Terrorist alerts crap

[miko2d]

Let's begin with an asumption by "estblishment" (governments, media, major political parties) - the Islamic terrorists are motivated by a hatred for America and live only to accomplish some destructive act that will diminish America's power, or well-being.

 So far so good. We can also safely assume that the terrorists aren't idiots. 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. Sure, they may be ready and even willing to die for their cause but not necessarily in their very first strike against US.

 Those terrorists would not attempt to take themselves out along with their very first American victims - unless it's a huge strike like 9/11 was. They'd be hoping to keep killing americans untill their luck runs out.
 Yes, another 9/11 would be a very impressive feather in their cap. But such attack in current conditions means huge risks and costs - now that we've seen it happen once.

 Should we believe that terrorists are determined on limiting their destructive acts just to spectacular attacks that will not only get themselves killed if successful, but risk probable failure by aiming at the best defended targets at the most expected times, like holidays? Especially when other options are virtually cost- and risk-free for them?
 I know, many cognitively-challenged among you would say "Sure, all arabs are idiots and they all want to die." But Osama Bin Laden does not seem in any particular hurry to die, while his wilingness to hurt us can hardly be questioned.
 So if we accept the first two premises - that there are terrorists that want to hurt us and that they would try to hurt us as much as possible while staying alive, we come to the inevitable conclusion - there are no such terrorists in America![/b]

 It is impossible to protect millions of the "soft" targets in US - targets where a significant damage may be caused with minimal risk and expense. One can easily assemble a bomb with chemicals available in stores or buy the nitro gun powder at $15/pound.

 Do we see cluster firebombings designed to overload the capacity of the local fire departments - which would cause massive runaway residential fires?
 Do we see terrorist attacke on impossible to protect weak spots of US infrastructure - highways, railroads, bridges, remote electrical transmission lines, gas and oil lines?
 Do we see bombings in residential areas or any bombings at all?
 Do we see terrorist carnage in rural schools - now guaranteed to be free from defensive weaponry due to government edicts? How about remote churches being blown up like they are in other countries?
 Opportunities for destruction are limited only by imagination, so where are they?

Kent Van Cleave:
 Having primed America with the carnage of 9-11, the most savvy terrorists of all would carry out no additional attacks whatsoever. Instead, they would send one another communications, intending that these be intercepted, talking about big plans for big devastation. Then they'd sit back and watch as we changed our own behavior in ways that seriously damage sectors of the American economy, and as our government wastes billions of dollars chasing after imaginary threats while reducing a once free America to a full-fledged police state.

Once in a while, these ultra-savvy terrorists would include in their "chatter" a few comments about having to cancel or delay plans because of interference by Homeland Security efforts, providing an explanation of why no attacks actually occur, and giving the government their justification to continue their repression of liberty unabated.

Naturally they'd pump up the rhetorical volume for this holiday season – partly because it's just expected, but also so we will depress retail sales at a most crucial time for American businesses – again letting us do all the damage by our own hand.

All this comes at virtually no cost or risk to the terrorists. It's the perfect revenge for whatever insults may have motivated their enmity: arranging for us to both dream up and implement our own punishment, indefinitely!

 The government can declare stupid colored alerts every so often and if terrorists strike, they will claim "we told you so". If terrorists do not strike, they will claim that their expensive high readiness state for a few days deterred the evildoers.
 It's good to be the king...

 miko

[SunTracker]

Whoa.  Your post is way too long for anyone to read

[Mini D]

I think we should have a discussion on all the way terrorists could really hurt us... maybe even offer suggestions.

Later, we can insist the FBI had all the data indicating it would happen and exactly when it would happen but just failed to act.

You'd almost think some terrorist was dumb enough to try to smuggle explosives across the border to detonate at the Space Needle at the Y2K celebration.  Sheesh... that would have been stupid self-sacrifice to attack a likely target during a heightened state of awareness.

MiniD

[Kieran]

Your logic here does not compute. If the reward is greater than the risk, they'll act.  

To suggest they aren't here is from out of left field. The leadership doesn't kill itself, it recruits willing vassals to do that. My Lord, just look the PLO. Further, as large as the US is and as porous as the borders are, how can we but conclude terrorists are indeed here?

[Maverick]

The terrorist were certainly here for 2 seperate attacks on the WTC weren't they.

[Rude]

Originally posted by miko2d
Let's begin with an asumption by "estblishment" (governments, media, major political parties) - the Islamic terrorists are motivated by a hatred for America and live only to accomplish some destructive act that will diminish America's power, or well-being.

 So far so good. We can also safely assume that the terrorists aren't idiots. 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. Sure, they may be ready and even willing to die for their cause but not necessarily in their very first strike against US.

 Those terrorists would not attempt to take themselves out along with their very first American victims - unless it's a huge strike like 9/11 was. They'd be hoping to keep killing americans untill their luck runs out.
 Yes, another 9/11 would be a very impressive feather in their cap. But such attack in current conditions means huge risks and costs - now that we've seen it happen once.

 Should we believe that terrorists are determined on limiting their destructive acts just to spectacular attacks that will not only get themselves killed if successful, but risk probable failure by aiming at the best defended targets at the most expected times, like holidays? Especially when other options are virtually cost- and risk-free for them?
 I know, many cognitively-challenged among you would say "Sure, all arabs are idiots and they all want to die." But Osama Bin Laden does not seem in any particular hurry to die, while his wilingness to hurt us can hardly be questioned.
 So if we accept the first two premises - that there are terrorists that want to hurt us and that they would try to hurt us as much as possible while staying alive, we come to the inevitable conclusion - there are no such terrorists in America!

 It is impossible to protect millions of the "soft" targets in US - targets where a significant damage may be caused with minimal risk and expense. One can easily assemble a bomb with chemicals available in stores or buy the nitro gun powder at $15/pound.

 Do we see cluster firebombings designed to overload the capacity of the local fire departments - which would cause massive runaway residential fires?
 Do we see terrorist attacke on impossible to protect weak spots of US infrastructure - highways, railroads, bridges, remote electrical transmission lines, gas and oil lines?
 Do we see bombings in residential areas or any bombings at all?
 Do we see terrorist carnage in rural schools - now guaranteed to be free from defensive weaponry due to government edicts? How about remote churches being blown up like they are in other countries?
 Opportunities for destruction are limited only by imagination, so where are they?



 The government can declare stupid colored alerts every so often and if terrorists strike, they will claim "we told you so". If terrorists do not strike, they will claim that their expensive high readiness state for a few days deterred the evildoers.
 It's good to be the king...

 miko [/B]

Your background and heritage betray you.....btw, the only terrorists that care to survive are the ones in leadership sending others to die for a belief they themselves supposedly share.

But hey....you want to to believe you have it all figured out, knock yourself out....personally, I think you have some buried need to be noticed or recognized...it's either that, or you are the smartest man alive....most all of the other folks commenting on this alert seem to disagree with you....of course they're tasked with protecting our nation fulltime...what do they know anyway.

[midnight Target]

So if we accept the first two premises - that there are terrorists that want to hurt us and that they would try to hurt us as much as possible while staying alive, we come to the inevitable conclusion - there are no such terrorists in America!

You just flunked your "modern logic" examination.

[ra]

Those terrorists would not attempt to take themselves out along with their very first American victims - unless it's a huge strike like 9/11 was.

Actually, dying in the attack is the most important aspect to an Islamic terrorist.  Even many of the suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq could be accomplished without the bomber having to die with his target, but they choose to anyway.  Those who order the attack claim to be fulfilling God's will, and those who volunteer for the attack are doing so to receive the ultimate reward.  It has been this way since the time of Mohammed.  The people who give the orders want a target attacked, and the people who carry out the orders want Paradise.  It works out well because there is no surviving attacker who may pose a security risk if captured, or become a political rival if he returns alive after a successful mission.

ra

[Saurdaukar]

Better safe that sorry is childish now, eh?

I dont see much weight to your argument - the Islamic side or the 'they arent in America' side considering that if we take Oklahoma City as our example, youre wrong on not one, but both counts.

Try barking up the tree down the road.

[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.

[Dinger]

Dunno guys. the supposed enemy is a group fighting for the economic ruin of the US. Dying in the cause may be important, but any organization with limited, highly trained resources will try to preserve those resources.  The US isn't Israel; there's a practically unlimited pool of men and women willing to kill themselves in Israel.  The pool of those willing to do the same against the US is somewhat smaller, since until a few years ago, very few people felt that their homes and way of life was personally threatened by the US.

So with a small group like Al-Qaeda, it's all about force multipliers. You don't see suicide bombers in New York City blowing themselves up in crowds. They leave vans full of explosives in parking garages under skyscrapers. Fly aircrafts full of jet fuel into buildings. Now with a few phone calls and a couple plane tickets, Al-Qaeda can cause a couple billion dollars in US government, and rule the US headlines for a week.
 The current administration wins, Al-Qaeda wins, everybody's happy. Why spend the money on an invasion when the enemy surrenders the moment you call your generals together?

[miko2d]

Mini D: You'd almost think some terrorist was dumb enough to try to smuggle explosives across the border to detonate at the Space Needle at the Y2K celebration.

 Yes - many people and ignorance about the terrorists expect attacks of symbolic targets or dates like the Statue of Liberty on Christmas.
 They do go and will go for maximum human casualties.


Kieran: If the reward is greater than the risk, they'll act.

 That's an axiome of any human action - provided that a person exists at all and has an option to act. Since we can easily think of many low-risk high-damage acts that require little material and financial resources which fail to materialise, we can conclude that the actors are just not here. Or maybe those who are here are all quadruplegic invalides attached permanantly to a breezing machine or something.

it recruits willing vassals to do that

 So where are all those vassals trying to kill themselves?

My Lord, just look the PLO.

 Right. Look at that PLO - you would see that it resides in the... Palestine/Israel! That's where all their acts take place. They have militants there and they have attacks and attempts daily.
 We have not experienced a terrorist attempt since 9/11 except the guy trying to blow up a plane with his sneakers. Ergo... we have not had terrorists in place.

...as large as the US is and as porous as the borders are, how can we but conclude terrorists are indeed here?

 Conclude we certainly can. So where are they? What are they doing? Plotting to blow up the whole USA in one attack?
 Or do you think that the security agencies manage to detect and stop every single one of them without letting the news leak out? Palestinians have no problem exchanging one life for 2-3 israelis. Why do we expect them to always shoot for 19/3000?

 It's your logic that does not compute.


Maverick: The terrorist were certainly here for 2 seperate attacks on the WTC weren't they.

 True - they were here and they acted promptly - neither attack took more than a few months of planning from the first go.
 When McVeigh got upset with the government, he got his cousin, some $500 worth of gasoline and fertiliser and blew the fed. building after a couple weeks of preparations.
 If someone wanted to blow up america in general, a midnight bombing of the residential neighbourhood would be impossible to prevent.


Rude: Your background and heritage betray you.

 Whatever it means.

Rude: the only terrorists that care to survive are the ones in leadership...

 Right, as I've said: "I know, many cognitively-challenged among you would say "Sure, all arabs are idiots and they all want to die."

personally, I think you have some buried need to be noticed or recognized.

 You would say something so stupid... I am posting anonymously on an off-topic forum of a flight sim message board - just like you. I have 2730 posts since Jul 1999 vs. 3745 yours since Jan 2000.

most all of the other folks commenting on this alert seem to disagree with you....of course they're tasked with protecting our nation fulltime...what do they know anyway.

 Your background and heritage as a willing serf betray you. You have no problem believing that some polictician or a bureaucrat cares more about protection of your family that you do and you shoud defer to them rather than think independently or listen to the likes of me.
 I don't. The government fails constantly in everything it does. It cares mor about politidcs than results - witness continuing disarming of airline pilots.
 The only area where governments are successfull is attributing to itself the good things that happen despite government policies.


ra: Actually, dying in the attack is the most important aspect to an Islamic terrorist. Even many of the suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq could be accomplished without the bomber having to die with his target, but they choose to anyway.

  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.

 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.

 We know that blowing up a busload of israelis a day every day will not bring down the state of Israel by itself. Neither the terror acts are intended to physically kill off the people or destroy property. Look up the definition of terrorism - its primary goal is not destruction but "terror" - causing the people's opinion to change so they they force the government to change their politics.

 Terror is an attempt to affect people's minds and a suicidal act is much more conducive to that - it causes more terror than a non-suicidal act.
 It shows the targeted people that the enemy is determined, that the enemy cannot be deterred by fear, that most of the protective measures will not work because they are not effective against a suicidal attacker.

 The resources and goals of terrorists in US and in Israel are quite different and americans are very different from israelis, so why would one expect that them to use the same ratio of suicide/conventional attacks in US as palestinians use in Israel?


Saurdaukar: Better safe that sorry is childish now, eh?

 Being safer or feeling safer?
 American people reduced their air travel in fear of attacks. Even more reduced their air travel because of the hassle caused by expensive government security provisions.
 A lot of people chose driving instead of flying - and driving is much more dangerous than flying per mile travelled - especially long-haul drives replacing the air trips. In times of reduced economic activity, safer cars and more sober drivers we have an increase if traffic deaths instead of the fall.

 The terrorists are making american people suffer planeloads of deaths every year and paying billions for it - by "chatter"! And that is just one example.

I dont see much weight to your argument - the Islamic side or the 'they arent in America' side considering that if we take Oklahoma City as our example, youre wrong on not one, but both counts.

 You totally misunderstood my point. Let me state is as concisely as I can.
  Terrorist is not a guy who dislilkes US - it's a guy who is trying to commit a terror act.
 If a guy is not currently blowing us up - it's not because the government prevents him, but because he is not trying to.
 Once he decides to act - like Mcveigh, or gets an order - he becomes a terrorist and the government is not likely to stop him.

 There are no active terrorists in US attempting to commit terror acts. If there were, we would have terror acts, whether we paint ourself red, orange or meuve.


Curval: 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.

 And besides that there are plenty of attacks on softer targets in Pakistan. Anyway - the resources, goals and stakes Al-Qaeda has in Pakistan are very different than in US, so we should not expect them to use the same tactics.
 Killing potus will not change much. Killing Musharaff gives them a 50/50 chance to end up in control of the islamic nuke - and not the crappy cannon-type that weights 2 tonnes but an advanced implosion-type warheads that are small, light, and portable.

 miko

[Kieran]

So we are really just playing semantic games. Ok.

[Eagler]

it's called CYA from the 20/20 hindsight "experts" ....

[Curval]

Originally posted by Dinger
Now with a few phone calls and a couple plane tickets, Al-Qaeda can cause a couple billion dollars in US government, and rule the US headlines for a week.

Very good point..but did you notice that it was Air France that was the loser in this latest "alert".  Just saying.......  

I tend to diagree though with the fact that all Al-Quaeda needs to do is sit back and that "the supposed enemy is a group fighting for the economic ruin of the US".  They don't just want to economically ruin America...they want the whole "schebang".  

They also aren't really a sit back and make a few phone calls kinda bunch.  They have (apparently) been rather busy recently, as stated in my post above.