Terrorist alerts crap

[capt. apathy]

first off your assumptions are wrong-  the 9/11 terrorists made no effort to bail out after setting their planes on course, or make any sort of contingency to live through the attack.  survival or even cost seem to have no weight it their calculations, and as others have corectly stated, if anything survival of the attacker is being avoided.

second, even if the 'threat level' system does nothing to stop attacks it does do one thing.  it allows me to make an educated decision on activitys during these times.

as a taxpayer, my money pays for the inelligance comunity, and I have a right to the information gathered (or as much as security will allow).  I prefer a system that lets me know if there are signs of increased danger, and allows me to make educated decissions on what level of risk I'm comfortable with(do I need to fly this week?  do I really feel like going to a large New Years celibration?).

it may stop an attack, an increased alert may cause attackers to abort and wait for a safer time.  but if nothing else we won't have to sort through a load of crap after the next attack where people whine about "who knew what and didn't tell"

[ra]

Originally posted by miko2d

  You are making a factual mistake - confusing your abcense of evidence with evidence of abcense.
 First, many of the suicide bombers in Palestine are not religious.
 Second, there are plenty of attacks in Israel where the attackers are not suicidal. American media only reports the most spectaular ones which often - not always - happen to be suicidal. Any israeli will tell you there are daily attempts, shootings, bombings, intrusions, etc.  

First, I specified Islamic terrorists; second, I never said all attacks were suicidal, just that suicide is often chosen when it is not necessary.

 You are also making a logical mistake here - just because you do not understand something, you attribute it to irrationality in the enemy's actions rather than some gap in your own logic.
 There are plenty of reasons - for palestoinian terrorists, not necessarily for terrorists in US - to commit suicide rather than try to save their lives.

You are talking down your nose, as usual.  Terrorists can choose to attack in a rational manner, or they can chose to attack in a suicidal manner.  There is no reason to believe that "They will prefer easy, cheap, and safe ways of attack to those that bring excessive costs in risk of discovery, time, money, and their lives".  They often chose a suicide attack rather than a series of non-suicidal attacks.  

On a broader note, I've never heard any of the jittery Homeland Defense bureaucrats claim that terrorists in the US will only use suicide attacks, so the entire point of your post is lost on me.  You seem to assume that people only expect suicide attacks, and only on holidays, and only against obvious targets.

 
 miko

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Curval
The President of Pakistan has avoided being assasinated TWICE in the past two weeks.  This is the guy that has helped the US visa vis the toppling of the Taliban (Osama's host) in Afganistan and is the leader of a musilm country that has fought for its independence.

If Al-Quieda, who is the chief suspect, would have been successful it would have been a very BIG DEAL in my opinion.  The western media has shrugged it off for the most part, but I suspect that Pakistan's President is not considered a "soft target" in anyone's opinion.  It was high-tech devices in his limo that delayed the detonation of one of the bombs and saved his life for heaven's sake.

It is quite possible the hype was the remaints of info on this action.

Of course I am very happy to be home during these holidays and not travelling.

The president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf came to power through a military coup (and now resides over a secular parliment frozen in a stalemate) who then angered a large number of it's populace through it's support of the invasion of Afghanistan. The likely suspects are most likely to be domestic, or led by those who escaped from Afghanistan.

 Tronsky

[Pfunk]

Some of you guys just have WAY to much time on your hands, get a girlfriend, a wife, a boyfriend or some other hobby besides posting useless 2000 word essays in a forum.

[miko2d]

capt. apathy: first off your assumptions are wrong- the 9/11 terrorists made no effort to bail out after setting their planes on course, or make any sort of contingency to live through the attack.

 What are you talking about? I said that they are willing to commit suicide where it is necessary but would not leek death. If they balied out over the Manhattan, they would not have saved themselves and would not be able to guarantee hitting the towers.

 Anyway, there has been no attempted terrorist acts on US soild - suicidal or not, other than the shoe-bomber.

but if nothing else we won't have to sort through a load of crap after the next attack where people whine about "who knew what and didn't tell"

 Exactly. They will have an expensive talking point.


ra: I specified Islamic terrorists; second, I never said all attacks were suicidal, just that suicide is often chosen when it is not necessary.

 OK. Anyway, I was talking about terrorism in general - islamic, secular, suicidal and conventional. How many terror attampts of either kind did we have? None.

You are talking down your nose, as usual. Terrorists can choose to attack in a rational manner, or they can chose to attack in a suicidal manner. There is no reason to believe that "They will prefer easy, cheap, and safe ways of attack to those that bring excessive costs in risk of discovery, time, money, and their lives". They often chose a suicide attack rather than a series of non-suicidal attacks.

 Again, how many of either suicidal or non-suicidal attacks or attampts have we seen?

the entire point of your post is lost on me. You seem to assume that people only expect suicide attacks, and only on holidays, and only against obvious targets.

 Not people. The government expects attacks on obvious targets at obvious - to them but not the terrorists - times.
 Half the talk on the radio is about preventing another 9/11. Did they ever hear about locking the door after the horse has run away?
 The 4th plane did not achieve it's goal because the people knew about the terrorist methods. What's the chance the terrorists would be able to pull it off again and why would they bother if there are so many other methods.

 miko

[ra]

Originally posted by miko2d
 Not people. The government expects attacks on obvious targets at obvious - to them but not the terrorists - times.
 Half the talk on the radio is about preventing another 9/11. Did they ever hear about locking the door after the horse has run away?
 The 4th plane did not achieve it's goal because the people knew about the terrorist methods. What's the chance the terrorists would be able to pull it off again and why would they bother if there are so many other methods.

 miko

I assume the government's predictable holiday warnings are pure political CYA.  If there was ever an increase in 'chatter' followed by an attack which the Homeland Defense people didn't warn about there would be hell to pay.  Careers would be ruined, and we can't have that.  Below the political level, the people who actually work in the field are probably aware that attacks can come from anywhere at any time.  That is the nature of asymmetrical warfare.

Talk about preventing another 9-11 doesn't have to mean preventing another airliner from being hijacked and flown into a building.  To me it just means preventing another massive attack, and that's probably what others mean, too.

But planes can still be used in an attack without hijacking.  Planes can be chartered or stolen, or commercial pilots with terrorist ties can infiltrate a cargo airline and wait for orders to attack.

ra

[Saurdaukar]

Ok - so basically uour argument is:

"We wont be able to stop them, so lets all just go about our business and be nice and they will stop on their own."

I get it.

[Boroda]

Miko, sorry, but can you please write summaries of your long posts for me in Russian?...

I'd really like to talk to you personally...

My e-mail is tengrie[sobaka]sky.chph.ras.ru

ICQ UIN: 4627619

Unfortunately I think that when I'll be back at work and sober enough to understand - it will be too late, this topic will be 4 pages long and too hard for me to get in...

[Twist]

Creating another bloated government agency to enforce these new 'security measures' has to be the worst thing since the creation of welfare. I fly over 100k miles annually for work and what I've seen so far is akin to a room full of horny monkeys and a greased football, no one is in any way 'safer' than they were before the attacks, to believe otherwise is foolish.

The attackers succeeded in so many ways, the collapse of those buildings was just a bonus. Our lives have been permanently disrupted and we lost many freedoms that day. Don't think so? When I was a kid we destroyed a few things using 'cherry-bombs' and we were labeled 'typical youth'. We weren't alone. Try something like that today and you'll find the ATF on your butt with an anal probe so fast it'll make your head spin. Before they're through you'll be facing at least a dozen felony charges.

I'm not saying what a lot of us did as kids was ok, what I'm trying to do is lay out a small sample of then-vs-now for you to look at. I won't do the research for you either, look it up yourself. 20 years ago the terms 'pre-ban' and 'pre-9/11' did not exist in our language. Look at the changes those two occurances brought about in our society. Nothing good from where I sit.

[GRUNHERZ]

But the real question is, are the terrorists using fake paper money instead of gold to finance their operations...

[Maverick]

Grun,

What they are doing is using real money to print gold certificates to resell to those thinking they are buying gold.