Pages

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Micro-Terrorism & The Supporting World

The exact details do not matter for the point I'd like to make, but there is an interesting story currently unfolding in tiny Plainfield, N.H. A quick summary:

Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, have locked themselves off from the world on their own terms.

From behind the 8-inch concrete walls of their 110-acre hilltop compound, the couple taunt police and SWAT teams and play to reporters and government-haters with references to past standoffs that turned deadly. Residents want the Browns' circus to end before their small Connecticut River town becomes the next Ruby Ridge or Waco. ...

Ed Brown warned authorities they wouldn't take him alive: "We either walk out of here free or we die."

The Browns were sentenced in abstentia to 63-month prison sentences in April, after being convicted of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $1.9 million in Elaine Brown's income and of plotting to disguise large financial transactions.

Meanwhile, the government is doing very little. The basic problems: People have free reign to the Brown home, and are therefore able to continue to supply them with whatever they need. They have access to the media. They have access to food and drink.
We've never really seen convicted felons just be able to hold press conferences," Halleran said. "There has to be a restriction of access to and from their property. If people can continue to visit them, to bring them supplies, with diesel fuel and food, they can stay there for a long time."
Also important is that the US Marshal made the following statement:

Though they have refused to leave the compound, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier insists he has no plans to raid it to make them serve their time and will instead seek a peaceful surrender.

That's nice. So how's that working, eh?

This post is not about Ed & Elaine Brown. It's about terrorism, and what the ability of those who are willing to use force to achieve their goals have over those who are not willing. This compound is a perfect micro example of what terrorists do all over the world... and how the rest of the world allows them to get away with it.

The Browns are not cut off from food and water supplies - because nobody wants to cut them off. The Browns are not cut off from saying what they want to the media - because nobody wants to block the press. The Browns have numerous anti-government/anti-establishment people running to 'support them', making any government action that much more difficult... and nobody is stopping them. Their funds are not cut off, and the raid on Elaine Brown's dentistry office likely didn't do much to them. Meanwhile, they are essentially holding their town hostage, and wasting vast amounts of government (taxpayer) money, as there are plenty of agents wasting their time watching them, trying to figure out what to do.

And yet, nothing is happening. As it stands now, they're having a good old time, with no worries about the federal government actually raiding them, because nobody can stomach the fight - particularly when the media is around. If anything makes this more amazing, they're doing all this without any real demands - just that they be left alone. They're not asking for land, they're not asking for money... heck, they're not even calling on the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews!

Does all of this sound familiar, until the end? That's because it is exactly what Hamas, Fatah, and the rest do to Israel - and how the world actually helps them get away with it, by not cutting off their food, their money, their weapons, or their access. By actually giving them all of those, and telling Israel to actually give in to most of the demands they make. By allowing them constant [and favorable] media access and voice, despite all that they are doing.

This was just a little example of why terrorism works... and will continue to work, until the world starts to play a little rougher with those who try to hold themselves above the rules of the world. A little lesson in terrorism from Plainview, New Hampshire - who'd have guessed?

8 comments:

  1. Not going in with violence appears to be prudent, but I don't get why they aren't being cut off from supplies, water, electricity, etc. Or even tear-gassed or something.

    Your analogy appears better than you think, since you appear to be clamoring for immediate violence when there are still better options on the table. That's exactly where the U.S. and Israel have gone wrong so many times. People need to learn how to wait.

    Did you see that terrible interview with Norman Podhoretz. He thinks the Brits should have threatened to bomb Iran "to smithereens" during that hostage crisis a little while back -- this despite it having ended peacefully within two weeks -- and been willing to follow through. Why resolve a crisis peacefully and get your people back when you can launch an all-out war leading to their deaths and countless more?

    That's exactly the problem. The hawks play right into the terrorists' hands. The terrorists know all they have to do is keep poking, poking, and poking and eventually we'll do something so stupid, we basically do their job for them. Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans. Bush responded by sending more than that to their deaths, destabilizing the middle east, losing international goodwill, and destroying our moral high ground through the use of torture and Gitmo.

    Terrorism requires police work, not war. Kerry was ridiculed for that statement, but it's never been more true.

    The Browns aren't hurting anybody; they're just annoyances. Cut them off from everything (press excepted, first amendment), use tear gas, do anything to avoid another Waco. There are already too many damn SWAT teams busting into houses (sometimes the wrong ones) and killing people (and being killed) unnecessarily.

    It's just not satisfying to people. They want ACTION and they want it NOW. We needed to go to Afghanistan, but Saddam was 100% contained. Even if he had "WMDs," he didn't have nukes or any way to hurt us. These guys are exactly the same. Contain and wait.

    Or go get some people killed so we can feel like we're doing something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good grief, why do these people still have food, water, electricity, etc?! It's absolutely absurd.

    Dear G-d, save us from our well-meaning but misguided selves (and governments)...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not going in with violence appears to be prudent, but I don't get why they aren't being cut off from supplies, water, electricity, etc. Or even tear-gassed or something.

    Exactly the point of this post.

    you appear to be clamoring for immediate violence when there are still better options on the table.

    I never called for violence. I questioned why NONE of these shutoffs were being done, and why on top of that, they know that [unless the US Marshal is lying] they won't be attacked no matter what.

    That's exactly where the U.S. and Israel have gone wrong so many times. People need to learn how to wait.

    Disagree. But I'll wait until the later portion of your comment.

    He thinks the Brits should have threatened to bomb Iran "to smithereens" during that hostage crisis a little while back -- this despite it having ended peacefully within two weeks -- and been willing to follow through.

    From that short summary, I'd agree with him. Iran basically got away with taking hostages for 2 weeks and came out looking *good* from it.

    The hawks play right into the terrorists' hands. The terrorists know all they have to do is keep poking, poking, and poking and eventually we'll do something so stupid, we basically do their job for them.

    That makes no sense. Here's a better one: The doves play right into the terrorists' hands. They know that they can do slightly more each time at no cost to themselves. They can basically hold entire countries hostage - and have the world SUPPORT them, no less.

    You basically just made a case for Bin Laden getting away with murdering 3,000 people because the left just says "Wait! Don't do anything! That'll only end up causing war, and war is bad, and people die."

    Bush responded by sending more than that to their deaths, destabilizing the middle east, losing international goodwill, and destroying our moral high ground through the use of torture and Gitmo.

    1) Some costs are necessary. We could do the old "how many died in WWII", but that's a waste of time.

    2) Just to leave the appearance of "stability" (which there wasn't anyway, but that's revisionist history for you), we should leave in power an incredible threat who killed more people a year by far than are currently dying in a war which is basically for democracy? That's ridiculous.

    3) What international goodwill? And what value does it have? What's lost, exactly? Can you measure how it negatively impacts us in any way if it is in fact lost?

    4) Huh? What torture? A supposed story about flushing a Koran? How about having the media give the gruesome details about what the US is finding from the terrorists?

    What's the problem in Gitmo exactly? That people who supported terrorists are being held without a trial? As long they're not US citizens, there doesn't seem to be a problem with that. I don't see how the Geneva convention applies. Explain the problem exactly.

    Terrorism requires police work, not war. Kerry was ridiculed for that statement, but it's never been more true.

    No, it's wrong, which is why he was ridiculed. It's stupid.

    Think about it: You're basically saying that a crime, of which the motive itself IS the crime, should simply be policed - track down the criminals and arrest them, basically. Which does absolutely nothing: They've already done what they wanted, which is cause terror and kill innocents, and now you're basically wagging your finger at them. What dissuades them from doing it again? Nothing. The only way to defeat terrorism is to show the terrorists and any who support them that not only does it not pay, and is it not worthwhile at the costs to their people, but there is a better way of living - and in that order.

    The Browns aren't hurting anybody; they're just annoyances. Cut them off from everything (press excepted, first amendment), use tear gas, do anything to avoid another Waco.

    Agreed. Though if they withstand all that, go in there and arrest them - with force if necessary. Otherwise, you're allowing them to essentially hold everyone hostage. What then stops countless others from doing the same?

    Of course, you undoubtedly do not say the same about Gaza. Why can't Israel cut off Gaza from any outside resources? The world outcry would be tremendous!

    It's just not satisfying to people. They want ACTION and they want it NOW.

    No. People aren't that stupid. People are smart enough to recognize that allowing people to game the system has terrible long-term consequences.

    Even if he had "WMDs," he didn't have nukes or any way to hurt us.

    ...but Israel is an okay sacrifice? More importantly, that's another point: You don't wait until the threat is too large to handle. You take care of it before it gets to that point - not only are the costs a lot less, but so are the deaths.

    Had Israel taken Cairo in '67, you don't think a lot of things would be a lot better? Had Israel consolidated the West Bank immediately? Had the US finished off Hussein in '91? Etc.

    Or go get some people killed so we can feel like we're doing something.

    That's a really bigoted - common - leftist approach, assuming that the right is simple-minded.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From that short summary, I'd agree with him. Iran basically got away with taking hostages for 2 weeks and came out looking *good* from it.

    So you would prefer war to letting Iran look "good?"

    You basically just made a case for Bin Laden getting away with murdering 3,000 people because the left just says "Wait! Don't do anything! That'll only end up causing war, and war is bad, and people die."

    I specifically said that we had to go to Afghanistan. I'm not arguing against reacting, I'm arguing against overreacting. Or, in the words of Obama, I'm not against all wars, I'm just against stupid ones.

    4) Huh? What torture? A supposed story about flushing a Koran? How about having the media give the gruesome details about what the US is finding from the terrorists?

    Are you arguing that we aren't torturing? I don't get it. Are you making the argument that waterboarding, long-term sleep deprivation, freezing, sexual humiliation, etc., aren't torture or that we aren't doing them?

    Had Israel taken Cairo in '67, you don't think a lot of things would be a lot better? Had Israel consolidated the West Bank immediately? Had the US finished off Hussein in '91? Etc.

    I don't know about Israel, but we did not finish off Hussein in '91 for EXACTLY the reasons that we are seeing now. Bush I was too smart for that, and he was courageous enough to stand up to the hawks.

    That's a really bigoted - common - leftist approach, assuming that the right is simple-minded.

    I wasn't assuming the right is simple-minded. I think there's a natural bias towards action which leads to bad decisions in the event that no action or smaller actions will bring better results.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The right may have a tendency to act fast and furious, but the left has the tendency to do the opposite...not act at all. There is a story in Prophets (Samuel I maybe?) that King Saul was told to kill out all of the Amalekis, people and animals. But King Saul did not listen and out of his great human kindness he left one sheep alive. This sheep turned out to be the Amaleki king in disguise (this happened back then.) All through history this even came back to bite us Jews in the butt many times. I think it's time we learn that misplaced sympathy will always find a way to kick us in the pants...We as Jews and the civilized world as a whole. The terrorists feed on our misplaced sympathy...they depend on it and use it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i just posted at 10:00

    this "event" not "even" (came back to bite us Jews in the butt many times)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm sorry if I was a little aggressive -- I get worked up about the war sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm somewhat familiar with the case; the "compound" is entirely self-supporting when it comes to utilities; they have their own solar/wind power, wells for water, and I think they even grow a lot of their own food, or are capable of doing so, because it's over 100 acres of land. I'm assuming they have cell phones and there is actually a tower near enough to get a signal (not common outside the more urban parts of NH.)

    I think the gov't is very wary of doing anything, after Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX. The best they could do under the circumstances is just *ignore* the Browns, who are very media-savvy.

    ReplyDelete