The September, 2001 terrorist attacks shook the western world out of its
complacency; terrorists do exist, and they do have the will to act.
Having hidden behind the, "It won't happen here", protection of optimism for
years, America was woken up with a short, sharp, shock. Hollywood films may
have portrayed the possibility of extremist action for years, but everyone
thought it was little more than artistic licence, and the good guy always wins
in the end.
Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Van Damme nor any of the other silver
screen super heroes can protect against real covert terrorism, and the
government struggles trying. The attacks on the twin towers and the massive
damage caused to the Pentagon shows just how unprepared the US was for the
threat.
The US retaliation was hardly unexpected with Bush in the Whitehouse, massive
military action against Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda movement in particular.
Osama bin-Laden is the devil incarnate, and the glory boys are gonna sure whip
his ass hard.
The message that all you need to devastate the largest super-power on earth is
a tooth-pick and the will to do it, has not however been totally lost in the
mass retaliation and retribution which has followed. It is not a huge land,
sea or air invasion that will bring a country to its knees, but one or two
determined individuals with a small amount of weaponry, and an evil grin.
The focus against terrorism has now shifted to individual members of
various 'terrorist groups' who lurk around the world and within the countries
they may plan to destroy. These are the people who may inflict the damage, and
they need to be stopped.
The idea that an individual could singularly wipe-out the core of a country's
heart is not new, and there have been plenty of warnings in the past.
I find it unbelievable that not everyone has, at some time or other, been
involved in the, "If you wanted to destroy X, how would you do it ?",
debates, on a philosophical level, if not even intent on doing so.
The most obvious way is to pack your waist coat with explosive, walk up to your
target, and go, "Boom !". A tactic that is familiar, and frequently
used in the Middle East.
If you have concerns about the problem of being propelled into a million and
one pieces as a result, the good old fashioned car bomb is a safer bet, as is
the simple trick of dropping a bomb off in a public dustbin, or leaving it
near the target in a hold-all.
If you want to combine the two, particularly useful if the target is well
protected or guarded, the car packed with explosive and driven at speed is the
terrorist's cheaply made cruise missile. If you want to be flash, forego the car
and use a radio controlled airplane.
None of these techniques are new, and have been used with devastating effect
around the world where conflict has arisen. While fanatics may be willing to
sacrifice their lives, others are far more circumspect and would prefer to use
delivery methods which would allow them to watch the results of their attack
from afar, rather than from an elevated position in Nirvana or Paradise.
The IRA were at one time adapt at using home made mortars from old drain piping,
with well timed attacks on Heathrow airport and scoring a near-miss in their
assault on Downing Street. Such attacks triggered a burst of surveillance
cameras around the country, but didn't stop someone driving a lorry packed full
of explosives into the heart of Docklands.
The authorities, particularly in the UK and USA, have become much more alert,
and most would imagine that it's hard to sneak an explosive device around
without getting caught. The truth is however far from that. Nothing stopped
a taxi being exploded outside the BBC's TV Centre, or a rocket attack on the
MI6 building.
Surveillance, both overt and covert, may limit the activities of those who are
involved with known groups, but it does little to stop the activities of the
loner who happens to have a grudge, and is working alone.
Unless we are going to submit to Big Brother, the enforcement of a police state
and the removal of almost all of our civil rights, there is little which can
be done, and the authorities now believe this.
Having seen the devastating results of the Anthrax attacks in America, carried
out using nothing more sophisticated than the US Postal Service and a batch of
anthrax ( apparently conveniently supplied by the US Government itself ) those
in the positions to protect us have had to sit down and have the age-old
debate about how those with ill intent can get past the 'stringent' security
which has been put in place.
The possibilities that they now see are being reported as fact
and not theory. There is plenty of evidence that a dirty-nuke, nerve gas or
any other manner of chemical or biological weapon could be used with great
impact, but the threat is not really greater now than it ever has been, and
the threat will continue to remain no matter what we do.
Announcing with great publicity that some devious plot has been uncovered to
use one of these techniques does nothing to quell the public's fear, and is
starting to look like the announcements are only being made to shift the
popular mind from, "It may happen", to, "It is happening".
But with what intent ? It may increase vigilance, but it only takes one
individual amongst millions, and history has shown that those who have caused
the most damage have been the 'people next door', who no one suspected had
any grudge against anyone, and were considered the most unlikely of
terrorist or subversive activists.
In a world where it seems impossible to stop acts of terrorism, subversion and
destruction, what are we to do ? The only realistic option is the imposition
of the police state, and a removal of some freedom.
We need to give the
authorities the powers to stop and search on a whim, and indeed it must become
compulsory. Frequent searches of homes, work places and individuals must become
common place, and accepted, for we know not when someone will act.
All citizens must be fingerprinted, photographed, and bar coded. We need to be
able to identify everyone beyond doubt, and we need to monitor their every
movement. Face recognition systems, and identity chips must be implanted for
tracking purposes.
Communications must be completely monitored or shut down, modern forms of
electronic communications using encryption must be made unlawful, and close
attention must be paid to those who enter or leave their native shores and
communicate beyond them.
And we need to monitor the status and allegiance of those around us, to
reveal those who have a potential to act before they are allowed to do so.
If we do not do all of these things, then the potential for a terrorist to
act covertly can never be eliminated.
At first glance, it may seem that it is
a high price to pay to protect ourselves, but it is not the enemy in a foreign
country we need to fear, but the one in our midst. Even if we could nuke every
other country off the face of the earth, we still won't find the enemy who
lives next door. To secure our democratic freedom, we have no choice but to do
this.
Or alternatively, we could could look for ways and means to bring about world
peace and harmony.
The opinion of the authorities is clear; we must clamp down, and clamp down
hard. The loss of civil liberties is a small price to pay, if it means that
the threat of terrorism can be stamped out.
To ensure that the people, "Get with the programme", the risk of danger is being
turned into the reality of danger, exaggerated without evidence. It is used in
the continuing war against, "Rag-Head extremism", slowly convincing everyone
that there is no choice other than to curtail freedom in the fight against
terror. Those who object are labelled as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathisers,
or terrorists themselves; if you are not against the evil, then you must be evil
yourself.
The distinction between rejecting terrorism and rejecting state control to
allegedly combat terrorism is simply being ignored, and the government is
slowly, and subtly, convincing the people that they know their message is
right.
As more and more believe that is the case, the ability to impose Big Brother
sanctions and control becomes greater. It won't happen overnight, but slowly,
almost unnoticably.
It is already starting to happen.
Propaganda or Slight of Hand ?
When John Ashcroft, US Attorney General, announced the uncovering, and
foiling, of the plot to sneak a dirty-nuke into the US, probably destined for
Washington, there was suspiciously little evidence offered to back the claim
up.The issue has been further clouded by revelations that the alleged bomber,
Jose Padilla ( aka Abdullah al-Muhajir ) had been in custody for over a month,
when the announcement was made and there was very little evidence that there
was any real plot for such a device to be used.
As Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, admitted, "I don't think
there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk".
The question which has to be asked then, is why Ashcroft made his sudden
announcement, in an unexpected live news channel link-up from Moscow, which has
been described by many news observers as dramatic ?
This is not the first time that an official statement has been issued praising
the FBI and CIA for its work in its fight against terrorism, while the
investigations into how the organisations totally failed in their ability to
detect, prevent or forewarn of the tragedy of the September the 11th attacks
proceed.
You can however be sure that many more congratulatory, back-slapping
announcements will appear, as circumstances dictate.
Protecting UK Sites
In the wake of the attack upon America, MI5 in the UK produced a list of
over 350 sites which it believes are potential terrorist targets.
Although the list remains secret, it is not hard to guess where the UK believes
its targets are.
At the top of the list comes Britain's nuclear power stations, military
installations and government premises. These are all sites where an attack could
seriously damage everyday life within the UK, the operation of its defence
systems and capability to govern.
In addition, key communications centres, food and fuel distribution centres will
be covered.
The terrorist threat however is not solely concerned with a direct attack
against the UK in traditional military terms. Rather than mount an all out
assault, the terrorists use the fear of terrorism itself, and the most likely
targets are those which will capture the public's attention.
Despite the appalling loss of life in New York, the audacious terrorist attack
has to be seen as one of the most successful the world has seen. The destruction
of one of America's most famous landmarks, the ensuing devastation and
disruption, with wall-to-wall television coverage across the world, made sure
that everyone got the message. The partially successful attack on the Pentagon
showed just how much damage to a country's government infrastructure could be
caused.
Looking at Britain, it is difficult to find targets whose destruction would
achieve such world-wide coverage. Destruction of a nuclear installation
or damage to any number of the secret bases which are involved in the
development or production of chemical or biological substances and weaponry
are perhaps the most obvious, as the consequences would be widespread and
hard to ignore.
If major disruption to a country's way of life is sought, the targets are those
which we take for granted, and although of key importance, have an incredibly
low profile.
The loss of a reservoir ( especially one which was dammed ) would cause
hardship and widespread damage, as would the destruction of key road or
rail intersections; Birmingham's Sphagetti Junction and mainline railway
stations.
The damage, although major, is little more than happens in countries which
have suffered earthquakes or other similar natural disasters, and foreign
interest quickly wanes.
In terms of leaving a lasting memory of the destruction, something which is in
the world's eye needs to be taken out; something which is recognised as iconic
of Britain itself. In the same way as the World Trade Centre was, well known
landmarks are likely to be the primary target.
In Britain however, there are remarkably few.
Most targets of this kind are inside London; Buckingham Palace, Big Ben and the
Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge, St Paul's Cathedral, the Tower of London,
Nelson's Column and the British Telecom and Canary Wharf towers.
There are the Tate Galleries and a fine selection of museums, and a few
notable establishments such as the BBC, the Bank of England, Downing Street
and even the London Eye, but these are all B-list material.
Beyond the capital there is very little; Stonehenge, Blackpool Tower, and
Edinburgh Castle are the three which spring rapidly to mind. Traditional visitor
attractions, especially for Americans, such as Brighton Pavilion,
Shakespeare's House, Anne Hathaway's Cottage, and an assortment of Royal
Palaces, Stately Homes and Gardens, Cathedrals and Theme Parks may all be
fairly well known but their destruction wouldn't really attract attention on
the scale that the collapse of the twin towers did.
Local communities may believe that the Milton Keynes Bowl, the Birmingham
National Exhibition Centre, Manchester's G-MEX and Southend's Pier have some
importance, but their lack of significance is clearly demonstrated by the way
almost everyone in the UK has so quickly forgotten that the Manchester Arndale
was almost totally destroyed by the IRA.
Other potential targets claiming a national identity have already destroyed
themselves, or wouldn't be missed; in particular, Wembley Football Stadium and
the Millennium Dome.
It's a depressingly short list of targets, and shows that Britain has very
little to offer the world. Its biggest international export in terms of
identity and tourism is its Monarchy and associated pageantry, contribution to
literature, and a history of great inventions never exploited or pursued except
beyond its shores.
Nearly all of Britain's internationally famous landmarks are located within
London, and beyond that, there is little that is more exciting than
sweeping fields, national parks and moors, all dotted with grey and dull
cities, towns and villages. It's not hard to imagine that the country is
populated by equally dull people.
It makes one wonder why tourists flock to the UK from all over the world, and
why it is considered the favourite destination for economic migrants and those
claiming political asylum.
It is only fair though to apply the same test to other countries in the world,
and the results are not much better. America benefits with its great size, but
in total, there are few things the human race has thrown up which causes the
world to drop its collective jaw.
Okay, the human race has only been around for a few million years, but surely
the global report card should read other than, "Could do better".
Who Cares About UK Nuclear Targets ?
When it's widely believed that the UK's 31 nuclear power stations and recycling
plants are a potential target for terrorism, you'd expect to see security
stepped up. Instead, security checks at 22 sites have been cancelled.
Mr Buckland-Smith, director of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security has
admitted that anti-terrorist checks have been cut back because of staff
shortages.
While Buckland-Smith admits that, "It is impossible without a thorough and
comprehensive programme of site inspections undertaken by experts to identify
security weaknesses, or monitor compliance with standards and regulations",
the loss of experienced security staff to the private sector ( where salaries
are higher ) has caused a cancellation of security checks.
The public have been shocked to hear that protection against terrorism is
failing because the salaries are too low, and it is no surprise that many
fear hordes of terrorists heading this way, rubbing their hands with
glee.
