Why Terror Financing is So Tough to Track Down 578
An anonymous reader writes "After a recent Slashdot story detailing the errant investigation into a credit card holder's dept payment, comes this article from the Christian Science Monitor discussing the commoditization of terrorism, its relationship to crime, and the difficulties encountered when trying to track "bad" money."
Terrorrists or Freedom fighters ? (Score:3, Insightful)
one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
if its freedom fighters we have to look no further than the US goverment, iam sure Bin Laden would agree
Re:Terrorrists or Freedom fighters ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read more carefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just that an awful lot of the time, that someone is wrong.
Re:Read more carefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Power Of Nightmares (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out the Wiki page on it too...
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:5, Interesting)
It also goes on to say that, for example, Bin Laden had to hire stand-ins to represent his personal guard on camera, since there were so few people actually allying with him. The documentary goes on to compare our fear of terrorism to the fear of the USSR in the cold war - showing, for example, a completely nondescript sattelite photo of a Russian city and an American saying "there are weapons here so insidious that our cameras can't even detect them." It gives pretty good insight into the history of the players in this conflict, and how this war is similar to the things that have happened in the past. Definitely worth a watch.
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, both Hitler and Churchil believed in the rightness of their causes. Both were willing to fight to the last soldier or civilian if that's what it took.
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:3, Interesting)
They were opposed, but their goals and beliefs were different: Hitler wanted the German people to dominate and Churchill wanted to stop Hitler.
Neocons and Islamic extremists both want to force their way of life on the rest of the world because they believe theirs is the best, and only way to live.
perhaps not (Score:4, Informative)
Their conclusion is rather odd (Score:3, Insightful)
From your link:
A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
They cite this as evidence that noth
Re:perhaps not (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:perhaps not (Score:3, Informative)
Re:perhaps not (Score:5, Informative)
The Families of 9/11 victims are still looking for answers.
Press Release from 10/26/2004 demanding a better investigation [911truth.org] Note: the 9/11 Commission was published July of 2004
The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001 [911truth.org] Number 1: Conflict of interest of those on the commission.
Conspiracy theories are very tempting, but sometimes more logical explanations exist.
And the logical explanation for WTC7 collopse is?
And how is it the ASTM E119 certified steel in the World Trade Towers weaken/melt after exposure to an uncontrolled & undirected jet fuel fire?
See Letter from Underwriters Laboratories(UL) to NIST [globalresearch.ca]
snip
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
If the buildings collapsed because fire weaken the steel support, then there are some serious safety issues that need to be addressed. But no one has really bothered with this. At the very least you would think building codes would have been updated to mandate better steel and UL would have to update it testing&certification process. Because clearly their certification that the steel used in the World Trade Towers was not up to snuff. Gee, that kinda smells like a lawsuit... but I haven't heard of one.
Don't forget that the Commission was opposed by the Bush Administration every step of the way!
And when W did final give testimony to the commission it wasn't under oath, it was behind closed doors and his vice-president was there to help him.
What kind of "War President" needs his vice president to help him testify?
Why wasn't his testimony under oath and public? (we can't handle the truth?)
But hey the gov't put out a report, so that must be the end of it. Nothing to see here, move along. Oooo look over there the Vice President was out hunting, had a few beers and shot someone. What were we talking about?
This current administration is the most blantly & openly corrupt administration ever. Nixon was almost impeached(his resigned before they could impeach him) for bugging the DNC. Bush admits to illegal wiretaps on untold thousands of Americans on national TV and Congress has to have a meeting to decide if they even want to question Bush about it. WTF?!?!
Re:perhaps not (Score:3, Interesting)
I only said the word once. You asked for evidence that the 9/11 commission's report was a white wash. I provided some pointers. Hopefully, you'll take the time to read them and maybe do some research on the subject yourself.
Illegal election.
Illegal war.
Illegal wiretapping.
When did I mention an illegal election or illegal war? Please don't put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself.
Chances are all these things you call illegal were carried out to the letter of the la
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world doesn't understand why American conservatives aren't frightened about what's happening.
We're in the middle of two endless wars which have killed tens of thousands and crippled hundreds of thousands. Americans are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't that frighten you?
We've blown one trillion dollars on the war in Iraq. One trillion dollars -- do you have any idea how much that is? Think how much you could do with a million dollars. Now imagine getting a thousand times as much. You could give a million dollars to everyone you knew and still be staggeringly rich. Now imagine a thousand times more than that.
How are we going to *pay* for this trillion dollars? Most of these expenses haven't even hit us yet and come from decades of caring for the tens of thousands of young men and women that have been crippled by this pointless war. We've written a trillion dollars in bad checks -- doesn't that frighten you?
We have a President that has failed at every single thing he's done. We've gone from disaster to disaster, we lost the World Trade Center, we lost New Orleans, we lost Bin Laden, we are losing every day in Iraq. We watched over days while Katrina slowly destroyed New Orleans and, just like on 9/11, he did nothing, nothing at all -- but this time we could see him caught like a deer in the headlights. Perhaps New Orleans was beyond saving, but we'll never know because Bush didn't even try -- he didn't even pretend to try.
So we have a President who gathers disaster around him like flies to honey and then is incapable of acting competently.
And there are three more years of this to go.
To the "rest of the world" -- "liberals", "socialists", and pretty well every single non-American -- conservative America is like a bus driven at high speed by a madman, and we are terrified that it will take a lot of us out with it when it finally crashes and burns.
And we think the reason that the few of you aren't frightened is that you're also mad, and blind to boot.
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:3, Informative)
First off, we have this claim: "We have a President that has failed at every single thing he's done." Well, I can say he did two things successfully (got elected and then got re-elected) so there's an outrageous lie. But lets go on:
"We've gone from disaster to disaster" right, so nothing else has happened in the last 5 years. really. hmm.... it must suck to be a 5 year old. after all, your entire life has been one di
Re:Power Of Nightmares (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Terrorrists or Freedom fighters ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they aren't fighting for freedom, they are fighting for oppression.
Freedom of religion? As long as it's Muslim.
Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as it doesn't go against anything in the Koran.
Right to live? Sure, as long as you are Muslim (and once you're in, you can never leave or it means death)
Sometime people kill to gain their freedom and to fight against oppression, other times they just kill you because you don't subscribe to their beliefs. I mean look what happened over a few cartoons... still think they are fighting for freedom?
The source (Score:5, Informative)
According to their site, the paper is largely secular (except for a single religious article each day). The paper just happens to be published by a church. [csmonitor.com]
Re:The source (Score:3, Informative)
But at the same time... (Score:5, Informative)
They are also not very scientific in their approach, as they often would refuse to be treated by doctors, and refuse to acknowledge the existense of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms and how these can cause disease.
I think they should just pick a new name. There was such a group on my campus and I approached their table thinking it is a group of scientists who are just Christian that have meetings, Bible study and what not, I had no idea it was a religion all by itself...
Re:But at the same time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, some CS'ers claim that Einstein did some hanging around CS reading rooms later in his life. I have to think that if this is true, the inability to describe matter as anything other than energy-equivalent in increasingly shrinking component pieces played into an interest in the CS theory that matter is an illusion (hence the occasional wack job offing their kid with a bedroom seance instead of antibiotics). http://www.christianscience.org/Einstein.htm [christianscience.org]
As a side note, Jill Carroll, whose abduction in Iraq has caused a bit of a ruckus for a few weeks now, was a freelance write for the CS Monitor. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1666314&page=1 [go.com]
Re:The source (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it so hard to track down? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is it so hard to track down? (Score:3, Funny)
...and then max it back out again at a nearby strip club. If I'm gonna die on Thursday, I'm gonna spend Wednesday night exploring the finer things in life---and tucking $20 bills in their G-strings.
There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other reason is that our leaders who might themselves be inept, think that the way America works is the way other societies work and think. In areas where terror is cultivated, folks are willing to do stuff for free...all in the hope that some divine power will reward them sometime in future.
The other case to consider is the fact that societies cultivating terror do their thing in the crude way. Messages are sent by horse-back and pigeons. Worse still these messages are encrypted...talk of a cold winter might mean the delivery of some important ingredients for some project. In this case, our folks at NSA simply get lost or ignore stuff like this. We also do not understand the cultures of others and are too willing to think we're the best!
To conclude, I'd like to pose a question:
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership? This is all part of the incompetence I mentioned above.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Insightful)
It was an eye opener to many people. The great USA not being able to deal with an expected catastrophy. You people looked very backwards and primitive. Neither was your nation able to prevent most of the damage, nor was it able to provide adequate assistance. That is the n
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Informative)
Not just European help, people from other parts of the US were prevented from helping. You even got the situation of doctors being prevented from treating people whilst their papers were checked.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's more a sign of the times really. A doctor now has to think twice about helping after an accident: the victim might one day sue. Another example of this sort of thing is lost children; if I see a lost child I am staying the hell away and not helping them. Previously, I'd speak to them and try to find a cop or store clerk that could help. Now I'm just frightened of being accused of being a pervert or child abductor. Your lost children are on their own, it's just not worth the risk to help them anymore.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Informative)
Death toll from Katrina: 1420
Death toll from the European 2003 heat wave: 35000
Not a fair comparison. The heat-wave was not a desaster-like event. Normal death rates during a warm summer are not so much lower, but the business of burying the dead does not have much reserves in Paris, it seems. So they had to stow some of the dead in cooled tents. That was the only reason it made the papers, not the number of dead people.
Better compare it to, e.g., the flooding in eastern Germany. The death toll there was si
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it comes down to a confusion of responsibility. Decades ago, people would have known that the hurricane was coming and that it would be big. They would have taken the personal responsibility to get the hell out of dodge. Boat, plane, train, hitchhike, hike, swim . . . ANYTHING, just to get the hell out. But it's the new millennium, and people are used to being coddled by their government, which has been arrogating more and more power to itself so that people think it's omnipotent. "This is America. This isn't a third-world country. Nothing bad can happen to me. Uncle Sam will figure it out so I won't get hurt" is a common thought that runs through people's heads. (I see this line of reasoning all the time, exempli gratia, at the pharmacy at which I work, when people don't understand why the federal government won't somehow make their drug copayments go away.)
The federal government does not do anything well that involves actual people except for killing them. The states have limited means, because what state senator wants to vote for a tax increase to fund emergency preparedness, especially when the federal government ostensibly has the will and the means to do it for them. So the people give up the buck, the states pass the buck, and the feds drop the buck. And so you have a mess like New Orleans after Katrina.
Less clear to me is why we don't hear too much about any recovery efforts in Mississippi, even though it was in the right front quadrant of Katrina, and therefore bore the real brunt of the storm. Was it simply less damaged, were people better prepared, or was the response better managed? We're learning a lot from what Louisiana did wrong. What can we learn from what Mississippi did right?
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine: it's 2 days before a big hurricane hits. You're a single mom (bear with me, I realize this is Slashdot
The ones that had the money and didn't go.... they were dumb, and deserved the later problems. But an awful, awful lot of those folks just didn't have many options.
Decades ago, Americans weren't this poor.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry I don't believe you. Living standards in western countries are now much higher than they were (say) 50 years ago.
What we do have now is professional management (as opposed to people rising up the ranks), and formal processes like ISO9001.
These "improvements" are great ways of optimising your sausage manufacture to minimise cost but they really kill your ability to cope with one off events.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
And we're sorry you don't understand the statistics to which you allude.
The average person in the United States earns more and has greater purchasing power than he or she did fifty years ago. That doesn't tell you anything about the distribution of incomes across the population, nor does it address specifically the people of New Orleans.
In the 2000 census, Louisiana ranked 47th of 50 states in per capita income [wikipedia.org] (2000 census). New Orleans has the lowest median household income [wikipedia.org] of any metropolitan area with a population greater than 1,000,000 (1999 figures).
Looking at trends in the Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org] for the United States shows a steady increase over the last thirty years, indicating a continuing drift of the Lorenz curve [wikipedia.org] away from a uniform distribution of income. In other words, the rich--and even the upper middle class--have gotten richer, but the poor have gotten relatively poorer by a fair margin.
The fact that standards of living are quite high and poverty quite low in San Franciso, or Boston, or Hartford doesn't address the situation in New Orleans.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you did not understand parent. Although the "living standard" in western countries are higher the gap between the rich and poor is growing bigger and bigger.
It is like my statistics professor told me, the mean (average) is the least informative of all the statistical equations, you can have two sets {$10,$10,$0,$0} and ($5,$5,$5,$5} and they will give you the same average. Guess which one of those groups of people are better.
As I saw it from outside (I am from Mexico but was in UK when it happened) it seemed that Katrina came to show the extreme poverty that exists in the USA (the $0 in the sets). Those are the people that won't move from their homes, as it is the only thing they have. I know that because I lived in Campeche, which is a city that is struck by hurricanes quite often (Gilbert, Isadore, etc) and there are plenty of very poor people over there. People that has only their houses and what is inside them. When a hurrican comes they fear that, if they leave they will lose everything they have.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're joking right? People in America have never been richer. Even the poor are much much better off than they used to be. But maybe decades ago, people were cleverer with their money, and didn't blow it on giant TVs, air conditioning etc?
We also, for the most part, didn't have the absolute poverty that we have today.
What is your evidence for this?
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it wasn't. At least, not year-round south of Orlando. OK, there were a few hardy/masochistic individuals who lived in south Florida all year... but anyone else with the slightest opportunity to do so fled north at the first hint of June, and didn't come back until November or December.
Air conditioning is what makes it possible for normal, middle-class people to willingly live in Florida al
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Decades ago, we were just really good at ignoring the poor.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you misunderstand their complaint. Their complaint is basically "what the fuck happened to all those taxes I paid, how come people in Turkey and Greece get free drugs and I can't. Why doesn't a person in Australia or New Zealand have to worry about going bankrupt because they broke a hip and I do?".
They are right of course. Other much poorer countries manage to provide basic health care for their citizens (even if it's not ideal) and we still don't.
As for the hurricane NO was a special case. The levies broke (like they were predicted to). If Bush was awake during the meeting when he was told they could break better plans could have been made. Of course if he hadn't lied afterwards and told people "nobody could have predicted this" people wouldn't blame him so much.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, but they're evil socialists. You wouldn't want any of that in the US now would you ?
Yes! New Orleans == Rural Mississippi! (Score:5, Interesting)
"DISASTER. It strikes anytime, anywhere. It takes many forms -- a hurricane, an earthquake, a tornado, a flood, a fire or a hazardous spill, an act of nature or an act of terrorism. It builds over days or weeks, or hits suddenly, without warning. Every year, millions of Americans face disaster, and its terrifying consequences.
On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration."
Now the current (and previous) administration has missed the clues and failed to prepare for:
Terrorism and 9/11
The Iraq War
Katrina
As Senator Kucinich said, I think we see a pattern here. But the problem is not Republican or Democrat - it's that our government is fundamentally broken. I'm voting straight down the line this year - voting out every single incumbant, regardless of how much I hate the alternative.
Re:Yes! New Orleans == Rural Mississippi! (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative? You're smart enough to recognize the incumbants suck. Why do you fail to recognize that the guy on the other side of the aisle is just the same guy wearing a different suit? You're right: The problem is not Republican or Democrat - it's Republican and Democrat.
Vote for a third party, even if its not mine, please.
Re:Yes! New Orleans == Rural Mississippi! (Score:3, Insightful)
Without getting into specifics I agree with you on these points. However I do have a suggestion for like-minded thinkers: vote for a non-major party. Pick your favorite, just as long as it's anything but republican/democrat. The American government is stifling under the "two" party system, they've been around for so long that they control eve
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:4, Informative)
If you really think this is how people think, you're seriously deluded. We're talking about people that live paycheck to paycheck, with barely enough food to eat that live in structures that you would be hard-pressed to call a house. You really think that they believe nothing BAD can happen to them? After the life of constant poverty that they've been living? What a fucking joke. Open your goddamn eyes man.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the leadership gets it just fine, but the general concensus is that poor peasants don't matter much unless they've got the funding to obtain equipment and training. So we focus on the leadership and their fund-raising efforts. If those can be shut down, then delu
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
You just don't get it do you? Most of the time people don't do things for religion. Generally religion is used as a scapegoat, excuse, reason etc. The only people that can be controlled by religion are the same people that can be controlled by anyone with charisma.
Most acts of violence (terrorism is defined by those in power) are driven by fear, anger power and greed. The people at the top are generally driven by power and greed whereas the people at the bottom are generally driven by fear and anger. They are people just like you and me that have been driven into situations where they feel that their acts are their only way out.
I read an article from a Russian journalist that summed it really well:
Just after Russia conquered Afghanistan this journalist visited a major military base that they'd taken over by bombing it. The major military based ended up being a civilian village. As the journalist entered the village he saw a father holding his daughter that had been killed in the bombing. As they drove past the father looked up with hate in his eyes at the truck. At this moment he said he knew they wouldn't be able to hold Afghanistan. He said he realised that they people had nothing. This father who may have previously been a supported of the Russians was now there number one enemy and would do anything to get revenge. He had nothing and the only thing he had (family) was now taken away. Every time Russia had a victory they'd create more soldiers with nothing to live for. In the end Russia pulled out because they weren't able to hold it.
If Fiji (crazy example on purpose) bombed America and took it over in a couple of days and decimated America's defences so they'd never be able to regain control. How many people could honestly say they'd just sit around and be peaceful? How many people would rally around anyone and anything to try and get justice even if it involved violence?
People always try to demonise terrorist and distance themselves as much as possible even though we'd often act in a similar way if the roles were reverse.
It's always a choice and I hope that if I was put in that situation I'd act differently but to be honest I don't know what I'd do if family was killed infront of my eyes. I don't think I'd be as honourable as I like to imagine I would be.
Nothing new, then. (Score:3, Insightful)
But this sort of thing has been going on for centuries. And the methods by which we establish who is a conspirator and who is not are just as accurate.
"It is first agreed and settled among them, what suspected persons shall be accused of a plot; then, effectual care is taken to secure all their letters and papers, and put the owners in chains. These papers are delivered
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Informative)
Many suicide bombers are MIDDLE CLASS with degrees! That's what people don't get. These aren't just people who know they have nothing going for them.
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as people don't want to hear it terrorists, whether they
are IRA, UDA, Hammas, Shining Light etc. etc., tend to be the
brightest and best that there society can offer.
The maze prison in Nothern Ireland was full of bright young
men from good families with above average educational acheivement.
And to being the discussion a bit more on Topic most of these people
are either self funding or funded by handing round the collection plate.
Although the IRA got more into organised crime twoards the end of its
tenure the majority of funding still came from passing around buckets
in the Irish bars of Boston and NewYork.
Yes private US citizens were the major source of funds for a
terrorist organisation. So why is it so hard to believe that private
citizens are the major source of funding for Islamic terrorists?
The main problems here is that if you are in a government department
responsable for say seat belt standards in automobiles and you want a
bigger budget, you can get your hands on some "Homeland Security" dollars
by pointing out that most of the 9/11 terroists were known seat belt
wearers and reasearch into seat belts could help identify future terrorists.
The question is what you conclude from this (Score:3, Interesting)
>are IRA, UDA, Hammas, Shining Light etc. etc., tend to be the
>brightest and best that there society can offer.
>The maze prison in Nothern Ireland was full of bright young
>men from good families with above average educational acheivement.
The question is what conclusion you draw from this:
1. That these people are actually good, superior folk, who's ideas have merit
-or-
2. That higher education teaches some pretty wacked out crap
Re:There are other reasons too... (Score:3, Informative)
U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Stupid Terrorists. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so every terrorist is busy killing? No organizers? No fund raisers? No recruiters? No trainers? these people just pop up out of the ground strapped with semtex and go to work?
The insergency in Iraq is nothing but well meaning Iraqis either I take it?
This isn't a Hollywood film where a dozen guys get together and hatch a scheme. It's a bit more involved and it doesn't take much to see that for yourself, you've got the whole internet to understand how large this strcuture is, not much unlike a large corporation.
You're thinking these guys are random kooks, far from it.
How it's different from a corporation (Score:4, Interesting)
But GM does actually produce a hell of a lot of cars, despite/because all this superstructure!
I can imagine that Al Queda has a fair amount of trainers etc. Or an enormous amount. It doesn't really matter. If you look at the end product, they produce very little actual terror. If it's because they ran out of killers and only have paper pushers left or whatever, is not really that interesting.
The original posts point remains. They're either incredibly inefficient at their core mission. Or they're not nearly as many and resourceful as we've been led to believe.
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of what they do is a "reach out and touch somebody" kind of terrorism.
They aren't blowing up shit willy nilly in 99% of countries, because it doesn't suite their purposes. Israel has been a relatively safer place since Hamas agreed to a cease fire about a year ago.
If you hit up the Wikipedia page on terrorism [wikipedia.org] their first sentance is:Emphasis mine, because terrorism has rarely been about killing people, in the same way that war has rarely been about killing people.
War and terrorism have almost always been extensions of politics. Even Osama Bin Laden's original stated goals were (are?) that the US withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia and support from Israel.
To directly answer your question: We don't know how hard is it to blow up a building, because either we haven't tried or because we don't know the failure:success ratio. (If you have tried to blow up a building, I hope you work in demolitions and that you succeeded.)
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, you hit the nail solidly on the head. Terrorism isn't about killing people, it's about scaring people (or, more precisely, "terrorizing" people). To that end, one could easily argue that with all the fanatical paranoia and color-coded terror-alert levels, the facist and invasive legislation being heaped upon the masses by the body-politic, and the constant fear-mongering by the media, the ter
The latter... (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out that "fear mongering" is what the neo-conservatives now in power in Washington DC need to do what they do. The most interesting conclusion of the film is that al Qaeda isn't this all global organization with thousands of sleeper cells ready to commit attrocities. That is what people like Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz want us to believe. To find out why, whatch the move...
Re:The latter... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the name everyone knows and trusts for terrorist attacks
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowing up a building is relatively easy. Getting ahold of the required explosives is much more difficult in the USA. In a place like Iraq, it is much easier to scrounge old munitions and to extract the explosives for reuse.
The terrorists are not stupid. They select targets with a desired effect in mind, not to just blow shit up.
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Short of banning work, there's no way to stop that source of funding.
In my view, there is a huge amount of scaremongering going on. Terrorists use terrorism because its CHEAP. It doesn't need much funding. The 9/11 thing was an exception.
Laws preventing you from paying cash for cars (here in the UK) are not going to have any impact on terrorism. They probably do affect the disposal of stolen money, and they sure as hell inconvenience law abiding citizens, who then assume "its being done for a good reason" and that the government is "tough on terrorism".
Its in the same league as my proposed ban on short skirts to combat inflation - it works if you apply the rules strictly - not because there is a cause and effect relationship in the scientific sense, but because it gives the general public the impression the government is "taking stringent action".
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing is that the most used something is the easier it will be to get to it. The state can throw one thowsand one one requirements and paper works into the matter, but people have to get work done in the end of the day. And if one hundred people have access to use explosive this is one hundred
Re:Stupid Terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
How hard is it to call in a bomb threat to a skyscraper?
How hard is it to claim that you injected 500 random cows with mad cows disease (or whatever).
How hard is it to mail talcum powder to a hundred people.
All those acts would cause panic and fear. If you scare the public enough not to eat beef you will collapse the economy of the west.
What these dumb fucks don't realize is that you don't have to DO anything. You just have to talk a good game. This is a lesson our politicians know very well. They just need to pull a Rumsfeld once in a while that's all.
Why is it difficult to follow.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws and law-enforcement officers are always lagging behind and will continue to do so. The degree to which they lag behind is what matters. If a dog starts running after you, and gets nearer to your heels you tend to speed up and ultimately lose focus and fall into the open manhole.
This is what law-enforcement should focus on, instead of trying to leapfrog over the terrorists.
PATRIOT act can't help much because it ends up harassing the normal people more than it can catch the bad guys.
Singapore's example is a good one. The whole system is completely integrated. My library card becomes invalid the moment my employment pass is canceled. Similarly, the credit card company automatically sends me a closure statement and the IRAS gets the remaining funds from my bank account.
However this does not hassle the common man in any way from buying beer in THailand or cigars in malaysia using his card.
Prepaying the card with a huge amount also does not trigger a warning flag because the whole system hinges on a high degree of cooperative automation.
However with disparate state laws, etc., it is difficult to enforce it in US.
Strangely i felt more under microscope in US than i did in singapore. Every time i visited BankAm in US to deposit my paycheck ($4000-$6000) i needed to provide TWO photo IDs to deposit and withdraw. Additionally i needed to fill in a few nasty forms for an amount beyond $5,000/-
In singapore since the system already has my photo and EP number and details, they don;t even bother asking. They took one good look at my face, compared it with record (seeing it was not canceled) and that's it.
Moral: Laws cannot prevent or catch criminals. Only vigilance can. Law can be used to charge criminals.
And GWB is making it worse for US agencies to get cooperation from other countries by kicking at their guts and laughing.
Re:Why is it difficult to LEARN FROM MISTAKES ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is it difficult to LEARN FROM MISTAKES ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly the government NEVER trusts its own people.
Why do you think we have laws then?
Sometimes state governments invest in "terrorists" (Score:3, Interesting)
FTA: "A recent report from the Center for Security Policy shows that the ARMB currently has investments in 68 companies that do business with Iran and eight with business ties to North Korea. Several billion dollars can be traced to these and other Alaskan investments."
The state has a resolution pending to study the matter.
Re:Why is it difficult to follow.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But but but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why terror funding is so hard to track down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists... (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget paying off your $6000 credit card bill with laundered money, the Gulf is where the real financing is coming from and buying foreign oil is partly responsible for that.
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't that just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling when you see someone fill up their Ford Excursion at a gas station?
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:2)
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:3, Funny)
Oil is Fungible (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:4, Informative)
Were Gulf countries suddenly to refuse U.S. dollars in exchange for oil, you're right that trades would in a simplistically theoretical model be no different in the long run; unfortunately, that long run would never happen, since shit'd be hitting fans in the meantime.
Re:Do you drive? Then you're financing terrorists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your money is funding terrorists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your money is funding terrorists... (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of different Marijuana traffic patterns. A lot from Mexico, a surprising amount from Canada. Most of the US grown pot comes from old moonshine territory such as the Kentucky hills.
The big Terrorist drug is Opium. Afghanistan exports two things: Opium and more opium. The drug money in that country faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar surpasses any GDP they've ever had. Ever. Hell, add a bunch of their yearly GDP's up and compare it to a years worth of estimated Opium exports. Adjust for inflation, have Enron do the book keeping, do what you want. Afghanistan is to Opium as Kuwait is to oil. That's the biggest terrorism financing tool. Good old fashioned Smack.
So remember kids, be a Patriot! Smoke homegrown pot! and When you're doing Herion, you're shooting up with Osama!
Re:Your money is funding terrorists... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, you can be as slippery with semantics as you want on your own time, but when you open your mouth in public you're ultimately going to have to settle on definitions for terms that are (a) commonly agreed upon and (b) useful. Defining "terrorism" in such a manner as to include witness intimidation, of all things, is neither.
Re:Your money is funding terrorists... (Score:3, Insightful)
This, as all things, is a matter of drawing lines in the sand, but I will steadfastly refuse to describe
Hawala has a lot to do with it (Score:5, Informative)
Prevention is better than cure (Score:3, Interesting)
because we're in a war, but don't act that way (Score:5, Insightful)
The US tries to sell this as a war on terror when its really just a war on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Iran. But by trying to not be at war when you are, you create this confusion. Why did I say Saudi Arabia? Because they're a monarchy chiefly supported by the US and Britain (a puppet dicatorship if you will - watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' that's the Sauds). That's why so many of the 9/11 hijackers were from there.
The same thing happened back in the 1980's with Northern Ireland. Plenty of donation money for poor Irish made its way to violent means back in the 80's. I lived in Boston back then and the level of conspiracy was intense. Donate to a good Irish cause - some of the money found its way to the IRA. I remember the winks and nods at Southie day in 1984. The British and Irish were at war, but the Irish couldn't fight against a nuclear power with conventional means. The Irish didn't want to take over Britain, they just wanted to kick them out of Northern Ireland (or least stop the paramilitary Protestant death squads). But in the end the British drew a truce reigned in the death squads and none of those terrorists is in a place like gitmo. That's because the British didn't have the heart for decimating the Northern Irish Catholics, which is what they would've had to do to win. I'll give the British props for not being as inhuman as the US is now.
Maybe eventually, Americans will realize you can't have a war on terror because terror is a form of war. In fact it was originally coined by the French as a form of warfare on their own population. They had to keep all those citizens in line after the revolution and so they did some pretty terrible (terrorizing) things.
To win this war, you need to rephrase the whole thing. Define your enemy. In this case it would be Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, maybe Syria soon too. But since the US population isn't ready to accept that this country is an imperialist on the scale of the Roman Empire, we have this stupid 'war on terror' confusion. If you want to win, you need to get everyone on board and lock up or kill every possible enemy and bomb them into oblivion. Think Dresden in WW2 or Nagasaki. That's how you break the enemy's morale. You have to decimate them. Think hundreds of Gitmo's. That's how you win a war. You kill them.
I personally don't have the stomach for it, and I think its a stupid gamble that only people who havn't read their history would make.
No we're not. (Score:5, Insightful)
What if things are going just peachy?
What if the main objective is not to win the war, but to maintain a state of constant war? If this were the case, then it would achieve several things. . .
1. It would keep the American Public in a state of perpetual fear. When people are scared, they don't think rationally. They don't mind having their freedoms revoked, they are much easier to herd like cattle. They do as they are told. The upshot being that the dictator gets to bend rules and stay in power for as long as he can maintain the state of 'war'.
2. It keeps money flowing in huge amounts from the public coffers to the pockets of oil men and weapons salesmen, (both of which Bush is). His fellow staff share this trait. Peace is not profitable.
Oil was selling at around $13 per barrel before the first Gulf War. When bombs started dropping in the desert, oil jumped to $40 per barrel. --A few people made a lot of money overnight. The brokers were wetting themselves. And they couldn't wait for it to happen again, which it has.
I think the 'war on terror' confusion has more to do with deliberate marketing than with error.
-FL
Re:No we're not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:because we're in a war, but don't act that way (Score:3, Interesting)
We were never at war with Ireland. That's absurd; if that had been the case then Dublin could have been flattened within hours. The Irish government never had anything to do with the (current) IRA; in fact, London and Dublin collaborated on intelligence and enforcement for years.
I don't actually recall either government using the rhetoric of war about the whole business, either. That was alway
The Road To Ruin (Score:3, Interesting)
No. That's how you lose. That's how you lose everything. Your pride, your integrity, your freedoms. Everything.
Don't believe me. Try and remember that the other side in WWII engaged in "morale defeating excercises" even
The Government Is Not Trying To Catch Terrorists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Methods that peek into people's credit card transactions won't find terrorists. Terrorists are, as much as people might not want to admit, intelligent people. They are not going to do anything that gets them noticed. This includes buying semtex with their credit cards.
I'm pretty sure that the Government knows this obvious truth. So if they are not using the PATRIOT Act to spy on terrorists (since things like the PATRIOT Act is useless in finding terrorists), then who are they spying on? You of course!
The whole idea of a 'war on terror' is not a new one. Various Governments have used the same scare mongering tactics to try and control their populations. I know I'm not saying anything here that people don't already know but I feel it has to be said until people actually listen.
That's untrue (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS that the Pentagon announced 'misplaced' on September 10, 2001.
Just think about it, that's the money that the 'Defense' Department WON'T admit to having used to kill people. But all of it comes from us.
I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting Facts from the Article (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple Solutions (Score:3, Funny)
2 - Just take all funds away from the people, make it a true socialist society.
3 - Anyone caught bartering for any reason goes to prison for life.
This was a joke.
Re:Christian Science Monitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because you don't understand the distinction between literalists and real intellectuals who also happen to be Christians?
LK
Re:Christian Science Monitor? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Christian Science Monitor? (Score:2, Informative)
Sectarianism (Score:5, Informative)
Basically... it is violence between two relegious factions. Sometimes it is used to describe violence between two warring political factions.
If the Catholics and Protestants (ex: Ireland) go at it, that is sectarian violence.
Sectarian violence isn't necessarily terrorism and terrorism isn't necessarily sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is always within a group.
Which adjective you use to describe the violence depends on what the story is. Is the story about (1) people dying? Or is it about (2) why they are dying. If 1, it's terrorism, if 2, it's sectarian violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism [wikipedia.org]