Terrorism No More (re: UK Terror Plot Foiled)

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We keep accepting "We haven't had a major attack since then."

This is one of the arguments that has annoyed me more than anything. Between 1993 and 2001 (the two WTC attacks) there were four major terrorist attacks (two of those committed by domestic terrorists).It's not like prior to September 11th we were under constant terrorist attacks every day, so why should it be any surprise that there haven't been any attacks since then?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

This is one of the arguments that has annoyed me more than anything. Between 1993 and 2001 (the two WTC attacks) there were four major terrorist attacks (two of those committed by domestic terrorists).It's not like prior to September 11th we were under constant terrorist attacks every day, so why should it be any surprise that there haven't been any attacks since then?

It's a no win for the government. This entire thing is a no win for the government. There are still some idiots who think Bush knew about the attacks on the WTC and let them happen for political gain and oil.

If there are no new attacks, there have always been times when there hasn't been new attacks, so it means nothing. If there is an attack, the government failed. If they stop an attack right before it started, it's just a fear tactic by the government to scare everyone. If they announce they had information after an attack and didn't share it, they commit a criminal activity.

We can keep running around that circle all day. For the most part, I think we have to say at this point, the government seems to have done a decent job in letting us go on with our daily lives with minimal/no constraint and has stopped at least some major terrorist attacks that were planned. (we'll never know how many they stopped and my guess is we wouldn't want to)

It hasn't been perfect by any stretch, but they've been doing something right.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

It is interesting that you bring up the accident analogy, since people who advocate that terrorism should be ignored also bring up the same analogy.

For the general population, people should more or less feel free to ignore the threat, it is just too small to care about. For governments, I do think a middle ground investment in security is in order--governments should spend resources on security but not overspend, I think that a greater investment in the intelligence infrastructure (especially HumInt) seems more wise. I'm not sure heavy spending on public security really pays out in terms of foiling an actual terrorist attack.

With the general public, I'm with you. With the government I think you are probably wrong in most of your assessment.

I don't think you can put a price on intelligence. Some of our failures in that regard have caused some really poor decisions to be made.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by TroyF

With the government I think you are probably wrong in most of your assessment.

I don't think you can put a price on intelligence. Some of our failures in that regard have caused some really poor decisions to be made.

I'm actually making a distinction between intelligence and security here. If I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying that more money should be spent on intelligence. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and that's what I was saying.

As molson pointed out - most successes in foiling terrorist plots were due to intelligence

As you pointed out - most failures in foiling terrorist plots were due to intelligence failures

Thus, when allocating scarce resources, building intelligence capability should take precedence over beefing up security

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's a no win for the government. This entire thing is a no win for the government. There are still some idiots who think Bush knew about the attacks on the WTC and let them happen for political gain and oil.

If there are no new attacks, there have always been times when there hasn't been new attacks, so it means nothing. If there is an attack, the government failed. If they stop an attack right before it started, it's just a fear tactic by the government to scare everyone. If they announce they had information after an attack and didn't share it, they commit a criminal activity.

We can keep running around that circle all day. For the most part, I think we have to say at this point, the government seems to have done a decent job in letting us go on with our daily lives with minimal/no constraint and has stopped at least some major terrorist attacks that were planned. (we'll never know how many they stopped and my guess is we wouldn't want to)

It hasn't been perfect by any stretch, but they've been doing something right.

I agree that it's a no-win for the government. And I don't blame the current administration for September 11th (or the previous admin, either).

My point was that I have a problem with people who say "We haven't had an attack since then, so Bush and company must be right." It's not that cut and dry. And since terrorist attacks worldwide have been increasing since 2001, one could argue that the current methods are not working.

The truth is, we don't know why there haven't been any attacks on US soil. Are the terrorists just regrouping? Has security improved so much that we've ferreted out attacks before they happened? In order to know this, we would have to know how many attacks were prevented prior to 2001 and how many after. I'm sure someone somewhere knows the answer, but they're not going to tell us (and I don't have a problem with that).

[Noddadropp]

I have a rock in my possession that prevents bear attacks. As long as I've owned this rock no bear has EVER attacked me.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Noddadropp

I have a rock in my possession that prevents bear attacks. As long as I've owned this rock no bear has EVER attacked me.

can i have it?

[Noddadropp]

Do you have something that prevents shark attacks, because I'm heading to the Pacific soon and I'm freaked out.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I believe I do but I believe that the deaths of up to 5,000 people is higher on the damage list than the disruption that has been caused. Are you saying the security authorities should have allowed the plot to go ahead so that there was no disruption?

Originally Posted by TroyF

Kling,

Let em be a little disruptive when the score ends up reading

24 terrorists in jail
0 civilians slaughtered by terrorists.

Yeah, they are annoying and a pest. But if they think "winning" is dealying some flights and forcing me to use the hotels shampoo, I'll let them have their fun.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...2&postcount=49

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Noddadropp

I have a rock in my possession that prevents bear attacks. As long as I've owned this rock no bear has EVER attacked me.

(I was actually thinking of that scene when making the original post)

SI

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm actually making a distinction between intelligence and security here. If I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying that more money should be spent on intelligence. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and that's what I was saying.

As molson pointed out - most successes in foiling terrorist plots were due to intelligence

As you pointed out - most failures in foiling terrorist plots were due to intelligence failures

Thus, when allocating scarce resources, building intelligence capability should take precedence over beefing up security

I think this is obvious. The trouble is that intelligence is really, really hard to develop. It's not always a $$$ problem.