PDA

View Full Version : Something for us to think about.....pt1


Nightrunner
06-20-2005, 04:53 PM
The Hidden Enemy: Sympathizers & Recon Personnel
By: Frank Borelli


We've all read stories about the middle-eastern appearing men with cameras taking pictures of bridges; the Coast Guard has asked boaters to keep a look out for people doing such things from boats; if we saw someone with an olive complexion and a camera walking around near fuel storage tanks most of us would take note. What about the things we just don't expect and therefore dismiss if we even notice it at all? Let me give you two examples:

Example One: (names left out to protect sources and locations): a friend of mine and I were having lunch one day and we were discussing whether or not we had any local prime terrorist targets. The conversation evolved into a discussion of what behavior is "suspicious". That conversation evolved in to him telling me about a guy that his wife had recently started working with. His wife works at a large retail store that carries a wide variety of products to include clothing, cleaning supplies, food items, electronics, household items, etc. Think WalMart, Target, K-Mart, Sam's Club, BJ's Wholesale, etc. What made my friend's wife suspicious was that her new workmate - we'll call him Bob just so he has a name - what made my friend's wife suspicious of Bob were the circumstances of his hiring and the questions he'd been asking since he started.

It seems that he was hired based on his application (no surprise there). On his application he had listed a significant amount of managerial experience with other retail stores, and as a result he was hired into an entrance-level management position with the store in question. What made that suspicious? He hadn't provided a resume or any supporting documentation with his application. He was hired into a management position that gave him greater access to information and store security procedures without any verification of the experience he claimed in order to get that position. The only document he submitted with his application was a copy of his driver's license. It would not have been uncommon for that to be an out-of-state license because there is a large military installation and many service-members' spouses don't get driver's licenses for our state.

So, he gets hired and starts working before his background is confirmed. Then the questions start. Bear in mind that all of these questions might be legitimate questions from a newly hired entrance-level management employee. How long is the food left on the shelves before we rotate it? How long is food left in the trailer (outside) before it's unloaded? Are the chemicals (cleaning supplies, torch fuels, propane, etc) kept secure in any way? What are the security procedures for opening doors during the store's closed hours? How many people are in the store at night? What time do the cleaning people come in and go out? When are the doors unlocked for smoke break? (He didn't smoke) How much food is kept in the employee break area?

OK: innocent questions, right? My suspicious mind thought, "How weird is this?" First, the guy gets hired without a background check or confirmation and second, he immediately starts asking questions that are all centered around store security or product security. Think I'm being paranoid? Think about this for a few minutes before calling me whacko: How many terrorists would it take to take over your local WalMart after it was closed? What would they need to know? What might they want to do or accomplish? Hmmm…

They might want to know what time the doors are locked and unlocked during the hours the store is closed. They might want to know when the alarm is activated and deactivated. They might want to know how many employees are in the store at any given time. They might want to know at what times other people would expect to gain access or egress. They might want to know how much food they'd have on hand to sustain them through whatever time period their operation was being planned for. They might want to know what supplies they'd have to build improvised explosive devices. If they were planning on poisoning or infecting food items, they might want to know how it was stored or where it was kept that it might be accessible.

Sure, I'm paranoid. This guy got hired with little or no background information and immediately wanted to know everything he'd need to know to set up a nice takeover of the store by as few as six to eight terrorists. If the "bad guys" could come up with twenty terrorist operatives willing to die taking over four planes do you think they could come up with eight or ten to take over a store? Poison a food supply? Do you think they'd enjoy doing that in a largely military community?

So, I did what I thought was prudent: I passed all this information along to a deputy I trusted who worked in the area of that store. Know what happened? As soon as someone in the store questioned the guy's background info, he resigned. Quit almost immediately. Nah; he wasn't up to anything.

Example two: same statement about names: a police officer candidate is attending mandatory firearms training prior to being hired by a municipal agency. During the course of the classroom portion, a conversation is had about Active Shooter training and how it could be applied to Terror-Response duties. If terrorists decided to attack malls, schools, etc in an effort to shut down our economy in the long term (a realistic possibility in my opinion), then Active Shooter training would be essential for the responding officers. Entering, possibly under fire, an area where subjects are actively shooting innocents to neutralize the threat. That sounds like Active Shooter, or Immediate Response, training to me.

Well, one of the officer candidates speaks up and says, "Those guys who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers weren't terrorists. They were freedom fighters defending their homeland and families." Oops - Someone's sensibilities had been stepped on. Then the instructor realized what that officer candidate had said. He was defending the actions of the terrorists who attacked our country and killed over 2,600 innocent people; not soldiers; men, women and children who were in no way involved in our armed forces. The instructor couldn't just leave that alone.

Asking why the officer candidate believed that, the instructor received a brief discourse on how the United States of America is a collection of international criminals who habitually lie not only to the world, but also to all Americans through the use of media manipulation. He heard all about how the United States military has killed untold thousands of innocent citizens from other countries who America was unhappy with for economic or political reasons and then how all those bodies were buried in mass graces or destroyed by fire. Hmmm…

The instructor felt it necessary to bring this officer candidate's political beliefs to the agency that was preparing to hire him. The Chief of Police at that agency was a man I know (for about twenty years now) and he listened to what the instructor had to say and took it seriously. The fact that there were other witnesses to the conversation and that officer candidate's statements made the Chief seriously consider whether or not he needed to hire the man. As it worked out, that officer candidate withdrew from the hiring process, lying to several officers about why (he made differing statements to three different officers) he was withdrawing. Shortly thereafter that same officer candidate was hired by a different municipality.

The municipality that hired him was made aware of his political outlook and statements. He was still hired.

Here is a man who is obviously sympathetic to the terrorist cause. He said so in front of a collection of witnesses. His agency was made aware of his statements (the instructor wrote the acting Chief of Police a letter to make sure he knew) but they hired him anyway. As a matter of observation, that officer proudly talks about his Muslim beliefs and how his religion makes him better than the "Christian trash" that surrounds him. (I am not attacking the Muslim faith - simply repeating what was said) This man is a police officer sworn to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of state, county and local governments. How can anyone take that oath seriously?

Now, here I go being paranoid again. We know terrorists are trying to recruit Americans. We know terrorists gather pre-operation intelligence and plan accordingly. Terrorists know that things have changed in America since the attacks of nine-eleven. If I were a terrorist, wouldn't it be ideal for me to recruit someone who could become a police officer? He could then feed me back any and all information that came across that was "law enforcement restricted". He could show me what tactics and techniques officers were being taught to counter terrorist activities. He could show / tell me what tools, weapons, training officers had to use in the fight against me. Hell, if I were a terrorist, this would be my favorite intelligence operative. I say this again: this man is a police officer. In Roll Call he gets told about all lookouts, warnings, etc. What in the world is that agency thinking?

susan28
06-29-2005, 08:13 PM
i don't necessarily think someone should be discriminated against for their politics per se -and if this guy *does* have terrorist leanings he's certainly got alot to learn about espionage, heh - but he's clearly a Jihadist and that's not a *defensive* war by *any* stretch.. he's a Theocrat and those types are a one-way ticket.. they don't just wanna survive they wanna *rule*, and there's a *big* difference there.

and he might have cop qualifications but he sure makes a *crappy* American and i definitely wouldn't want him at the helm of my law enforcement and can't imagine any officer in charge hiring him over other equally qualified applicants. there has to be such thing as discretion in hiring.

likewise with the variety-store manager guy: i'm not down with racial profiling but that 3-way focus on food, chemicals and security measures was creepy and should raise red flags no matter *what* the race of the guy.

i'm kind of an odd bird politically. i'm very liberal when it comes to civil rights issues, bacially being pro-choice right across the board and placing gun control, abortion/contraceptive restrictions and the war on drugs all in the same category of clear-cut violations of an individual's right to choose how they use/abuse and/or defend their bodies/lives, yet in that same spirit of *choice* i think a business should have the right to hire or fire anyone they want for any reason whatsoever (*even* race, gender or sexual orientation, and i'm a feminist who supports gay marriage and unilateral distribution of public school funds so no bigotry *here*), ie: the right to *choose* their employees, and let the market sort it out. i've also picketed low wages at certain businesses yet am against mandatory minimum wage. ie: i voice my opinion (loudly!) but believe the *choice* should be up to the employer. i vote with both my ballot and my dollar.

so with that in mind i'd have no problem seeing both those guys get the ax, and maybe not get hired *anywhere* until they learn to play nicer with others!

bottom line: liberty is rooted in the freedom to choose, and *freedom* relies upon our ability to *make good choices*, and both these guys seem like *real* bad choices..

now for a little comic relief, true story: last week i was taking some pics of the harbour here where i live (south florida no less) and was standing in the parking lot with the intracoastal bridge in the background, lol.. :)

mjmjr1312
06-29-2005, 08:26 PM
"officer proudly talks about his Muslim beliefs and how his religion makes him better than the "Christian trash" that surrounds him"

Now if that statement is reversed and he is talking about the muslims he is fired on the spot!!!

gotta love the ACLU and there version of free speach

Sorry, I'll keep my comentary to the Politics Forum sometimes I get carried away

p99guy
06-29-2005, 10:00 PM
If it wasnt for my advaced research materials...I wouldnt understand it at all :)

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/4679/jihaddummies9cz.jpg

susan28
06-30-2005, 09:02 AM
heyyy he's got a drum now, moving up in the world.. he's usually just sporting an elbow.. and his AK's missing the gas tube.. looks like some kinda FAL hybrid.. prolly has operatives working as Belgian police officers..

and yes pretending to be religious.. indeed. even us Dummies can see that. no greater insult to the world's peaceable religions than those suffered at the hands of zealots, who shed blood and cast judgement, abusing Divine authority in the wielding of earthly power.. tisk tisk..

i can even relate to the Israeli/Palestininan issue. that's a sticky post-wwII wicket which we did have a hand in creating and it didn't make us any friends over there, but it's a *border dispute* not a frikkin' *holy war* and the saner members of both populations are perfectly happy just living *together*, it's the religious tweakoids on both sides that won't let it happen.

i think NATO should just build a nuclear-blast-proof dome around the "Holy City" and give everyone who thinks "their" God gave it to them an atomic suicide vest and a party invitation, then just seal it up when the last one's in and let them blow each other to uranium dust and proceed on to the oblivion of their dreams..

Allah and Yaweh (One and the Same) must be up there just smacking their foreheads wondering how 2 virtually identical messages of love - one merely a refinement of the other - could spawn such enmity.. yeek..

Nightrunner
06-30-2005, 09:32 AM
I too am utterly amazed at the simple land dispute that has been bastardized and politicized into a generational war. Kinda shows you how friggin stupid people can really be when they react instead of think. And that whole friggin mess is a helluva lot of reciprocity when you think about it. Tit for tat if you will.

Maybe I should have put that in the political forum. I was just wanting to get some opinions on that scenario. Personally, given THAT situation, he clearly had someting to hide, and was fufulling a purpose. And I doubt it had the store's best interest at heart to say the least.


Regards,,,

susan28
06-30-2005, 11:00 AM
Maybe I should have put that in the political forum. I was just wanting to get some opinions on that scenario. Personally, given THAT situation, he clearly had someting to hide, and was fufulling a purpose. And I doubt it had the store's best interest at heart to say the least.
Regards,,,

well actually the Political forum's "mission statement" is the discussion of the politics surrounding the FsN; this is the Lounge, where we can rant about anything we darn please with a cigar in one hand and good stiff drink in the other ;)