London Hit By Terror Attacks (What is the appropriate response?)

Great Debates
281

I’m not sure I understand you.

The “look” of Muslims that you allude to changes from country to vountry, so in some places it would be useless to profile that way. But how abou the group who goes to mosques. I think the correlation there wold be about 100% muslim. As far as the possibility of these religious fanatics posing as catholics, say, I think is remote, but as I mentioned in a couple of posts ago, might lead to other effective ways to find them.

I think the bombings in Spain and England have all been attributed to Muslims, whether they were from England, Spain, or Syria I don’t know and doesn’t matter to my position.

282

Yup, I get the idea, but I have to say that if you think that attention to the people who fall into those categories and many more besides isn’t currently being undertaken, you’re kidding yourself.
How many similar attempts have their intelligence foiled? No one who’s not in MI5 is ever going to know. Plebs like us only hear about the times the bombers succeed.

283

Osama bin Laden is nearly 50. Abu Bakar Bashir, convicted inconnection with the Bali bomb, is nearly 70. Take a look at this Wikipedia entry on female suicide bombers.

No, because as I already pointed out, it’s perfectly possible to hide one’s religion, should that become necessary to stay under the radar.

Define how you plan to identify these people. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of Britons and non-British residents travel to Pakistan every year - which obviously has its porous border with Afghanistan, and is itself home to plenty of extremists. How do you go about filtering out the 99.99% that are simply holidaying, visiting home, etc.?

They can be, and are, dealt with by existing laws.

Likewise. Once you’ve defined ‘group that sponsors terrorists’, which is no easy matter.

You mentioned finding those ‘practising their religion underground’. How?

284

I think that much of it is being done. I hope all.

285

I’ve been saying this since the start of the WOT, but the biggest mistake we’re making is trying to protect the public from the top down, with gatekeepers, new regulations, more police, etc.

You CAN’T protect a free society from terror this way. There will always be targets. Remove one by expending huge money to lock it down, and the terrorists will just shift to the next one. One day a zamboni full of nails will explode at a hockey game, and we’ll go, “We were so STUPID to not protect the Zambonis!” Then there will be new onerous laws on Zamboni operation that raise costs and are totally useless because that mode of attack will not be used again. If you spend huge money and effort to protect the zambonis, the terrorists willl just shift to another soft target. In an open society there is no end to the number of soft targets, and you simply can’t protect them all. In the meantime, the new regulations and security measures make our society less free,which is part of what the terrorists are trying to achieve.

We would be much, much better off to leverage the strength of a free society, which is the people themselves. Flight 93 should be a model. The passengers, armed with good information, rose up and stopped that plane from hitting an important target. It bears repeating - the only attack that day to be stopped in progress was stopped by civilians, not the police or the military.

In the London bombings, the best information that came out was from camera phones held by the public. The massive numbers of surveillance cameras installed by the government throughout London did squat.

We should focus our efforts on mobilizing the population to aid in civil defence. Tax breaks for CPR and other first aid training. More liberal weapons carrying laws. New communication networks that leverage the power of a hundred million people with cell phones. Back in the old days, Ham radio operators were a valuable part of disaster preparedness. There’s no reason we can’t enlist cell phone users in the same way. We just need some organization.

Get information out to the people as fast as possible. Give them outlets for training in medicine and defense. Give the people more power, not less. Let the terrorists know that their efforts to weaken us and make us less free actually make us stronger and more free. Make them understand the difference between free people and totalitarian societies.

This is the defense model the Swiss followed for decades, and it worked well for them. The Israelis also do this, and it helps a lot. More than one terrorist attack has been stopped or cut short when civilians pulled weapons and shot the terrorists.

As a concrete example, why not put protection and restraint devices on airplanes, and allow passengers to access them? Perhaps a new program in which frequent fliers can sign up for a training program in aviation safety and rescue, in exchange for discounts on their tickets? People registered with the program can sit near exit doors and help with egress and first aid, making them more usefull in non-terrorist crashes. But they also get access to the locker containing restraint devices, shields, etc - things that are useful against terrorists, but not dangerous otherwise. Sort of a civilian air marshall-lite.

Here in Canada, it’s almost impossible for private security guards to carry weapons. This is stupid. Let them take a comprehensive firearms and civil law training course, and give them guns, for god’s sake. Turn every parking garage and mall guard into a potential soldier in the War on Terror.

286

Sam: Talk about short term, reactionary planning with dire historical results…

Unfortunately it sounds more to me like you want to mimic the tactics of the terrorists, rather than repudiate them. Make everyone a “potential soldier”? How is that compatible with a “free” society?

Simply and exactly so.

Makes me wonder about your reasoning in the rest of your proposals.

I think some people can’t get their head around the truth of that statement.

287

In what fundamental way is the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, France etc. different from Saudi Arabia and Yemen? The answer is that the first list of countries place an emphasis on individual liberties while the second do not. It’s precisely this reason why living in the first set of countries is tolerable. Having experienced life prior to the terrorist attacks, I cannot begin to imagine living in a country where individual liberties are second to security and the liberty of an individual may be flouted without respect to due process. There is a reason why most people, given the choice, would rather live in the UK than in Yemen.

It isn’t a matter of them working or not. It’s a matter of do I really want to live in a country where thousands of years of tradition are dictated to by a set of terrorists aiming to bring the free countries down to their levels of oppression? Is a life where I’m constantly under suspicion, liable to harrassment from the state and may be dissappeared at any time to face a secret, juryless trial without access to legal aid really of the same quality that I enjoy now?

The answer to that from every right thinking individual should be a resounding “no”.

288

I didn’t know Switzerland was a hotbed of oppression :dubious:

289

Not a soldier. An citizen active in his/her own defense. It doesn’t have to be weaponry and soldier training. It could be as something as smple as tax breaks for civil emergency training, or for encouraging people to learn skills that are useful in a crisis, such as Red Cross certification.

Here’s an example we already do: I work in a high rise. After 9/11, our building instituted a policy of requiring floor coordinators among the workers on every floor, assistant coordinators, people responsible for communications, etc. We doubled or tripled the number of fire drills.

It could mean enlisting cell phone users in disaster prep the way we used to enlist ham radio operators. It could be something as simple as a new network you can sign up to that will automatically phone your cell to alert you of potential terrorist activity. The passengers on Flight 93 fought back because they had phones on the plane that they used to gain information about what was happening so that they could make intelligent decisions. Let’s do more of that.

One of the things that came out of the WTC disaster investigation was the realization that the traditional emergency services were wrong in their advice to people, and the people were right. That’s because the people had the latest information about what was going on, passed to them through cell phones, the internet, and TV, while the emergency workers were operating off their standard ‘playbook’ that didn’t fit the situation.

We need to treat the citizenry not as sheep to be directed and controlled by the ‘officials’, but as active participants who bring their own strengths to the party.

Of course, it goes without saying that this should all be voluntary. But the government can take an active role in making sure the citizenry has the tools it needs to help, should it choose to do so.

290

There’s good reason we’ve seen nothing from CCTV. All relevant tapes will be with the police right now, being scrutinised. If anybody is prosecuted, I will be astonished if these tapes don’t provide some of the evidence.

(This from sombody that instinctively dislikes any use of CCTV.)

291

Which is exactly my point. The government withholds information, seeing themselves as the gatekeepers of defense.

What if those tapes contain images of the bombers, and if they were made public some neighbor might go, “Hey I know that guy! I’d better call the government!” But no, that information is withheld while the ‘experts’ pore over it, and in the meantime valuable time is lost.

Why not digitize those tapes, catalog them, and put them on the internet as soon as possible? Let everyone pore over them. Enlist the public. We’re all in this together. Let us fight it together.

292

The police have access to any CCTV, not the government. The police took control of the emergency situation in London, not a government force.

If there’s CCTV with clear footage of people that need to be identified, expect it to be released in due course. But what’s the rush? The explosions have happened, the next attack is no more or less likely tommorow than it was on the 6th July.

There’s also the legal considerations, of how releasing CCTV footage of ‘the bombers’ could compromise prosecutions.

293

The police are an arm of the government. You’re picking nits.

What’s the rush? If these guys are still at large, they could be on their way out of the country NOW. Hours could matter.

You’re going to have to explain how that would happen. Has the availability of public footage of a crime ever been a major factor in such a conviction? I think you’re grasping at straws.

294

This is not what we want here in the UK - do you think Americans are safer because they have more guns?? Only here in NI do the police even carry pistols, and many people want to see an end to that. Only in your dreams does having more guns in society make you safer!

295

They most certainly are not. Not in Britain. I’m not nit-picking, I’m stating a very important part of how British justice works.

Again, you’d better look at how British justice works. Releasing CCTV footage and stating that it showed ‘the bombers’ would certainly mean that its validity as evidence, or the ability to select an unbiased jury, would be questioned.

296

Not to mention that you really, really don’t want to tip off the bombers if you’re on their trail. Didn’t the Madrid bombers blow themselves up when the Spanish police got close? You want these guys to think they’ve gotten away clean, then pick them up on their way to the grocers one morning. The less information concerning the investigation that’s made public (for now, anyways), the better.

297

But one that seems irrelevant to Sam’s point: that the fight is being wholly entrusted to the “experts” and not the combined strength of the populace.

298

There’s also the risk that the pictures are not crystal clear, someone could look at them and go, “Hey, i think i know that guy, lets call up some friends and crucify the bastard!”.

If they release any pictures of potential suspects they must do so with the full realisation that their man may not come in alive. I imagine that’s quite a severe loss of information too.

A few years ago a house in my street was fire-bombed because people suspected a paedophile lived there. I believe it was a local paper which fuelled the suspicions. It was later revealed to be the wrong man, thankfully nobody was killed.

299

I would have to agree with Sam. To say the police are not the government isn’t just picking nits; it’s preposterous. In Britain or anywhere else.

If the police AREN’T an arm of the government, tell me; who pays them? Are they a private company? Volunteers?

300

If you believe that, then couldn’t you equally say that hospital workers or social workers are an arm of the government?