A refreshing, realistic view on terrorism and the so called security theater...

[goldorak]

Well well well it wasn't long ago that I got flamed down in a thread for advocating that Terrorists should be treated as the criminals they are (and such policies have worked really well in western europe where we have had for decades terrorism), instead of being hyped as the coming of the anticrist. And use them as an excuse to curtail our democratic rights.

Bruce Shneier a security expert on CNN writes :

Is aviation security mostly for show?

[cut]

Terrorism is rare, far rarer than many people think. It's rare because very few people want to commit acts of terrorism, and executing a terrorist plot is much harder than television makes it appear.

The best defenses against terrorism are largely invisible: investigation, intelligence, and emergency response. But even these are less effective at keeping us safe than our social and political policies, both at home and abroad. However, our elected leaders don't think this way: They are far more likely to implement security theater against movie-plot threats.

Our current response to terrorism is a form of "magical thinking." It relies on the idea that we can somehow make ourselves safer by protecting against what the terrorists happened to do last time.

They do not include expansive new police or spying laws. Our police don't need any new laws to deal with terrorism; rather, they need apolitical funding.

By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant "bring 'em on" rhetoric. There's a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats.

We should treat terrorists like common criminals and give them all the benefits of true and open justice -- not merely because it demonstrates our indomitability, but because it makes us all safer.

Once a society starts circumventing its own laws, the risks to its future stability are much greater than terrorism.

Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country's way of life; it's only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we're doing the terrorists' job for them.

[cut]

Source : http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/...ter/index.html

[XabbaRus]

It's funny in all the years of the IRA bombing mainland UK there were never the calls for ID cards, phone taps etc like there is now and I would consider the IRA than a bigger threat and Islamic terrorists are now.

The provos were much more capable than any Al-Qaeda type group is now of causing chaos in the UK.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a few hiddens caches of arms in mainland UK that have been forgotten about or lost.

You go, Goldorak!

You are Right On, so by all means, Write On!

[Dowly]

I can change my fontsize too!

[Letum]

AT LEAST HE
DIDN'T USE
CAPITALS AND
BOLD.
o

[Dowly]

[antikristuseke]

I almost expected someone to call it leftist propaganda.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Letum

AT LEAST HE
DIDN'T USE
CAPITALS AND
BOLD.
o

What's wrong with underlining important quotes from the article ?
Not everything has to be written in small caps.

In any case its good to see atleast some people that actually "get" what terrorism is, how to deal with it and the reason the US is going all wrong dealing with this issue.
Too bad that such rational thinking is drowned in a sea of hype and "warmongering attitude as if you could really wage war on a abstract concept". Just remind me, has the war on drugs been won ? After several decades ? No you say. Well thats exactly the situation where the US will be in 50 years. Still heralding the "victory" on the war on terror all the while your freedoms will have been all but eliminated because there is a 0,0000001% probability that a person could perpetrate a crimine oops I meant a terrorist attack.

Just a note, I was apalled listening to NPR radio about how people (or sheeple a better term) are OK with going to the airport 6 fricking hours before a flight because of security measures.
If this doesn't tell you just how ****ed up the whole system is and how the terrorists have already won nothing will.

The US a country of fear induced citizens. You really have to wonder how countries that have had political/ethnical terrorism for decades have manged to survive and go along just fine without trasforming ourselves and our societies into some kind of kafkian bad dream.
Carpenter and other filmakers ironically managed to capture this latent american fear very well decades ago in films such as 1997 escape from new york and another b movie Fortress with Cristophe Lambert.
They dreamed it up, your stupid politicians made it real.

[Skybird]

I think you direct attention to some valid points.

But I disagree a bit on comparing terrorism in totality with crime.

Due to the sheer scale of the attack, I do not see 9/11 as just an act of crime. Nor is the attack in Londown. Or in Madrid. Or several others from earlier times. What you probably mean is that even these attacks are better prevented with good police work and human intelligence operation, infiltration of hostile networks, instead of thinking a missile strike could deal with the issue. and I would agree. I see some occasions where the military should be used, too, but today there is a thinking that military action alone would help to prevent terrorism, and that is foolish. It is just one tool in a toolbox. Before the past decade, the US had severly reduced HUMINT in the Arab-Islamic sphere, and shifted focus to technology solutions, satellites, etc. These things have their purpose, too, they can be of help, even more so in fight with an enemy that incrasinly uses tech soltuions himself. But "TECHINT" was pushed at the cost of HUMINT, and since the Americans had to spend much time in the past decade trying to rebuild an human intelligence capacity again in the region, we know that this shifting focus from HUMINT to TECHINT alone was a mistake.

Also, in case of Islamic terrorism, there you have left the field of ordinary crime for sure, since djihad is a form of ideologically motivated and ideologically excused war.

More hitech at the airport gates, will help battling some symptoms of terrorism, but will not cure the disease. The price for battling these symptoms becomes higher and higher - it is the loss of our freedom and liberties. One has to weigh the one against the other, like you also have to weigh the interest of the many and their legitimitate security concerns, against the individual freedom of the single person - and trying to find a good balance between both that makes reasonable sense in most cases. In most cases - in all cases, that is probably impossible. Total security is only to have at the cost of total control and total loss of freedom. And that then is totalitarianism.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Also, in case of Islamic terrorism, there you have left the field of ordinary crime for sure, since djihad is a form of ideologically motivated and ideologically excused war.

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

But his point, and I can't believe I'm agreeing with Skybird, is that terrorism is not an ordinary crime and terrorists aren't ordinary criminals.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

It's a difference if you hijack and kill a german federal bank president in the 70s, or blow up a bus in northern Ireland for claiming that Ireland is for the Irish, or to to call the police in Spain and tell them that you are about to blow up a building in 30 minutes for you want the Bask proivince to be independent - or if you hijack four planes, kill 3000 in two hours, and implement a network around the globe that is driven by a desire and motivation to cover all the world with Islam and shatter the value system of the West. This is what djihad is about, and it hardly is just "ordinary crime".

The fight against Islamic terror necessarily is a fight against the ideology that motivates it. You cannot avoid to confront Islam over it. You cannot watch a video of 9/11, tell the americans that you feel solidaric with them - and then proclaim that "religion has nothing to do with it". That is insane. Religion is the heart and core of the issue of Islamic terrorism - and very necessarily so. Compared to the ambition behind it, the Italian and German terror waves of the 70s are children's game, they acchieved nothing. 9/11 has changed everything, and Madrid and London. Plus the attempted attacks that got prevented. If it would have been ignored, we would have had many thousands people more being killed by djihad in the West since 9/11.

However, although I feel that Goldorak probably disagrees with me on the above, we both agree on that even this djihad-form of terrorism (which I indeed do not compare to other terrorism we have seen in the past 30 years) cannot be fought with tehcnology and wars exclusively, but that good policework, intel-gathering, infiltration, are key to prevent djihad terror striking with single attacks. There are times for military action, too, but I think these get overestimated, and where carried out, they nevertheless are underperformed.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

I agree completely on this point.

Now answering to Skybird yes terrorists are not simple criminals (in the sense that the former have a political agenda and the acts they perpetrate are but a means to an end not the end in itself whereas the later don't have any kind of political end game in mind), but you cannot as the US has done put on the same level terrorists and a hypothetical "terrorist nation". The means to attack and protect from an agressive nation are completely different than those used to protect our societies from terrorism.
The scale is so different that you cannot do it unless you change the rules of the game and by this fact undermine the foundations of our democratic societies.
I'll take as an example the UK and Italy. 2 countries which have had to contend with terrorism for many years. In the UK the IRA because of the situation in Northern Irleland and in Italy during the 70's because of left wing extremists. In each case there were bombings, tens, hundreds of victims over the years. Legislation was passed that enabled the police to hunt down those extremists and yet we didn't lose our democracy. We didn't become countries of citizens obssesed with terrorism fear or countries in which we advocated the application of torture. In this sense dealing with terrorism is more an extension of police duties then that of an army going to war.
And even so, the resolution of these crisis is always political and never military. That is why the US is going to lose the war on terrorism, they don't understand the nature of this fenomenon and try to use the only method they know, the might of the military industrial complex. Why why don't they learn from countries that have had experience in such matters ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I agree completely on this point.

Now answering to Skybird yes terrorists are not simple criminals (in the sense that the former have a political agenda and the acts they perpetrate are but a means to an end not the end in itself whereas the later don't have any kind of political end game in mind), but you cannot as the US has done put on the same level terrorists and a hypothetical "terrorist nation". The means to attack and protect from an agressive nation are completely different than those used to protect our societies from terrorism.
The scale is so different that you cannot do it unless you change the rules of the game and by this fact undermine the foundations of our democratic societies.
I'll take as an example the UK and Italy. 2 countries which have had to contend with terrorism for many years. In the UK the IRA because of the situation in Northern Irleland and in Italy during the 70's because of left wing extremists. In each case there were bombings, tens, hundreds of victims over the years. Legislation was passed that enabled the police to hunt down those extremists and yet we didn't lose our democracy. We didn't become countries of citizens obssesed with terrorism fear or countries in which we advocated the application of torture. In this sense dealing with terrorism is more an extension of police duties then that of an army going to war.
And even so, the resolution of these crisis is always political and never military. That is why the US is going to lose the war on terrorism, they don't understand the nature of this fenomenon and try to use the only method they know, the might of the military industrial complex. Why why don't they learn from countries that have had experience in such matters ?

Because the terrorism as seen on 9/11 does not compare to that we have seen in germany and italy, or still see in the Bask province. That was my point, goldorak: that djihad adds a new qualitative and quantitative dimension to the game.

On the terror examples you gave, I completely agree with you. Where we disagree is that you do not differ between past examples of terrorism in europe (RAF, ETA etc), and today's djihad and Al Quaeda, while I do. Where then we agree in our disagreeing again is that even djihad for the most (not completely) gets best tackled not by war operations, but solid police work, intelligence infiltration, counter terrorism operations. that can - and miust - include hitech options, but these should not be understood to be capable to replace HUMINT capabilities.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Because the terrorism as seen on 9/11 does not compare to that we have seen in germany and italy, or still see in the Bask province. That was my point, goldorak: that djihad adds a new qualitative and quantitative dimension to the game.

Let me ask you, if the buildings had not collapsed, would you have had a different view on the events of 9/11 ? For me no (and to be honest I was just as emotional as anybody else seeing those towers collapse), but you cannot act emotional when dealing with such matters. Because you loose sight of what is important and what the terrorists want.

On the terror examples you gave, I completely agree with you. Where we disagree is that you do not differ between past examples of terrorism in europe (RAF, ETA etc), and today's djihad and Al Quaeda, while I do. Where then we agree in our disagreeing again is that even djihad for the most (not completely) gets best tackled not by war operations, but solid police work, intelligence infiltration, counter terrorism operations. that can - and miust - include hitech options, but these should not be understood to be capable to replace HUMINT capabilities.

We do not agree because for me there is no difference between basque, or islamic terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. There is no fundamental difference. The acts they perpetrate are done to change what they consider to be a political status quo. We can debate wether making a car explode or putting a bomb in a pub, or cutting the throat of some poor sob is worse or less worse than putting a bomb on a plane, and on an emotional level yes there is a difference (the same difference between someone being hanged and someone being shot, in the end they are still being killed) but the point is that these acts are not done because, they are perpetrated to induce a change in policy. And the terrorists win each and every time we change the rules of your society to respond to this threat. You cannot protect from terrorism and you cannot wage war on terrorism as if it were some kind of well defined nation, it is not possibile.
Those that think the contrary are living in the cloud, or have just smoked a ton load of weed.