Is terrorism really a threat?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Then why were we supporting the Chinese in the first place? If we hadn’t cared about what the Japanese did in Asia, we could have avoided war entirely.
[/QUOTE]

Why did we support the Brits and Russians? Because it was in our interest to support all of them. Doesn’t mean we had any intention of going to war though…in fact, I’d say its a good indication that we had no such intentions.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
We put pressure on them to achieve our political goals. We assumed they would cave. They attacked instead. We fought back. It’s disingenuous to pretend that Pearl Harbor didn’t occur as part of an escalating confrontation between the United States and Japan over who controlled large chunks of Asia.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say that Pearl Harbor was some kind of isolated incident, disconnected from anything else and out of the blue. I SAID that the reason the US fought Japa was because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Which is exactly why we fought them…nothing more, nothing less. The reasons for Japan to attack the US are irrelevent to why the US joined the war. You are attempting to bring in stuff I wasn’t talking about to the discussion. If you want to go into all the reasons Japan attacked the US, and the reasons the US did what it did wrt the oil embargo, we can certainly do that…but the primary reason the US went to war with Japan is simply that they attacked and sunk our fleet. Freeing Asia or any of that other stuff were simply effects…not causes.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Please describe specifically the scenario we are trying to prevent here. First you raise the spectre of a pan-Islamismic revolution, but when I say that’s ridiculous you say, well, yes it is, but they don’t actually have to take control of a bunch of countries, they just have to DISRUPT things.
[/QUOTE]

Um…do you really not realize how unstable several of the regimes in the area are? What would they have to disrupt? How about the House of Saud? Ruling house in Kuait? Any of those ring bells? How about smash the already fragile and fucked up Iraqi situation into full scale civil war? Any of this getting through?

You asked me what AQ’s goal is…their goal is the creation of an Islamic fundamentalist superstate encompassing much of the Saudi peninsula, Kuait, Iraq and Iran…maybe a few other choice pieces. I never said it was ridiculous…YOU did. I said that it may or may not be realistic for them to achieve, but to fuck with the west all they have to do is manage to throw the region into chaos. Seems pretty clear to me…I really don’t understand why you think its so incredible a concept.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
The worst thing I can see in realpolitik terms is if they were able to lead a popular revolt in Saudi Arabia and depose the House of Saud. But, then what? Even then they would probably keep the oil flowing so they could continue to fund their pan-Islamic pipedream. And if they did cut off the oil (slitting their own throats in the process) it would take about three weeks for the U.S. Army to seize control of the oil fields and open the taps again.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: So, you figure that if they can bring about chaos and civil war in Saudi that the oil will just keep flowing, ehe? Whats your indication of that exactly? Have you perhaps noticed that little dust up in Iraq? Maybe you are aware that the oil hasn’t exactly been flowing too well? And you figure that in the power vaccume of a deposed House of Saud and full scale civil war that would most likely follow, with terrorists/insurgents blowing stuff up and having a good ole time, that the oil will just magically keep flowing?!? Not to mention that by this same magic that ONLY Saudi will be effected by such an event…or that AQ (or whoever) will ONLY be doing stuff in Saudi??

Um…sure.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
No, I see Al Qaeda as about the same level of threat as the militia movement in the United States in the 1990’s: Capable of committing heinous acts, but politically a dead end.
[/QUOTE]

Then all I can say is you are living in a fantasy world. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is following things there thinks that AQ is a dead end, is not wildly popular in the region, etc. If you like we can play cite wars about this…you show me some cites clearly indicating how unpopular AQ is in the region, how its a political dead end…and I’ll see if I can, through massive effort, dig up a cite or two showing that, no…AQ is actually quite popular and far from a dead end. Want to do that (I hesitate only because I’m unsure if its a hijack)?

-XT

42

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We went to war because we were viciously attacked and directly threatened. That was the primary reason. We didn’t do so to prevent the Japanese from taking control of most of Asia…that was just a happy outcome.

[/quote]

If you remember Pearl Harbor was not the only place attacked on that day. The Philipines were also. Basically we went to war because the Japanese declared war on us, using a sneak attack instead of a declaration. If by some happy circumstance no American died at Pearl Harbor we would have been to war just as quickly.

The real issue is not whether we should have struck back, which was obvious (though I wish we had finished the job) but how many of our liberties should we give up to combat this threat. Airline security is directly connected to a real threat, and seems reasonable. Remember the screening began to stop hijacking to Cuba, which was usually annoying but not fatal. But warrantless wiretapping and detention camps and torture are something that might, just might, be appropriate if the future of the country is at risk. Are you saying the threat is that great? Greater than when we massive numbers of nuclear weapons targeted at us?

43

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The real issue is not whether we should have struck back, which was obvious (though I wish we had finished the job) but how many of our liberties should we give up to combat this threat. Airline security is directly connected to a real threat, and seems reasonable. Remember the screening began to stop hijacking to Cuba, which was usually annoying but not fatal. But warrantless wiretapping and detention camps and torture are something that might, just might, be appropriate if the future of the country is at risk. Are you saying the threat is that great? Greater than when we massive numbers of nuclear weapons targeted at us?
[/QUOTE]

I agree…I think we, as a society would be better served simply accepting a higher level of risk in our day to day lives, instead of less liberties. I also agree with the folks saying that air travel especially is getting ridiculous…and that again, we should accept higher levels of risk.

This isn’t what the OP was asking however.

-XT

44

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…do you really not realize how unstable several of the regimes in the area are? What would they have to disrupt? How about the House of Saud? Ruling house in Kuait? Any of those ring bells? How about smash the already fragile and fucked up Iraqi situation into full scale civil war? Any of this getting through?
[/QUOTE]

You are aware that Al Qaeda’s operation in Saudi Arabia has been largely crushed, right? And that Al Qaeda’s attacks on Saudi oil production have been largely ineffectual? Al Qaeda has not demonstrated that it has the power to disrupt oil production in either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, despite having a desire to do so.

And Al Qaeda is not a major player in Iraq. Most of the violence in Iraq at this point is between various indiginous groups who are scrambling for power. They’re working their way toward civil war without any urging from Al Qaeda.

So you DO think there is a real danger of them doing so? Really? How do you see them going about it? How, exactly, do you see a marginalized band of religious extremists knitting together a pan-Islamic state? Where do they start? How do they reconcile the Sunnis and the Shiites? How do they deal with secular strongmen like Mussharraf and al-Assad? Because to me it looks like Al Qaeda’s goals are a lot of hot air.

Because so far they HAVEN’T been able to throw the region into chaos, despite being active for many years. Their only serious foothold was in Afghanistan and we put an end to that.

Despite having a fundamentalist revolution and being a theocracy for the last quarter century, Iran is still the fourth largest petroleum exporter in the world. If the Wahhabists did seize control of Saudi Arabia they’d find themselves in the same position – keep the oil pumping or go bankrupt.

“Whoever”? Who is that, exactly?

I think that even if the House of Saud were to fall to a popular uprising we wouldn’t see the kind of chaos we’ve seen in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is ethnically and religiously homogenous, unlike Iraq. A Saudi Arabian revolution would more closely resemble what happened in Iran in the 1970’s.

I think it’s pointless to play a cite war. But I will point out that if Al Qaeda is so powerful, why are they so marginal? Their power is trivial compared to a real political party like the Baathists or Hezbollah. All they’re able to do is blow stuff up – not much to build a power base with.

They’re dangerous thugs with grandiose and unrealistic ambitions. They’re not a serious political force. And certainly not a threat on the scale of the Nazis or the Soviet Union as many people pretend they are.

45

[QUOTE=Priceguy]
The threat of terrorism is a tiny fraction of what we make it out to be.
[/QUOTE]

and don’t call me Shirley.

46

Terrorism is much less a threat then weather disasters, but in the case of terrorism we can fight back and prevent attacks, we are not that good with the weather on the offensive side yet, though we are pretty good on the defensive side of weather, by alerting people and getting them out of area that are going to be hit, well except for a certain mayor in some city on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi who had a fleet of school buses and Amtrak trains at his disposal and he didn’t use them - unforgivable!

Now the plan of the Islamifacists is world conquest, fortunately all they can do at this time is blow up their children and get more and more Americans really pissed off at them and fomenting a anti islamofascists sentiment in the US. In time technology will progress and their tactics will also improve (up to now they appear to be a bunch of bumbling idiots who managed to pull some lucky hits- mainly when we were not willing to look). They will get nukes, but looking at their past tactics I think it’s just as likely for them to either break the thing or irradiate themselves in the process of blowing up NYC (have no doubt that is their primary target) then to actually have a successful attack.

Underestimating the enemy, perhaps, perhaps not.

47

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Now the plan of the Islamifacists is world conquest
[/quote]

Sounds to me like you’ve missed the root of the problem by a country mile. Do you seriously believe the terrorists are nothing more than a desert version of Cobra?

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
(up to now they appear to be a bunch of bumbling idiots who managed to pull some lucky hits- mainly when we were not willing to look).
[/quote]

At least you’re not claiming the insurgency is in its “last throes”… :rolleyes:

48

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
I’ll take a different tactic in this debate. I agree that the threat of terrorism is small…the number of people who die from large-scale terror attacks pales next to the threat of deaths from other causes.

However, I do not think that the measures being taken are disproportionate to the threat. The other large-number causes of death, such as murder or accident, are accumulations of small incidents, impossible to stop every single one, impossible to identify any single cause, impossible to use an organized government effort to save large numbers of lives.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand your last statement here. For a fraction of the price of the Iraq War (which was ostensibly engaged in to reduce the threat of terrorism), the government could equip every car with side and curtain airbags, which would have to reduce fatalities by only ~1% in order to save more lives over the lifetime of the average vehicle than were lost in the 9/11 attacks. This is just one possible example one could come up with.

Other people here in this forum have come up with more compelling arguments for why we might care about terrorism out-of-proportion with the number of deaths it has caused. However, I don’t think your arguments hold water.

49

The point of committing terrorist acts is twofold, and I’m pretty sure of the order.
a) to create dramatic destruction
b) to drum up support from others

The Saudi regime certainly feels threatened by its own population, ditto Kuwait and Egypt. Indonesia also has problems. Bahrain too.

The Al Qaeda ‘spectaculars’ are put on for the benefit of those populations, and a few others.

We have already seen a prototype in Iran, so we can assume that a popular anti-everyone uprising led by insane Mullahs can happen.

If Saudi fell, then the first thing they would do is shut off the oil, and mine the oil fields, pipes etc, so that they would take five years to rebuild. They would then resume a limited flow, but at the highest possible price, which could be periodically hiked by … a short shutdown in production.

A military invasion of Saudi or Kuwait would be pointless, or rather a successful invasion would be a pyrrhic victory.

Actual destruction and ‘terror’ are the means to an end.

50

Many have argued that it is impossible to change human nature, and that people will always fear terrorism. I agree, they will fear terrorism. However, do you not think that that the attitudes in the media enormously amplify our human nature? (Perhaps that is wrong phrase here, because it is also human nature to listen to those around us and adopt their assessments as our own). Do you not think if this influence was removed, the natural fear that remained would be a tiny fraction of what we are seeing?

Perhaps we’d never be able to read about a train gassing and think, “man, that’s almost as bad as that train that got derailed last month.” But we would not run around calling for a restructuring of our train system and the installation of x-ray machines. There would be experts on tv saying “well, it’s not at all as bad as the derailing last month,” and people would take great comfort in hearing an expert say that. Now the experts would say, “the gassing is huge sign of the times. it is an appalling, unparalleld tragedy. Let us mourne it and watch a home video again and again.” And people take great fear in hearing an expert say that, and adopt his viewpoint.

It’s a funny thing that despite being called a “DAY OF TERROR” by the NY Times, the citizens of New York City were ANYTHING but terrified on Sept. 11th. I was in Manhattan and saw things for myself. People were mourneful, somber, quiet, stunned, but NOT terrified. Nobody was. This point is hard to exaggerate. The biggest emotional impact that I received was by watching the news that same and the following day. It was an event out of the movies, but it took us a second to realize that we ought to respond in the same Hollywood way.
Dr Derth gave the argument that terrorism is a risk we cannot control. While that is somewhat true, I think you overplay our control over the other dangers in our lives. Lots of people who wear seat belts and drive safely die in car accidents. People can drive less, like they can fly less often, but they are just not willing to do this. Car accidents are somewhere in the magnitude of being beyond our control as is terrorism. I’m just not convinced that a lack of control is the real psychological reason that makes us fear terrorism. If people think terrorism can happen to them, it is not because they think they cannot do anything to reduce its risk. It is because the media implies that the risk is so great to begin with.

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Think how easy it would be to pack a laptop full of plastic explosives or ship bombs by air freight.
…
In my mind it is inevitable that there will be more attacks on air travel
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it IS very easy to pack electronics full of explosives. I was thinking the very same thing when I carried several hard drives, a power supply, and a cd-rom as carry-on. An x-ray can see through none of those things, and an inspector isn’t about to take out a screwdriver. It is (well, was) also incredibly easy to carry a liquid explosive. And, of course, there’s not rules against lighters.

If there really were that many terrorists, each one just dying to find a way to blow up a plane, these things would have been exploited long ago. The only conclusion is that there’s far fewer people, each trying far less effectively, to blow up planes than we naturally suppose.

“In my mind it is inevitable that there will be attacks [because they are so easy to carry out.]”
I agree they are easy. Yet it is surprising how few there were. Logically, then, people must just not be trying. That line of thinking goes completely against our common understanding, doesn’t it?

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
I think soon we will see a world where every single piece of luggage on passenger flights will be searched by hand. No electronics of any kind will be permitted and all air cargo will be on dedicated flights. Passenger train travel will come to a halt because the tracks can not be made safe. Major bridges and tunnels will have armed checkpoints and all trucks permitted through will be sealed like they are by customs.
[/QUOTE]
That is precisely the thing we must now work to avoid, because that, I completely agree, is the logical conclusion that terrorism, as we currently perceive it, would take us to.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
One of the best thing we could do, actually, to protect ourselves from a future 9-11 is to give as much support as possible to Arab-American groups and American Muslims in general. The only place for Arab terrorists to hide is within Arab & Islamic communities in the United States. The patrotism of Arab-Americans and American Muslims is our first line of defense.
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
The only form of terrorism that DOES worry me is nuclear. A nuclear attack on New York or L.A. could be carried out without creating a terrorist cell inside the country. It could be accomplished by detonating a bomb in a shipping container in a merchant ship arriving from a foreign port. I would be far, far happier if the money wasted in Iraq had been spent on securing nuclear materials in Kazakhstan and beefing up port security.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you speak my mind. (and, to give credit, Voyager said the same). I also agree with you regarding Pearl Harbor.

[QUOTE=Rune]
Didn’t we just have this discussion already? Compared to car accidents (and apparently murders) nearly every other threat shrinks to insignificance. This is nothing new, driving a car is about the most dangerous thing most modern men ever do. But why stop at terrorism? Compared to road accidents and murder rates, the little more than 1,000 killed in Lebanon is trivial? Not really something to worry about. The 50,000+ killed in Iraq? A trifle pittance, hardly worth mentioning, when we could focus on more worthy subjects, like highway protection in Ohio. Earthquake in Pakistan? No, remember more people killed in traffic. Tsunami in Asia? Nope, let’s focus on the real problems, like murder rates in New York. AIDS in the US? Yeah, right. Cut funding immediately. More people are killed in road accidents every day, than has ever been killed by AIDS in the US. etc. etc.
[/QUOTE]
Well, car accidents are something like 40k deaths a year. This doesn’t put down the war in Iraq, the Tsunami in Asia, or some of the other things you mentioned. However, if a comparison with car accidents causes your head to turn regarding other issues, then maybe it should!

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I agree…I think we, as a society would be better served simply accepting a higher level of risk in our day to day lives, instead of less liberties. I also agree with the folks saying that air travel especially is getting ridiculous…and that again, we should accept higher levels of risk.

This isn’t what the OP was asking however.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it kind of was. For all your disagreeing, I’m surprised to hear you say this. It’s almost like you just don’t want to agree with me.

Pochacco, I salute your valiant fight with xtisme regarding Al Queda and Pearl Harbor, and you’ll still have my respect if you just stop trying.

Isn’t it funny how terrorism drums up political support both for THEIR governments and OURS?

51

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
Isn’t it funny how terrorism drums up political support both for THEIR governments and OURS?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t get that Alex, it drums up support for our governments, but it is not doing much for governments like Saudi - well not that I’ve noticed.

The rail crash stuff you mentioned is interesting, we had a spectacular one in the UK and it led to ‘de-privatisation’ of RailTrack, the company responsible for maintenance.

People get narked about negligence as well as malevolence.

52

Here’s an interesting article by a security expert writing in Wired about the dangers of over-hyping the threat we face from terrorists.

53

Thanks for the great article, Pochacco. The long list of overreactions was mind-boggling, but I am also surprised by what it had to say regarding liquid explosives. I was even under the impression they were a credible threat.

[QUOTE=Wired]
We’re all a little jumpy after the recent arrest of 23 terror suspects in Great Britain. The men were reportedly plotting a liquid-explosive attack on airplanes, and both the press and politicians have been trumpeting the story ever since.

In truth, it’s doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemists have been debunking the idea since it became public. Certainly the suspects were a long way off from trying: None had bought airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports.
[/QUOTE]

However, regarding its main thesis of:

Well, no, the terrorists, even if they don’t understand this, get little out of provoking fear in our country. It only strengthens our governments and our resolve (ill-founded as it may be). Funnily enough, the same thing happens on the other side when we take up arms to “fight terrorism.” We only strenghten it. Yet, like I just said, strengthened terrorism strengthens us…

On the morning of Sept 11th, Rumsfeld told a private meeting:

This statement was uncovered during a conspiracy researcher investigation of… the dod website

Hell, maybe it doesn’t meant what it apparently looks like it means. Ahh, what does it matter.

But anyway, airline-related security imbicility dates a long way back. For example, mandatory seatbelts. I got into a fight with a stewardess over this. Afterwards I did some research and it turned out I was right. Although planes do sometimes experience negative Gs on landings, the incidence of “serious injury” (whatever that means) has been 1 in 100,000,000 passenger-flights. As common sense might expect, more people die in planes than get injured in them. Divide by the rate of people not wearing seatbelts (which nearly all the victims were invariably doing), and it’s still less than a million to one. The lurching subway I ride, I’m sure, is far more dangerous. And if negative Gs is what they’re so worried about, how about they just fn pad the ceiling and the armrests. Maybe it’ll even make the flight more comfortable. And don’t even get me started on putting my seatback in an upright position…

54

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The point of committing terrorist acts is twofold, and I’m pretty sure of the order.
a) to create dramatic destruction
b) to drum up support from others
[/QUOTE]

I think you are missing a importaint 3rd, to destabilize current governements and have people loose faith of those governments to protect the people. IIRC Osoma said something along the lines of 'we will use your freedom to destroy it"

55

rofl, yeah, like how the sanctions were meant to depose Hussain. Or the one million German civilians killed in WWII were meant to stop Hitler. When will people learn that shit like that just doesn’t work? Why do they even keep trying? The only thing it ever did is the exact opposite, or in the best case lead to a coup that gives power to bigger nutjobs. Yeah, our government is weak and destabilized alright… What, has this guy been living in a cave?

56

BTW kanicbird, I’m not sure who that quote comes from, but I don’t believe it was me. I looked back over my posts in this thread and don’t see me saying that anywhere.

Just a quick FYI…

-XT

57

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
Or the one million German civilians killed in WWII were meant to stop Hitler.
[/QUOTE]

Or the rise to power of Hitler, yes a million laughs.

My appoligies xtisme, though I can’t get to the rest of the thread right now to find out from who I got this from.

58

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
For example, mandatory seatbelts. I got into a fight with a stewardess over this. Afterwards I did some research and it turned out I was right. Although planes do sometimes experience negative Gs on landings, the incidence of “serious injury” (whatever that means) has been 1 in 100,000,000 passenger-flights. As common sense might expect, more people die in planes than get injured in them. Divide by the rate of people not wearing seatbelts (which nearly all the victims were invariably doing), and it’s still less than a million to one.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no.

Seatbelts are used for crowd control, nothing funnier than seeing a stewardess picking up the 'phone and asking the pilot for a little turbulance.

However an aircraft can hit an air pocket and drop a substantial number of feet, resulting in people hitting the ceiling, I vaguely remember something about this happening to a 747 where quite a lot of old ladies got hurt. I used to fly quite a lot as I dealt with the airlines and always keep the lap belt on, but fairly loose.

Thinking about it, one would probably need a back wind to get the aircraft to drop faster than 3m sec.

Putting the seat upright is really a courtesy to the person behind you, although it has the benefit of making it unlikely that one will get a set of dentures embedded in the top of ones head.

It is interesting that military aircraft have seats facing backwards, although I’ve heard that for weight reasons, seats are not really strong enough for it to make much difference.

I’ve generally found it unwise arguing with a stewardess, they can be more evil than a moderator. :-}

59

Hezbollah’s hated flag has been waved at demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney and masked protesters have echoed the calls of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the total destruction of Israel.

Australian civilians have been mercilessly slaughtered in two unprovoked attacks on holidaymakers in Bali, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta has been targeted and fanatical Muslims living in Australia have attempted to justify such murder.

Around the world, Arabic television stations relentlessly beam anti-Semitic, anti-Western propaganda at an audience largely made up of illiterate Muslim children and adolescents.

On Palestinian television, children as young as three are exhorted to admire killers who have torn living people apart, licked their victims’ blood and eaten their warm flesh.

So-called moderate Muslims may be in the majority but their voices can barely be heard above the cries of the self-appointed publicity-seeking clerics and community leaders.
Many believe that members of the Islamic community make no attempt to share those values which are identified as Australian. They see Muslim girls wearing clothing that has little do with their religion but a lot to do with political protest. They see weak state governments bowing before Islamic groups and exploiting their voting power.

Australians are a tolerant people but they are tired of being told that their natural concerns about young Muslims who invoke their religion as they commit gang rape are demonstrations of Islamophobia, racism and paranoia.

They have watched the rise of home-grown terrorists in the Netherlands, the UK, France and other European nations and they are aware that the same messages of hate are being spread in mosques here.

That Australians believe there is a terrorist threat is not a sign of hysteria, it is an indication of commonsense.
*Put in ‘Netherlands’ where it says Australia, then you’ll have my answer:
“A terrorist threat is not a sign of hysteria, it is an indication of commonsense.” *

60

Forgot the link: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20269164-5001031,00.html