The West's failure to recognize the Islamist, theocratic ideology inciting Islamic rejection of the Jewish State revisits the West through aviation. If we recognize that Jihadists are Muslim 'holy warriors' where we fight them in uniform, when will we acknowledge who they are domestically? Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate, 28 Dec 2009
"What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets."
Prof. Victor Davis Hanson explains the Islamist's war against the West in this DemoCast exclusive video:
"The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don't get the point prefer to whine about "endless war," accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste. While we fumble with bureaucracy and euphemism, they are flying high."
Islamic militantism (which the world used to disregard for being directed only against Israel) today threatens all the world. Draconian measures of invasive, full-body x-ray scans are being expanded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Will "profiling" Muslim passengers for security consideration be politically acceptable and functionally effective? Or will Islamic terrorists avoid detection by arming alternative ethnicities?
El Al Airlines' retired Chairman, Izzy Borovitch, and CEO Offer Gat, discussed the difference between airline security and airline security with DemoCast.TV earlier this year.
Isaac Yeffet, former director of El Al Airline's security and today a security consultant, explained to Fox News Israel's air-travel security techniques which, he believes, could benefit every country.
Mr. Yeffet criticizes some of the security-mania measures which the Dept of Homeland Security is implementing and offers alternatives.
From CBS News:
A senior law enforcement source speaking to CBS News has identified the suspect as Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23. The suspect has told federal investigators that he was sent by al Qaeda. He claims he picked up the explosive material in Yemen and was instructed to set it off on board an airplane. Those claims could not immediately be verified.
The suspect in an alleged attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas was on a list "indicating significant terrorist connections," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Friday.
King, the top Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the suspect in the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as a 23-year-old Nigerian national with potential ties to al-Qaeda.
"He is a 23 year old Nigerian who is also - it's been confirmed to me - while he was not on a no fly list, his name was on a list for having terrorist connections," King said during an interview Christmas evening on CNN.
Aaron Klein exposes international coverage of ancient Christian city
Like clockwork, every year at this time reporters file misleading and, in some cases, outright false reports about the state of Christmas in Bethlehem.
They claim Israeli policies have wreaked havoc on the city's economy and that Israel is responsible for the massive flight of Christians from Bethlehem. Yet the news media completely ignore Muslim intimidation and get their facts wrong on documented history and the true state of affairs in this ancient town.
As an example, Al-Jazeera's video story, "Israel's policy leaves family stranded" here intentionally distorts both history and facts.
Investigative reporter Aaron Klein debunks al-Jazeera's myths in his complete story on World Net Daily.
A "bunker buster" bomb, with more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, has been rescheduled for availability by the United States December 2010, six months later than previously scheduled, the Defense Department told Reuters on Friday.
Military analysts doubt Israel could disable Iran's nuclear facilities in a raid even with dozens of aircraft. Tehran has had years to build covert facilities, spread elements of its programs and develop options for recovering from an attack."Strong as Israeli forces are, they lack the scale, range and other capabilities to carry out the kind of massive strike the U.S. could launch," Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon strategist now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in September. (Reuters)
Nov 19, 2007 - The attached briefing provides the material used in a scenario analysis and interactive game that looks at some of the consequences of a future nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, and the possible impact of its expansion to cover targets in Syria, Egypt, and the Gulf.
There is no way to predict the forces each side will have in the future, or how they might target those forces and use them in war. It does seem clear, however, that both sides would probably be forced to target the other's population centers in any scenario that escalated beyond an initial demonstrative strike.
It also seems likely that such a conflict would quickly become existential in the sense that both sides would seek to inflict the maximum possible casualties on its opponent, and to destroy its ability to recover as a nation.
Legendary star of music, TV and movies from the 1950's-60's, Pat Boone, 75, today remains an insightful, political commentator. Mr. Boone is knowledgeable on global Islamism in politics, and as a conservative Christian, acknowledges Islamism as a theo-political force among Muslims throughout the world (including the West) to revolutionize democracies.
At the David Horowitz Freedom Center's premiere of Muslim psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan's treatise, "A God Who Hates," Pat Boone explains how Islamists, particularly Iran's Mullah-ocracy, exploit Obama's philo-Islamism and miso-Zionism - to imperil America's stability and global security.
Mr. Boone perceives the Muslim world's campaign to capture Jerusalem as part of the movement to conquer the Jewish state of Israel. He cautions viewers of what he sees as Obama and the nations' (U.N. & EU) actions to weaken Israel through establishing an Islamist Palestinian reichlet as part of a metaphysical conspiracy against the God of Israel. His columns may be read on NewsMax and World Net Daily. Another Democracy Broadcasting News exclusive video.
The West should regard Russia as a ruthless competitor and subversive force, warns Latvian-American actor, Elya Baskin. Russia's proxy battle with the U.S. for hegemony over the Middle East involves Russia's support for Iran, its nuclear (weapons) program, and Islamist terror networks in Palestine and Hezbollah (against U.S. ally-Israel). Have Westerners, in their Iraq-war-fatigue, become complacent about the insidious rivalry from a disgruntled former-superpower?
Soviet-born star of Russia-U.S. suspense movies, Elya Baskin, explains Russia's rivalry with America, and the revived Kremlin leaders' intent to shift the balance of power by damaging America (in this DemoCast exclusive video interview).
Twitter's network was by Iranian cyberterrorists on the same day that RIM's Blackberry network went down. Twitter users encountered the following, hijacked home-page last night:
Iranian Cyber Army
THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED BY IRANIAN CYBER ARMY
iRANiAN.CYBER.ARMY@GMAIL.COM
U.S.A. Think They Controlling And Managing Internet By Their Access, But They Don’t, We Control And Manage Internet By Our Power, So Do Not Try To Stimulation Iranian Peoples To…. NOW WHICH COUNTRY IN EMBARGO LIST? IRAN? USA? WE PUSH THEM IN EMBARGO LIST ;)
These cyberattacks pose a dilemma for the West: what is our threshold to retaliate defensively? And if attacked by proxies, such as independent terror groups, against whom do we retaliate? This applies both in cases of physical and virtual mischief. Pentagon Preparing for War With The Enemy: Russia by Rick Rozoff in Global Research, May 2009
Last week the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Kevin Chilton, told reporters during a Defense Writers Group breakfast "that the White House retains the option to respond with physical force - potentially even using nuclear weapons - if a foreign entity conducts a disabling cyber-attack against U.S. computer networks...." An account of his talk added "the general insisted that all strike options, including nuclear, would remain available to the commander in chief in defending the nation from cyber strikes."
Chilton "said he could not rule out the possibility of a military salvo against a nation like China, even though Beijing has nuclear arms," though the likely first target of alleged retaliation against equally alleged cyber attacks would be another nation already identified by US military officials as such: Russia.
In late April and early May of 2007 the government of Estonia, which was inducted into NATO in 2004 and whose president was and remains Toomas Hendrik Ilves, born in Sweden and raised in the United States (where he worked for Radio Free Europe), reported attacks on websites in the country which were blamed on Russia.
Over two years later no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim that Russian hackers, much less the government itself, were behind the attacks, though it remains an article of faith among US and other Western officials and media that they were.
The response from American authorities in the first place was so sudden and severe, even before investigations were conducted, as to strongly suggest that if the attacks hadn't been staged they would need to be invented.
Right afterward Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne stated, "Russia, our Cold War nemesis, seems to have been the first to engage in cyber warfare."
The N.Y. Times Op-Ed page published a Tom Friedman-penned piece entitled www.Jihad.com (although he didn't mention the word Islamism. Will that be enough for the Left to accept that Islamism is a real political threat?
So please tell me, how are we supposed to help build something decent and self-sustaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan when jihadists murder other Muslims by the dozens and no one really calls them out?
A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.
Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects. They aspire to, are able to and must be challenged to take responsibility for their world. If we want a peaceful, tolerant region more than they do, they will hold our coats while we fight, and they will hold their tongues against their worst extremists. They will lose, and we will lose — here and there, in the real Afghanistan and in the Virtual Afghanistan.
America's ability to defend its society against Islamist and other ideological subversion is being undermined by liberal entertainment creatives' prejudices - limiting conservative themes in TV and filmed entertainment.
TV sitcom, Cheers star, John ("Cliff") Ratzenberger, explains how conservative themes and values are prejudicially excluded from popular entertainment media.
Mr. Ratzenberger contends that Hollywood and New York entertainment workers' strive to dominate the culture with Liberalism by excluding conservative perspectives - thereby placing the society at risk. The media centers of NY and L.A., he ironically contends, would be the most attractive targets for enemy attack.
In November, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, said in Washington that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel.
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times (published Dec 14, 2009) show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a causus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”
The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.
A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.
Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.” (Catherine Philip in Times of London Online "Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger"Dec 2009).
Why is Washington reluctant to attack or to support Israel to attack pre-emptively?
Most likely, that factor is politics, and more specifically, the importance that close relations with Washington has on the domestic political calculations of Israeli leaders. Unlike in 1981, when the United States had barely a toehold in the Middle East, Washington occupies two countries in or adjacent to the region, maintains military facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and relies on Arab governments for logistical support. In the event of an Israeli attack, Washington would surely be accused of colluding with Jerusalem, severely damaging the United States' position in the region while provoking a ferocious Iranian response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. The resulting breach between Israel and the United States would be unprecedented, creating a crisis far more serious than President Dwight Eisenhower's demand that Israel stand down after its invasion of Sinai in 1956 and Gerald Ford's "reassessment" of 1975 (which suspended all military and economic agreements between the two countries for three months when Israel proved uncooperative in negotiating a second Sinai agreement). This is a scenario with which many Israelis, including Netanyahu, are unlikely to be comfortable. ...
During the Gulf War in 1991, PM Yitzhak Shamir had to absorb Iraqi Scud attacks while the United States, nervous that its anti-Saddam coalition might unravel, pressured him not to retaliate. In June 1992, Israel's voters booted Shamir from office. ...
Indeed, Yitzhak Shamir's experience has fueled speculation among observers in Israel and elsewhere that U.S. President Barack Obama is attempting to undermine Netanyahu's coalition by heightening tension with Jerusalem over settlements. A recent poll designed to gauge prevailing Israeli views of the United States demonstrated that large majorities had strong positive views of the United States and regarded Washington as a staunch ally. Yet, the April poll, conducted for the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University and the Anti-Defamation League by the Israeli firm Maagar Mochot, found that 49.5 percent of Israelis believed that Israel should defy the United States on Iran, but at the same time 91 percent said that the relationship with the United States is vital to Israel's security.
There is no way of knowing for sure what the Israelis will do, but the Maagar Mochot study holds some clues. Iran and its nuclear program remain a threat to Israel, and nearly half of all Israelis would choose to bomb Iran even if the Obama administration did not approve. It seems like an opportune moment for Israel's leaders to order up the airstrikes. Yet, observers need to ask why the Israelis are waiting. If the Iranians actually managed to build a nuclear weapon, that would be a major and alarming step, but the Israelis have long maintained that the mere fact that the Iranians are enriching uranium is a grave danger. Under these circumstances, Israel's patience -- despite the tough rhetoric -- suggests that Israeli leaders do not believe that the political environment is ripe to go it alone. The historical record, combined with the 91 percent of Israelis who believe the relationship between Israel and the United States is "vital," and the slightly more than half of Israeli Jews who remain reluctant to defy the United States, strongly implies that when push comes to shove, Jerusalem will defer to Washington. As a result, all those indicators portending an Israeli attack -- the strike against Syria in September 2007, the large air exercises over the Mediterranean in the summer of 2008, and the recent countrywide drills that the IDF's Home Front Command conducted -- might actually indicate that Israel is trying to figure out how to deter Iran, rather than attack it. An Israeli strike does not seem to be in the cards, so the finance guys in New York can relax for now. They can be sure, however, that if Israel decides to act, they will not hear about it first on CNBC. (Steven A. Cook in "Why Israel Won't Attack Iran" in Foreign Policy, June 2009).
The Israeli government's single-minded focus on Tehran has caused friction with the Obama administration, which is seeking to engage Iran and to promote a deal with the Palestinians. Publicly there is no rift: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he supports efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program diplomatically, as long as harsh sanctions are imposed if no progress is shown. But the threat of a unilateral Israeli attack remains on the table—and while that threat may give the Americans leverage in talks with Tehran, an actual attack might well invite Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.
In an exclusive interview with Democracy Broadcasting News, radio host, Dennis Prager, says that if the US and UN strategy to enforce sanctions sufficient to thwart Iran's nuclear weaponizing in time, a potential Israeli pre-emptive strike could be perceived in different ways, according to how President Obama chooses to spin it. Watch exclusive interview with Dennis Prager here. The Wall St. Journal published US military expert, Anthony Cordesman's, analysis of how effective an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear development program might be. "No one knows what specialized weapons Israel may have developed on its own, but Israeli intelligence has probably given Israel good access to U.S., European, and Russian designs for more advanced weapons than the GBU-28. Therefore, the odds are that Israel can have a serious impact on Iran's three most visible nuclear targets and possibly delay Iran's efforts for several years."
Israel would only strike if it appeared that Washington's proposed sanction strategy would not be effective to stop Iran from their nuclear weaponizing. Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk (R), co-author of the sanctions alternative, writes in today's Jerusalem Post that "for the House's new 2009 Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act to succeed (to be voted on Tuesday 15 December), the Iranians must believe the president will enforce it. Otherwise, we will continue down a failed path of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions. In 2007, we introduced the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act to expand existing US sanctions to the provision of gasoline to Iran - including suppliers, brokers, shippers and insurers. This April, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and I reintroduced this bipartisan legislation. Following our bills, Iran imposed an unpopular gasoline rationing scheme, showing it was worried.
Last year, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both endorsed the gasoline restriction, and this year, House and Senate leaders reintroduced the gasoline sanctions bill as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, now headed by Congressman Howard Berman and our coalition of 343 congressmen and 76 senators behind the bill. (Slated for voting on before the Christmas break).
After four years and six months, Congress will finally consider our gasoline restriction legislation this week. While this bill could emerge as the key tool to peacefully end our standoff with Iran, it will prove meaningless if the president keeps gasoline sanctions locked in his diplomatic toolbox. Our Petroleum Sanctions Act would add a ban on the provision of gasoline to Iran under the old 1996 Iran Sanctions Act, a law that already makes it illegal to invest more than $20 million in Iran's oil and gas sectors.
Under this old law, our president must declare someone in violation before sanctions take effect. Few realize that no American president has ever enforced this provision. According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 20 companies are currently violating the 1996 law.
For the threat of sanctions to change Iran's decision-making, Iranian leaders must believe an effective gasoline sanction is credible. If President Obama, like his predecessor, lacks the will to enforce the 1996 Sanctions Act, we should not expect Iranian leaders to believe a new threat of additional sanctions.
For the House's new 2009 Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act to succeed, the Iranians must believe the president will enforce it. Otherwise, we will continue down a failed path of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions.
DemoCast.TV exclusive: Talk-radio star Larry Elder jokes with Michael Medved, after appearing with Salem Communication's talk-radio stars - Dennis Miller, and Dennis Prager at the KRLA-LA TownHall 2009 - about their experiences and aspirations together.
We ask Dennis Prager about conservative talk-radio's role- should Israeli pre-empting Iran's nuclear weapons program provoke anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.
Evidence that the Palestinian Center for Human Rights libeled Israel about Gaza casualties actually combatants
Our results so far show that at least, if all armed police are counted, 426 of the 1180 people who PCHR classifies as "civilians," were, in fact, militants.
That means 660 people were legitimate combatants under IHL and therefore legitimate targets.
Why, then, did the PHRC classify so many known militants as civilians? One can only conclude that the reason is to deceive the media.
Such a high number of Al Qassam members among the police killed indicates that Hamas itself does not distinguish between its so-called civilian and military wings. Effectively, Hamas considers its police to be the same as its military force. If Hamas does not make such a distinction, why shouldn't everyone else conclude that its entire police force is a legitimate target?
We have identified 355 militants in addition to the police, of whom 157 were identified as civilian by PCHR.
Elder of Ziyon's team cross-checked the names listed by PCHR with lists of "resisters" compiled by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, lists of "martyrs" published by Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees and other militant groups in Gaza, as well as from the Ma'an News Agency, Palestinian Arabic discussion groups and other sources.
Our preliminary results show that at least 342 of the people killed, that PCHR classifies as "civilians," were, in fact, militants. The PCHR's statistics are deceptive and slanted towards creating a false impression of IDF brutality.
Islamist-regime advocates are infiltrating Washington through the Obama Administration and are undermining U.S. security policy, former counter-Communist intelligence expert, Prof. Clare Lopez cautions.
In "Rise of the Iran Lobby", a white-paper which she published earlier this year through the Center for Security Policy, Ms. Lopez illustrated how a network which includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world - with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran - would be co-opting America's foreign policy in the Middle East, and specifically towards the dangerous Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is imperative to recognize the role being played by what amount to their (CAIR, NIAC) interlocking (or at least overlapping) boards of directors, donations from the same foundations and growing access to some key members of Congress and top levels of US policymaking circles. Of special concern is the growing penetration of the Obama Administration by a number of individuals with such associations.
To be sure, efforts at influencing U.S. decision-making are common among a host of legitimate interest roups, including many foreign countries. But in this context, where the guiding force behind such influence operations emanate from the senior-most levels of a regime like Iran’s – which holds the top spot on the State Department list of state-sponsors of terror, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the United States and its ally, Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held hostage, kidnapped, killed and tortured American civilians and military personnel over a 30-year period – such operations must be viewed with serious concern.
Specifically, the de facto alliance between CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates named by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co- conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials, and groups such as NIAC and its predecessor, the American-Iranian Council (AIC), which long have functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime, must arouse deep concern that U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests.
Today, the former counter-Communist CIA agent's predictions are manifesting visibly. The State Department's chief Iran chair, Dennis Ross, has been replaced by a close supporter of the mullah regime, John Limbert. Ed Lasky at American Thinker wonders who is directing these changes:
The controversy regarding the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) - whether it violated US law by not registering as a lobbying group, whether it's views are too closely aligned with those of Tehran, whether it is too close to George Soros, and the problematic views of its founder and head, Trita Parsi - has raged over the last week or so.
One of the most startling developments was produced by a discovery motion that took place as a result of a defamation suit the NIAC filed against one if its critics.
This was a plan to maneuver Dennis Ross out of the Iran chair at the State Department because the NIAC thought he would not as supportive of outreach towards Iran as the NIAC. The NIAC got its wish and then some. Not only was Ross pushed out and into the netherworld of the National Security Council (where he has not been heard of since) but he was replaced by John Limbert, who serves on the Advisory Council of the NIAC itself.
Who did the dirty deed of dumping Dennis? ...
All these positions echo those of the National Iranian American Council and certainly comport with the wishes of the Tehran regime. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton's speeches regarding Iran were so highly thought of by the NIAC that the group posted reports of them on its website. The NIAC approved of the Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton product) report that advocated engagement and working with Iran, and downplayed the value of sanctions.
(Hamilton also wrote a positive blurb for a book that glowing depicted the Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror group ).
Ms. Clare Lopez' "Rise of the Iran Lobby" is proving to be prophetic - and therefore deserves a fair reading - and heeding.
Arab reporters protest Palestinian intimidation skewing honesty of Palestinian-based reporting
Al Quds quotes an Asharq Alawsat article saying that journalists in Gaza impose self-censorship for fear of arrest - or worse - by Hamas.
Over the two years of rule by the Islamic Movement, the freedom of the press is nonexistent in the Gaza Strip, according to journalists. Reham Abdel-Karim, Director of the Office of MBC in Gaza, told Asharq Alawsat, "There is no freedom ... Freedom here means to express the views of the governing party only."
Reham Abdel-Karim describes the press in Gaza as having become a mirror of the ruling party, and acting otherwise causes questioning.
"We received a lot of calls and threats. [Hamas] tried various means, including diplomacy and the threat of direct action."
He said, "I received an anonymous phone call threatening me with death if I covered events commemorating the death of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat," pointing out that the contacts are all-encompassing: "They contact us by name, one by one, and threatened us with death." (Hat-tip Elder of Ziyon).
"What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets."
