|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 12:06:22 GMT -5
"The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster." --- Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's Prime Minister-elect news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512144.stmSpain was what, our second-biggest ally in the coalition, after Britain? Tsk. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 15, 2004 12:29:33 GMT -5
Score one for the terrorists!  |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 12:31:25 GMT -5
Score one for the terrorists! How long did you really think it would last?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 15, 2004 12:54:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand your question but I do know that terrorism will not be contained with world wide Clintonesque appeasement. www.muhajiroun.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 14:30:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand your question but I do know that terrorism will not be contained with world wide Clintonesque appeasement.
The question is straightforward.
Think of terrorism as a predatory activity, for a moment. (You'd agree that's an apt analogy, wouldn't you?) Hang with me for a minute on this one: biology is my strong suit:
There are two basic types of predatory strategies in the animal world: that used by active stalker/hunters (wolves, cats, etc.), and that used by wait-and-strike (or hide-and-pounce) creatures (snakes, web-weaving spiders, crocodiles, etc.)
The energy requirements for the two types are strikingly different (though intuitively obvious): creatures that actively hunt use, on average, 10 to 20 times as much energy to obtain what they need to survive as creatures that hide-and-pounce. Therefore the drain on a hunting creature's energy reserves are tremendous, and the drain on the other is minimal.
This set-up translates in very straightforward fashion to situations surrounding terrorism.
Terrorists are classic hide-and-pounce strategists: they strike targets of opportunity, and they're not picky about what they hit as a second choice if they miss the primary goal. The very fact that they can exist and operate effectively in tiny semi-autonomous cells shows that their "energy requirements" are very low; they disappear into the background of society when the heat is on, and melt back together again as soon as things cool down, with no penalty except that of opportunities lost during the period when things were too hot to operate safely.
But for a terrorist, opportunities come and go with every passing minute - theirs is a "target-rich environment" from moment to moment because they're so opportunistic.
On the other hand, efforts to stop terrorists require the parties involved to be stalker/hunters who must actively pursue their quarry. Accordingly, the drain on the pursuers' energy resources is much, much higher.
Think of it as an object lesson in natural economics: terrorists can literally afford to sit and do nothing until a perfect opportunity to strike arises. Yet the vigilance needed to guard against acts of terrorism requires that the guarding nation must maintain a continuous drain on its resources whether anything potentially threatening is happening or not.
Economically, the mere threat of terrorism racks up big costs in terms of anti-terrorist measures. People who perform jobs like security positions at airports may themselves be making money for doing what they do, but because they produce nothing of tangible value (the way a manufacturing job does) their mere employment represents a drain on the overall vitality of an economy: so guarding against terrorism results unavoidably in a net loss to an economy even if the terrorists themselves are doing nothing at all. And in that sense the terrorists are always winning, MO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Larrikin on Mar 15, 2004 15:29:47 GMT -5
I think Australia is. As for Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s new Prime Minister, he is a Socialist. He’s against the war in Iraq. So what? Kerry is a Democrat. He’s against the war in Iraq. Does this mean that if Kerry is elected President, we should assume the US is Spain? What is your point?
I’m hanging. This should be cute.
Actually they are extremely picky. As their resources are small, they plot their attacks very carefully, sometimes over months. When they do miss their target, they are extremely upset and sometimes heads roll for the mistake. When the Coalition launch a million dollar missile, and it misses, we shrug it off as a statistic. When terrorists waste a hundred bucks on a home made bomb that misses its target, they wring their hands over it for weeks. You’ve seen those guys praying to Allah, bending down with their heads on the ground? They’re actually licking up grains of gunpowder to use in their next precious attack.
Since their targets are limited by their budget, and by the tight security watching out for them, theirs is not a target rich environment at all. Many people walk past them yes, but they can’t touch most of them for lack of resources, and because they would be caught. Terrorists have precious few opportunities, and precious few dollars – and consequently, few real targets. The Coalition on the other hand has tens of thousands of targets; each and every known terrorist. They bug their phones; examine their bank accounts, watch their daily activities, and target them with weaponry when necessary.
Not at all. Often the Coalition let the prey (terrorists) come to them. Airport officials, for instance, lay in wait, ready to pounce on any hapless terrorist straying into the trap. The same applies to many other buildings, roads and facilities in the West. Terrorists sweat bucket loads of sweat each day worrying about walking into a trap of that kind. They look up fearfully, wondering if the Coalition is watching them from the sky, silent, watching, and ready to pounce. They squint out into the darkness, wondering if the Coalition is watching them with night vision goggles, silently, ready to pounce.
Terrorists put a lot of time and work into each strategy they plan. They can’t afford to sit around doing nothing. They have very little in terms of money, very little manpower, and they are burdened with tremendous risk. They must be on constant watch, as they move around, so that they are not pounced upon by Coalition forces.
Guarding and taking action against terrorism protects us from it, and prevents the spread of this blight upon humanity. In turn, this keeps our economy intact, our standards of living high, and our people safe.
The terrorists are losing, just as you are, with your corny ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 15, 2004 18:03:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 19:16:37 GMT -5
I think Australia is. As for Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s new Prime Minister, he is a Socialist. He’s against the war in Iraq. So what? Kerry is a Democrat. He’s against the war in Iraq. Does this mean that if Kerry is elected President, we should assume the US is Spain? What is your point?
That the crumbling of the coalition is inevitable. Nothing more.
Actually they are extremely picky.
Are they? I never thought of a truck loaded with high explosives as a "precision instrument" before. Explain how that works.
As their resources are small, they plot their attacks very carefully, sometimes over months.
During which time they are doing nothing overt that would identify what they're planning: casing a building or facility to make maps, observing worker shift-changes, watching for regular security lapses or holes, noting the positions of any cameras, plotting an escape route or three, developing contingency plans; gathering the items that will be used in the attack itself from a variety of unrelated and widely-scattered sources, making sure that as much as possible of what's used is very easily obtained by anyone anywhere. ...Yes, that all is lumped into the "wait-" or "hide-" part of the strategy.
When they do miss their target, they are extremely upset and sometimes heads roll for the mistake.
Do they? I wasn't aware you had such close knowledge of the internal relationships between members of terrorist cells. How'd you come by it? Myself, if I were a terrorist, I'd be much cooler about successes and failures: a success is a step forward for 'The Cause" (whatever it might be), no big deal though; a failure is simply a missed opportunity in a universe overflowing with further opportunities. As long as failure didn't result in the loss of cell-members, or of great stores of accumulated materiel, or of vital information, I'd be extremely equanimous over failure. As noted, terrorists exist in a target-rich environment since literally every person or structure they see is a potential bulls-eye. Some bulls-eyes offer more political impact than others, sure; but one works within one's means, y'know?
When the Coalition launch a million dollar missile, and it misses, we shrug it off as a statistic. When terrorists waste a hundred bucks on a home made bomb that misses its target, they wring their hands over it for weeks.
You seem to forget how extremely well-funded organizations like al Qaeda and Hizbollah really are, with quite literally tens of millions of dollars stashed in innocent-seeming bank accounts around the world. Osama, by himself, could fund al Qaeda out of his own pocket, probably for the next 10 years: he's a scion of the family that owns the largest construction corporation in Sa'udi Arabia. I'm pretty sure his personal wealth is still largely intact, under dozens of different names, in dozens of secured bank accounts. If push comes to shove, I'm pretty sure the members of the better-organized terrorist groups have ready access to as much cash as they need for any approved operation. (Besides - don't you know that it's just good military planning to over-estimate the capabilities of your enemy rather than underestimate them? You face far fewer unpleasant shocks that way.)
You’ve seen those guys praying to Allah, bending down with their heads on the ground? They’re actually licking up grains of gunpowder to use in their next precious attack.
Last night, while playing chess on-line, I had the chance to chat at some length to one of "those guys praying to Allah, bending down with their heads on the ground." He was an Iranian of Iraqi heritage, attending college in Toronto where he's taking international studies, specializing in Central American and Middle Eastern cultures (interesting mix, wouldn't you say?): a very articulate man, with well-developed thoughts about the current situation in the Middle East. (If you're interested in the sorts of things he actually had to say I'd be glad to put them on the table - but not just so you can ridicule them.) In fact, I've plumbed the attitudes of dozens of Arabs while playing chess on-line. Some of them have been hairy-eyed bomb-throwers (who knows ...maybe literally?), and most of them have been comparable to the student with whom I chatted last night. They are all extremely sensitive about depictions such as yours above. I can't say I blame them. It's revolting.
Since their targets are limited by their budget, and by the tight security watching out for them, theirs is not a target rich environment at all.
That depends entirely on what sort of risk they're willing to accept. If you're talking about the sorts of religious fanatics that make up the shock troops of al Qaeda and Hizbollah, you're talking about people who are perfectly willing to strap 50 or 60 pounds of C-4 to their bodies, walk into the middle of a the biggest crowd they can find, and set off the charge. Oh yes, Rob, unfortunately the world is a VERY target-rich environment for any terrorist committed to his Cause.
Over at LNF I outlined the scenario that scares me the most: a terrorist willing to deliberately infect himself with Ebola or Marburg or Lhassa Fever, who then simply spends his last remaining days making the circuit around New York City's airports, riding the subway at rush hour, and threading his way through the crowds of tourists at the WTC site, the Empire State Building, and in Times Square ...infecting everyone he touches. And simultaneously there's another terrorist doing the same thing in Chicago. And another in Washington D.C.. And another in Philadelphia. And another in Atlanta. And another in Los Angeles. And another in Seattle. And another in Dallas. And another in San Francisco. And another in San Diego. And another in Houston. And another in Pittsburgh. ...How many is that? Twelve? ...And how many Americans (just Americans! Remember the circuits around each citys' airports!) would die because those 12 committed fanatics were willing to sacrifice themselves for "The Cause?" I figure, given that Ebola kills 90 to 95 per cent of its victims, and spreads geometrically, we'd be looking at somewhere between 10 to 100 million dead Americans alone. Twelve men, Rob. ...Tell me again how it's not a target-rich environment for terrorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 19:16:50 GMT -5
Many people walk past them yes, but they can’t touch most of them for lack of resources, and because they would be caught. Terrorists have precious few opportunities, and precious few dollars – and consequently, few real targets.
A few handsful of raw sewage dropped into a small city's water supply could create chaos for several days to several weeks.
You know what people in this country really hate? Not the idea of being blown up by terrorist bombs; they hate the thought that their basic services might go off-line for even a few hours. Lights. Telephone. Water.
What would happen if someone dumped sugar into the gas tanks of all the garbage trucks in a decent-sized city? Garbage services screech to a halt for days, and garbage piles up. That's minor, but Americans, as pampered as we are, hate inconvenience.
What about called-in bomb threats, made from public phones? There's no bomb, really; but the authorities must act like there's one each and every time. Picture several bomb threats being called in every day, with the "targets" being high-rise office buildings, in a city like Chicago. And each time the "bomb" is said to be set to go off within an hour of the call. That means the authorities have to evacuate the building completely, then search, then give an all-clear. And this happens several times a day, every day, at office buildings all over the city ...in cities all over the country.
Wooden power-line poles on the outskirts of a town could be sawed through in seconds using a chainsaw; two or three in a row might take a couple minutes, including travel time by car. And how long would power and phone be out to a given area - several hours at least? Now make it happen a couple times a week or even each month, in small to middling towns all across the country. Inconvenient, that: Americans hate inconvenience.
No one can get any work accomplished without wondering when the next major interruption will take place; no one can go to anything like a sporting event without wondering if the stadium or park will have to be suddenly emptied because a bomb threat was called in. No one will know from day to day if the garbage will be picked up. Lights? I wonder if they'll work today? Drinking water? Nope, still gotta boil it to drink it. ...How long before things like that drive everyone crazy?
In short, every ounce of enjoyment would quickly leak out of our lives - all at the cost of a few quarters for phone calls, a few pounds of sugar, a few handsful of crap, and a chainsaw and a couple gallons of gas.
Terrorism doesn't have to bring down skyscrapers, Rob. It can be happy as a clam just making sure you have to boil all your drinking water while you watch your trash pile up at the curb. Terrorism giggles to itself while you're standing on the sidewalk in the rain, waiting for the cops to finish searching your office building for a bomb that doesn't exist.
...And just often enough to keep everyone guessing, the "bomb" in the office building is a real one.
The Coalition on the other hand has tens of thousands of targets; each and every known terrorist.
Can't arrest or shoot what you can't find.
They bug their phones; examine their bank accounts, watch their daily activities, and target them with weaponry when necessary.
And, years later, we still haven't found the world's most notorious and wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.
Not at all. Often the Coalition let the prey (terrorists) come to them. Airport officials, for instance, lay in wait, ready to pounce on any hapless terrorist straying into the trap.
Darwinism at work: the stupid ones get caught, leaving the smart ones to teach the next generation to be smarter than their stupid predecessors. ...I love the efficiency of natural laws in action, don't you?
The same applies to many other buildings, roads and facilities in the West. Terrorists sweat bucket loads of sweat each day worrying about walking into a trap of that kind. They look up fearfully, wondering if the Coalition is watching them from the sky, silent, watching, and ready to pounce. They squint out into the darkness, wondering if the Coalition is watching them with night vision goggles, silently, ready to pounce.
The Coalition "pounces" only after first expending massive amounts of time, manpower and money to get in place for a pounce; and they have to do that for each and every "pounce." The usual take is a few bodies - two, three, four terrorists, usually dead. How many people were killed in Spain a week ago? About 200, wasn't it? Nothing sophisticated about the bomb, from what I've heard so far; just canny placement to ensure maximum effect. Could have been the work of as few as one or two men. Pretty good return, wouldn't you say, if you take the terrorist's point of view for a second.
Terrorists put a lot of time and work into each strategy they plan.
During which time they are in "hide" mode.
They can’t afford to sit around doing nothing.
They don't. The terrorists who took over the airliners flown on 9/11 were all taking flight lessons, for example. Lots of people take flight lessons; lots of people love to fly. Maybe even terrorists ...just love to fly, some of them. And so they take flight lessons. And then, 10 years later, they're tapped to do something for "The Cause" with their flying experience... There are tons of everyday skills that ordinary people take lessons for in their spare time, that could potentially be turned toward terrorist purposes. Square dancing, for example. No, you're not going to "allaman-left" someone to death; but you might meet people who you might talk to, who just might turn out to be or know someone who just might be able to tell you or show you something you could end up using later to kill people in the name of "The Cause." A good terrorist is like a good martial artist: anything, everything, has the potential to be turned into a weapon.
They have very little in terms of money, very little manpower, and they are burdened with tremendous risk.
All of which, it must be noted, even if true, they have gladly accepted. What you may call hardship they may call "challenging."
They must be on constant watch, as they move around, so that they are not pounced upon by Coalition forces.
Only if they've been identified. Please. Are you going to tell me we have pictures of every terrorist in the world? Of course we don't. But let me tell you, every unknown terrorist is worth 50 of any known terrorist, because they move and act with complete freedom and anonymity.
Guarding and taking action against terrorism protects us from it, and prevents the spread of this blight upon humanity. In turn, this keeps our economy intact, our standards of living high, and our people safe.
Taken right from the pages of the Homeland Security Playbook. How stirring.
Hopefully I've given you a little more to think about than the sort of mealy pollyanna platitudes you get from the posters on your bedroom wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 19:18:17 GMT -5
 Gee, MO - I hardly recognized you, with your head in the sand like that.... |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 15, 2004 21:38:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 15, 2004 22:03:09 GMT -5
 Still with the head in the sand, I see. ...Do you honestly think that smarmy, pat, shallow bumper-sticker slogans are helpful to the discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Mar 15, 2004 22:34:20 GMT -5
Still with the head in the sand, I see. ...Do you honestly think that smarmy, pat, shallow bumper-sticker slogans are helpful to the discussion? What are you talking about? I've found that distasteful political cartoons that insult Muslims by associating the Kabah and the ordinary Muslims who perform the hajj there with Osama bin Ladin add spice to any discussion forum, even cooking and stamp collecting forums! Everybody just loves these things. There must be something wrong with you if you don't. I bet you're a terrorist. No offense, Mo, but only one of your political cartoons thus far has actually been funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Larrikin on Mar 15, 2004 22:35:30 GMT -5
I think Australia is. As for Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s new Prime Minister, he is a Socialist. He’s against the war in Iraq. So what? Kerry is a Democrat. He’s against the war in Iraq. Does this mean that if Kerry is elected President, we should assume the US is Spain? What is your point?That the crumbling of the coalition is inevitable. Nothing more. The Coalition is stronger than ever. Most are democracies. Naturally, as elections come and go, various nations may enter, leave or re-enter the Coalition. That’s natural and normal. Terrorists need to be very picky about who, what, where, when why and how, and this applies to every plan, each person, each piece of equipment, payment, pickup, delivery, communication, info drop, surveillance, codes, rehearsals etc; who, what, where, when why and how, a thousand times over. Many of their operations are canceled because one part doesn’t work out. The truck never makes it to its target. The suicide bomber goes home and the plan is deferred for another day, in another place. Then the work begins, going over all the details. Who, what, where, when why and how? You bet. I wasn’t aware of you knowing anything about me, but as to the terrorists – no, I only know as much as any civilian who knows what I know. A terrorist is standing in the city, waiting at the bus stop, with explosives strapped to her body. You would say that thousands of “targets” walk past her. Actually, none of these are targets. The target is in fact a bus, and it hasn’t arrived yet. When it does, a detonation will kill many on the bus, and many lining up for the bus, as well as others, trying to get around the holdup. That is the target. That particular crowd, in and around that particular bus. The bus won’t arrive for ten minutes. Ten thousand people walk past the terrorist, and none of them are targets. That’s what I mean. They don’t have much money. Was he licking up grains of gunpowder to use in his next attack? If not, then he’s not one of the terrorists I was referring to. Technically no, though I can understand your thinking so. Their budget and the tight security we have put in place, make it a target-poor world for them. They have only a few precious chances and a few targets to go with them. Also, they’re being killed off, in case you haven’t noticed. With less and less conscripts, and more deaths, their ranks are dwindling. Many otherwise potential conscripts are today turning to the safe life offered by the Coalition. This is exactly why we took action against Saddam and Osama. If we hadn’t, your vision may well have transpired. We have made it a thousand times more difficult for the terrorists to do this today. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 15, 2004 23:09:39 GMT -5
Today's dose of Neil Cavuto!
link
Responding to Terror
You know I still can't get the image out of my mind of the attacks on those trains in Madrid (search).
There are reports of cell phones ringing on the covered bodies of victims. Some 200 bodies, many eerily beeping away as, no doubt, frantic relatives wondered and prayed where their loved ones were.
The daycare worker repeatedly dialing a child's mother. The wife who called hundreds of times by her count to hear finally, her husband was indeed, among the dead.
Little more than four days after the terror, the hurt is still real, the pain is still raw, the anger is still palpable.
It is understandable for a people torched by terror to do anything in their power to avoid terror. To retrench and, in the case of the Spanish people, to re-do an entire government.
The temptation now is to retreat Perhaps they feel, if we lay low, the terrorists will lay off.
But terrorists, of course, do not lay off. They seize opportunities and victims where they can find them.
They've attacked French tankers and killed German journalists.
Their evil crosses all nationalities and all peoples.
Their scourge is indiscriminate and their cruelty indecipherable.
They hate for the sake of hating.
They kill for the sake of killing.
The Spanish on March 11. The Americans 911 days earlier.
The Indonesians and Malaysians and Australians all those days in between.
Cell phones will continue ringing on the bodies of those who cannot answer and whose loved ones still look for answers.
Then and now.
We desperately hope that by avoiding the tiger, we will dodge the tiger, realizing perhaps too late, that in so doing, we only end up in the belly of the tiger.
Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.
|
|
