BBC Reports UK-U.S. Terror Plot Foiled 1792
j823777 was one of several readers to point out a BBC report that "A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the U.S. has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate up to three explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested 21 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months. Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are reported. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical — the highest possible."
spo0nman adds a link to the Associated Press's coverage.
Update: 08/10 12:57 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out new restrictions imposed as a result of this plot on passengers' carry-on luggage. In the UK, nearly all possession (including laptop computers) must be carried in the cargo hold; while their rules don't yet go quite as far, U.S. airlines are stepping up their enforcement of carry-on-restrictions, including banning substances like toothpaste.
This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:1, Insightful)
Correction to the subject (Score:2, Insightful)
No hand luggage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only passports, wallets.
The mind boggles. No computers, books, iPods, bottles of water, sunglasses?
Smoking, alcohol, and sex are already off-limits or difficult. I hope these are really short flights, and the planes have plenty of distractions for the passengers, otherwise we'll wonder if being blown up is not the better alternative.
Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
First, congratulations to the Security Services for foiling this plot.
Did they need to detain someone for 90 days without trial to prevent this disaster?
Would ID cards have helped?
And how long before I can travel with my notebook onto an aeroplane again, as we all know a cargo hold is no place for a lithium ion battery?
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:4, Insightful)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:1, Insightful)
And when something DOES happen, and nobody ever passed on the "classified" knowledge to warn us, you'll be the first to blame the imperious leaders for laying down on the job. Why didn't he WARN us???.
"The Fearmongering must stop ! This is Stupid, Insulting, and Damaging to our Democracy!"
It has nothing to do with our democracy. Search Slashdot for the keyword "diebold" if you are worried about democracy.
Re:Correction to the subject (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, you could say, until we stop bombing the shit out of/subjugating/exploiting the third world in general...
All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is quite simplistic. Did you realize that the main beef of the Madrid bombers was that Spain had driven out Muslim invaders hundreds of years ago? It's too easy to dismiss everything as "the oppressed Third World being forced to strike back at First World oppressors", especially if you subscribe to very simplistic Marxist world-views and lack critical thinking.
Now, what conclusions can you draw from this (Score:2, Insightful)
Giving up civil liberties for that? Hardly worth it.
Re:No hand luggage... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're allowed your wallet precisely so that you can buy all those things on board the plane. And then again on the next plane. Buy airline stock now.
Re:TSA just anounced the new restrictions on (Score:2, Insightful)
Evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No hand luggage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they're the new 20 minute commuter planes from the UK to the US.
My god, is it really too much to ask to read the first sentence in the summary?
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, thats how they make new terrorists. What good is a War on Terror without a fresh supply of enemies?
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm guessing they once again did their usual thing, let's just hope they manage without shooting or incarerating innocent people for a year, again. Sure this might have been a real plot, but their credibility is wearing thin.
I disagree (Was Re:Slashdot's too late to be...) (Score:4, Insightful)
Flag (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This really seems to piss people off for some reason.
Re:No hand luggage... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're confusing "battle" with "war." This was battle that was just won. A couple dozen people who had already chosen their flights, and were in possesion of liquid explosives with electronic detonation devices in a form that would not be detected by routine inspection, were just prevented from killing hundreds of people.
Is the larger conflict with the people that think that's an appropriate way to demonstrate what they think Allah wants something that can be turned around? Hard to say. But I'd be curious about how you'd be addressing this issue if the morning's news included a dozen airliners in pieces in the ocean.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they should just face the truth and rename the 'alert level' system to 'scare-the-shit-out-of-the-public-to-push-our-pol
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Scotland Yard, this is the UK secret services, this is reality. In a few months, if we are lucky, we will know the truth. And it will turn out that a few people had sent each other emails talking about blowing up planes, or some vague threats, nothing more.
I have no confidence in the UK, USA or even the Australian government. I suggest you question everything they do, and all that they report as fact.
There were no WMDs, Jean Charles de Menezes was not a terrorist, Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair were not planning on bombing anybody at all!
No carryon soda... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot by the airlines to charge higher drink prices. I don't think any such thing. I'm simply saying that this is the likely result of the inane government action that will innevitably follow: banning all carryon fluids on all commercial flights.
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the flights that were probably going to be targeted were US bound, but surely it's within the abilities of the Conspiracy to organise all of this is the USA in order to fulfil their Evil Schemes more effectively?
Is anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't feel any safer by having my liquids/toenail clippers/pocket vibe/ipod/laptop taken away from me, when there are plenty of other ways to kill/be killed that airlines have no control over. I am more angry at terrorists for making American privacy close(er) to extinction than anything else. With a "war" on "terror" there are going to be casualties, my water consumption/music listening/laptop using/game playing/phone usage habits shouldn't be at the top of the list.
Why does the scapegoat have to be the common citizen?
Re:Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is and has always been the same. Radical Islam wants to destroy the West. The best way to bring down their target is through fear. Ignoring it got us in the mess in the first place.
Re:TSA just anounced the new restrictions on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
One innocent person accidentally shot by police. 52 innocent people intentionally murdered by terrorists. Guess which one you decide to rant about?
You're nauseating, my friend.
Government was already seeding their messages... (Score:5, Insightful)
See: Terror 'may force freedom curbs' [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Now, what conclusions can you draw from this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good point, actually - does this situation really merit that the "UK threat level" to be set to "critical -- the highest possible"? At the highest possible threat level I'd really expect to be worried for my life the moment I stepped out of the front door, anywhere in the UK. No, inside my house - at the highest possible threat level I should be scared to make a cup of tea in case the water supply is poisoned or look under the bed in case there's a monster.
We are not being shelled, we are not being invaded, we are not under attack, we still have a higher risk of dying from heart disease. By calling this situation "the highest possible threat level" the government is whipping up fear and paranoia, and MI5 runs the very real risk of inuring people to any real UK-wide dangers that may come along.
Re:It was sure this would happen (Score:5, Insightful)
And, given the repeated circumstances in which plots that were "staged up" actually ended up in shredded bodies in London, Madrid, and elsewhere, you don't see people who have actually chosen their flights and are in possesion of actual explosives to be worth stopping?
In this case, I would rather believe the conspiracy theorists -- no sane intelligence agency would wait until the terrorists are about to board the planes.
As you've perhaps noticed, they were not walking up to or sitting down on airplanes at the time. They made the arrests before that stage, but only after they were comfortable with having as many of the people in the cell as possible accounted for. If they'd acted sooner, they may have lost more of the cell. There are thousands of variables at play here, and the number of people in intel and law enforcement that have to coordinate on such a thing (including the ones who have to be ready to capitalize on the international communications and other business that would have immediately erupted the moment this hit the news) is enormous.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the goal behind terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good bye, laptop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
One plane downed is better than none (in their eyes) so the theoretical "they" could go all lone wolf and try for any result...
Probably best to be over cautious and p*ss off some folks, than to relax and have a few hunder corpses floating in the Atlantic, dontcha think?
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:5, Insightful)
You're completely right - this is merely wimpy, pussy-like reactive defence.
We should be out there like real men, pro-actively fighting the terrorist threat... by educating people, improving their quality of life, allowing them self-determination and treating them fairly - that's how you stop terrorism, by taking away its recruits.
Oh, sorry, you meant we should be go stomping into countries which might or might not even support them and blow up or shoot a lot of brown people. I can see how that would stop all the other brown people who weren't terrorists before. And it'll certainly not prompt any of them to become terrorists. Good plan!
Thoughts for the day:
Terrorism's only raw material is recruits.
You can kick over snowmen all day long - they'll keep popping because anyone can make them. However, remove the supply of snow and there will be no more snowmen.
Re:After reading the dreck on here (Score:4, Insightful)
1) 1979 Iranian hostage affair
2) 1983 U.S Embassy bombing in Beruit
These were the beginnings of Middle East terrorist organizations specifically targetting the U.S. You can try to blame it on the U.S meddling in Mid-east affairs, but that is a cover-up for the real reason. The fact is, Islam has not progressed beyond the time of the Crusades and anyone who does not follow Islam must be converted or killed. Yes, there was a time that Christianity followed a similar precept, but they finally moved on. Unfortunately, there is no way to win against this type of belief except by killing them all.
I hate to break it to you Bush-haters, but the only thing Kerry could have done to change things is establish Islam as the new national religion of the U.S. You people need to get your heads out of the political trash heap and realize that none of this is about what we've done -- it's about who we are. These people don't care about your political leanings except as a tool to build sympathy for the devil. They would just as soon see you lying dead next to W.
THAT is the reality we face.
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The main "action" of our country that offends the modern zealots is that our country does not share their religion, and the cultural output of our country does not fit the strict religious dictates. To make things even worse, we allow (in their view) way too much freedom in religious matters, and that we actually think that the Jewish people should not be exterminated.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is killed by a terrorist it is bad, but if an innocent person is killed by the police, it is a lot worse. A society where innocent people are terrified of terrorism has a minor problem. A society where innocent people live in fear of the police has a major problem. Hint: it's because the police is the major social institution with legal backing for use of force, and the terrorists aren't. It's a lot easier to convict a terrorist for killing someone than it is sometimes to even get a fucking apology from the police.
What if... (Score:1, Insightful)
In the light of false arguments used for the War on Iraq or the Invasion of Lebanon by Israel are we supposed to believe what our governments say? Like when anti-virus companies saying there are virus for MacOSX. I don't buy it anymore.
What do you guys think?
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that the GP's viewpoint was simplistic - but your viewpoint is fucking retarded.
Can you provide us with a reference to back up your claim that the ousting of the moors was the main motivation of the madrid bombers?
Please note that I looked at the google search you suggested to another poster - and none of the first ten links backed up your claim in the slightest.
I suggest you STFU and let the adults continue however.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
course if they didn't raise the alert level and a plain blew up i'm sure people would be yelling just as loud that they didn't do enough to prevent it... just can't make people happy either way.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
Just reread 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
We're at war with the Soviets^D^DTerrorists...
And we just has a glorious victory !
next up the 20 minutes of hate?
then back to work, business as usual..
We don't even need a war, just the illusion of one, thank you minitrue for real and complete reports of whats going on, and thank you miniplenty for lowering the oil prices to a historic low of 20$ pr gallon...
the current war on terror is quite like the war in 1984. Where the main purpose of the war was not to capture territories or resources, but rather to reduce the freedoms of the populaces. after the liberation of iraq, iraqies gained some and lost some, but people of the eu and us lost freedom. This victory will no doubt show that our forces are good and fine and great, and with more funding they'd be even better. now they have tightened airport security, most notably by requiring all carryons to be carried in clear plastic bags.
They're no doubt already discussing how to make security even better, as we speak. I'm not saying terrorism isn't real, but it's certainly been boosted since we started taking it seriously. I'm not saying the government is trying to take away your freedoms, but I do think they're forgetting what it is the silverware of civilisation that they're remoulding to shoot werewolves (monsters none of us really know much about). The governments are more worried about the deaths of a max. 5000 citizens the last five years, than meeting the big challenges we're facing (reducing bureaucracy, informing the intolerant, helping developing countries, improving pluralistic democracy, increasing education levels, getting humans to think)
So what if they kill a few of us, including some leaders, democracy is strong because it is NOT dependant on one person, but when too few cares, it becomes a defacto oligarchy.Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:1, Insightful)
Madeleine Albright: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was a critical threat to the UK, how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
I can only assume that Tony Blair at least wasn't particularly concerned about this "imminent threat" .
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like a true American. We tend to forget pretty quickly. Umm... remember this [washingtonpost.com] from October? Probably not. In fact, I couldn't remember any of the specific plots we foiled, other than Richard Reid (if we can even count the Brits acting on US intel as a win for us).
I think its more a cultural difference, though. American journalists like panic! blood! chaos! I bet you might remember the UNC student who ran down some of his fellow students, or the Muslim fellow in Seattle that shot 6 people (including a pregnant woman) attending synagogue, or the other guy that shot up El Al... Notice that we are enemy #2 (sandwiched between Israel and the UK), but of these, we've had the fewest terrorist acts in our country since 9/11. That means we are stopping attacks. The reason we only hear about failures and not successes is that our media doesn't report when our side wins, they only report catastrophes (I recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear -- it's well researched and covers this and quite a few other topics).
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not kidding even paperback books are not allowed.
But to answer your question -
Well for a start, the last time I flew my luggage was lost but I was smart enought to carry everything that was valuable with me in hand luggage, nothing over the top, I just had one small backpack. But If I had lost my contact lense solution, camera, mobile phone, car keys (electronic, they are not allowed either), travel info and a couple of other things, then I would have not enjoyed my holiday one bit. As it was I could buy new clothes and stuff and was able to have a great holiday.
But I must admit I do agree that some people take the piss with hand luggage.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about terrorists targeting aeroplanes is that the potential death counts are large, the possibilities for people escaping are slim, and it puts the fear of flying into people. But these aren't especially unique qualities. What if they target, say, a ferry? Or a cruise ship with thousands of people on it? Or a bus (see last year) or movie theater full of people. They aren't as good targets but still real possibilities. All that's happening, then, by making it near-impossible to sneak ANYTHING, let alone a bomb, onto a plane, is that planes no longer become preferred targets, and other places become more at risk instead.
Which means it's the root of the matter - the MOTIVATIONS for terrorism - which really need attacking if terrorism is to be stopped.
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
* critical - an attack is expected imminently
* severe - an attack is highly likely
* substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
* moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
* low - an attack is unlikely
Seems to me that 'expected imminently' means you know that an attack is going to happen. The intelligence services are saying that they have no information suggesting any further attack but they are implementing the extra security as a precaution just incase something they don't know about happens. Wouldn't that constitute 'severe' or 'substantial'?
If you're going to use the highest alert level for a _precautionary_ measure when you have nothing to suggest any further attacks, WTF are you going to use when you know damned well someone's going to try something?
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to use logic and reason to predict the actions of someone who is willing to blow himself up in a plane full of people is a dangerous game.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno, how about all the curtailments of civil liberties they've been pushing since 9/11 in the name of preventing terrorism - things like the ID cards and database (which are pretty much universally agreed to be totally useless against terrorism), biometrics, etc.
Are you so cynical that you don't think they might have an 'alert system' just to alert the public?
If the alert system was actually there to alert the public, it would've gone up _before_ the arrests were made and gone down again a bit after the arrests were made (you know, when the threat has been reduced by arresting a bunch of evil terrorists). As it was, they only bothered to 'alert the public' after the matter, and at that point they put it up to it's highest level even though they said they had no evidence to suggest there would be any further attacks.
Re:Where's the logic in attacking planes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Higher kill ratio.
Spectacular.
Passengers on a plane tend to be more affulent.
The monetary loss of the plane itself is very high.
Disrupts air travel leading to wider economic perturbations.
I guess that is why they are after planes. But also they go for busses and trains and nightclubs.
Re:Propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
Now run along with the rest of the good little sheeple.
Yes, I was, and I know military and federal grade bullshit when I see it. Clinton lies about a blowjob and stains Moe's dress with his nasty seed, Bush lies about WMDs and gets a couple of thousand of our folks killed in Iraq (note: Iraq != Afghanistan). Do the math, idiot.
Ah yes, once I was an enlisted lad at a remote duty station and a commander was breaking rules and regulations and quite possibly a few laws. One of us (not me unfortunately) wrote their congresscritter about it, and within a week word got back to our outpost. You should have seen how they pulled us into formation and ripped into all of us threatening to curtail mail to and from the world while trying desperately to figure out who did it.
Look, you're obviously ignorant. The government has some good folks who want to do the right thing, and they also have a double-heapin' helping of fuckheads. Deal with it. Do not believe everything they say.
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be happy with just that, but according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778615.stm [bbc.co.uk], you aren't even allowed to take a book.
Personally, I'd consider "food and drink" to be pretty essential, but strangely that's not on the list. Of course that could be provided by the airline, but note that the "cheap" airlines (e.g., RyanAir) do not provide this as part of ticket, and charge highly. I would hope they'd make an exception here, rather than taking the opportunity to profit from such an event.
Also, one of the main reasons I have things in hand luggage is to reduce what I have to put in the checked-in luggage. There's both the issue of weight, and in some cases you get charged per bag (RyanAir charge an extra £5 per bag per one-way flight, independent of how much they weigh). So I would seriously hope they are waiving those charges in this time of crisis.
Other people pointed out the risk of fragile or expensive items - according to http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/conditions.php [ryanair.com] , they are only liable up to £820. Furthermore, they aren't liable at all if they decide the baggage is "defective" - and in my experience, they do that even if the material is slightly worn, in a manner which clearly wouldn't affect the contents.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I am certainly more angry about having to check my toothpaste at the gate than I would have been had 1000 people been killed on exploding airplanes over the mid-Atlantic.
Yes, God forbid you should have to sacrifice a little convenience (and let's be clear, when we're talking about using your cellphone on an airliner we're talking about convenience, not liberty) to protect your life and the lives of others.
Some numeric speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
News are saying that 21 people have been arrested, and 9/11 death toll was 2976 people (according to wikipedia, other sites I saw gave similar numbers). To attain this number, each of the 21 attackers would have to kill 2976/21 = 141 people per plane, which seems reasonable. That, of course, is assuming only 1 attacker per plane... Wouldn't it be more probable that there were at least 2 attackers per plane? In that case, killing 283 people per plane seems too much... Which might indicate that not all the attackers are under custody.
Re:Propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, i'll make it plain and simple for you, some of us would rather have the occasional death due to terrorist bombing than continual fear of abuse of the patriot act (documented), rendition to places like guantanimo without due process (documented), and the continual use of the deadly threat of "terror" to further the selfish political agendas of right wing extremists (documented).
You can't please everybody, and you cant stop the actions of people determined to cause damage even at the expense of their lives, but what you can do is not let them win by not sacrificing freedom for security
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, it's better to be seen taking some kind of measures than to just sit back and say "See, we're doing our jobs. This one didn't succeed." Even if it's true.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe. But do you want to tip off the people you're about to arrest that they should really, really think about getting on that small boat they've got hidden on the coast right about now? If you're watching them and they vanish - then you whack up the alert level. As long as you know where they are, there's no need to warn them that you're in a van near to their house with all your cameras and listening gear.
So how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
And how come he's still not back?
I think that the PM's plane will be subject to tighter security checks and a normal flight.
And the same logic applies - if he cancels his holiday because he knows there will be an anti-terror swoop, then you just tipped off the baddies quite well. The whole press corps would want to know what the emergency is going to be, and he won't be able to provide an answer. Which the press will assume means that there's a classified reason, which probably means an imminent terror attack. About which the PM can do absolutely nothing, as he's not involved in the operational aspect.
And I don't see a reason why he should be back already. This only happened in the last few hours, after all. Does he need to return at all? The country is being run by his deputy; the guy ought to be able to run the country (even in a time of a minor emergency) in the absense of Mr Blair.. if he can't, then he's got not business being deputy PM.
Last time, of course, he was "caught" playing golf, and there was a screaming session. But IIRC, there wasn't anything he could have actually done in that case, other than.. not be playing golf. The whole thing was silly.. what was he meant to do? Sit at home, wringing his hands?
In this case, it's in the hands of the relevant authorities. A clear picture won't emerge for quite a few hours yet. Even if the PM was here, all he could say was that he doesn't know much about the operational details yet, and as soon as he's fully briefed, the press will be too.
There isn't a great deal any politician can do right now.
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:4, Insightful)
The attack would come in waves. As things start to clam down after the first wave, another wave was to be launched.
On the radio this morning (a Washington, D.C., news station) there was reference to a planned 3 attacks over 3 days. I found that odd--if successful simultaneous detonations were carried out, wouldn't the plotters assume that security would immediately be tightened to the point where the chances of succeeding on subsequent days would be much lower?
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't forget equal rights for women also, that really pisses these islamic terrosists off also. Oh, and freedom of speach, making jokes about murderers like mohammed [zombietime.com] sends them frothing at the mouth also.
And before anyone calls me culturally insensitive, I have a simple rule - I don't respect any culture that does not give equal rights and protections to people irregardless of their sex, race, and age. Get rid of the burqa, and the honour killings, and then feel free to criticize me.
I do really love to see all of these Arab leaders begging for C. Rice to come save them from Israel though. I notice she tends to wear skirts to the meetings - really makes me happy!
Re:Its not fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
All religious fundamentalism shares this goal: the destruction of democratic, pluralistic civilization. Radical Islam would like to see the world converted to their faith, theocratic goverments installed, other religions marginalized, and women reduced to second-class citizens. I think you'll find that other radicalized faiths generally share this goal. Considerable progress has been made already in the U.S. Radical faiths of all kinds have more reasons to cooperate today than not -- and it's not for the betterment of the world, at least not for women and male members of less militant faiths.
Re:I felt... naked (Score:2, Insightful)
You turned up at the airport, got to the gate, observed the additonal security and chose to take yourself off the flight? Right
What's the betting that you just made it onto a watchlist?
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite so (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that this is true, but I expect all emphasis to be similarly scaled up for effect. In this case, "we need more surveillance powers".
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
no terrorist **in his right mind** would try to put his "sub-plot" into action
I have emphasized the part that may have caused your misunderstanding.
Re:Why oh why (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the Jihadists would ever get tired of blowing up airplanes if it were easy. The A380 will be a very tempting target—kill 800 people at a time in a brand-new very expensive aircraft that is a symbol of European technology.
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that "We think we got everyone but we can't be absolutely sure" doesn't constitute a warning level of "An attack is imminent". It's more like "An attack may be imminent"
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:3, Insightful)
How does any of that change the ideological basis for most of today's current terrorism? IE, Islam, literally, submission.
Your theory might work for gang-banging ghetto thugs, but for murderers who think they're doing Allah's work your view is entirely naive. This is ideological war, make no mistake. I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or even sympathetic to them but you're being willfully blind of the common thread between them all.
Moreover, many US Muslims, despite having everything you wish to give terrorists, sympathize with or outright finance terrorists. The guy who just went on a shooting spree in a Jewish community center was apparently very well employed, and what came of it? Murder.
We are fighting people who think it is the will of Allah to convert you to Islam, make you submit as a Dhimmi, or kill you. If you think American ultra-right religous conservatives are so evil, why is it such a stretch to see that taken much further , 'faith' can lead to murder?
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
I have already moved once, I am running out of places that speak english. I also have no reason to think any other government would be any better - governments are just a bunch of people who are ungoverned, by defintion.
I think the best idea would be to stay here for the meanwhile, and try to change things.
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
All very noble concepts and ones that we in the west enjoy (for the most part) and have fought long and hard for. What this has to do with western intervention in foreign nations eludes me though. The simple fact is we actively suppport states that commit countless attrocities and oppress their people. The difference is if they play ball we don't care.
I do really love to see all of these Arab leaders begging for C. Rice to come save them from Israel though. I notice she tends to wear skirts to the meetings - really makes me happy!
I assume your reffering to the current conflict between lebanon and isreal. That doesn't really make sense considering the united states is providing arms to israel as we speak. The invasion has only been possible due to US complicity.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
The best counter-terrorism strategy would be to spend money on increasing the level of education and the standard of living in the areas where they are being recruited. The more people feel they have to lose, the less likely they are to become suicide bombers.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wonder why women take handbags to the bathroom every time?
It's so we won't know if she is on her period. never mind what type/brand sanitary products she uses or when it is being changed etc... Women are more secretive about this stuff than guys are about jerking off. A lot more secretive.
I can just picture the kind of hell that will break louse when they start suggesting "You have to put your Tampax in a clear plastic bag".
Remember that old saying "Hell hath no fury..." ?
Re:Now, what conclusions can you draw from this (Score:1, Insightful)
To make it utterly explicit: I prefer perpetual threat of immediate death to the police state they are building now.
Re:Its not fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
And you should not confuse the last fifty years or so as being the last thousand. Seen over that time, fanatical Islam indeed wants the West removed from the world. It has always seen non-Muslims as an affront to allah.
Have you ever bothered to look around you? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, Americans go through the motions of "democratic elections" every four years or so. Of course, only a fraction of the eligible voting population actually bothers to vote. So immediately there is 40-50% of the population out of the picture.
Of the remaining half, many have no idea whatsoever about politics or international relations. Their only exposure comes from seeing a news clip on their local FOX affiliate station between quarters of an NFL game. The clip likely shows some Republican talking about "terruhists hatin' yer freedums". It's doubtful that most of these people could locate the general region of the Middle East on a map, let alone nations like Iraq and Lebanon.
There is a very, very small percentage of the population who could actually run for office, let alone get elected. This population group consists of the most wealthy in America. That's not surprising, considering the cost of partaking in an election campaign.
Between those who don't vote, those who vote but have no idea about anything besides football, and the only candidates with any hope of being elected being rich and of the highest reaches of society, basically all Americans are left out of the loop. It's no wonder that many don't trust their government: it's made up of people that are nothing like them, of people who have no reason to care for them, and of people who often go out of their way to make things difficult for most people.
As for the military, today it is mostly made up of the poor and the ignorant. The poor join so that they can hope to get their college tuition paid for, or just because they have no skill of value besides acting as cannon fodder. Yhe ignorant join because they want to "shoots us up some ay-rab talibans". It's no wonder a place like Iraq is in so much turmoil; the stupidest, most ignorant Americans possible were sent there to "fix it up". At least WWII and its aftermath involved some of the American middle class. Things turned out fairly better when you didn't have complete morons doing the work.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Govt said Saddam had WMD. Govt said Saddam was Bin Laden's friend. Govt went to war. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.
Govt said it had "irrefutable evidence". It was not irrefutable. It was not evidence either. Downing street memo says "intelligence and facts are fixed around the policy".
Govt said Iraqis would welcome soldiers with flowers and chocolate. Iraqis sent road side bombs and mortar shells.
Govt said Mission Accomplished. It was 3 years ago. Mission still not accomplished.
Govt said it's spreading democracy in the middle-east. The whole region is spiralling into chaos and mayhem (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran...)
Election time comes. Govt changes alert levels repeatedly. Population is scared into trusting the Govt. Govt wins elections. Nothing happens. Nothing is revealed.
Govt said Abu Graib was "bad apples". Govt fights anti-torture law. Anti-torture law passes. Prez's signing statement says he will ignore it.
Govt says it needs secrecy to defend America. Govt classifies each and every instance it breaks the law.
Shall I go on?
In general, it's healthy to distrust the government. In this particular case, it's a necessity.
Re:Its not fear mongering (Score:4, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, the immediate goals of radical islam are to take over control of the arab nations, by destroying the pro-west and secular governments.
Osama Bin Laden is on record for his demands against the Saudi government. His primary goal early in his career was to remove the US presence from Saudi Arabia and especially the holy cities of islam.
The Taliban were not planning to attack any western country - they were quite happy running their own, that is what they had always wanted.
The hatred for the west emerged as a secondary goal, because the west kept interfering with those goals. For example, by supporting the secular Iraq during the first gulf war (Iran-Iraq).
Shouldn't this be kept secret? (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote from 'The Power of Nightmares':
Re:What is the goal behind terrorism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Snakes on a Plane (Score:0, Insightful)
Their goal is to bring the entire world under Islamic law
How do you fight an enemy like that? They will never stop trying to kill us. We say negotiations, they hear appeasement. We say peace plan, they hear surrender. We say peaceful coexistence, they plot to grow their numbers and their strength while we're wallowing in our own political correctness.
There is only one way to address radical Islam, and that is to completely and absolutely destroy it. We seek the Islamofascists throughout the world. We locate them, and then we destroy them.
WAKE UP!!!!!
Desperation (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly what is the goal behind terrorism?
This is a tough question, and I'm glad somebody is asking it. My thoughts haven't spent much time on your specific question, although I have often thought about the question of why is it that somebody becomes a terrorist.
The best answer I can come up with is simple desperation. If you are living a life where you see children beggin in the streets and starving to death, you tend to get pretty upset. Now, imagine that you are witnessing a world where poverty abounds, despite the fact that the land you're living on is incredibly rich of natural resources (ie, oil).
Meanwhile, the people that are using your resources have so much wealth that the problem of starvation has been replaced by the problem of obesity.
I don't know about you, but that kind of observation would make me pretty damn pissed off. If you take this anger and mix it in with a long history of conflicting social / political / religious ideologies, add a bit misguided leadership, and mix well, I'm not surprised that there are terrorists out there in the world.
You want real security in the world? Try creating global equality. Don't give up freedoms, give up the notion of cheap gas, or cheap imported goods. Live a simpler life so that people in developing nations can afford the same standard of living that you can.
Unfortunately, I don't hear anybody saying these things. Instead, I hear how we have to be strong and clamp down, "smoke them out."
What happens then? Conditions get worse for the already desperate, creating more possible terrorists, which creates more of a clampdown, which creates worse conditions, etc.
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:1, Insightful)
If you are equal in rights to your aggressor, then at least you have a chance to defend yourself against him. Nobody has a right to defend themselves against government's use of physical force.
Of course, the vast majority of people refuse to believe that government represents more threat than benefit -- or even that government is founded on and defined by the principle of coercion -- because the vast majority of people in the world have lived under the rule of government from the day they are born to the day they die. This special "right" to employ coercion as a business model is as natural to them as the rising of the sun.
But I don't see how the simple logic of that assertion could be escaped (that it is government, and not the "private" criminal, which by far represents the greatest threat to humanity and peace). No, the voting process does not, in any way, remove the fundamental element of coercion from government.
To drive the point home, governments have managed to kill approximtely 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Even the most evil, inhumane criminal organization -- even terrorists -- don't even begin to approach that record.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
Sure. Seems to me their methods work exceptionally well. The response to 9/11 has been to cause self-inflicted economic wounds in the trillions of dollars. The US military doesn't call terrorism "asymmetric warfare" for nothing, its a war and so far we are losing big time. Calling the enemy insane just plays into their hands.
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Great, so you oppose both the Islamic extremists, and the American neoconservatives wwho believe that Iraqi lives are worth less than those of Americans, and those Isrealis who beleive that Jews are a "chosen people". Right?
You do of course understand that not all Muslims are intolerant, and that indeed not all Arabs are Muslims. Right?
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising the alert level makes good tactical sense. Perhaps you have not thought it out fully.
Let's look at it from the aggressor point of view. They have a plan. This plan includes things like social engineering materials into position, explosives, detonation systems, and other details which have been painstakingly worked out. They have stockpiles of equipment which can be used in an attack. They are merrily moving along toward H-Hour.
Then, along comes Scotland Yard. In one fell swoop, they arrest some percent - let us say, for the sake of argument, 80% - of the people with enough knowledge of the plan and the materials to make the attack happen. They also capture 80% of the materials storage sites.
What is the next thing Scotland Yard will do?
They will perform forensic analysis on the materials and on any computers or plans left lying about. They will reconstruct the plan and the tools to be used in enough detail that detailed information and alerts can be formulated and handed out to sister agencies and airlines. They will gather the information required to track down the remaining 20% of the aggressor forces and materials. They will, in effect, provide the information required to precisely and correctly (if such a thing is possible) set the alert level.
This will take time. The forensic analysts on the computers may need to break encryption. The forensic analysts for the explosives won't be cutting any corners to save time, for the obvious reasons. From the aggressors point of view, there is a narrow window of opportunity - let us say, 24-48 hours - in which it is unlikely law enforcement will know enough details to be there waiting for you.
If you were the aggressor, what would you do in this case? Sit and wait for Scotland Yard to connect your name to the plot and come arrest you, or try to mount what small corner of the attack you can given the remaining available resources?
If you were the defender, what would you expect the aggressor to do? To sit and wait to be arrested? To panic (or not) and try to run? Or to attempt a very probably suicidal attack? Bear in mind that the aggressor profile matters - the IRA is not known for suicide missions, but Islamic terrorism is.
In short, the arrests are a stroke. The appropriate next step for the defender is to expect a counterstroke. Unfortunately, the counterstroke is both most likely and most dangerous right away, when the defender has the least information with which to fine-tune their defensive measures (read, "alert level"). Therefore the appropriate reaction is to raise your defenses, erring on the side of caution even if it means seeming to over-raise the alert level. Even if it gets you criticised by the crucial Slashdot block 8).
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:2, Insightful)
All terrorists are just mad religious zealots, and no external factors has anything to to with it.
Relatives dying screaming, as USA dropped or payed for firebombs eat their flesh, has nothing to do with it.
The USA sponsoring repressive regimes has nothing to do with it.
The USA invading countries and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians has nothing to do with it.
Relatives starving to death due to sanctions has nothing to do with it.
Nope, they're just crazies that want to destroy our democracy and convert us to their heathen religion. It's not that they just want us to stop killing and starving them. That's an entirely unrelated matter.
Re:Its not fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
Islam recognizes both Judaism and Christianity as true religions, per Quran they are considered people of the book and should be treated as muslims.
So no, you are just plain wrong. There are misguided people in the middle east who dislikes the US invasion and there was people who disliked the crusader invasion, but there has never in the history of Islam been a sentiment to "destroy the west".
Good show. (Score:3, Insightful)
completely secure! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, terrorists don't drink unhealthy substances in the last hours before a suicide attack.
the its hopless lament (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is actually a fair and public trial, that is. Many people don't realize that the government's interest in detention without trial (or secret trials) for terrorists may have more to do with a desire to manipulate public opinion and cover its own incompetence than with real security concerns.
In an environment where proof isn't necessary and questions are never asked, you can expect a lot of spectacular plots to be uncovered, especially in election years. I'll believe this stuff when it's proven in a court of law.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem with airport security is that they fear what they don't know, and typically being the low-wage uneducated types they don't know much...
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:1, Insightful)
We are fighting people who think it is the will of Allah to convert you to Islam, make you submit as a Dhimmi, or kill you.
The goal of Jihad is not to convert others to Islam or submissives. It is to remove US interference in the lives of these people.
The fact that US Muslims, despite having everything you wish to give terrorists, sympathize with or outright finance terrorists has little to do with what they have or don't have. It is about the US global oppression (real or perceived) on Islamic people, driven mostly by energy interests. You don't have to be oppressed to sympathize with or support those who are oppressed.
The Bush administration knows this. That is why they are trying to bring "freedom" to oppressed people in Iraq. The plan was to foster Democracy and freedom and it will spread naturally throughout the middle east making the currently unhappy people happy and eliminating terrorist motivations. Unfortunately they completely botched it and it is backfiring. Be prepared for more of the same, more attacks, more threats of attack, more military spending and associated taxes/reduced social programs and more restrictions on conventional freedoms in the US as a result.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why oh why (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure a lot of Jihadists would disagree with you. They have attacked London and Madrid recently. Strangely, they haven't attacked American soil. Looks like Europe is in much greater danger, whether or not they "fuck" with other countries (which they do).
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is all this "they're terrorists, who knows what they were thinking" just an excuse to not have to question what you're doing?
Double Plus Good Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
"WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
"A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic."
"Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom."
"Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today."
Re:No hand luggage... (Score:3, Insightful)
But your greater point has merit. There are a lot of people who actually asked us to give up some consitutional rights in the name of safety. I forget what the issue was at the time, but some right wing guys (and I'm pretty conservative on a lot issues) were actually saying "is a temporary suspension of 'x' ammendment rights to guarantee your safety really that bad?"
And I was thinking "yes."
People fought for a died for those rights. Even if we're not talking about consitutional rights, why should we be so miserable in the name of security? Even with terrorists, you're more likely to die in an automobile accident, yet we don't get strip searched in order to drive... yet I could just as easily plow into a crowd as a terrorist could.
The fact of the matter is that we live with danger for the sake of convenience. Faster highway speeds might mean more deaths (it didn't turn out that way, though, but we had reason to believe it would), and yet we fought for our convenience. How many children die each year in swimming pools? Yet there's no swimming pool ban.
So no, I don't feel like giving up my mp3 player and book to fly on a plane. Guns and knives I understand. X-Ray that laptop to make sure it's not hollowed out and stuffed with box cutters. Fine, go ahead. But don't just not let me take it on the plane. Search my shoes, make me take a swig out of my water bottle or a bite of my sandwhich. Fine, whatever. But the terrorists are costing us more by our reactions than they did in their direct attacks.
I mean, didn't these guys do their jobs so that we COULD take our laptops on the planes without sacrificing safety? So now they've actually caught the bad guys, the restrictions get worse?
Re:nightmare scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is reading an industrially printed novel less wrong than using a notebook-computer?
How about listening to an audio-book? Or classical music? Would that be okay?
Is it because these devices use electricity and the book-device doesn't?
Are ebooks morally wrong, too?
Please enlighten me, I own a lot (as in walls with shelves) books, but I don't get why the technological invention "book" is good as is the technological invention "pen" and the technological invention "notebook computer" is inherently bad.
Maybe you should talk to some of Gutenbergs contemporarys about your concepts?
k2r
Re:In the US, I drive instead of fly. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I wish it were true, that I didn't have to connect anywhere. This is how they getcha into buying a higher-priced ticket.
Also, my time measurement was for door to door, and with normal delays. An actual direct flight is only like an hour and a half. But, when you consider these factors:
Besides, I get to see the countryside, do some wardriving, and discuss many things with my SO. No security theatre, plenty of cargo area, far cheaper. Cruising through the amber waves of grain, and purple mountain's majesty -- *that* is part of the American Dream that I was taught, not this Orwellian nonsense.
Not strictly speaking (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh and he wasn't innocent. An illegal alien is a criminal under british law. So far most people would not agree that they should be shot on sight but if you want the truth you need to be able to face the whole of the truth.
Live is though, wear a bullet proof vest.
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
Good point well made.
"Terrorists" believe they are doing the right thing. We call them evil. They call us evil. It's easy to say that we're just right and they're just wrong, but they'd say the opposite. Really the truth lies in neither position since the concept of evil is both subjective and subject to proximity bias.
Re:Snakes on a Plane (Score:2, Insightful)
The correct way is not using any force at all. If you know where they are, send that region economic help. Do everything to increase happiness in that region, and take no violent action whatsoever. If they blow up a plane, just shrug and say "losers", then move one. Don't pay alot of attention to it, they are, just losers after all.
This method will stop recruitment of new fundamental muslims, whereas a violent approach just breeds new ones.
Unless you take away the reasons they exist, they will exist. Violence can only take away these reasons by killing everyone, innocent civilians included. And that is not an expectable way.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
grass roots anti-war (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe got the boot from a grass roots movement.
The spin machine reminds people that democrats are left wing radicals that are weak on homeland security.
A convenient terror plot spoiled so soon after is suspicious.
Re:More questions (Score:1, Insightful)
He's not right. He's an idiot. He makes sweeping generalizations about an entire race of people, and then some, based on the actions of a relative few. He dismisses all of the bad things done by the U.S. and Israel. He focuses on a few specific incidents in an attempt to imply that most or all cases were similar. You're an idiot for buying into that. Both sides have done some seriously fucked up things. There are insane assholes on both sides. Claiming that one side is wrong and the other is not is why there is still fighting going on today. Both sides need to realize that they aren't even remotely innocent and start figuring out how they can live in peace and hopefully, someday, begin to redeem themselves.
Re:Is anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not once you've already bought your tickets, no. And not really for the trans-Atlantic flights in question.
Re:No carryon soda... (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you have to come with a doctor's note if you are hypoglycemic, diabetic, or otherwise requiring some sort of liquid sugar to keep you from going insane, limp, or otherwise on a 5 hour flight from SEA to OGG?
Re:No, it's a good thing (for us) (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's part of their tactics. What "they" (the Islamic extremists behind this stuff) want is the restoration of the "Caliphate" that used to span territories from the Middle East to Spain, and the resumption of that theocracy's growth and eventual rule of the world. That's the stated goal of these groups, and of course getting the West out of their way is central to that purpose. Reducing western willingness to halt those efforts is the current effort, and they're hoping that making the rest of the west act like Spain (caving in the face of murdered civilians) is going to get them farther along towards their goals.
That is what they want. Annoying you at the airport isn't nearly as effective as actually killing you a thousand other passengers on the same day. They don't "want" to annoy you, they want to accomplish much larger things, and wear you down to make it easier.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is how terrorism is fought against (Score:4, Insightful)
Not entirely true. Western culture is a very seductive culture- lots of people want to partake in it. We have the coolest gadgets, we have flashy, entertaining movies, we have catchy pop songs, and we even occasionally have decent food. Our popular culture indulges in a good bit of hedonism as well.
This pisses off those who would impose islamic rule to no end- given the choice, most people choose to partake in Western society at some level, and leave the trappings of Islam alone.
The troubles are admittedly all tied in with Oil, but not in the way popularly believed. The west needs oil- no argument. We can find it in the middle east- no argument. Western companies make deals with whoever is in power to extract this oil. The deal? A steady income for those in power. What do they do with it?
Partially at least they buy and import western gadgets and culture. What else would they do with it in the middle east? This culture that they import is at quite often completely at odds with Islamic practices and theology, but it's wanted by the people themselves.
This creates a problem for those who want to impose Islamic rule, and also creates a good deal of Shame for the same people, because they are incapable of producing anything as desirable as the west gladly sells to anyone.
Re:Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course none of the restrictions mentioned in the article are effective or even relevant, in the final analysis: Anyone who is capable of constructing a useful carry-on explosive is capable of purchasing an R/C device for detonating the same explosive in the cargo hold, which is no less fatal.
Insipid sheep are made to feel that their crushing oppression is a positive avuncular benefit. The reality is that it is a system of control to create fear and suppress dissent.
Re:Desperation (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, while the "common sense" is that terrorism in the Middle East comes from desperation it seems to me that it comes from plain old power struggles. Regardless of what moral values you assign to the various actions and actors in the region, oil is a strategic resource. By maintaining guranteed access an industrial country makes sure its economic development isn't hampered(China doesn't care what state[Iran, Venezuela] it deals with as long as they provide the oil). By restricting access another country, which may not need large amounts of oil itself, gains barganing and economic power disproportionate to it's size. Most of the Middle East could not give a flying monkey's ass about the "Palestinian Struggle" or the Palestinians themselves. What they do care about is keeping control over a strategic resource and having an exclusive and unassailable way of distributing it. They can't raise prices or limit production without having to make sure it doesn't hurt the US enough to attack them. Israel is a huge thorn in most ME countries' sides mostly because it limits their options with regards to oil control(and regional influence) since it's basically a forward operating base for Western interests. This was already proven in the case of France and England with the disasterous 1953 invasion of the Suez canal and is just as true for the US these days.
Unfortunately for everyone in the region, there are people who believe that given enough time and pressure, the entire state of Israel could be removed from the map of the Middle East. They are willing to sacrifice young, naive, brain-washed kids for as long as it takes to achieve that and to have hundres of thousands of people living in squalor and poverty while they steal donated money and send their wives off to Paris with millions. Their gamble is that they feel like they don't need to compromise on anything because they have all the time in the world. Who cares if the people they're supposed to represent have no future, after all, their immediate families are perfectly well provided for.
It's simplistic but it looks to me as if there are two ways out of the entire mess. Either the local leaders are convinced that Israel will always be there and that they can't really effectively fight US influence in the area or they think that with time they can win. Bush, extremely ineptly keeps trying to force option one while most "Axis of Evil" leaders believe in option two. Option one leads to economic prosperity and a large loss of national pride for the arab countries, option two is exactly what we have now with low and mid level skirmishes and proxy wars between the US, Europe and Middle East nations with civilians(as always) paying the price.
In the end the more things progress, the more they stay the same. It's the nature of having people competing for limited resources.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Insightful)
Better for whom? Certainly not me, if those measures are completely ineffectual in that they don't increase actual security, but only the appearance of security. I'm surprised that no terrorists have attacked the ridiculous lines of people waiting to go through security. How are you going to prevent that, have security checkpoints before you can queue for the security checkpoints?
The whole thing is ridiculous. They do things merely to be seen doing something, which is often worse than doing nothing at all.
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Letter Reply / Rebuttal to Osama bin Laden (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Letter Reply / Rebuttal to Osama bin Laden (Score:3, Insightful)
The terrorists are saying, "We could clean our house if the USA would stop propping up tyrannical monarchies and overthrowing democratically elected governments, so we are taking the first step in overthrowing them, which is to remove their military support from the USA."
The goal of a terrorist is to be a terrorist. (Score:3, Insightful)
They start out as a group with a certain goal - erradication if Isreal, independence from a particular government, etc. But the organization then develops, and you get a power structure. People are running the organization, people are members of the organization, people are recruiting new members to the organization. To the people in that oganization, who conduct their lives around the organization's goals, actually ACHIEVING the goal becomes an ancillary concern. Participation is the reward, and for those at the top, being at the top is a strong incentive to keep the organization going.
The only thing that organizations like Islamic Jihad, for example, dislike more than Isreal would be the destruction of Israel - because then you don't need Islamic Jihad anymore. The goal that started the fight has been replaced by the goal of conducting the fight. The IDEOLOGY is still 'Destroy Israel', but the goal of the acts of the organization is merely to perpetuate the organization.
Re:Good work (Score:5, Insightful)
A percentage of the Palestinian suicide bombers do actually fall into the "nothing to lose" category where the prospect of their families being rewarded for their deaths is actually part of their motivation but that does not apply to the majority of the terrorists.
You're still trying to think about this from the point of view of a westerner when you assume that you would only do something suicidal if you had nothing to lose.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blanket Measures. I'd get smothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Snakes on a Plane (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
What? Stereotypes are only funny when applied to liberals? Nevermind then.
Re:Why on /. ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not think that Israel is targetting Lebanese civilians.
I know that Israel is targetting the military apparatus of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy army in Lebanon.
I also know that Hezbollah has purposely intertwined its military operations into the civilian population of Lebanon.
Hezbollah's purpose in making themselves blend thoroughly into the civilian population, including launching missiles from alongside of suburban apartment buildings, is twofold. First, Hezbollah depends on Israel to try to avoid hitting civilians while trying to destroy the missile launchers, missiles, and Hezbollah soldiers, so that Israel doesn't have an unobstructed target (as they would if Hezbollah set up their missile launchers in an isolated area in Lebanon). Secondly, Hezbollah wants to draw Israeli fire to innocent civilians so that they can use the "dead babies" as propaganda photos. Hezbollah has a remarkably well organized propaganda machine in action, and the world press is largely providing Hezbollah with a magnificent distribution apparatus for their propaganda.
The difference bewteen Hezbollah's targets and those of Israel is that Hezbollah specifically targets civilian areas, with warheads that contain ball bearings whose only function is to rip through the flesh of the people (men, women, children, the aged and infirm) in the vicininity of the missile strike. Israel on the other hand is targetting missile launchers, missiles, weapon caches, and Hezbollah soldiers. The fact that Hezbollah has purposely placed all this stuff in and near apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and so on, makes it impossible to completely avoid civilian casualties.
We have entered a new era of warfare: Hezbollah fighters who carry a baby in the one hand, and their gun in the other. Of course, nobody can shoot at them for fear of killing the baby. Of course, the Hezbollah soldier can murder anyone in his path, because the other side doesn't carry babies. Think about it, honestly.
Re:Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. When more probably it was terrorist incompetence or one of the alleged terrorists decided to rat out the crew. Since America is following in the footsteps of Israel (and England to a certain extent) with regards to "security", we only really need to look at their country to see how it's going to be here in 10-20 years... Extra security does nothing. It makes the cost higher to perform the acts, perhaps, but 1000 times zero is still zero. It's like the war on drugs. We spend 59128371238871 billion and there's still plenty of cocaine flowing into America to suit everyone's needs. Likewise, the cost to send one additional terrorist or bomb is pretty low. The only way to end it is to make the VALUE of terror LOW, just like the drug war.
It's simple economics. Extra security, fear, etc. is making terror more and more valuable. We need to lower it to the value of say, drunk driving, which kills about 10x more people PER YEAR then "terror" has EVER killed. Notice that when you get into the car you are not scared of dying in a drunk driving related accident, and notice that there isn't a cop that makes sure you're not drunk before getting into your car and driving (or a computerized cop). When you get into the car, ANY car, you are immediately at risk of DYING (a much higher risk than terror) and yet you aren't scared, the government isn't spending $5002139218218 to stop it, we just accept it as part of our existence as humans and go on with our lives.
If we were to adopt the same attitude towards "fear" and "terror", it would lower it's value to a point where the goals of the terrorist (to incite fear) cannot be achieved thru terror. Thus the terrorist ceases to exist. This is SO obvious that anyone with 2 or 3 braincells can understand and probably already knows it. So why do we keep making such a big deal about it? Because, it's NEWS and BAD NEWS SELLS.
On top of that, it's a great excuse to keep the military in business, expand the police force, and steal other countries' oil. Even though it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that you will ever be a victim of terrorism, it's about 10 TIMES MORE UNLIKELY that Bush or his Millionaire Friends will. Thus, they make sure to make a policy that makes MORE terrorism, thus allowing them to continue to profit (AT NO REAL RISK) on the under-educated and overly-paranoid. Not to mention the other little perks, like power.
It's all very obvious. I just don't understand why people are so scared. You get up, you go to work, you go home. You might choke on your frosted flakes, get hit by a drunk driver, drown in your cup of coffee, get electrocuted when your coffee drips into your CPU, accidentally fall on your stapler, or have a heart attack on the way home. Any of these things can happen, and are LIKELY ways for you to die, yet you don't worry about it. You accept it. You know that one day you're going to die.
This is where religion comes into it. I posit that because of your Judeo-Christian upbringing (likely if you're reading this), you accept dying because of... well, there's a number of reasons, you either don't think about it, you're "saved" or you really are scared of dying all the time. If it's the latter, you have bigger problems than terrorists, I might add.
But when some "terrorist" (which probably brings to mind a turbaned muslim arab [thanks media]) takes the life of your countryman, loved one, whatever, it seems like it "wasn't their time", like that this terrorist was actually Satan incarnate and God could not protect your comrade/family memeber like he usually does and that's why it's IMPOSSIBLE to accept. "It was sooo out of control", you think. Like anyone drives around WANTING to get hit by a drunk dr
How is this our fight at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I consider myself a decentralist Green if I were President of the U.S. I would make an isolationist "conservative" like Pat Buchanan Secretary of State. My FIRST speech as president would be something like the following:
"My fellow AMERICANS, good evening
The United states of America is facing serious internal crises in the 21st century such declining energy supplies, 40 million people who have no access to basic health care, and declining educational standards. From now on the U.S. in a bi-partisan fashion is going to focus on it's own internal affairs and leave other nations and their outdated tribal conflicts to themselves. If other people of the world want to involve themselves in failed nation building exercises that is their choice, but the United States of America shall not participate in these missions and shall maintain a stance of armed neutrality towards other countries like Switzerland while we get our own affairs in order. Focusing on our own affairs will allow us to reduce our military budget by 50% in the first year of my Presidency, allowing us to keep former president Bush's tax cuts to help the economy expand while also allowing us to start drawing down the deficit. If the coming years prove to be peaceful we will slowly start further reductions in the military budget that are the long delayed "peace dividend" we were supposed to receive at the end of the cold war. These funds will be used to build a high speed train system to increase the U.S.'s energy independence to deal with global warming, and reduce our dependence on oil from the troubled middle east. Next we will start a program of HMO vouchers so the poorest among us can gain access to needed health care while retaining the finest privately held medical system in the world. Finally we will increase teacher salaries immediately by 20% and earmark billions to improve the conditions of our schools so the United States can maintain it's edge in global economy in the now maturing information age.
I look forward to a healthy and prosperous future for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Thank you and good night."
I think sort of stance has a good chance of pleasing both small government isolationist true conservatives, and liberal lefties who would like us to focus more on domestic policy. What's more and getting back to the original topic it will keep us out of the pointless irrational conflicts in the middle east. You don't see people burning Swiss flags on the streets of Beirut, do you?
Re:Snakes on a Plane (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's a lot of sound reasoning to this economic strategy. The problem is it takes 30 years and no one is willing to wait that long.
Let's take one small example in Pakistan: Madrasas. Pakistan is too poor to build 'proper' schools for its citizens, so parents send their children to religious schools, known as Madrasas. These Madrasas are free, and often provide food and a roof over the children's heads. They also teach extremism, hatred and intolerance all day long. Here's one article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2054719.stm [bbc.co.uk]
If there was funding to provide 'proper' schools in Pakistan then the influence of the Madrasas would diminish - Until then they're breeding ground for children who grow up to be terrorists.
Re:Blanket Measures. I'd get smothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
Which country would that be, then? Saudi-Arabia? Hardly. Afghanistan? Hardly...the fighting there for the last 20 years has been largely domestic. Lebanon? Again, they seem to have staged a pretty good civil war without western involvement, and arguably have been colonised by Syria more than the west. Indonesia - with a clear local terrorism problem? again, hardly.
The poverty part clearly applies to Palestine, but not the rest.
> Now imagine that every attempt your government has made to carve itself out a small piece of the world's ever-shrinking pie of resources and wealth, has failed miserably, that you are surrounded by poverty and misery everywhere and have absolutely no confidence that your life, or the life of anyone you know and care about, will ever be any better.
Quite often the governments in the middle east are remarkably successful at gathering a sizeable chunk of wealth, just very reluctant to share it with their population.
Three actually (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not strictly speaking (Score:2, Insightful)
No. And neither has that cop.
"How to stop that person, who's running towards a crowded train"
It isn't a crime to run towards a crowded train. I've done it at least a hundred times.
In fact at the subway station there are signs that specifically say when you hear the chimes ring to stand back and wait for the next train, DO NOT CHARGE THE DOORS. Why?
Because charging towards crowded trains is utterly NORMAL BEHAVIOR. In fact it is SO NORMAL, that it causes a problem with people either 1) crashing into the doors, or 2) getting stuck in a partially closed door, 3) crashing into the people inside the train.
It wasn't a suicidal terrorist. You cant go murdering people because you SUSPECT they are suicidal terrorists. Sometimes you have to simply TRUST people. We are living in something called A SOCIETY. When you deal with people there are always going to be risks. The public in a democracy should vote to explicitly give cops the authority to kill suspects sumarily, otherwise they should not take such steps unless there is CLEAR evidence of a bomb and a trigger mechanism. Not merely a vague possibility.
Anyone MIGHT be a terrorist. Anyone MIGHT have a bomb. Almost everyone has strange wires sticking out of their jacket (they are called headphones). You can't shoot everyone. FEAR is not a rational basis for action.
The cops should at the VERY LEAST be liable for negligent homicide in this case. However my understanding is they got off with a pat on the back and a "job well done!"
We can't stop every single crime or every single attack. There have to be limits to the exercise of power in a society. Only criminals should do wrong, and we put criminals in jail for it. If the Cops can't hold themselves up to a higher standard, then they should put down their guns because they are nothing more than armed thugs.
Re:Good work (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Insightful)
This is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The Police flat out lied to the media about this. And I quote:
However, the leaked documents, which include statements from officers involved in the operation and photographs of the scene, show that he behaved like any other commuter, used his travel pass to enter the station, even picking up a newspaper on his way. He was not challenged by police, and appears to have been unaware of being followed until after he entered the train. Photographic stills show he was only wearing a light denim jacket. It appears that he only ran in order to reach a train that was about to leave the platform. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brazilian_shot_by_pol ice_on_London_Underground_was_not_acting_suspiciou sly)
The officers followed Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Mene zes)
Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train.(ibid)
When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with their left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.(ibid)
WHY did they wait until he was inside the station to confront him!?!??!?? WHY was he allowed toride on two busses before he got to the train??? ESPECIALLY if he "had a bomb"??? WHY did they HAVE to wait for fireams officers??? Especially if it meant he was going to have time to get on the train????
Furthermore their "identification" of the suspect was grotesquely negligent. There has to be consequences for a mistake this grave. You can't just say "oops sorry" and go on your way.
The interference and prevention of the IPCC investigation is also deeply damaging. There's a reason for having oversight. Suspending oversight just because "it's terrorism" is horribly wrong and stupid. Are you telling me you can't trust the IPCC?? They're not as trustworthy as anyone else involved in the investigations?
The decision not to prosecute individuals was made on the grounds of insufficent evidence
How the hell do you have insufficient evidence in an investigation of a police act???!?!? You're telling me officiers refused to testify? Their notes were burned? What?!???
The fact that there haven't been consequences for the people involved is totally pathetic. It was after the fallout from this incident that I lost all respect for British authorities. If their system is so screwed up to allow mistakes like this without repercussions, and if their most senior people think that there's nothing wrong and that nothing needs to be changed, and in fact react negatively to criticism.
The following seems like a much more sensible conclusion:
The three people killed had no explosives or detonators on them, although a timed car bomb was found later. They had been under surveillance for some time prior to the incident. The European Court of Human Rights held, by majority, that there was an opportunity to stop them at an earlier stage without having to shoot them and accordingly their right to life had been infringed.(IBID)
Remember, Europeans don't have a death penalty. AT ALL. If you object to a death penalty, how can you possibly accept the grotesque incompentent error made above?
Accidents and unfortunate circumstances are one thing. The above wasn't an accidental unfortunate circumstance. It was incompetence. People should be fired for incompetence.
Furthermore giving a soldier or a police officer orders to shoot to death someone when that person shouldn't be shot to death is NOT an excuse for carrying out the order. Orders from above has never been an acceptable reason for the deaths of innocents. Everyone in the military should know that, and it should be doubly apparent to everyone else.