DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:52 pm**

...

Another thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the British government arrested the 23 suspects without fanfare. Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids. And imagine that the press didn't write about it endlessly, and that the politicians didn't use the event to remind us all how scared we should be. If we'd reacted that way, then the terrorists would have truly failed.

It's time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation -- and not focusing on specific plots.

But our job is to remain steadfast in the face of terror, to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to not panic every time two Muslims stand together checking their watches. There are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world, a large percentage of them not Arab, and about 320 million Arabs in the Middle East, the overwhelming majority of them not terrorists. Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show's viewership.

...

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 ... error.html
As Published in Wired magazine

i agree with this article.

Posted: **Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:03 pm**

There's a balance to be struck... because good security starts with people being aware, and reporting things that are extremely suspicious. But if people get just plain paranoid, they report so much nonsense that the system is overwhelmed.

I think the right response is to keep your eyes open, not for \"a couple Arabs checking their watches\", but for people who are behaving in certain ways... the same thing store clerks do trying to stop shoplifters. Maybe watching people with certain outward characteristics helps... but don't panic just because someone with a particular skin color came by; only panic if they act in a way that suggests they're truly dangerous.

Now, the government fanfare and press continually harping on things, we could do without. Of course, we could also do without the \"let's ignore this, it's obviously a Karl Rove conspiracy\" nonsense. People plot attacks against us, and most of the time, when they get caught, we shouldn't even know about it. It should only be reported if people are going to have to behave differently because of it -- like, for example, you have to report WHY liquids are being banned on planes.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:19 am**

Another thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the British government arrested the 23 suspects without fanfare. Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids....

I imagine if they just arrested that group and didn't then quickly adjust security measures to include the liquid component of the plot then the next group would be able to bring their sport drink bottles filled with the explosive ingredients and blow up a plane because we didn't recieve any intel on the other cells...

It's not a perfect world. If a plot of that nature is uncovered we have to react and our reactions will be noticed by the press and you and everyone else will be focused on the box-that-talks-with-pictures the moment something like that is splashed on the screen!

His thought experiment is useless in the real world other than as a reminder of how real world events are much more complex and flawed than wishes and fantasy.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:26 pm**

That whole liquid thing is a great big pile of steaming dog poo! Do some digging: There is ABSOLUTELY no way to create an explosive device from liquids on board an aeroplane - let along build one big enough to take down a plane. Most certainly: it would be impossible using the liquids stated by the police.

Those terrorists would have been specutacularly unsuccessful.

I've always said that the stupid lengths America went to (and the stupid lenegths American allowed the government to go to, and the crazy loss of inidividual freedoms as a result) were completely out of all proportion to the risk.

Simply put, it was nothing more than multiple power-plays by the big enforcement and spying agencies in the USA which basically raped the US public, generated world-class levels of fear (doing the terrorist's job for them!) and allowed amounts of money to be literally shovelled into their agencies in order to comabt terror.

I mean COME ON - it does not take a rocket surgeon to know that you can't fight terror. PUH-LEASE, that's like saying you're going to go to war against evil: the entire concept is meaningless.

America (and every other country in the world) should simply continue as before, and not even bother with doing a single thing to fight terror. That in itself, just BY itself, would have made the terrorists fail. By restricting freedoms, increasing inconvenience, creating fear (Well, the government did that - not the terrorists!) and being paranoid - all that stuff is EXACTLY what the terrorists wanted. The US just fell into the trap laid by about 15 people, and they're still wallowing in it.

What a load of ★■◆●.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:59 pm**

Mobius wrote:That whole liquid thing is a great big pile of steaming dog poo! Do some digging: There is ABSOLUTELY no way to create an explosive device from liquids on board an aeroplane - let along build one big enough to take down a plane. Most certainly: it would be impossible using the liquids stated by the police.

Those terrorists would have been specutacularly unsuccessful.

I've always said that the stupid lengths America went to (and the stupid lenegths American allowed the government to go to, and the crazy loss of inidividual freedoms as a result) were completely out of all proportion to the risk.

Simply put, it was nothing more than multiple power-plays by the big enforcement and spying agencies in the USA which basically raped the US public, generated world-class levels of fear (doing the terrorist's job for them!) and allowed amounts of money to be literally shovelled into their agencies in order to comabt terror.

I mean COME ON - it does not take a rocket surgeon to know that you can't fight terror. PUH-LEASE, that's like saying you're going to go to war against evil: the entire concept is meaningless.

America (and every other country in the world) should simply continue as before, and not even bother with doing a single thing to fight terror. That in itself, just BY itself, would have made the terrorists fail. By restricting freedoms, increasing inconvenience, creating fear (Well, the government did that - not the terrorists!) and being paranoid - all that stuff is EXACTLY what the terrorists wanted. The US just fell into the trap laid by about 15 people, and they're still wallowing in it.

What a load of *****.

I've always defended you but not this time. To do nothing to fight terrorists? Let anyone on a plane without inspections? I know something about science and at 33000 feet it takes only a small explosive inside the heel of a shoe to allow a massive decompression to doom the airliner. At much lower altitudes it would take a larger bomb. This is why carry on luggage must be checked very very close. I can provide you with plenty of links on liquid explosives but I will agree that the common ones you see would not.

Whether we can win against terror is questionable but not about fighting it.

Bee

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:12 pm**

Mobius wrote: I've always said that the stupid lengths America went to (and the stupid lenegths American allowed the government to go to, and the crazy loss of inidividual freedoms as a result) were completely out of all proportion to the risk.

I completely agree, It's kinda funny how well the authorities pulled off creating the problem they tell the public they're "fighting"

Meaningless correct, but do not become ignorant or dormant, as far as religious inciting goes i would not take them seriously, the media blows things too far out of proportion.

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:00 pm**

Considering that as a kid I made and set off numerous gasoline bombs I'm pretty sure Mobious is full of crap on this one.
I'm confident that I could kill a lot of people on a plane with some liquid and some matches and if I took out the cockpit those that survive the initial blast/fire would go down with the plane.
I also don't think that until this plot was uncovered that anyone was looking at passenger carried beverages.

Now if four or five people brought on board their favorite liquids it could get really serious.
Some ammonia and chlorine to be mixed and then a gasoline bomb goes off nearby....
The other guys could bring ammonia and iodine crystals, mix and wait 45 minutes then let that mix be near the gasoline explosion...

I don't know what they were going to use but it's not hard to mix up something deadly for people locked in a damn metal tube for hours while they fly across the atlantic!!

And I'm actually surprised they haven't done the thing I thought of which is so easy to do, I won't detail it but just get 50 motivated terrorists to go to work at a particular type of business in 50 different cities in america and all of them on the same day make a minor change in the product they work with and watch the dead start adding up....
It's probably coming and if they do it everything will change. You don't even know the meaning of scared and over-reaction if they do this thing. I'd sure hate to be anything that looks even remotely like an arab the day after this happens!

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:05 pm**

I agree on the fact that we shouldn't be this drastic, but we do need to stop terrorists. I would say that we should use intel to find terrorists instead of waiting till they are at the airports to find them.

I still think 9-11 was stoppable considering the report we got before it happened, called \"Bin Laden Determined to Attack In The United States\"

Posted: **Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:19 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:I still think 9-11 was stoppable considering the report we got before it happened, called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack In The United States"

You know I've seen a number of people say that too. And then I ask them exactly what should we have been able to do with the information in that report?
Then they usually change the subject or go silent....

Have you got a better response to the question?
If you do I'll bet it sounds a whole lot more invasive than the measures you're calling "drastic" here today!

DescentBB

refuse to be terrorised

refuse to be terrorised