Of course I don’t have any evidence, but I believe the government when they say they have it. They’ve issued numerous warnings and have even made arrests. I’m not cynical enough to believe that those warnings are all the product of political manipulations.
Wow.
On the one hand, we have an elected president who’s responsible for setting broad policies and choosing the people in charge of the government departments most responsible for domestic security (the Attorney General, etc.). These policies and appointees have overseen the arrest and prosecution of numerous people living on US soil who have gone to terrorist training camps and done other illegal and highly suspect things.
On the other hand, we have a rock.
And you truly think that there’s no more reason to give the rock credit for preventing more terrorist attacks then the president. Huh.
Did you also believe the government when they said they knew exactly were Iraq’s WMD were? Or when the government said you could protect yourself from a chemical attack with plastic wrap and duct tape?
Yes, I did, and they were obviously wrong. But I think that’s the exception rather then the rule.
I believe plastic wrap and duct tape would provide some protection from a chemical attack. As good as a full-body suit and a respirator? No. But they’re a bit more affordable.
Bush has done almost nothing to guard the sea lanes, or the borders with Canada or Mexico. He made token gestures with airport security that haven’t been demonstratably effective, and which any moron would have done (he proves this case quite nicely).
Anyhow - hitting just New York and Chicago would do the job. groan… I ride the train in Chicago… Add in DC, San Francisco, and… does LA have a subway?
Who needs parkas? Everyone carries backpacks and bags on the commuter trains. Or leave stuff in tunnels.
Um… about 400,000 people a day pour into the Chicago Loop, an economic center, and most do so by train and bus. Make people afraid to take the train and Chicago’s economy tanks. DC - a political center, yes? - has a subway. New York City - ditto, a LOT of folks depend on the trains.
No, we don’t have many mass transit systems… but where subways/el’s exist they are a major tranport network. Knock it down you cause real pain.
Charter and private planes have different security – this has been covered in a couple different threads. You can’t use a two-seat Cessna to knock over a skyscraper like the World Trade Center - what threat it represents is a different kind of threat. They’re used in different ways, have different capabilities… one size fits all security isn’t a good fit, you need to fit the security to what the threat is, or could be.
Some places are off limits to private airplanes. In some places those who are using private airplanes DO have to pass through the same security as used by the airlines. Different sized airports have different needs and requirements.
Yes, there has been an improvement in aviation security across the board. Is it enough improvement? Probably not.
As I said in an earlier thread, sniper teams all over the country shooting ten people a day and moving on to a different location to do it all over again. Day after day. Shopping malls. Schools. Train stations. Mix and match. Do it in the six weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas – the most important retail/consumer spending period of the year – and in no short order the psychological fear and economic collapse will tumble the Bill of Rights like a House of Cards. The Domino Theory at its best.
They don’t need the big bangs and spectacular incidents to do the job. Those merely feed upon the excess egos of Americans. Besides, we are looking for the big stuff under the small rocks.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. America has so many weak links there is no point to go after the big stuff.
Think David and Goliath. No matter how big and muscled Goliath might be, if David is willing to die for his cause, Goliath will lose. Just enough Davids going after the balls of Goliath will topple the big guy. Works every time.
Well with the amount of money he is spending I can say that the "positive" impact isn't comparable. Just putting police in higher alert is an improvement from before.
So did he increase “homeland” security ? Yes
Did he increase expenditure ? Yes
Did he spend it well… no way.
Sea lanes and some borders are being neglected… police underfunded… there are many problems that even a part of the US$ 100 billion wasted in Iraq would have been a major boost to security.
Finally I think most are thinking of how invading Iraq for example worsened overall security for americans worldwide.
The only thing that makes me wonder about attacking children is, contrary to popular belief, I think some of these Islamist terrorists do have some standards defining what is and is not an appropriate target. For instance, Hamas actually came out publically against the hostage beheadings in Iraq. I’m guessing some things make even AQ squeamish. Specifically targeting children may cross a symbolic line even with them. Of course, they’ll blow things up with children in them, but that’s a very random kind of thing. It could be argued children are collateral damage, just as they are when we bomb Afghanistan or Iraq to take out insurgents.
If AQ have no scruples though, I agree, targeting schools would be cheap, easy, and probably among the most bang-for-the-buck terrorist attacks I can think of.
Another idea: Liquid natural gas tankers, when their cargo spills out and is set alight, could immolate everything in a quarter-mile radius. I remember, around 9/11, there being a big to-do about a LNG tanker trying to dock in Boston Harbor, and what that thing could level if somehow breached and ignited. Since that was plastered all over the media, I have no qualms about discussing such a scenerio further.
Fill up a small but relatively fast aeroplane with explosives. Maybe a private jet. Fly it into a docked LNG tanker in a big city…actually, I think Boston is the only candidate that fits this bill, so poor us. Or maybe you just paddle a small boat filled with said explosives up at night, or construct a small submersible. Whatever, just get the explosives close enough to the tanker. Chances are you’ll kill a few thousand people at the least, destroy a good-sized portion of a harbor and anything nearby, make a hell of a big flaming statement, and scare the crap out of the nation. Billions in property damage. Ugly, ugly footage of those who died, and worse, those who didn’t but were too close. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people who wind up surviving third-degree burns over large percentages of their body. Thousands more with second-degree burns. And so on. Right here in the cradle of the Revolution.
Threads like this are just what the government likes. They like a bit of panic and uncertainty, since they can show they are “in charge”, that they are spending money wisely, that they are essential to your security.
The fact is that if AQ really wanted to target American citizens on their home soil again, they could do so fairly easily: a forged/stolen passport, a plane to Mexico, a hop over the border, steal a van, buy fertiliser, diesel fuel, fireworks and a mosquito coil, pack in scrap metal, drive to a major sporting, musical or political gathering, light the coil and leave. Repeat as necessary.
Car bombs are so incredibly simple that we must ask the question: why no car bombs? The answer, I contend, is something which the government would prefer you not to believe:
That AQ no longer poses much of a threat any more.
Osama Bin Laden was, or is if he still lives, a Messianic psychopath who wanted one big show-stopper. He tried and failed with 1993’s WTC bombing. He tried again and failed with 1995’s Operation Bojinka.
September 11th was AQ’s magnum opus. It was successful beyond their wildest dreams, took years to plan, and they know they will never be so unbelievably lucky again. A few Wahabbi-Wannabe’s might try a few bombs or snipes, and could do so pretty easily despite what the government say, but I believe that terrorism is actually now a pretty minor issue in America. If anything, the greater danger comes from paranoid loons in the mould of McVeigh who would seek to pin their crimes on AQ.
That is a misconception. They are not “eager” to die anymore then anyone else, but they are made “eager” to become a warrior for the cause of God, Islam and the Umma. This is not new in Islamic history at all and it is no surprize that such a concept can still appeal to Muslims worldwide. (Compare it with US nationalism. Because of this nationalism - often combined with idealism - US soldiers are called heros and find a broad public support while they themselves volunteer to defend what they perceive as worthwile even if that causes their death.)
What is new in this suicide-fighter concept is that in order to fight against the perceived ennemies/threats of Islam and the Umma, they managed to create of a theological defense for the use of suicide as a method of war.
This created theological defense is the whole trick to recrute Muslims into doing things that normally only open the door to damnation.(Explaining how they came to that is an other issue.) Suicide is not permitted and condemned by the sayings of the Prophet himself, who warned that if you kill yourself you shall be tormented in hell with the same tool you used for comitting suicide.
While it would have most certainly a shock effect, I don’t see how they ever could find a way to defend theologically such pure suicidal actions = Without any other reason then to kill yourself to cause a shock effect instead of destroying the enemy in defense of Islam and the Umma. Shock effects do not destroy the enemy, they cause the enemy to reflect on the conflict which then eventually could provoke a willingness for striving towards to peaceful solutions.
Striving for peaceful solutions is command of Al Qur’an, but that is something these people have excluded on forehand as a possiblity to even ponder about.
Salaam. A
"Car bombs are so incredibly simple that we must ask the question: why no car bombs? The answer, I contend, is something which the government would prefer you not to believe:
That AQ no longer poses much of a threat any more"
Absolutely bang on SentientM ( pun indended) . If there are Islamic fundamentalists everywhere ( dont they live next door to YOU ?) and they are hell bent on destroying America - you’d have thought that at least 1 of them would have got their ass out of bed and had the common decency to blow him/herself up by now.
