Have the Terrorists won?

[glg]

In Y2K, while dodging the so-called Millenium bug, (the one that never happened...) we were able to travel freely and with a few not-so-intrusive security checks.

Six years later, and we can't even carry a bottle of juice or water on the plane with us.

A woman emailed Art Bell to ask if she could take her bra with the gel implants in them on the flight... he could not come up with any kind of response...

(Now there's an "Ask Grandstander" question! ;D )

Detroit's Metro Airport was partially shut down after a would-be passenger proclaimed that he had infected everyone with a noxious substance.

A Canadian airliner was diverted because of a strange looking, unclaimed bag in it's cargo hold (probably someone's lost luggage...)

Has the threat of terrorism made us so paranoid that we're over-board with precautions? Will the delays with extra security eventually negate the advantage flying currently has on any other mode of travel?

When do we stop being so scared and choose to move on with our lives?

[1perry]

Things go on. Use to be you could drive your car without ever encountering a stop light. Just because stop lights now slow us down doesn't mean we lost our freedom of the road, it just means things moved on.

When we quit going forward, then perhaps the question might be asked.

[broadwayjoe2]

People are going to have to sacrifice in order to keep everyone safe. At this point it seems like the public is being asked to sacrifice their time and creature comforts. Those are things I am willing to live with. I expect that the usual whiners will be out saying how terrible it was for them to be put out because they couldn't take their bottle of champagne on the plane with them for their cousins wedding. Frankly though....I could care less.

As time goes by these measures won't seem so extreme.

[larry]

When I'm putting my face to the ground five times daily and my wife is covered from head to toe they've won.

[Nighthawk]

What larry said.

[noetsi]

Terrorist have not won, our fear has won. FDR was quite correct that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, but he likely underestimated just how powerful unreasoning panic was. The terrorist of the world have limited actual capacity to harm the US, particularly in the continental US. They are lightly armed, have little planning generally or leadership, and at best limited technological or financial acumen.

Their strenth is, their potential to do harm (infinitely greater than the damage they will ever do) and our unfortunate habit of overemphasising their strength. Virtually all the imapct they have had since 9/11 has been due not to their actual behavior, but our own excessive reaction, tied to unreasoning fear of them. We have done forterrorist what they on their own could never do themselves (including greatly increase their status in the eyes of Muslims by our anti-terrorist campaigns most obviously in Iraq).

Its an ironic reminder of the bitter comment by one South Vietnamese officer (after watching the US level much of Saigon in reaction to lightly armed VC incursions) that "...the enemy has no air power or artillery, so he uses ours" Terrorists have used the power of the US state to achieve results far beyond their actualy ability or likely immagination.

Rarely in history has a group with such limited actual capacity or action had such a dramatic effect, and its our overreaction that has caused this. If we ignored them, their impact would be much less, dramatically so. Cars killed far more Americans last year in the US than terrorist ever have or likely ever will. Heck bees killed more Americans than terrorist have in all but a few years. If we followed the logic of the post-9/11 US policy we would wage a major campaign against both of these, and suffer equally serious forfeits. But we are more rational in our reaction to them then we have been to terrorist.

The way to defeat terrorist is simple. Quit being afraid of them. They will, like cars, kill some Americans. But they wont do us serious harm unless we continue to panic. Of all Bush's blunders none has been as short sighted as the vast exaggeration of his war on terrorism, a war against a largely imaginary foe, so much so that we had to invade a country almost free of terrorists, because we could not find anyone to fight (which ironically led to far more terrorists and sympathy for them, even so few we are fighting there are terrorists, they simply want us to get out of their country).

With a few million dollars access to the internet and 10 good old boys I could do significant harm in the name of the Sons of the Confederacy. That would not make such a movement powerful or even dangerous if the US government failed to panic at the results and calmly got rid of it. What is utterly lacking in the US these days, is any calm reasoned consideration of the reality of actual terrorists, and the extent to which our reaction to their threat is actualy benefiting the country. At vast cost we have not only made our selves less safe from terrorists, our anti-terrorist policies have infuriated much of the world (who are far more dangerous than terrorists) and generated serious negative side effects in the US, none the less of which is a serious weakening of legislative democracy and constitutional rights.

It would be a grim irony if our reaction to terrorists united the world against us while destroying democratic freedoms. But that is far more likely than that terrorists would significantly harm the US.

[1perry]

I've not seen any panic.

[glg]

noetsi said:

Terrorist have not won, our fear has won.

Yes. And wasn't it they who tapped into that?

[glg]

1perry said:

I've not seen any panic.

Perhaps that's because you've chosen not to.

[bedirthanaverage]

Speaking of limited capacity how 'bout those tens of thousands dead in Iraq, the thousands in Afghanistan, the hundreds in Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, Britain, Spain, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Russia etc.

If one were to compare death totals from Islamist terror to those of the US military, and other militaries, the totals would be quite close.

Ineffective, only if you aren't paying attention.

[noetsi]

The panic is the vast war against terrorism which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of US lives (who knows how many foreign lives), generated a tremendous backlash against the US abroad and so consumed the Bush administration that aside from tax cuts most of its policies (like education reform) have all but vanished.

All over a minor threat. The war against terrorism lies largely in our imagination.

[bedirthanaverage]

as I said, only if you refuse to think that people in general should be allowed to live, regardless of nationality.

[noetsi]

The people we supposedly helping are being killed in large numbers by us. As a result they hate our guts (nearly half of all Iraqis believe attacs against the US are justified, if you only consider Sunni and Shiite views its far higher). We have gone from the most respected and loved nation a few years ago to the most hated and feared including in traditional allies particular at the public level.

Our war has helped generate a lot of terrorist and devestate Iraq which is worse off economically and in terms of security than in 03. Other than that no one has benefited, which is why anger is so high abroad against us.

[bedirthanaverage]

Can you provide a link that the USA was "the most respected and loved nation" at any time in the Arab world?

[noetsi]

I posted several on the old fanhome.) Look at PEW Center research that measures which nations are the most and least liked/respected in 01 and now. The results have been so bleak that last year the Pew Center did a special book on why they were that way. Other polls that look at international opinion have found similiar results.

[noetsi]

The basic error of the Bush administration has been in thinking it could win a war of ideas with AC-130's and Bradley IFV's. It has, according to even very conservative sources like the US News, almost entirely ignored communication efforts - initiatives like RFE that were the hall mark of the Cold War. And its war in Iraq has generated vast support for Islamic terrorism it never had before, much as the crusades did in the 11th and 12th century.

While British investigators have revealed a trans-Atlantic plot to blow up as many as 12 US-bound planes, their case against British and Pakistani suspects also reveals that the West's war on terror is attracting more and more young Muslims to militant circles, say terrorism experts.

The US-led Iraq war and American support for Israel's bombardment of Lebanon are serving to fertilize anger in segments of the Muslim world. And, they say, this means that Al Qaeda may no longer be the primary enemy, but that disparate groups of young radicals who are imitating their tactics are emerging as equally potent threats.

You can't win such a war with violence as your sole technique, but it will take a new administration to realize that. We have one arrow in are anti-terrorist arsenal, conventional force (supported by CIA covert ops which don't vary much in practice or impact).

Instead, they say, satellite TV and the Internet have spread Al Qaeda's message across the globe, allowing admirers and imitators of the group to set up operations on their own.

For instance, young Arab and sometimes European Muslims have streamed into Iraq, seeking the perceived glory of becoming suicide bombers without being under command. The July 7, 2005, train attacks in London were carried by mostly British Muslims with no demonstrated ties to Al Qaeda.

Were running out of time to seek some form of engagement with the Islamic community. Killing them only generates more jihadist. The soviets killed millions in the eighties without any type of restraint on their operations - and more came.

A good start would be to shut down the Weekly Standard who's constant reference to IslamicFascists is exactly the type of problem we face in our "war". A better one would take 20 percent of the money wasted on military operations in Iraq and spend it on communication, economic development, and cultural efforts in Islamic countries.

The open-ended nature of this war, and feelings of public vulnerability generated by reports of plans like the one emanating from London, are creating great skepticism among US allies about the effectiveness of its tactics.

The populations of America's Arab allies, like Egypt and Jordan, are largely against US foreign policy and more inclined to blame America for the violence in the region than the terrorists who carry out attacks.

The article includes people who disagree that operations in Iraq or Lebanon influence Islamic opinion.

www.csmonitor.com/2006/0818/p01s04-woeu.html

[napperx]

Israel, U.S, Turkey, several Islamic Militant groups are the terrorists. Terrorists don't win, it's innocent Civilians that lose.

[noetsi]

Terrorism is actually a tactic not a group. One of the clear signs the administration knows and cares little about the realities of terrorism is its constant treatment of Islamic fundamentalist who engage in terrorism as terrorists - as if somehow that rather than their fundamentalism defines them. It reflects a basic lack of understanding of fundamentalism and the Middle East that has caused many of our problems.

[noetsi]

Critical resouces are being shifted to fight the war on terrorism leaving fewer for more mundane, but arguably more important threats like fighting crime. We saw this already with the sluggish reaction to Katrina. So many resources had been transfered from hurricane operations, that there was no way to deal with a major disaster in the US. The same is occuring with the FBI - the war on terrorism (in which few incidents will occur but the ones that do occur could be serve) has displaced the war on crime - with far more but less critical incidents.

The result will be good day for criminals or a better day anyhow.

Barron's transitional experience is widely shared throughout the agency. More than 2,000 agents — or 15% of the total workforce — have been switched from traditional crime-fighting jobs to terrorism-tracking positions over the last five years. Whole areas of enforcement — including pursuit of the sort of narcotics operatives that Barron handled in the 1990s — have been largely abandoned or left to other agencies.

Other angencies lack the resources to pick them up.

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fbi20aug20,1,7597862.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[brode]

There's an interesting distinction I've noticed. Among certain groups, the belief is that if you increase gun control, you're only going to hurt innocent citizens, as the criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what. And yet, among many groups, the belief is that the more civil liberties you remove, the more you are going to help innocent citizens, and the less likely terrorists will succeed in instilling fear into our people. One of these obviously isn't true.

While ascribing to the policy that the terrorists will find ways to kill us anyway is certainly not the solace we should take out of this, we do have to realize some things. Terrorists know that uncommon results are by far the most shocking. Co-ordinated, near-perfect attacks strike fear into the hearts of the average American. These murderers are capable of creating this unbelievable attack, and we can't plan a working carpool. That's the entire reason for planning a co-ordinated attack; the illusion of supremacy. Uncommon results provoke uncommon fear.

Now, let's say it's several years later. We have closed off our society as much as the people will allow. Every person is extra-vigilant and watching his neighbour, and we have erected a collossus called Homeland Security. In an interesting development, every failure of our foreign war is played off as a success, and every capture of terrorists is expressed not as a success, but as a chilling reminder that our lives stand at the edge of a knife, and only loyal allegiance to Homeland Security's benevolence will keep us in health and home. Legislative and judicial branches, both of which are based solely on trust in reason are downplayed, and publically whipped by the stooges of the executive branch, which now has more power than any since the Great Depression and the Second World War. America is now not ruled by reason, but by the brutal whim of two bodies, the executive and Homeland Security, who have the baffling ability to raise the almost undeniably arbitrary 'terror level' all the way to 11, and coincidentally declare national emergency, veto legislative moves and, for all intensive purposes, declare itself Caesar.

How do we fix this? I don't know. But I doubt voting for the bloody Democrats is going to help. The parties themselves resemble giants from a Godzilla movie, their firm bases stepping on moderate civilians and knocking over Tokyo Tower in their never-ending battle to merely survive the other. In a warzone, the hero is the guy who does what is right, not the two assholes who are concerned with their own self-preservation.

[noetsi]

The democratic party believes in nothing but getting elected and is probably the most gutless party in modern Western history. As a result its pretty much divided on everything including terrorism. Seeing it as an anti-war party is a joke, many of its members support the war as strongly as Bush. A common refrain of the party is "we believe in X (like the war) but we think its being implemented poorly." Which of course flows from not believing in anything and not having the courage god gave a possum.

The parallel with the fictional Star Wars universe is, sort of, amusing. In defense of fighting a war, against a greatly overstated external threat, the administration has concentrated ever more power in the executive while stripping away critical civial rights and engaged in serve abuses including widespread torture by its security forces.