You know how John Kerry is always claiming international leaders support his candidacy? Looks like he's right, at least as far as international terror groups are concerned. There was a rather remarkable article in today's daily paper. Apparently, according to experts, Al-Quaeda (sp?) is reluctant to attack us before the election because they feel that will benefit Bush. The terrorists would much rather have Kerry in the White House.
Connecticut Sunday Post, July 25, top story
Terror strike seen inevitable
But experts say timing may hinge on election outcome
By MICHAEL P. MAYKO [email protected]
This fall's presidential election might truly result in a choice between the lesser of two evils.
At least when it comes to possible terrorist acts.
"The Islamist terrorists don't want to see President Bush re-elected," says Tom Marzullo, a U.S. Army Green Beret Vietnam veteran who later served with the U.S. Navy in submarine special operations.
"He [Bush] has taken a very hard line against them," said Marzullo, now a counter-terrorist consultant who also writes a weekly column for mensnewsdaily.com. "They would rather see John Kerry elected because they believe they can better deal with him."
Marzullo said intelligence experts have picked up "a lot of yammering" in the terrorist communities.
He believes these terrorist threats should be taken seriously. He is not alone in that thinking.
"An attack is imminent," said Ghassan El-Eid, a native of Lebanon who teaches courses in international terrorism at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain. "It's just a question of when."
El-Eid believes the color-coded system used by the Department of Homeland Security to describe the seriousness of the threats should be modified.
"I'm convinced we should always be on red alert [the highest level]," said El-Eid, who is writing a book on international terrorism.
El-Eid and Mazzullo both point out that al-Qaida maintains scattered cells throughout the world, including the U.S. There are suspicions that it once maintained training camps along the Canadian border.
"They and their affiliated groups can act on a moment's notice," El-Eid said.
Marzullo sees terrorists planning two possible strategies.
"If Bush is re-elected, look for something to happen very soon after the election," he said. "They [terrorists] will see this as retribution, punishment for re-electing him. So they would want to inflict mass casualties."
"With Bush, it's more of a personal thing to them," El-Eid said of the terrorists' feelings for the president who has declared war on them.
Marzullo said there are a wealth of targets in the U.S. for such a strike. But few would have a greater impact than hitting malls with deadly materials on the day after Thanksgiving
the busiest shopping day of the year.
"Just think what they would accomplish," he said.
Not only would there be massive deaths but the areas hit would be unusable for a long period of time, Marzullo said. Additionally, the psychological impact of a mall being hit during the holiday shopping season could crush the economy.
If Kerry is elected, Marzullo believes the terrorists will want to quickly disrupt the new administration shortly after inauguration day.
"That would immediately throw the new administration off balance," Marzullo said. "It would be an ideal time for them to strike. Advisers would not yet be in place, there'd be disunity and a lack of time to react."
Marzullo said the terrorists would then seek to negotiate a deal.
"They'd be forcing his [Kerry's] hand to meet their demand we retract ourselves globally," he said.
And the target?
"It would be more of an economic target than one of mass casualties," he said. "They don't want to provoke him [Kerry], just disturb him."
So Marzullo believes bridges leading into a major city such as New York, could present a lucrative target.
"If they hit the major arteries, they could isolate a city," he said. "Economically, the city would shut down. There would not be a lot of ability to reopen quickly."
Both he and El-Eid believe the terrorists and their weapons may already be here.
"It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to assemble or amass explosives, biological agents or poisons," El-Eid said. "Their ultimate aim is to cause death, destruction and panic."
What they don't have might be shipped in.
"The space on a ship can be modified to make it not readily inspectable," Marzullo said. "Plus shipyards around the world are not well-monitored. Surreptitious modifications could be made well ahead of the time they are needed [for an attack].
"A radiological device would fit best in a tanker," he said. "Since tankers carry oil, the oil would shield the neutrons from being detected by our overhead monitoring devices."
But others, including the Department of Homeland Security, believe an attack might come around the time of the election.
Newsweek reported this month that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department "to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election."
"For terrorists to attack around the time of the election makes a lot of sense," said Art Paulson, a political science professor at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven. "A free election is the cornerstone of a democracy and to disrupt it would be a net plus for them."
But Marzullo doubts a pre-election or Election Day attack is in the works.
"They don't want Bush re-elected," he said. "An attack at that time would result in a knee-jerk reaction to support the administration."
Even if an attack occurred on the day of the elections, Anthony Ball, chairman of behavioral and social science at Bridgeport's Housatonic Community College, doesn't see how it would force postponement or disruption of the nationwide event.
"It would have to be something that would prevent a lot of people from being unable to get to the polls," he said.
Despite our aggressive attitude since Sept. 11, 2001, Marzullo and El-Eid believe the U.S. needs to do a better job in gathering intelligence and bringing the fight to the terrorists.
El-Eid said the terrorist groups perceive this as an ongoing struggle against the Christian-Judeo imperialistic alliance forcing a culture change on Islamic society.
"It's very important we continue to gather intelligence," he said. "Infiltrating these groups and their cells is extremely difficult."
But Marzullo believes our strategy needs to change.
"We are fighting a purely defensive game against an enemy that uses unconventional warfare," Marzullo said. "They don't care about dying or how many people they kill. We are perceived as the infidels."
He said we need to attack the entire organization
"their money, their supply lines, their personnel. Until we take these blinders off, a lot more people are going to die."
Connecticut Sunday Post, July 25, top story
Terror strike seen inevitable
But experts say timing may hinge on election outcome
By MICHAEL P. MAYKO [email protected]
This fall's presidential election might truly result in a choice between the lesser of two evils.
At least when it comes to possible terrorist acts.
"The Islamist terrorists don't want to see President Bush re-elected," says Tom Marzullo, a U.S. Army Green Beret Vietnam veteran who later served with the U.S. Navy in submarine special operations.
"He [Bush] has taken a very hard line against them," said Marzullo, now a counter-terrorist consultant who also writes a weekly column for mensnewsdaily.com. "They would rather see John Kerry elected because they believe they can better deal with him."
Marzullo said intelligence experts have picked up "a lot of yammering" in the terrorist communities.
He believes these terrorist threats should be taken seriously. He is not alone in that thinking.
"An attack is imminent," said Ghassan El-Eid, a native of Lebanon who teaches courses in international terrorism at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain. "It's just a question of when."
El-Eid believes the color-coded system used by the Department of Homeland Security to describe the seriousness of the threats should be modified.
"I'm convinced we should always be on red alert [the highest level]," said El-Eid, who is writing a book on international terrorism.
El-Eid and Mazzullo both point out that al-Qaida maintains scattered cells throughout the world, including the U.S. There are suspicions that it once maintained training camps along the Canadian border.
"They and their affiliated groups can act on a moment's notice," El-Eid said.
Marzullo sees terrorists planning two possible strategies.
"If Bush is re-elected, look for something to happen very soon after the election," he said. "They [terrorists] will see this as retribution, punishment for re-electing him. So they would want to inflict mass casualties."
"With Bush, it's more of a personal thing to them," El-Eid said of the terrorists' feelings for the president who has declared war on them.
Marzullo said there are a wealth of targets in the U.S. for such a strike. But few would have a greater impact than hitting malls with deadly materials on the day after Thanksgiving
the busiest shopping day of the year.
"Just think what they would accomplish," he said.
Not only would there be massive deaths but the areas hit would be unusable for a long period of time, Marzullo said. Additionally, the psychological impact of a mall being hit during the holiday shopping season could crush the economy.
If Kerry is elected, Marzullo believes the terrorists will want to quickly disrupt the new administration shortly after inauguration day.
"That would immediately throw the new administration off balance," Marzullo said. "It would be an ideal time for them to strike. Advisers would not yet be in place, there'd be disunity and a lack of time to react."
Marzullo said the terrorists would then seek to negotiate a deal.
"They'd be forcing his [Kerry's] hand to meet their demand we retract ourselves globally," he said.
And the target?
"It would be more of an economic target than one of mass casualties," he said. "They don't want to provoke him [Kerry], just disturb him."
So Marzullo believes bridges leading into a major city such as New York, could present a lucrative target.
"If they hit the major arteries, they could isolate a city," he said. "Economically, the city would shut down. There would not be a lot of ability to reopen quickly."
Both he and El-Eid believe the terrorists and their weapons may already be here.
"It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to assemble or amass explosives, biological agents or poisons," El-Eid said. "Their ultimate aim is to cause death, destruction and panic."
What they don't have might be shipped in.
"The space on a ship can be modified to make it not readily inspectable," Marzullo said. "Plus shipyards around the world are not well-monitored. Surreptitious modifications could be made well ahead of the time they are needed [for an attack].
"A radiological device would fit best in a tanker," he said. "Since tankers carry oil, the oil would shield the neutrons from being detected by our overhead monitoring devices."
But others, including the Department of Homeland Security, believe an attack might come around the time of the election.
Newsweek reported this month that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department "to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election."
"For terrorists to attack around the time of the election makes a lot of sense," said Art Paulson, a political science professor at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven. "A free election is the cornerstone of a democracy and to disrupt it would be a net plus for them."
But Marzullo doubts a pre-election or Election Day attack is in the works.
"They don't want Bush re-elected," he said. "An attack at that time would result in a knee-jerk reaction to support the administration."
Even if an attack occurred on the day of the elections, Anthony Ball, chairman of behavioral and social science at Bridgeport's Housatonic Community College, doesn't see how it would force postponement or disruption of the nationwide event.
"It would have to be something that would prevent a lot of people from being unable to get to the polls," he said.
Despite our aggressive attitude since Sept. 11, 2001, Marzullo and El-Eid believe the U.S. needs to do a better job in gathering intelligence and bringing the fight to the terrorists.
El-Eid said the terrorist groups perceive this as an ongoing struggle against the Christian-Judeo imperialistic alliance forcing a culture change on Islamic society.
"It's very important we continue to gather intelligence," he said. "Infiltrating these groups and their cells is extremely difficult."
But Marzullo believes our strategy needs to change.
"We are fighting a purely defensive game against an enemy that uses unconventional warfare," Marzullo said. "They don't care about dying or how many people they kill. We are perceived as the infidels."
He said we need to attack the entire organization
"their money, their supply lines, their personnel. Until we take these blinders off, a lot more people are going to die."
