Fighting Terrorists Effectively

Fighting Terrorists Effectively

Wilson C. Lucom
Wednesday, June 23, 2004

"Birds of a feather flock together" is an old commonsense proverb. Eagles with eagles: the United States and Great Britain. Vultures with vultures: Iraq, Iran, Sudan and al-Qaida in these and other vulture countries. They help each other in every way possible.

Undoubtedly Saddam Hussein, because of his wealth, supported the terrorists and was a leader of the "vultures." They are enemies of the United States for harboring and/or supporting terrorism. Remember, President Bush said, "You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Realistically, al-Qaida and terrorist countries use the policy of "rules are for fools." They apply this policy to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, President Bush, Congress and any other "fools" who believe in rules of any kind, including evidentiary rules.

One of the Geneva Conventions specifies rules for the decent and humane treatment of prisoners of war. Other rules apply to workers in war zones, such as Iraq.

President Bush is severely criticized when prisoners are abused, not as a matter of policy but as aberrations of individual troops. The major media and TV are making a big thing out of something that should be "small potatoes" when the United States is at war. In this way they are helping the terrorist enemy.

The terrorist enemies follow "rules are for fools" and behead their prisoners, hostages and newsmen. We wring our hands and say "Isn't this terrible," but this hand wringing does not stop the terrorists from following their disdain for rules and continuing to behead innocent people.
The U.S. has to find a strategy to stop these beheadings.

The news media, biased 80 percent to 20 percent toward Democrats, simply mention the horrible acts of beheading or the taking of hostages and/or prisoners of war, dropping these stories after a short time. But the much less serious violation of prisoner abuse, such as making prisoners strip naked, has been constantly kept alive for over five months and will probably continue until election time.

Who benefits from this news bias?

In this instance, the American news media are benefiting the terrorist enemy, not the United States. The news media should constantly work to benefit the United States, which gives them very important rights and freedoms they would not receive in other countries. Yet they turn against their country when a Republican is president. Why?

If the U.S. is to survive as a free nation, the U.S. Congress and others must stop saying, "We are above committing such acts because we are a moral nation." The U.S. is not a moral nation; look at Enron and other scandals. If we were a moral nation, these scandals would not have happened. Even President Clinton was immoral. If the nation was moral, Clinton would have been expelled from office.

To survive, we have to be a realistic nation and instead "fight fire with fire," taking "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." A long terrorist war could bankrupt the United States, which must not happen. It may have to be ended by killing all the terrorists.

This is how Israel survives. Every time a Palestinian suicide bomber kills an Israel soldier or citizens, the Israel government retaliates and kills 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed. If Israel did not retaliate, it would long ago have ceased to exist as an independent nation.

The U.S. must learn to do the same thing, retaliating in kind or even greater than the original attack upon it. It would certainly discourage the terrorists, cut off their funds and reduce their numbers if the U.S. beheaded 50 of their captives for every American they beheaded. This is the only kind of action they understand. Otherwise, they know we are actually fools for allowing them to continue with their despicable deeds in time of war.

The 9/11 Commission and other agencies all follow the rules of evidence that credible evidence must be obtained, which, due to the secretive nature of al-Qaida, cannot be obtained in advance. Proof of this fact is that Osama bin Laden has not been caught because he keeps his location and further plans a deep secret.

Even CIA Director George Tenet said for 10 years that we have been unable to catch Osama bin Laden because he keeps his information a closely guarded secret, known only to himself and his immediate followers.

The 9/11 Commission in its final report said "no credible direct evidence" exists that there were ties between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. On deeper examination, this finding is useless and conveys a false impression that Bush was wrong to start the war against Hussein. It is a Democratic attack on Bush.

What does "no credible direct evidence" actually mean? No credible direct evidence actually does not mean anything, and the 9/11Commission looks really stupid in issuing such a statement.

Why does the 9/11 Commission look stupid? It is virtually impossible if not impossible to get credible direct evidence on an organization that keeps all its plans a deep secret.

For example, a man commits a murder to which there are no witnesses, he left no gun
and there is no possible way to locate him. This man is without doubt a murderer, but there is no CREDIBLE DIRECT EVIDENCE to even find him because he kept all credible evidence, including indirect evidence, a deep secret known only to him. A court must report that there is no credible direct evidence to prove he was the murderer. The man is a murderer, but there was no direct evidence to prove it and he is free to murder again.

Likewise, Hussein was a terrorist murderer.

No doubt about it, birds of a feather flock together and Hussein and the other terrorist nations including al-Qaida flocked together and helped each other, but the 9/11 Commission could not obtain the proof because of the secretive nature of the terrorists and Hussein. Therefore, it reported that a"no credible direct evidence" existed.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, said that "terrorism is like a cancer." It may for a period of time go into "remission," but it is not cured and is still with us to break out again when the time is right. To effectively fight and cure cancer you have to completely cut it out. With terrorism, you have to completely destroy it, cut it out so it cannot go into remission and start up again.

President Bush had to start with one of the "biggest birds" of terrorism, Saddam Hussein, because if unopposed, the terrorists would have regrouped and again attacked the U.S. President Bush prevented future terrorist attacks by attacking terrorism on foreign soil, not United States soil, where you could have been killed. You will observe that, because of the attack on Hussein, the terrorists have not been able to regroup to again attack the United States. What more proof is needed?

Every American, instead of criticizing President Bush, should give thanks to him for thwarting any further attacks on you for two and a half years. Let us pray that he can continue to do so.

* * * * * *

Wilson C. Lucom is co-founder, with Reed Irvine, of Accuracy in Media (AIM). Lucom's first grant started AIM. For over 25 years he was a vice president and a director of AIM. For many years Lucom was editor of Accuracy in Academia's newspaper, now called Campus Report. During the Roosevelt administration, Lucom served as an assistant to the Secretary of State in the State Department and Acting Chief of Mission, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.