increased patrols in the Huachuca Mountains area of Cochise County, seems to have diverted the flow of OTM's, "other than Mexicans" east to the Chiricahua Mountains. In the last month, the Tumbleweed has confirmed at least two documented accounts of Border Patrol agents encountering large groups of non-Spanish speaking males in the Chiricahua foothills and on trails along the high mountain areas.

On or about the early morning hours of June 13, 2004 Border patrol agents from the Wilcox station encountered a large group of suspected illegal border crossers, estimated to be around 100, just east of the Sanders Ranch near the foothills of the Chiricauha Mountains. 71 suspected illegal aliens were apprehended; among them were 53 males of middle-eastern decent. According to a Border Patrol field agent, the men were suspected to be Iranian or possibly Syrian nationals.

"One thing's for sure, these guys didn't speak Spanish and after we questioned them harder we discovered they spoke poor English with a middle-eastern accent, then we caught them speaking to each other in Arabic...this is ridiculous that we don't take this more seriously, and we're told not to say a thing to the media, but I have to," said the agent, whose name will obviously remain anonymous.

The agent stated the men were wearing the traditional uniform of migrants - baseball caps, tennis shoes, some had work boots, denim jeans and many had t-shirts with patriotic American flags and slogans. The agent added the following description "A curious thing I noticed was that they all had brand new clothing and they looked as if they had just been to the barber shop, you know, new haircuts. They were clean cut and they all had almost the exact cut of mustaches."

The information was corroborated by a local rancher in the area who reports that sightings of groups similar to these are on the rise. The rancher also reports that groups of heavily armed paramilitary drug smugglers have also been seen in the same area.

"We've had groups in the hundreds coming through again. They were gone for awhile but now they're back. And of course we have the drug mules again and many are carrying automatic weapons. Many other ranchers in the area have been frustrated with the lack of response from Border Patrol. After calling over and over again, to the Wilcox headquarters, we might get a response a few hours later. We call them in to the Border Patrol, we only have the Wilcox station, and they're so darned far away. By the time they send in the helicopters these groups are long gone. I don't know how many they catch but they're coming through here heavy right now."

On or about the evening of June 21, 2004, agents from the Wilcox Border Patrol station apprehended 24 members of a larger group of Arabic speaking males located just east of the Pierce/Sunsites area of Cochise County. At least half of the males escaped capture and disappeared into the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
According to the ruling authorities in our country, Iraq is the biggest threat. Therefore that is why the US is in Iraq.

But seriously...I heard a radio interview the other day with Benjamin Netinyahoo (spelling?). He was asked the following question: "What is the most effective method used by Israel to combat terrorism?" His reponse was "building walls to keep the terrorists out of Israel."

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not to nitpick, but they don't speak Arabic in Iran.

[MMMMMM]

He's correct, too, if results are any indication.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the ruling authorities in our country, Iraq is the biggest threat. Therefore that is why the US is in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who told you that? It is a threat, not the biggest. We can handle multiple threats at a time, btw.

[cardcounter0]

Let's not let facts get in the way of our "middle-eastern descent" fears.

Waiting for the next Indian running a 7-11 in Texas to get beat to death.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

True enough, but let's also not let the fact that ignorant people exist blur the fact that Al Qaeda is comprised primarily of people of middle eastern descent.

I believe what we have here is a dilemma.

[cardcounter0]

Just pointing out that ignorant people really can't be relied upon to identify people of "middle-eastern descent", can they? Especially when the report things like Iranians speaking Arabic to each other. Could have been a bunch of Puruvians trying escape some Columbians for all we know. Notice the reports of increased "Drug Lord" traffic.

And there possibly could be a large influx of middle eastern peoples into the country. Iraq is a total shambles, Afganistan has been bombed into the Stone Age, There is a huge wall in Palenstine, Lebanon still gets attacked, The US is making noises against Syria and Iran, and the borders with Libea have opened up. Sudan is undergoing civil way, etc.

If I lived there, I would be trying to get out and get to America too.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Just pointing out that ignorant people really can't be relied upon to identify people of "middle-eastern descent", can they?

[/ QUOTE ]
One interesting issue is regarding people who wear turbins. I just saw a segment on CNN where an Indian was almost beat to death in NYC because he was wearing a turbin. The perpetrators of the crime apparently thought he "looked like a terrorist." He wasn't even a Muslim.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, particularly ironic since India has a Muslim nation pointing nukes at it.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
True enough, but let's also not let the fact that ignorant people exist blur the fact that Al Qaeda is comprised primarily of people of middle eastern descent.

I believe what we have here is a dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]
The three most common traits that terrorists have in common are (in order of importance) 1) they are of middle-eastern descent, 2) they are un-married and 3) they are typically 20-40 years old. I have seen these three criteria listed in several places (TV news & news magazines).

It is my opinion that there will never be a real "war on terror" until people are singled out based upon the most likely criteria. I heard on the radio Friday that airport security (under directive of DHS) is forbidden to have more than two people of middle eastern descent in 2nd level questioning at once. Has anyone here on this board heard of this rule before? I don't have any idea if this is true or not, but if so, it's really sickening.

[cardcounter0]

Might be a total mis-interpretation of a good rule.

I could think of a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want two suspected terrorists in the same place at the same time.

Might be a good idea to keep them seperated and to go thru security procedures and areas seperately.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Might be a total mis-interpretation of a good rule.

I could think of a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want two suspected terrorists in the same place at the same time.

Might be a good idea to keep them seperated and to go thru security procedures and areas seperately.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Like most radio shows, they didn't elaborate on the reasoning behind the rule. But they implied that it was solely because they didn't want to appear to be "discriminating" against people who appear to be of middle eastern descent. I would like to know the details of that rule and how it is implemented.

[Utah]

Mr. President,

unfortunately, your blantant pandering to the hispanic vote is the reason that our southern border is not secure. Your whole crusade against terror rings hollow because of your willingness to trade security for votes.

How would you "spin" an attack coming from the southern border? Its not like you will be able to say, "Holy smokes! We never saw that coming."

Unfortunately, "keep the puck Kerry" (what his prep hockey team called him) would be no better.

[MMMMMM]

I raised this point in another thread and cardcounter0 made a big fuss that I said "airlines" rather than "TSA".

Anyway, it is a moronic rule but I'll bet cardcounter0 supports it.

[cardcounter0]

Yes. I guess you aren't such a smart guy you think you are. Maybe the Rev. Moon or Rush Limbaugh can explain to you why you wouldn't want two suspected terrorists together in a secondary screening area at the same time.

Nothing says there is a limit. They could secondary question and screen the whole plane of all middle eastern passengers if they want too. Just don't let a group in the secondary area at the same time.

One more time - since you seem to be a little slow --- DON'T LET SUSPECTED TERRORISTS GROUP TOGETHER IN SECURED AREAS WHILE BEING SCREENED, screen them seperately.

Only a moron would think that is such a terrible rule, sounds almost like common sense to me.

[MMMMMM]

They can't give undue pre-boarding attention to a group of 14 Syrians, though, can they? As TSA Secretary Mineta made clear, there is to be NO discrimination. What a joke. And what a greater, sadder and more tragic joke that you, and many others, can't see how ridiculous it is.

[cardcounter0]

I don't see the value added by paying undue attention to 14 Syrian band members. Please explain.

And from your previous posts it is obvious that you are totally ignorant to post-9/11 airline screening procedures.

Realize those 14 Syrians were pre-screened at the time they purchased their tickets. They also passed thru metal detectors, had their luggage x-rayed, and passed thru several ID checks, and other levels of screening, before boarding the plane.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't see the value added by paying undue attention to 14 Syrian band members. Please explain."

Who is more likely to be a terrorist: a young/middle aged Middle Eastern male, or an elderly lifelong US citizen?

Which group is more likely to be dangerous on an airplane: 14 young/middle aged Syrian males, or 14 AARP members?

[cardcounter0]

The 14 AARP members.

A TV reporter did a little experiment a while back. In this day and age, believe it or not --- He walked up to strangers in an airport and asked them to watch his luggage, or help him carry a package thru security. Guess what group of people agreed, and watched him walk off while they sat on his bags?

The people of "mid-eastern descent" pratically ran away because of a stranger trying to talk to them. Grandma from Iowa was glad to help carry the "gift for the daughter in college" thru the x-ray machine.

Also it is usually the AARP members who don't understand why they can't take their knitting needles aboard, or why their metal cane sets off the metal detector, etc. Which causes the TSA agents to have to focus on them to get them tottering on their way, and creates confusion, that a real terrorist could take advantage of and slip thru security.

Sorry, but it ain't going to happen like 9/11. The terrorists seem to be much more imaginative and creative and flexible then you are. They are able to adjust to changing conditions and different procedures.

I get the impression that if you were in charge, we would still be on full-alert watching the Little Big Horn waiting for the Indians to attack again.

[andyfox]

"I heard a radio interview the other day with Benjamin Netinyahoo (spelling?). He was asked the following question: 'What is the most effective method used by Israel to combat terrorism?" His reponse was "building walls to keep the terrorists out of Israel.'"

Which is one reason why Israel has not begun to solve its terrorist problem for 56 years.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Of course. The insane hatred Arabs have for Jews has nothing at all to do with it.

[MMMMMM]

"The 14 AARP members."

Can anyone really be this dense?

"Sorry, but it ain't going to happen like 9/11."

Unwarranted assertion, although I do agree the probability is low that it will happen exactly the same way. On the other hand an even larger group than the terrorist teams on 9/11 might still be able to overpower an airplane.

The terrorists seem to be much more imaginative and creative and flexible then you are. They are able to adjust to changing conditions and different procedures."

Obviously they are adjusting. That doesn't mean they will completely dioscard old methods though. And it doesn't answer reports of other groups casing airplanes for weaknesses and possible attacks.

"I get the impression that if you were in charge, we would still be on full-alert watching the Little Big Horn waiting for the Indians to attack again."

I asked you before, whose side are you on, anyway? Just wondering although I think the answer seems obvious.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"I heard a radio interview the other day with Benjamin Netinyahoo (spelling?). He was asked the following question: 'What is the most effective method used by Israel to combat terrorism?" His reponse was "building walls to keep the terrorists out of Israel.'"

Which is one reason why Israel has not begun to solve its terrorist problem for 56 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite wrong, Andy, I'm sorry to say.

Israel did not have a fence for 56 years. The recently built fence, however, has been immensely effective in reducing the number of attacks to near zero where it has been built.

Hard to argue with those facts, no matter what you may think of the larger issues.

[ACPlayer]

I get the impression that if you were in charge, we would still be on full-alert watching the Little Big Horn waiting for the Indians to attack again

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cardcounter0]

Actually I think Andy DOES have a good point.

They have had terrorism for 56 years. What is their most effective response so far? Build a big wall.

Seems to me, after 56 years, couldn't they have come up with some better, more effective, ideas? The big wall solution was first used by the Chinese to keep out the Mongols. No improvements or insights on combating terrorism since then?

During the Middle Ages, when the black death plague came around, what was the most effective response? Burn everything and everybody that had come in contact with it.

Pretty effective, but don't we have better solutions to disease now?

[ACPlayer]

It truly is a dilemma, but, IMO, a political one and not a moral one. Either way we lose something.

If we go down the path of racial profiling we change the nature of America from an open welcoming place it has been for 200 plus years to a closed-minded society heading down the path of intolerance and bigotry. Which means that the terrorists win the war.

If we dont we, we perhaps, risk another attack on the country. Of course this way the terrorists may score a victory in battle but not the war.

I would prefer principle to momentary tactical problems. Of course I would also prefer that the administration work on solving the terrorist problem rather than creating more terrorist problems.

This is a test of our moral compass. How we react will define America for the next 200 years.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
It truly is a dilemma, but, IMO, a political one and not a moral one. Either way we lose something.

If we go down the path of racial profiling we change the nature of America from an open welcoming place it has been for 200 plus years to a closed-minded society heading down the path of intolerance and bigotry. Which means that the terrorists win the war.

If we dont we, we perhaps, risk another attack on the country. Of course this way the terrorists may score a victory in battle but not the war.

I would prefer principle to momentary tactical problems. Of course I would also prefer that the administration work on solving the terrorist problem rather than creating more terrorist problems.

This is a test of our moral compass. How we react will define America for the next 200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a dilemma, and the approach that the US government takes must be treaded upon very delicately. But, let's not get overly pretentious here.

[MMMMMM]

"They have had terrorism for 56 years. What is their most effective response so far? Build a big wall."

Yes, exactly. After 56 years the Israelis finally began implementing an idea that actually works, and works well.

"Seems to me, after 56 years, couldn't they have come up with some better, more effective, ideas? The big wall solution was first used by the Chinese to keep out the Mongols. No improvements or insights on combating terrorism since then?"

Finding one method that actually works is better than trying 50 that don't. It is better, too, than mere daydreaming.

Not to say dreaming should stop entirely--where would we all be without dreams--but there has been a pressing need for an immediately practical solution to stop the suicide bombings. Thus far, the Fence has proven to to do this very well indeed.

I don't think the Israelis should be asked to stop defending themselves while somebody dreams up a solution.

Until somebody comes up with a more effective solution, Israel should keep building the Fence.

It is one thing to talk about "finding a better solution", but a very different thing to actually manage to do so.

[Gamblor]

until you started with this:

They have had terrorism for 56 years.

Much longer than that. The Jewish community there has been subject to violent anti-immigration intimidation tactics beginning with massacres as early as the 19th century.

[i]What is their most effective response so far? Build a big wall.

Seems to me, after 56 years, couldn't they have come up with some better, more effective, ideas?

They've been coming up with better, more effective ideas for a century.

The first idea was violent response, an eye for an eye. But the Etzel (http://www.eztel.org.il) were disbanded long ago, in the war of Independence. Their mantra was deterrence, believing that if they showed they would fight back, it might deter the Arabs from carrying out the massacres. Of course, you have to love life for death to be a deterrent.

Then came the Israel Defence Forces, which with their inception in 1948 was charged to deal with constant Arab terrorism after Independence.

In 1967, when Israel won the Six Day war, it captured Jordanian and Egyptian lands that had been used as launch pads for terrorism. Given that the Arabs would never accept the rebuilding of the Jewish homeland, what the Arab countries had come to learn is that they could "sue for peace"; in essence, they could keep attacking and threatening to attack because they knew Israel would give up land and resources to secure peace treaties as happened in the Sinai in 1967, when to appease the Arabs, thousands of Jews who had lived in Sinai towns like Yamit were sent to live in central Israel.

Therefore, it was decided that only when the Arabs realize that there is a price to pay for this constant "suing for peace". Therefore, the doctrine of deterrence was adopted. Israel's means of self-defence turned from defensive, i.e. only mobilizing when Arabs launched attacks, to offensive, i.e. hindering Arab military capabilities, with the understanding that the main target for those capabilities was Israel. This is what gave birth to the Israeli claim over the West Bank and Gaza - that these lands, in some parts walking distance from Israeli cities, were being used as a base for terrorist and military operations.

Terrorists in the Territories are motivated by as much an ideology of hatred for Jews and Israel as they are by money. With the massive sums of money paid to Arab terrorists from Saddam Hussein and (indirectly) the Palestinian Authority, means of combating terrorism in Israel are the most sophisticated in the world.

For example, Israeli passenger planes are now equipped with anti-missile systems. Israelis invented a massive "slide" that allows quick evacuation of high-rise buildings.

The IDF consistently identifies terrorist leaders and assassinates them with laser-guided missiles. They risk the life and limb of their own soldiers to arrest terrorists rather than simply drop a bomb and be done with it. They demolish houses of terrorists as a deterrent, because there is no other way to punish a man who has committed suicide. They raze apple orchards terrorist gunmen use as cover for sniper attacks. And yet, when they do this, it is YOU who condemn them for their brutal tactics.

So now, they go the non-violent route and build a fence (chain link, mind you), and you have the gall to call this their most effective response? Seems to me the most effective response would be to herd the entire terrorist - the terrorist, not Arab - population out of the territories and use the natural Jordan River as a border. But the moral and political implications of that are questionable at best.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
"I heard a radio interview the other day with Benjamin Netinyahoo (spelling?). He was asked the following question: 'What is the most effective method used by Israel to combat terrorism?" His reponse was "building walls to keep the terrorists out of Israel.'"

Which is one reason why Israel has not begun to solve its terrorist problem for 56 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? I'd say they are doing fairly well considering that they are located in the middle of the most terrorist-filled area in the world.

"Israel has not begun to solve its terrorist problem for 56 years." Has not begun? What would you suggest? I can't think of any better way than to physically keep the terrorists out (using a fence, not letting them in the country, etc.).

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I think Andy DOES have a good point.

They have had terrorism for 56 years. What is their most effective response so far? Build a big wall.

Seems to me, after 56 years, couldn't they have come up with some better, more effective, ideas? The big wall solution was first used by the Chinese to keep out the Mongols. No improvements or insights on combating terrorism since then?

During the Middle Ages, when the black death plague came around, what was the most effective response? Burn everything and everybody that had come in contact with it.

Pretty effective, but don't we have better solutions to disease now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Science/medicine is not yet advanced enough to develop a substance that will reprogram the minds of terrorists so that they will be unable to commit terrorist acts. Anti-terrorist substances that can be placed in their water supply or anti-terrorist chips that can be implanted in their heads are not yet available. So it appears that a big fence is still a very effective (if not THE most effective) tool.