They break down my door in the middle of the night, hurt my family, kidnapp me, and "disappear" me to someplace like Guantanamo Bay where I will never be seen or heard from again. I'm seriously thinking about leaving this country and returning home to Canada. Even though I am here legally and am not a Muslim. The kind of surveillance that foiled the terror plot in Britain is not legal in the US, and there is much screaming whenever we try to even come close.
The Soviet Union was bankrupt because socialism doesn't work capital is consumed, not invested. The US too will be bankrupt, but it won't be because of the 'terrorism', but because of the socialism. I agree. And the same rules should be heard for the fear mongers, who cry racism. The evironmentalists who continually try to scare us with there doom and gloom and of course big government who stea our money away from us, becasue if we don't society will to hell.
Has anyone asked the terrorists what they want? I see far more speculation than source material I think it's high time for an open letter to be written to the politicians. Seriously, are there any of them that actually listen to anything 'we' and by we, I mean the scurity community who actually knows that we're talking about have to say otherwise. I know I have personally written my Senator many times about other topics as well such as Internet regulation and just get canned responses.
But if a single open letter goes out and gets good media penetration, maybe somebody would finally notice. Ok time to leave fantasy land and get back to working for the man The differences are not those of the elephant itself same elephant, right? I agree with this post in the context of its point of view.
I also agree that there is a rational basis for an increase in wariness. To say that when terror-related aggression increases that we must jettison our heightened awareness of safety self-preservation at work here for the sake of some national pride seems very one-sided to me indicative of the "only one point of view" mindset.
There is or ought to be a balance in this area and I'm not sure that we, as a nation, have found it just yet. I wasn't ther, but I know that I wil do everything I can to defend my life and my family. If that includes overreacting then so be it. In any system in absence of complete information, there will be false positives and false negatives. First, the three of us are me 59 yr.
Now, at the Liberty Bell, something in my wife's knapsack purse looked unfamiliar to the barely out of her teens black girl running the scanner. Seems she had never seen a barrette hair clip on the xray before. So the middle aged white security guy comes over to paw through her purse. He probably had seen one before, but it never occurred to him that the barrette was what the scanner girl was seeing. So we spent ten minutes standing there backing up the line while this played out.
But hey, that's too sensible. Bottom line is that no one seems to be empowered to make decisions - the rules about what can go through are necessarily extreme, because the people doing the first cut shouldn't have to do anything more than make a first take on what ought to be looked at. That cut should err on the side of caution. But once someone has been selected out, second line people with some judgment should be in a position to make reasonable decisions about things.
What seems to be happening is that the second line people have no more leeway to make judgments than the first line scanners. I will not let the terrorists scare me off of the airplanes. But the pettyfogging indiscriminant searching is driving me nuts. It's not the fear, it's the 99 percent unnecessary inconvenience. This might be why the terrorists have not simply sent bombs through with the baggage. But what they are doing now throws sand into the air transportation system, and has the potential of actually shutting the system down - and driving passengers away.
One thing many people forget is that the terrorists are real people There's a deep psychological imbalance that convinces them that blowing up thousands of innocent people and themselves is acceptable. To overcome that basic notion is huge. Make no mistake, these suicide bombers are merely pawns in a greater war.
And sadly, their terrorist tactics ARE working. People are overreacting on airplanes Americans are willingly giving up their Constitutional rights I really hope the kind of level-headed sanity demonstrated in this post can have a ripple effect through the country. It is probably more responsible for creating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt than any other terrorist organization. Bob P. They are Not that bright. They plan for 5 years for one 'threat' that may or may not actually work. Heck, give any 5th grader a similar task and they would figure out how to do it in just a few days.
The media needs to stop giving them credit and stop holding our soldiers back from catching and killing them. We didn't lose Vietnam because of our soldier's ability - we lost it because of the media and politics. We're going to lose the war on terror for the same reason. Stop giving our soldiers political boundaries - let the soldiers do their job and Fight. Let them win this war. And be sure to support the coming wave of civilian space exploration so we can get off this rock.
Another little humorous item, along the lines of the "Underwear Bomber", that's been making the rounds on various UseNet newsgroups that, sad to say, I had to share with you all:. Paris AP - French secret police today foiled an attempted bombing using materials that appeared like ordinary fabrics, disguised as clothing, fashioned into lethel explosives. Cottons, polyesters, and the like," reported the constable. Looked like ordinary shirts and dresses from a strip mall. The response has been swift. Havoc at airports multiplied as passengers were instructed that all forms of apparel, including undergarments, are no longer permitted in passenger compartments.
Possible exceptions may apply for Victoria's secret-style lingerie, but only where sufficiently sexy. Americans have responded resoundingly by sounding a Ruby-red alert. People always vote Republican when they're confused. Fear is their best friend. Passenger responses were mixed. I mean, really!
Saying that "they hate our freedom" seems more presumptuous than saying that their goal is to terrorize people. That's an odd thing to say, IMO. If they want us to change our policies, making ordinary citizens afraid of the consequences of failing to change those policies seems pretty logical. And if their goal is to draw us into a "clash of civilizations," as I believe bin Laden himself intimated, then I'd say overreaction on our part plays into their hands.
Each of us is much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Obviously, we need police checkpoints at every freeway onramp, and many more random checkpoints throughout our cities and towns. Medical emergencies are also a more realistic threat for Americans than terrorism. I'd love to see the same reformist zeal that's currently being applied to air travel applied to public health infrastructure, emergency rooms, and general healthcare Apart from creating terror, they wish to desensitize us so that we are set up for the kill.
For every 10 or incidents in which Muslims deliberately act to arouse suspicion—this is an actual tactic of theirs based on testimony given at a mosque in the south, and the testimony of the terrorizing tactic was approved by the imam as being just as much jihad as killing us—there will be an incident that we cannot afford to dismiss. The thing is, as they continue to play terror games, people become fatigued, businesses lose money, and we either give up on watching them so they can kill us at will, or we demand that they all fly together on Al Jihad Airlines.
Hi Bruce, I have been reading your articles for years now. This one hits the nail right on the head as usual and makes a great point. I think the B Franklin qoute reflects this thought perfectly:. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Maybe you can comment on how the media and government keep on calling this a time of war, yet I seem to recall something in the constitution about congress being the only body that had the power to declare war which they have not done, to my knowledge.
Funny you should say that. As I understand it, British investigators actually obtained warrants for their surveillance, and the US investigators were working within the FISA framework. So the fact that a plot was allegedly broken up actually shows that surveillance that's already allowed under current laws is sufficient for breaking up terrorist plots, and there's no excuse for the kind of illegal surveillance see Judge Taylor's recent ruling the Bush administration is pushing for. The problem is, that's never going to happen so long as the politicians think that this type of high-profile 'action' will get them re-elected and are proved correct.
Sharia law worldwide. Death to homosexuals by stoning, burquas for all females, and madrassas for all children. So, the way to fight back is to try to avoid death, by doing reasonable things such as checking people more carefully when they board airplanes. I travel A LOT. What I see a lot of is people getting pissed off at Muslims and refusing to befriend them, or interact with them.
Certainly they aren't gonna HIRE them, or socialize with them or sympathize with them. Soon, all Muslims will be outcasts, unemployable and friendless outside their Mosques. Who wants to work next to a guy whose religion commands him to KILL people? Why, he could be perfectly normal at work one moment - and then come back from daily prayers where his Imam issued a new fatwa commanding the faithful to slaughter his co-workers.
The only ones being defeated by terrorism are the Muslims. They'll be escorted out of our societies soon because people will eventually come to the conclusion that they are members of an unpredictable death cult who cannot be trusted. It is in fact false that "The kind of surveillance that foiled the terror plot in Britain is not legal in the US, and there is much screaming whenever we try to even come close. The kind of electronic surveillance against specific suspects employed by the UK against the alleged bombers is perfectly legal in the US, and is in fact what the FISA statute is all about.
This is the sort of warrant that the FISA court approves in a heartbeat, that court being more in the nature of a rubber stamp than a gatekeeper. What is not legal is wholesale untargeted sifting through all domestic communications, as enabled by the ATT feed of interstate phone comms to NSA. There is no court supervision of any kind, and in effect it makes a potential suspect of everyone who makes a long-distance call. The Bush administration has gone out of its way to confuse the issues, so that the London investigation appears makes the case for their illegal bulk wiretapping.
But people who wish to think clearly about this stuff should learn to keep the two separate. We don't "want it all", we just don't want to get administered a polygraph every time we make a phone call. Irrelevant personal jibes aside, you should do research before speaking. The purpose of these so-called terrorists is to undermine governments and the structures of society. They use violence as a means to create chaos. People who pursue this kind of agenda are, by definition, anarchists, even if they do not subscribe to the philosophical view of anarchism.
Some definitions for you to take back to your teachers note that the philosophical view of anarchism is only exclusive as the 3rd definition of anarchy on either dictionary. I hope the terrorists keep on using people with dark skin, squinty eyes and wearing turbans to accomplish their dastardly goals. I would hate it if they started using people who look like me, and all of a sudden whites started getting shot at by air marshalls or taken to jail for praying in airplanes or fiddling with their cell phones in flight.
Given all the incidents and their corresponding disproportionate impacts cited in Bruce's article, I think I have a really good strategy for terrorist organizations: stop committing actual terrorism, and just create a series of ultimately harmless disturbances that have nearly the same effect as an act of terrorism. Here's an example: instead of blowing up a plane in flight, just get a dozen or so people of obvious south Asian ethnic appearance to board a flight and "act suspicious.
Or, pay a couple ethnic Arabs to wear odd clothes, speak Arabic in whispered tones, and fidget nervously before boarding their flight. The result is world-wide headlines and a major disruption in airline operations, with the added benefit of putting yet another dent in the confidence level and economies of Westernized societies. Ultimately harmless acts have nearly the same effect as a terrorist act, but with much less risk of reprisal.
In fact, investigators would probably never suspect such things as being initiated by a terrorist organization. As Ben Franklin is often quoted: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I not only agree with your thesis in "Refuse to be Terrorized", I actually go further.
I believe that every single incident you list in your piece is another example of the various governments handing the terrorists a victory. I am not a chemist and my chemistry knowledge ends with high school chemistry. I did not take chemistry in college. Yet, with my basic chemistry knowledge, and plain common sense, I immediately saw numerous holes and contradictions in what the British and American governments were telling us about the recent "scare" in Great Britain.
For starters, highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide is simply not available "over the counter. As David Warren, who was raised in Pakistan, has pointed out, the "center of gravity" of the world's Muslim population is east of Kabul. Malaysia alone has more Muslims than all the Arab countries combined. Thank you. I'm all for security, but when baby formula, basic toiletries and cell phones start being banned from flights, I get nervous about our security infrastructure as a whole. It reminds me of those kids in the nineties who were being expelled from elementary schools for bringing "weapons" microscopic plastic "guns" for their GI-Joe action figures to school.
There's a fine line between common sense and stupidity Or maybe Al Quaeda's cave-dwelling alchemists have trumped every major military lab in the world to create a proprietray blend of lime-flavored explosives out of Gatorade. Clive: you write "The result was that Turkey invaded Northan Cyprus which they occupied to an extent in percentage terms to that of the Turkish population. Since then, some Turks have moved to Cyprus from the Turkish mainland, and the question of just how many they are is disputed, but there's no question that your claim is not correct.
The comments about a binary explosive not working are not accurate. Read this letter from John Carmack both of Id software and Armadillo Aerospace , on his first-hand experience with such chemicals. Why does the word 'liberal' not mean the same thing it meant a hundred years ago? It used to mean almost-anarchist. So in other words if you jumble together popular opinions of what anarchy is, you can get a good objective understanding of it. You've made the fundamental political error of equating government with society. The government, or the State, is not society, it's an exploitative institution built on keeping the gun under the table.
I will make this clear again: You can not be a violent anarchist, because it's anti-thetical. What you are attempting to do is akin to calling a serial killer, a pacifist, and then claiming that pacifists are anti-social. The attempt is to hijack a word. For example, Social Security and Ponzi Scheme are exactly the same thing, but you'll never hear it called the latter.
Conscription and Involuntary Servitude slavery are the same thing, but you'll never hear the latter. Fantastic post. The public's ability to recognize and reject a government's conspiracy of fear-based policy is the surest sign of individual freedom. Weren't cell-phones in the hands of the passengers what kept Flight 93 from reaching a more sensitive target? Perhaps treating people more as citizens rather than subjects and expecing a majority to "deal with a problem" might be more helpful? Issue Bowie knives to every adult passenger?
All right, so that goes a bit far on the other side, but it sure keeps the passengers from feeling like victims. Thank you for the great post. You concisely sum up many of my ideas on the nature of our response to the terrorism threat and it is refreshing to see the media actually printing an article that isn't a "sky-is-falling" fear-based article. Recently as the hysteria gets whipped up more and more by the media and our government, I have started to wonder whether this seemingly misguided response to terrorism isn't actually on purpose.
There is a lot of scientific evidence that anxiety and insecurity are strong control tools as well as strong motivators to shop. Since we live in a consumer-driven economy, is it possible that the "war on terrorism" with its constant press coverage, color-coded threat levels, and "security" measures are all designed to be a motivating factor to drive our economy? Could fear be the flame under the cauldron of our economy?
The point of terrorism is to cause us to give the terrorists what they want because we're terrified and we think that if we give terrorists what they want, the terrorists will leave us alone. In one case, you think that you can defeat these monsters by swaggering your way through an airport security line.
In the other case, you realize that you have no alternative but to kill these blighters It's can't, but what it can be is a great boost to certain segments of the economy: military-industrial complex, and the sub-contractors of those, and all the indirect factors of production that are imputed from 'war' demand. The US economy is going to take a huge nose dive in the not to distant future, expect the government to come up with price controls, rationing schemes, and basically more fascism. Any guesses? You might like this post I put up a while ago I think it speaks to the heart of why we are so motivated to crush terror at all costs, and why we are so easily manipulated by fear.
That is not the case. You people have no idea the threats that we face. No idea. When New York dissappears or when the entire West coast is thrown into total chaos via an emp device, and not 10, but airplanes fall out of the sky, perhaps you will. Whenever I get frustrated with my family or whoever is watching too much TV which guarantees ad revenue by scaring people into watching , I'll just refer them to this essay.
Thanks for saying everything that's in my head and backing it all up. What we will need if something like those things happens is a robust disaster preparedness plan, not a vat of shampoo that couldn't be carried onto a plane. Sure, there are threats. The problem is that demonizing deoderant really isn't going to do much about them.
Bob: "While I feel your comments are correct with respect to the political goals of the terrorist, I think that they downplay the hatred our policies have created in some persons. Liberals believe that hatred was kindled by America, just as America has kindled their hatred. Conservatives believe that Islamist hatred was kindled by Islam.
The conservative view is grounded in history and is well documented while the liberal view is grounded in fantasy and treason. Islam is a religion of hate which propagates a doctrine of hating and destroying non-Muslims. It has made war on non-Muslims most of its history until it was too feeble to do so in the s. It's will to make war in service of religious imperialism has been revived by petrodollars, courtesy of the very infidels it hates and seeks to enslave or destroy. The answer does not lie in tweaking our defenses in airports but rather in taking the war to the doorsteps of the Islamists.
That means ending the sanctuary for terror in Saudi Arabia, which finances two thirds of Islamic terror and actively propagates the most vile form of bloody Islam. The weakest point of the Islamic jihad is its finances. Sever the connection between the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi clergy and most of the terror campaign will whither on the vine. In practice most religions are religions of hate, in that they practice 'us' and 'everybody else'.
Even those that express good will towards 'everbody else', they're still not 'us' and they would be better off if they were 'us'. I doubt if many people who 'know' why terrorists hate us have ever actually considered what the terrorist says. I agree with some commenters here that the old trope about "the point of terrorism is to cause terror" is a bit outdated. Recent history has shown that Islamic militants are fixated specifically on blowing airplanes up. There are many easier and more effective ways to cause "terror", but that doesn't seem to be what these guys want.
They want to express that they have "power", and are a force to be reckoned with. Samuel Huntington put it best: " They need to blow stuff up to be satisfied. I don't experience terror. Don't feel it. Never have. Pure and simple annoyance with every single aspect of flying settled in long before suicide bombers ever became fashionable. Flying coach is enough to turn one misanthropic on a good day. I sent an e-mail to Mr. Schneier and he asked me to put it on this blog. It is included below. What is not in the e-mail, but deserves mention was the remark a teacher and close friend of mine made yesterday: "In everything you hear, substitute 'terrorism' with 'communism' I read your article and was pleased to read a bit of sense.
I can't say you are the first, but you are one of the rare few that seem to still have a sensible mind at the ready when it comes to terrorism. When there is video footage of Castro, holding that day's paper, with his brother and Chavez at het bedside; the woording that goes along with said footage is usually something like "this footage presumably shows Castro's still alive," while the wording regarding the liquid bombing attempt is referred to as the "foiled terrorist attack" where's the note about presumption there?
When I was halfway through highschool, I saw the film "In the Name of the Father" about people wrongfully imprissoned for IRA-bombings they had nothing to do with they were actually never involved with the IRA. It turned out, the movie plot was based on a real story; there really was a Guilford Four, that was captured under the "Prevention of Terrorism Act of x". They were kept without indictment for seven days, in which they were heavily tortured this was only admitted many years later and caved under pressure to sign a blank confession. I had written it off as an isolated incident which was Hollywood-ised.
Especially because they didn't even bother to come up with a new name for the same disproportionally empowering law. Even if I give politicians that use terrorism as an argument the absolute benefit of the slightest doubt i. I don't accuse them of specifically causing fear, or stimulating it I still conclude they use it to find fall-guys. I'm just hoping they're not about to steal 30 years from innocent people again. Anyway - this turned into a bit of a rant, for which I apologise - I wanted to say: keep up the good work.
This article is crap sorry. Terrorism is NOT the goal and never was. Randomly killing people, or randomly terrorizing people is not the agenda. It serves no purpose, acheives no objective and accomplishes no goal. These are definitely NOT tactics used by true terrorists. Now, having said that, terrorism is real what little is actually not being orchestrated by governments. Terrorism is the last resort tactics used by desperate people who have real, true grievances usually. Palestinian suicide bombers are not seeking to engage in terrorism to simply terrorize people - they are seeking to bring a stop the occupation and oppression of Palestine.
This is in almost all case, the goal of terrorists. Hezbollah demanded essentially the same thing - release of thousands of prisoners held by Israel. Yet the media refuses to face the facts and distorts the truth. We're being told that terrorist seek to "terrorize" as if that would actually give the terrorist some sort of benefit. This is not the case. Terrorism can be traced back to grievances, either real or perceived, and who would benefit from engaging in these acts. Terrorist living in caves or hovels or wherever they hang out do NOT have their lives bettered because airline flights are being cancelled.
This is ridiculous, but that is exactly what we are being told to believe. Terrorist engage in terrorist acts because there is something that they want, even the alleged Osama Bin Laden tapes revealed that. So did the so-called kidnapping tapes we've all seen with kidnapped civilians and soldiers. But the hard questions are not being asked while we are being distracted with psuedo-psychology, why are these people willing to engage in terrorist type acts?
What has happened to cause this? I am making NO excuse for their actions, but I'm sick to death of stupid fools who fail to identify the source of these problems repeatedly, and instead would have us to believe the terrorism occurs simply because there are people who enjoy it. This type of illogical thinking is meant to dissuade us from asking the real questions and dealing with the answers we come up with.
Schneier is clueless and utterly fails to identify why desperate people do desperate things. There are reasons why terrorism exist today, but these are questions nobody is willing to address nor answer. I guess not, terrorism only exist and existed by the ones who have no power and are deprived of justice. They attack with carboard cutters, manure bombs, and maybe other household appliances. They aren't in need of money. To bring there acts out with result, they only thing they need is day to day brainwashing.
It is worth saying that government agencies should be busy eliminating terrorist threats quietly. Setups and knockdowns should not be used as publicity opportunities for politicians who had little or nothing to do with the operations of field agents. The Miami setup was a rediculous publicity stunt, and gained the intelligence offices no insight into domestic terrorist operations and wasted resources on students that had no connection to foriegn terrorist groups. A bunch of commenters are saying that my essay ignores that terrorists have a political motivation.
I thought I said as much when I wrote: "The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. I didn't expand on the " Daedala - Of course you are right. Banning hand cream and all other forms of the law enforcement solution, is little more than sticking a few fingers in the dyke. We are in a war not of our choosing with a vile culture that breeds death-worshipping psychotics as a matter of government policy even so-called "friendly" governments. Sometimes this is for religious ends and sometimes not.
What is the solution? I have the impression that most everyone in this forum feels that he is bravely 'speaking truth to power', but Tantor actually succeeds. A solution? Seems like only another government can do that. Can you name me a terrorist organization with the power to tax and inflate in order to pay for such fanciful weaponry? The question is who attacked first? Who's been dicking around in foreign territories creating puppet regimes?http://www.farmersmarketmusic.com/images/from/review-of-austrian-economics-volume-9.php
Any clues? See above. As to the rest - Theo Van Gogh was an American? In what way have you refuted my points, other than asserting a prospective movie plot threat as the reason for despotism, without bothering to explain HOW it can come about. On a more serious notice: I think that the USA will lose the war on terror for economic reasons. Guerillias live cheaply, US soldiers are expensive.
The Iraqi occupation is a drain on the US economy and there are no signs that a victory is near. On the contrary, the insurgents seem to gain terrain.
- Report: Collateral Damage in the War Against Online Harms;
- Vibration in Spark-Blown Closed Quill Tubes Electric Oscillation.
- Democracy Special Collection.
I live in a country where pirates sorry "privateers" like Piet Hein and Witte de With are revered freedom fighters for disrupting the money flow to our opponent. It took money to wage a war in the 16th century and it still takes money nowadays. If your opponent has more sustainable funding, he'll win in the end. Thanks for the quick dose of common sense, Bruce. I must say the only thing I feel terrorized by today is the utter ignorance of huge portions of the American population.
As a country, we have been so self-centered and so self-righteous, we've not even educated ourselves or our children about the rest of the world to any significant depth Hence "our" surprise that there are "others" out there that wouldn't mind inflicting a little of the suffering we've inflicted on others back on us. This sentiment, I'm sure, will get me excoriated by my fellow countrymen in this forum, most of whom are unable to understand, let alone accept, the responsibility America has for the plight it finds itself in.
This reminds me of the London bombings, and the subsequent murder by police of pedestrian Jean Charles de Menezes. Perfect example of the terrorists accomplishing their goals. I wonder when this panic also turns against them. Well, ok, if I must explain. Theo Van Gogh was a Dutch filmaker.
He routinely insulted Christians, Muslims, and Jews, among other. However, only the Islamicists found this to be grounds for multiple gunshot wounds, a slit throat, and bodily mutilation. He was Dutch. He was not an American. Here's another way to look at your contention that because the Islamicists hate us the mostest, we must be baaaaaaad. The Nazis bombed London, but not Paris. I couldn't agree more - there are some sensible people creating and reading this site.
I don't have much to contribute, but just wanted to say how perfectly accurate I felt the piece was. More "sustainable" funding? Terrorists and their sponsoring nations do not produce anything anyone wants, except oil. And dates. Can you splain to me how a. Do the math, fox I had nothing to do with "Ishtar" and besides, collective punishment is wrong. As I keep being told by the PA Your anecdote is so generic, it must work for all cases then. In a brief to response to "lifofliberty", who said terrorism is a tool of people who are desperate.
I think that he is overlooking the religious factor. When ones religion glorifies death and the killing of non-believers, it is not a matter of desperation or occupation or anything else. The perpetrators of terrorism so far are not desperate financially. They just absolutely can't stand the idea of someone who does not follow Islam should be allowed to live in the middle east, or anywhere else. They die for the same reason our people try out for American idol. They want to be heros in the eyes of their fellow Muslims.
Palestinian kids say that they want to grow up to be martyrs and kill Israelis. Kids are not desperate nor occupied. Its the culture of not being able to tolerate non-Muslims.
When they say they attack us because of our "foreign policy", the foreign policy they are talking about is us preventing them from killing Jews. Of course they hate the US, we stand in the way of them creating the holocaust they so so desperatly need to commit to make Allah love them, and for them to be true heros. On the uselessness of racial profiling: the two major bombings in Ben Gurion International were by: 1 a group of Japanese and 2 a tall blond European. Over-reacting and getting terrified is handing the terrorists a victory. So, while not turning blind eyed to basic security measures, the only USEFUL action is to disarm the enemy: not to cave in to irrational fear and look for ways of denying the enemy of recruits by bettering the conditions of the general population various ways and grievances are already mentioned by others in their posts.
Just because you have a minority of bombers who aren't of arab-muslim descent does not mean racial profiling is "useless". I suppose when a nuke goes off in a major US City, you'll stop with the barrage of "cars kill more". But I do like seeing you point that out. I always use the cars and household buckets kill more people than guns ever have argument against gun control advocates.
And I'm sure folks making such an argument would never, ever disagree with me. If we're going just by the numbers of what causes death, airport security and guns use the same argument. Why does Islam hate us? Did you read the article about the objections to a bill in Iran modifying the burden of proof of women facing a death sentence for adultery?
While crusaders against porn and for the record, I'm a porn loving athiest are called the american taliban, we are told to look at why Islam hates us? You want to experience the religion of peace, get out of this rich, decadent vacuum of a country and go live with Sharia. I lived in Saudi Arabia as a child in a US compound. I saw public executions. I saw the "beauty" of sharia in it's treatment of life itself. Rather than set an example for the oppressed people of the middle east, we bomb them, so naturally they will cling to their leaders who will get back at us.
Non-intervention does indeed show your hypocrisy. That would show a fair and rational mind. I have serious issues with Iraq, but it does not render me blind and deaf to the threat of terrorism. Did we bomb Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia. That is where most of the terrorists that aren't home grown are coming from. Unfortunately, there is a small riot in progress here over a side issue. I know it was in Bruce's title, but the core point of the article really has nothing to do with what "terrorists want". That's a red herring, and a source of much disconnected high-temperature chatter, given the relatively broad categories covered by the terms "terrorist" and "want".
The central argument here is the fact that when we over-react hysterically to the comparatively small damage inflicted by terrorists, we inflict far more damage on ourselves, both in petty inconvenience cost and in loss of liberty. It doesn't really matter what they want. It's what we allow them to achieve that is our problem. Unfortunately, the title of this otherwise excellent article is feeding a lot of non-sequiturs.
The article and most comments here have no idea whatsoever what the goals of terror are or how to deal with them. Terror is not about the level of security one passes through in an average day, or while flying for that matter. Terror is not about "giving up essential liberties", or metal detectors at the entrance of public buildings, or purses being checked. All of these are responses to the types of terrorist attacks we have been subjected to, but even that skirts the real issue. Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence to ordinary civilians going about their ordinary life.
Without warning. Without specific meaning or intent. It is intended to send a message to the entire population: "You could be next. You have no control. How do terrorists win? Not by "compromising our idealized freedoms", but rather by preventing the civilian population from living life -- going to work, to school, to the zoo and the museum, to the restaurant and the cafe. It's not our high-minded Utopia of a security-guard free world that the terrorists are threatening -- it's our everyday business. Yes, lifeofliberty, terrorism is a tactic used by "militants" to advance some other goal, and though I completely disagree with the validity of the goals you've mentioned particularly with Hamas and Hezbollah , that's not what makes terrorism such a dirty word and such a reprehensible strategy.
Terrorism targets specifically non-combatants, which is a style of warfare that civilized countries can only condemn. Regardless of the "lofty cause" of various terrorist organizations, ask yourself this: what system of morals would you hold to, in order to achieve your goals? Shneier: Brilliant! Totally agree with what you write. Let's not be 'terrorized'. But, at the same time, let's be aware, be informed having a good degree of skepticism from what we hear in the media , be patient and take a few proactive steps that can increase our personal preparedness - just in case.
Good tips for that in www. A well thought out position in a story that described exactly what is going on in the US today. Thank you for at least telling the truth. Together, with the aid of American media interests, they've been framing Muslims for actions that they have had no involvement in. The aim of this is to turn western public opinion against Muslims and to create plausible rationales for war.
Their hope is, that with enough of this, they will be able to initiate real terror actions rising from the Muslim community. If they are allowed to continue with this evil theater of theirs, they will achieve their goal of causing a flow of genuine reaction from these heretofore overwhelmingly passive peoples. Bruce writes in the article: "The implausible plots and false alarms actually hurt us in TWO ways. There has been enough panicing over imagined wolfs recently that when I heard about the British "liquid bombers" story I immediatly assumed it had little substance.
Something to do with the comparative difficulty of getting tanks and troops en masse over the Channel, maybe? Why do you assume that because the terrorists are wrong, what we're doing is right? Or effective? Because everything you folks keep saying could be true, but it doesn't change the fact that there are effective and ineffective ways to respond to terrorism.
And saying "kill 'em all" isn't really espousing a strategy When you write: " Greene, who in fact is not a chemist, explosives expert or scientist of any kind, but an IT columnist noted for writing sometimes ill-supported polemics. A discussion on this blog has previously pointed out that his essay is riddled with serious errors.
He doesn't bother to provide any references for his claims surely a serious offence for a journalist writing outside his own purview , but the inaccurate description of hydrogen peroxide as a "hair dye" strongly suggests he is using one of the internet teeny bomber guides which includes the same error. He attempts to analyse the plot on the assumption that manufacture of TATP requires intermediate production of "piranha bath". As discussion on this blog has previously pointed out, this is completely wrong and thus, so is the rest of his analysis. It merely discusses TATP without coming to any specific conclusions.
However, it doesn't debunk the idea at all, in fact it does the exact opposite! All of the experts quoted agree that there would be difficulties associated with doing the preparation on an aircraft, but that it is in fact quite plausible and could work! There is currently a wave of conspiracy theory illness infecting the left wing blogger community--an illness, I call it, because it cripples your ability to be seen as a serious alternative by the mainstream community--and one current symptom are the claims that this plan was unworkable which then usually segue into concluding that it was fictitious, as if terrorists couldn't possibly come up with an unworkable plan.
These claims are nonsense; all the genuine experts acknowledged without hesitation that the idea might present difficulties but was workable and some acknowledged it was in fact pretty clever. Several commented how the terrorist plan had apparently considered some of these difficulties and worked around them. One even commented that at present " When you're in a position of authority or responsibility, you have to do everything you can that you believe may assist in preventing people from getting hurt.
Law Journal Library - efibatujaquz.gq
Better to be terrorised than dead. Interesting points and well said, but could you be more specific than "left wing blogger community"? Incidentally, I thought Sepia Mutiny did a nice job reviewing the threat of liquid explosive past and present. Don't know if it counts as part of the community you mention:. Maybe you didn't mean it the way it came out, but on the one hand you tell us to take ideas by the extreme fringe e. Which is it? Isn't the real goal of political terrorism which is what we are really talking about here — not crazies, but people with specific political ends in mind the step that comes after what Bruce is describing here?
Then the terrorists start blowing things up, shooting people, etc. The targeted government naturally takes steps to counter these attacks and to attempt to prevent them. As the fear escalates the government is forced to take larger and more visible efforts to contain the terrorist activity, especially the limiting of freedom and the undertaking of excessive military action. Look at this in the light of what action we in the West are taking right now.
The actions described above by Bruce and others play directly into this tactic as they undermine authority at home, while the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq work even better for the terrorists, undermining authority both at home and abroad. Now the terrorists can point to those wars and show how imperialistic and martial and evil the West is. The actions taken by our governments in the West have both increased the confidence in the Muslim world that those cries of how evil the West are were actually right and undermined our own sense of confidence in our governing officials.
Even a casual overserver can see that America broke its stance on neutrality starting Spanish-American War. Any attempt of the local people to create their own governments were prevented, and puppet regimes setup in place. If that isn't a clear cut case of imperialism, I don't know what is. In any case, Mark, your observation is wrong because the major opinions and the critical ones of such activities come from the US itself mostly universities , and not from the terrorists.
Therefore it amounts to making strawmen from false sources. Some of the finest generals have spilled their guts on the truth behind the matters, when later in life their guilt had finally gotten to them. Are the targets really us? I thought we were just a middleman, and the real targets were the policy-makers at the top.
I think that if the terrorists could kill the policy-makers they would, and since they can't they are trying to kill people who can influence the policy-makers or vote them out of office. Actually, terrorists benefit from the polarization of the electorate caused by terrorism; most clamor for more security and security measures, and encourage overreaction on the part of public safety individuals, which in turn drives the other end of the electorate towards the terrorists.
After being roughed up by the cops, or having their country invaded, certain normally peacable muslims decide they've had enough, and retaliate Last time I checked, you had less of a chance of being a casualty of terrorism than you had from dying of a snakebite. Yet we aren't declaring a war on snakes, even though some apparently found their way onto some planes It seems to me that attacking a third party in order to influence the second is at the root of the disgust with terrorism.
UN resolutions forbid group punishment, and I think the sentiment is the same. Anarchism has a fine scholarly heritage; instead of his list, consider reading Bakunin:. Don't worry, it's a short article and uses small words. After reading it, tell me if you think terrorists read that kind of literature.
I think the problem with both civil-libertarianism and anarchism is that while the intelligent people who discuss it could probably be relied upon to comport themselves without an authority, there are always those elements that would cause trouble, and then we'd have to choose police-like protection agencies, and the most efficient one would end up becoming a monopoly, and then there'd be one "company" who has a monopoly on force Oh yeah, right now, pretty much everywhere. Only I think in a free market the protection agency with the reputation of being the most brutal and the most extoritionate would get the most money, and they would silence their critics, and that's not an improvement.
Not to argue with the premise, but what is your point, besides that the religion of a billion people is bad? What are we supposed to do with that information, from a security standpoint? Should we force people to state their religion before boarding an airplane? Should we target men with Muslim names or brown skin?
What about Richard Reed and Jose Padilla? In other words, if every argument about terrorism security becomes an argument about the drawbacks of Islam, then what are we supposed to do? Convert them all to Christianity at gunpoint? Al quaeda does not want to delay our flights or cause us to miss meetings.
They want to kill us and to make us believe there's always a chance we will be randomly killed while going about our normal business until we force our government to give in to their demands. This is not about inconvenience and silly security policies. Would you fund the most brutal organization? Would you appreciate your neighbor funding a different brutal organization? Why would you fund an organization that was brutal to you?
Wouldn't you switch to a more peaceful one? Wouldn't the nuclear weapons of a peaceful one be just as effective as the brutal one? But let it be said that anything other than a free market can not arise - because you have to FORCE people from engaging in mutual exchange, a tendency of human action you can not ignore other than by academic denial. Socialization of property is exactly a conflict ridden situation that anarcho-communism entails, plus the fact that a reduction in the division of labor will literally starve BILLIONS of people.
Except for the fact that there has never been a free market monopoly, and there can never be any as long as humans disagree, and you can always form your own. Self defense can be quite effective, and costly to your aggressors. But if you think a communal ant-heap lifestyle is suitable for a portion of the population, then by all means go homestead some land and build a property-free community.
I can't believe you all still buy this carp. ALL of our juiceiest targets are largely unguarded. Why don't they just come on over, park a rented fertilizer bomb truck next to Dodger Stadium, then walk across the street and have a nice latte. And just so you know.. Get Real, People.. Wake up before it's too late.. It's their religious duty to deceive us. Tradecraft Term: Deception. Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya pronounced tak-e-ya : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions.
As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives. The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.
According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty. Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy'. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded The definitions you provided in fact defeated your own proposition anyway, despite being largely incorrect due to being a recording of what the popular ie cartoon, media, Government, School teacher use is of the word, not of it's correct meaning.
Note that all the sources I just listed have an absolute vested interest in misrepresenting anarchy, and this is one of the ways that the culture you have apparently been raised in words. Dictionaries that you buy in shops and find on University bookshelves concern themselves with both sides of the story, both the logical meaning of a word imbued by its derivation and historical usage, as well as it's current, transient, popular usage.
But only one is correct. English is a mish-mash of words derived from numerous lingual sources. If you speak it without investigating the original meaning you speak it without understanding, parrot fashion. I can teach a parrot to quote your dictionary definitions, if you had read and understood them, it would be apparent that your thesis is flawed. Almost all of the origin lanuguages from which our pidgin borrows its loan words have a sophisticated underlying, logical structure, which remains in the language we talk, but students in English-speaking schools are taught that this is just a little bit too complicated and nerdy for enyone except the architypal English Professor types to bother with.
Do you see yet what is the problem with these institutions? To summarise the flaw in your thesis: The terrorists are trying to set up an Islamic state in place of our own Government, and yet they are anarchists? Erm, no. If you meant to say you'd like examples of those spreading conspiracy theories, start at Bruce's post "On the Implausibility of the Explosives Plot", look at some of the trackbacks, and go on from there, you can find a number of examples pretty quickly. Many more can be found by googling various combinations of "uk bomb plot", "liquid explosives", "implausible" and "infeasible".
Nor do I, I'm not familiar with it. At first glance, that summary page does look quite reasonable. A nice piece of confusion, Mr. Ottenheimer, constructed by entangling two different meanings of "take seriously", two different types of "extreme fringe", and using "ideas" as a placeholder for two very different things. But I strongly suspect you know exactly what I meant, and arguing semantics has no attractions to me, so I won't try to spell it out. What I am not so sure about is what you were trying to achieve; perhaps you could state it more plainly?
Interesting to note that Ryanair, easyJet and British Airways appears about to sue or claim compensation from the British Govt for causing excessive delays, unless they immediately scale back these new onerous airport procedures. I understand what you mean, and there is also something to say for your ideas.
It is true that despite all threaths there has happened little in the past 5 years. I think that they could do much more damage, by attacking oilrigs, refineries, and water supplies etc which is easier because they are often remotely located, what would be the impact on those ones? Remember "V for Vendetta": it's a way for governements to prove their utility, to remember us why we "need" them Heh, I actually watched it last weekend the second time. I noticed too many things I missed the first time. First time many slipped by but now watching it again right after this UK threat made it Fear helps everybody.
The terrorists get off on it, the government gets to coddle you, the papers sell more, the advertisers get more coverage. Everybody wins. The worst part now is that it just takes one person to raise an alarm. A flight with people can go smoothly, until just one of them gets nervous about the Muslim sitting across from him. Then that guy gets pulled off. Email link to this page Please enter the email address you want to send to for multiple emails, separate with a semicolon : Include a from name as well optional : Notes:.
Set up email alerts When new material for this author is added to HeinOnline When new articles in HeinOnline cite this author's articles When articles are accessed on HeinOnline each month When similar articles are published on this author's works Enter email here use a semicolon to separate multiple email addresses :. Set up email alerts to be notified when this author's articles are cited by new articles added to HeinOnline here use a semicolon to separate multiple email addresses :.
This metric counts the cumulative number of times an author's articles have been accessed by HeinOnline users within a rolling 12 month period. In order to count as accessed, the article must be clicked from either search results or by browsing to the article, or retrieved using the citation navigator. This is an overall ranking based primarily on the five ScholarCheck metrics. Totals for each metric are ranked, and the rankings are factored into a formula to produce the overall ScholarCheck Rank, or ScholarRank, for each author.
This metric counts the cumulative number of times this author has been cited by other articles, then divides this number by this author's total number of articles written, to calculate the average number of citations per article. This metric counts the cumulative number of times this author has been cited by other articles, then divides this number by this author's total number of documents written, to calculate the average number of citations per document. The h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of an author.
The index is based on the set of the author's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. Further information on an h-index can be found here. Similar Author Names.
Related Collateral Damage: How the War on Terror Hurts Charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved