Saturday, January 24, 2009


In April 2009, at an endisclosed location in Cleveland, AFIO members heard FBI Special Agent Figliuzzi discuss "Cyber Attack." Frank Figliuzzi earned his undergrad degree from Fairfield University CT, and a Juris Doctorate with honors from the Un. of Connecticut School of Law.

He joined the FBI in 1987 and was assigned to the Atlanta Division, working terrorism and foreign counterintelligence investigations. Later, his assignments with the FBI involved economic espionage and foreign sponsored theft of trade secrets. Agent Figliuzzi led the FBI's first squad devoted exclusively to crimes against children, and following 9/11, he was selected to head FBI Miami's new Counterterrorism Branch. He implemented the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force with 160 personnel from 34 agencies and served as on-scene commander during the nation's first anthrax murder in Boca Raton, Florida.
(Above right photo- deadly anthrax spore)

In 2006, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, has named C. Frank Figliuzzi the Special Agent in Charge of the Cleveland Field Office. The Cleveland Field Office is headquartered in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, with nine resident agencies in Akron, Canton, Elyria, Lima, Mansfield, Painesville, Sandusky, Toledo, and Youngstown.

Agent Figliuzzi discussed Cyber Terrorism ath this private meeting, information which I plan to write newspaper commentaries about.


In March 2009, as a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), I'll be meeting retired Colonel Behram A. Sahukar of The Parachute Regiment, Indian Army. The location is classifed. He's an invaluable resource for DHS. After reading his writings, particularly the document "THE INDIAN APPROACH TO COUNTER- INSURGENCY OPERATIONS," it is obvious he has much to offer the U.S. in countering terrorism and insurgency-related violence.

He's fought counter-insurgency operations in India for years and in the last two decades, the casualties of violence in India have been high:
1. Over 65,000-75,000 killed.
2. Over 760,000 persons displaced from their homes.
3. Over 10,000 security personnel killed.
4. Assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards. 5. The blowing up of Air India passenger aircraft Kanishka by Canada-based Sikh extremists killing all 329 persons on aboard in 1985.
6. Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, former Primer Minister of India by a Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) female suicide bomber in May 1991.
7. The hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft with over 180 persons on board by Pakistani terrorists from Katmandu to Taliban-held Kandahar in December 1999 and the subsequent release of hardcore Pakistani terrorists held in Indian jails.
8. A suicide attack on India’s Parliament to kill or hold hostage over 200 parliamentarians who were in session inside the building in December 2001.
9. A suicide attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature building (Srinagar) in October 2001 killing over 45.
10. Multiple bomb attacks on economic and soft targets in Bombay in March 1993 killing 257 and injuring over 1,700; in August 2003 killing 52; and on commuter trains in July 2006 killing 209 and injuring hundreds more.
11. Multiple bombings in October 2005 two days before the Hindu festival of Diwali and the Muslim festival of Eid in Delhi killing 61 and injuring over 200.
12. Bombings on the Delhi-Lahore Samjhauta Express (India-Pakistan Peace train) in February 2007 killing over 68. Several other unexploded bombs were located on the train and defused by the authorities.
13. Twin bombings in market places in August 2007 killing over 42 in the South Indian city of Hyderabad. 19 other bombs were set to go off across the city but were detected and defused by the police well in time.
14. Various attacks on civilians in market places, towns and villages, places of Hindu worship, and pilgrims killing hundreds all over India as a fallout of the simmering unrest in Jammu and Kashmir and the ongoing insurgency in some of India’s Northeastern States.

15. Mumbai (below photo & right photo)

Colonel Behram A. Sahukar offers 12 basic tenets to follow (Declassified Secrets comments are in parenthesis):
1. Indian approach to COIN (counter insurgency) has been a mix of political accommodation, economic development and the use of force. (Sounds like Gen. Petraeus may have adopted the Indian COIN stategy).
2. Demands for secession or independence from the Union are put down firmly and not accepted. India is willing to wear down the insurgents until this demand is dropped or modified.
3. India is willing to talk to separatist groups and its neighbors even though they support cross border terrorism and insurgency (Pres. Obama accepts this strategy in Iranian and general terrorist relations; Pres. Bush did not).
4. While India is willing to create new states within the Union to accommodate ethno-nationalist aspirations and tribal boundaries, it is not willing to create additional states based solely on any one religion (This doctrine isn't what Vice Pres. Biden recommended for Iraq; remember, he wanted Iraq divided up into separate regions, based on religion).
5. India has been very particular not to use indiscriminate force, aerial bombardment and heavy firepower in COIN despite its conventional and nuclear superiority in the region (To what extent are we creating enemies by killing civilians, albeit unintentionally....collateral damage? Perhaps, this is why Col. Sahukar follows this tenet).
6. COIN operations in Kashmir have been very particular to minimize the impact on India’s 140 million moderate Muslims (Torture, secret prisons, Guantanamo, etc.,...could these factors be negatively impacting the Muslim mindset more than we realize? Why create more enemies? Unfortunately, simply having western boots on middle east soil negatively impacts most Muslims, who feel our ways is a threat to their religious beliefs).
7. Despite proof of external support, India has always conducted its COIN within its own borders.
8. India COIN approach follows the strategy of ‘an iron fist in a velvet glove,’ adopting an aggressive military approach towards hard-core insurgents and a humane face towards the local population (I believe General Petraeus is now mastering this strategy in Iraq).
9. India’s COIN approach has been aimed at using the security forces to create conditions for a political solution to restore normalcy in the insurgency affected area (We are using this strategem in Iraq and will in Afghanistan).
10. Human rights and weaning the population away from supporting the insurgents is the major plank of India’s COIN operations. To achieve this a multi-dimension approach to include, people-centric civic action programs, economic development, perception management programs, cultivating a responsible media, training of troops for COIN operations, force modernization, good governance, the rule of law, accountability and transparency, diplomatic and international cooperation and support, and a functioning corruption free democracy form parts of the comprehensive Indian approach to COIN operations (A lesson here for the U.S.; Iraq has much corruption resulting in much of our U.S. monies and efforts having been wasted).

11. India has the capability to stay the course and fight an insurgency in a protracted low intensity conflict to wear down the insurgencies and its supporters however, it prefers to resolve the legitimate grievances and welcome its citizens into the democratic process as quickly as possible (Declassified Secrets likes the term "low intensity conflict." The enormous cost of the Iraq war is wearing us down. If we had focused more on tenets 1 to 11 after invading Iraq, Declassified Secrets wonders if the U.S. would have lost less lives, wounded the war down quicker, and saved billions of dollars).
12. In Kashmir, the Indian approach has been based on three major thrust lines to wean away Kashmiri support to the insurgency and restore normalcy; first, cut off the insurgents from their support base in Pakistan and destroy them within India to provide security to the state, improve the socio-economic structure of the state by increasing development projects, ensuring good governance, and improving the daily life of the people ravaged by decades of insurgency and terrorism, psychological initiatives to win the hearts and minds of the people and initiate a genuine dialogue with all parties to the conflict restore India’s credibility within Kashmir and arrive at a just resolution within the Union ("Wean awayt Kashmiri support to the insurgency." Let's wean away support to the Taliban. How about starting by sending teams of agricultural scientists into Afghanistan with the mission of finding crops that will grow there that have a ready world market. Then, R&D will allow us to plow up hundreds of thousands of Poppy acres to grow these crops. Americans won't mind their tax monies paying the Afghan farmers to grow any crop that replaces the Taliban's main income...poppy plants.

Afghanistan's 407,550 acres of poppy fields could be "replaced" with this new cash crop. The government has boosted efforts to plough up poppy, only to spark often-deadly clashes between police and farmers, thus alienating the populace from their government and the U.S. We're playing into the Taliban's hands here!

Let's start with the southern provinces that were worst hit by a Taliban-led insurgency such as Helmand, the biggest opium-growing region. Our agricultural R&D will produce genetically-modified crops that can grow in Afghanistan. Actually, switchgrass and other “second-generation” biomass products could grow there unmodified.

We could build refineries to turn switchgrass and other biomass plants into fuel: good-paying jobs for the Afghans).
This curious graffiti was left on the embankments of Marine Drive Mumbai after the terrorist attack. Does it perhaps reflect the mood of Indians after the Mumbai Terror Attacks on Novermber 26, 2008? I think so!

The Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force of the Gujarat coast on February 9 jointly took up an integrated Theatre Level Operational Readiness Exercise. It was designed to send a message to Pakistan. The exercise designed to validate synergy between the forces. Click below and view Indian TV network coverage of this coordinated operation:

Thursday, January 1, 2009


Declassified Secrets appreciates the feedback received from the Poll we ran. Here's some interesting conclusions:


Yes- 27 (62% of respondents)
No- 12 (27% of respondents)

Chemical attack- 4 (9%)
Biological attack- 6 (13%)
Radiological "Dirty Bomb" attack- 3 (6%)
Traditional explosive attack (Dynamite, home-made or plastic explosives, C-4, etc.)- 19 (44%)
Nuclear attack- 0 (0%)
Cyber attack- 6 (13%)

Forty-three people responded to the Declassified Secrets Poll: Do you think terrorists will launch an attack inside the U.S. within one year from today (12/08)? If so, by what means?

Results show that 62% of responders (R’s) believe we will be attacked within a one year time frame, while 27% do not believe we will be. Analyzing the responses of the 62% of R’s who believe an attack will come reveals the number one means of assault will be with traditional explosives (dynamite, home made or plastic explosives, C-4, etc.)-ranked at 44%. R‘s judged Cyber and biological strikes equally as the second most expected method- both ranked at 13%; chemical attack was their third supposed method- ranked at 9%; while a radiological or “dirty bomb“ offensive was ranked at 6%.

No R’s (0%) believe terrorists will detonate a nuclear device inside the U.S. within one year from 12/08.

This online poll has obvious flaws regarding representative sampling; i.e., too small of a sample (n) and unrepresentative sample (Visitors to this Blog only). It simply recorded how 43 online visitors to the Declassified Secrets Blog responded to the Poll question. However, I believe we can make some broad assumptions, conjectures that can be verified by further and more scientific polls:

A majority of Americans taking this particlular Declassified Secrets Poll believes we will be attacked by terrorists inside our borders within one year from 12/08. Note: Thise result differs from more scientific polls on the topic (See below).

A sizable minority believe we will not be attacked within one year.

Many believe traditional weapons will be used: dynamite, home-made bombs, plastique explosives, etc.

A substantial minority believe a biological or Cyber attack is imminent.

A bit about Cyber attacks: I feel that any combinations of the other types of attacks coupled with a Cyber attack is being contemplated by terrorists. Suppose they planned in detail a biological attack in America's heartland and released the biological agent via airplane over a large midwestern city at 3am. It's winter time with subzero temperatures. They simultaneously hit computer and telecommunication networks controlling critical infrastructures. Our electric and gas power systems would be shut down, while traffic control systems and financial systems would be disabled.

It could be a multiple Cyber strike, coming directly "through the wires" by faraway hackers, along with a physical assault by suicide car bombers, and by sleeper cell "moles" working inside our critical infrastructure computer systems, thus having ready access to them.

Such a biological attack would horrify millions. Essential services would be cut off: electricity, telephone, natural gas, gasoline pumps, cash registers, ATM machines, Internet transactions, dam and flood control computerized systems, primary telecommunications trunk circuits connecting America's heartland with other regions, air traffic control systems resulting in the grounding of all air traffic and diverting of inbound traffic, e-commerce and credit card service...the list is endless!

Few believe a chemical attack is imminent.

Even fewer believe a radioactive or “dirty bomb” will be used. Here's an excellent site on "dirty bombs:" ttp://

Practically none of the American public believe a nuclear device will be used within a year from 12/08.

According to the experts who conduct scientific polls, roughly 11% of Americans are “very worried” and 24 are “somewhat worried” about future terrorist attacks happening near their home or workplace (Opinion Dynamics research firm). This qualifier is much different than the DECLASSIFIED SECRETS Poll, stipulated inside the U.S. and within a year from today. Regardless, according to the Opinion Dynamics research firm, a majority of Americans are fairly unconcerned that their local area may be a target of future attacks. Indeed, 34% said they are “not very” and 30% say they’re “not at all” worried about a terrorist attack near their home or workplace.

So, if 64% aren’t concerned, why make changes? According to the research firm, 64% report they have made no changes in their lifestyle, while only 5% have made “major” lifestyle changes. Roughly 31% reported they’ve made “some minor” changes. So, 36% of Americans have made some plans and lifestyle changes in case of a terrorist attack, including:

  • Setting aside some cash (37%)
  • Identifying local emergency personnel (35%)
  • Stocking up on food & water (23%)
  • Planning an escape route (14%)
  • Purchasing a radiation monitor (2%)

"Americans seem to be settling into a rational preparedness mode taking the reasoned amount of precaution against future terrorist attacks, but not materially altering their day-to-day lives," stated Ernest Paicopolos, a principal of Opinion Dynamics.

Telephone calls in the evening to 900 registered voters reveal that a majority of Americans believe their local police and emergency authorities are prepared should an attack happen near them:

  • "Very well prepared” = 16%
  • “Somewhat prepared” = 41%
  • “Not very prepared” = 20%
  • “Not at all prepared” = 15%

Fewer people in the United States are concerned about their lives being suddenly affected by a terrorist attack:

  • 46 per cent of respondents believe neither side is winning the war on terrorism.

  • 32 per cent think the U.S. and its allies are emerging victorious, and 21 per cent say the terrorists are ahead.

Source: Opinion Research Corporation / CNN Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,024 American adults, conducted from Dec. 6 to Dec. 9, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.


It is doubtful that countries today possess biological weapons arsenals or would ever attack with such weapons. The threat has shifted to terrorists and other nonstate actors.

Countries should focus on preventing such groups from acquiring relevant technologies and materials, rather than on ensuring state compliance with Article 1 of the 1972 treaty which forbids states from developing, producing, stockpiling or acquiring biological agents not intended for peaceful uses. It also bans biological weapons delivery equipment.

The Soviet Union was believed to have operated a massive Cold War biological weapons program and arsenal of ICBM-deliverable biological warheads.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 largely on the argument that it possessed biological and chemical weapons stocks and programs.

The threat today is not necessarily states; the threat is nonstate actors, and nonstate actors don’t have the same inhibitions that states do about the prospect of using biological weapon

  • Personal opinions of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Mahley, longtime U.S. delegation head for Biological Weapons Convention activities.