Printable View
Christ THIS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I don't know how many times I've been behind people who searched their pockets, put their wallet on the belt and walked through, thing bleeps, and they walk back and go "Oh, my keys!", walk through, bleep, "oh right, my phone!".
I always just empty the entire content of my pockets.
OG, check your PMs please.
Fully capable of doing that without public announcement :rolleyes:
Ha! The world will know that OG is a PM sloth! :D
I was driving to work, didn't get a fighting chance! :cry:
Well, the targets we've seen so far do suggest that, at least for hitting targets in the West. London and Madrid rail, two bombers on planes, and the 9/11 attacks started with three plane hijackings. Are there non-transport targets that I'm not aware of? To the best of my knowledge you have to go to Turkey and Israel or points further east, to find anything that might fit a different pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Didn't McVeigh bomb an office building?
Then there's the Unabomber.
Both of which I already brought up, in an attempt to not have to play a game of who can recall the most non-transportation related terrorists attacks. That sort of tit for tat doesn't justify rail as a common target or a target to gravitate towards. Simply means rail is a viable target, one of many on a very long list.
Then we start getting into what counts as terrorism. Columbine? Virginia Tech? Omaha Mall?
Also, anthrax or white powder sent in mail. Sarin gas in Japan, but that was also in a subway station.
Different terrorist actors follow different patterns. They don't switch means and target types all that readily in practice. The primary terrorist threat over the last ten years has not been lone nuts or militia-related, it's been international Islamic-based, and it has shown a marked preference for transportation targets in the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Well, let's give the Tea Partiers another year, I'm sure they'll start terror strikes at some point for their dear Sarah. And I'm not utterly convinced safety measures ought always be reactive.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
As well as the recent mailed toner bombs, and the fact that someone was taking pot shots at the Pentagon building last month.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Which is why I asked what terrorist definition Dread was using. If we're sticking with Terrorist = Al-Qaeda then fine, but such a limiter needs addressed from the beginning so it can be challenged appropriately. One reason I mentioned McVeigh was in attempt to narrow down where the original statement was headed, and instead of it being addressed as out of context, it was written off as handled :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
So it can be challenged appropriately? But you haven't issued any challenge on the matter. You both knew exactly what he was saying, but you decided to try and pick an argument about it anyway, since apparently you aren't interested in challenging the claim he was making. As Minx and I have both said, you're taking potshots because it's Dread writing the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I'm premier nitpicker around here, you know what separates my behavior from yours? I wouldn't be arguing, I'd have made an interjection pointing out that the claim holds for some specific areas of terrorism, but not necessarily for others. My point may be pedantic, posters may consider it unnecessary and they may even get annoyed about "being corrected",but it adds precision and depth to the discussion. You didn't do anything of the sort, you started with a line which amounted to "I object" and have since been baiting for further posts by Dread, apparently *judging by past posting history* in an attempt to draw him further and further along until you can get him to say something you can actually write a rant against.
Every single exchange had me asking him to clearify or justify his statement. I considered the statement ridiculously overbroad and I wanted to know why it came to be that way. But thanks for expressing what I knew for everyone, even though it flies into the face of everything I've posted in this thread so far :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I challenged for someone to provide why we should think terrorists would gravitate to a new rail system over our current rails, I asked why rails over all of our other transportation options. Why is transportation still a common target even though we've had plenty of more direct internal threats, and different external threats (toner bombs).
All I got in response, more than once, was "seriously."
So I wanted to try and whittle it down a step at a time. Thats why I mentioned mail bombs and Oklahoma City. Instead of getting a response like yours, which would be a great way to specific what was trying to be said, Oklahoma ended up being yet another tangent.
Off the cuff; I think you need bigger bombs to do serious damage to a train. To kill significant numbers of people you'd have to slug something around that would attract attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Which is a bit surprising to be honest. You'd expect shopping malls in the US to be at least as attractive a target as any shopping mall in Turkey. Yet it is only in Turkey that everybody has to go through security before he can enter. Same with all government buildings, police stations and at one point even places like Burger King and McDonald's in central Istanbul would use those hand scanners.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Only in Turkey?!
I eventually wanted to get into how direct american capitalism/consumerism is long overdo to become a terrorism target, but we didn't make it that far :(. Why wrap your junk in explosives when you can literally drive into the heart of a mall and make a much bigger mess. Then again, with Black Friday crowds that actually kill people, maybe we're doing the job for the terrorists.
That's pretty damn far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Shopping malls were considered potential targets at least for a while here, and I remember a lot of malls went through some efforts to prepare, but we never went anywhere near as far as that AFAIK.
The traffic targets are attractive targets because of the high potential for both human and economic damage, and we've helped train the terrorists to expect that what with our shutting down large infrastructures whenever there's an attack or significant enough threat. Unless you're using really high powered explosives, the open space in malls seem to mean that it's harder to get a high death toll, and IMO economic damage is much more likely to be contained locally. The particular mall will be shut down for a while, and some people might go to malls less often, but it won't be that many and it won't last. Going after transportation you can potentially shut down pretty much the entire nation for at least a day, since everybody needs it.
Do you think continued attacks on the transportation infrastructure will continue to cause nationwide closures? I understand how flights can get messed up with major hubs getting attacked, but thats mainly a regional thing. If our security continues to fail, could this eventually be considered something that simply "happens"?
Take the expenses it took to pull off something like 9/11, now spread it out over the nation. A pickup ready to blow and a driver per mall. Simultaneous attacks in everyone's back yard. That will mess a population up in the head.
Some questions I've rolled around in my head, I'm throwing out but not expecting exhausting answers to...
How would Americans react to something like this? Something that challenges their way of spending and gratification. How far would they allow security to strip away rights like the TSA is doing before shopping centers become a bain instead of a pleasure?
EDIT:
and now I sound like GGT :p
I'd hope not, but I've lost faith that people will do the rational thing instead of the politcally expedient thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
There wasn't too much in the way of expenses there, from what I know. It's probably a lot harder to get a pickup that can make a decent explosion than it was to board the planes on 9/11. Bombstuffs are regulated and scrutinized. It's difficult to get a good sized bomb going in the US without the feds finding out about it.Quote:
Take the expenses it took to pull off something like 9/11, now spread it out over the nation. A pickup ready to blow and a driver per mall. Simultaneous attacks in everyone's back yard. Thats will mess a population up.
First one: IMO they might shop a bit differently, some would do more stuff online, but that was coming anyways and the vast majority wouldn't change their behaviors for very long. Second one: too far.Quote:
How would Americans react to something like this? Something that challenges their way of spending and gratification. How far would they allow security to strip away rights like the TSA is doing before shopping centers become a bain instead of a pleasure?
In all probability, this sort of international terrorism would probably have seen a few more successes if it were that flexible in its targeting. By its nature, however, it isn't all that flexible. There really needs to be significant penetration in the population of the target before it develops the ability or the inclination to branch out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Also, strategically, making isolated attacks on shopping malls is not particularly effective. Any individual shopping mall has a relatively high population density and consequently a high impact at the time of attack *presumably* but both will fall off very quickly after the attack. People will simply avoid the site. That requires alternative options of course but in the West, there almost always are such alternatives. Lasting impact is very localized. When you strike planes in mid-air, or the transportation hub in Madrid, the impact is more lasting. People still get funneled through the site, they won't feel like they're able to evade potential danger. To create the effect striking at shopping malls, you need many more attacks, which requires a lot more attackers. The second Intifadah or the terrorism which made up a major part of the Algerian War are good examples of this.
Ok, some other countries too, but I wasn't talking about those.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I don't really see how people could avoid places in high density population areas for an extended time. In Istanbul the attacks on Neve Shalom and the British Consulate were right in the city centre. The HSBC headquarters were in the middle of the business district. After a while the debris is cleared, the windows are repaired, as is other damage and life goes back to normal. But it's not like you ever forget what happened there. Maybe it's that you are used to a different type of terrorism so far. But in the end all it takes is a crazy person not caring about losing his life while destroying 'the enemy' and a bunch of bystanders. Two weeks ago we had one of those 500 meters from my Istanbul home. Ronald heard the explosion while he was having breakfast. His comment; I knew it was a bomb, but it didn't sound like a big one'.
So now, terrorists only need to dress like a pilot to get through screening. :bulb:
T.S.A. Grants Pilots an Exception to Screenings
I wonder how long it will be before passengers catch on and start dressing like pilots.Quote:
On Friday, the Transportation Security Administration announced that it would let uniformed airline pilots skip the screenings, reversing an earlier policy that everyone had to go through the screenings as part of the agency’s efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Pilots who are traveling out of uniform or not on official business will still be subject to searches, the agency said.
Thanks to people like Frank Abagnale, its a little harder nowadays to impersonate a pilot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_yemen_al_qaida_claim I wonder if other groups decide to imitate these tactics.
What would be new to that besides the fact that the US isn't used to it ?
Because terrorists have been trying to carry out high profile attacks against the US before. Those attacks might cause a lot of damage, but are easier to prevent. If they go for this kind of strategy, it's inevitable that some attacks will succeed.
"Inevitable that some attacks will succeed" Well, of course they will. Is anyone convinced we have a comprehensive (or rational) Homeland Security? I'm not.
We've got TSA treating the American flying public as if 100% are potential terrorists, but they don't screen 100% of baggage, let alone incoming international passengers or cargo. We keep buying stuff with 'free shipping', and hundreds of cargo containers sit at our ports. Random searches with some dog sniffers.
We also don't have any kind of security system for Amtrak, Greyhound, cruise ships or subways. Potential targets are endless. TSA spends about $8 Billion a year, but a $4k bomb can get close enough to cause a panic. Even our intelligence gathering looks kind of mickey mouse. (Negotiations in Afghanistan with a fake terrorist? Wow.)
Glad I'm not flying (or using public transit) this holiday. Wanna bet how many terrorists are chuckling at us from their caves?
It doesn't matter what kind of a homeland security plan we have. Small scale attacks are impossible to prevent consistently. All it takes is one semi-educated person putting some chemicals together and blowing himself up at a mall or at a bus/train station. Or just buy one of the many illicit guns on the street and go on a shooting rampage. Killing ~5-10 people wouldn't be particularly hard.
Agreed. Makes the whole body-scanning and pat-down from TSA look stupid. One car bomb in an airport parking garage, one suicide bomber walking up to airport security lines....damage done. Remember the shopping mall scares a while ago? Even prank bomb threats can cause us to freak out, evacuate, hunker down. We routinely get 'crazies' going Postal, at schools or universities, fast food places or businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Really, killing hundreds of innocents in one fell swoop wouldn't be very hard at all. Terrorist or not. We still need to have some kind of Homeland Security, we just can't decide what or how.
:hmm:
I'm consistently amazed at how incompetent terrorists are. If they put some thought into it, they could undermine the American economy without carrying out a single major attack.
Or maybe our slow demise was part of their plan? Death by 1,000 cuts, cuts to our own throats. Create fear and paranoia, watch us spend billions and fritter resources, cripple capitalism by chasing an enigma. Seems pretty effective so far, so who's incompetent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Don't forget flooding Europe with their unemployed.
That's what I usually think, too. It can't be that hard, can it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And what exactly would they gain from that? Their main objective is to force America to butt out of the Middle East. Making it slightly more inconvenient for Americans to travel doesn't exactly meet that objective. Their actions have a minimal economic cost, and haven't really affected the behavior of the American people. You seem to be under the illusion that anything that inconveniences you makes the terrorists happy. I'm fairly sure they want to do more than make you paranoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Their track record suggests that their Western recruits are too cowardly (all talk) or too incompetent to carry out anything approaching a successful terrorist attack. 9/11 made it much harder for foreign terrorists to enter the US, and all the ones in the US seem to be in the lowest quintile of IQ scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Their objective is to get us to butt out of the Middle East, AND to kill the infidel beast as they see it --- capitalism, our economy, our ideas about freedom. $8 billion to TSA, to fight a $4K printer cartridge bomb, and so it goes. Using our paranoia seems effective so far. It's got the UK putting CCTV everywhere, everyone leery of immigrants, Islamaphobia at an all time high, and the US groping kids and grannies crotches at the airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're projecting here. The terrorists aren't evil-doers who are just trying to make life miserable for infidels. They have concrete objectives and are trying to achieve these objectives. They don't give a damn about capitalism, our ideas, or our freedom. It's the kind of bogus crap that Americans come up with to justify treating the terrorists as illogical nihilists (which they are not).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Ooh, a whole $8 billion out of a GDP of $13 trillion (and of course it won't actually decrease GDP, because that money is staying in the US economy). That's going to make a real difference.
Of course I'm "projecting". Consider it my own little op-ed. We could argue ad nauseum about terrorists' general motive and specific objectives. I think we're doin' it wrong by hanging onto our interventionist Super Power military attitude, and paying way too much attention to the wrong places and people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Go ahead, call me a nationalist or protectionist, I don't mind. Defense is important, protecting allies is important. But being the world's main police force just isn't wise or even sustainable. And a war on terror is about as vague and over-reaching as a war on drugs.