Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies&

[DogOnPorch]

I'm far from sure it was possible to stop infiltration from the North without actually going north.

Actually nearly all the NVA came in by the Trail. Some came by boat during the early years before the ARVN had a coast guard of sorts. Almost nil came down via the NVN/SVN border...except the various full on invasions towards the very end. Places such as the Parrot's Beak and Fish Hook to name a few needed to be occupied rather than just visited for a few days. Air interdiction of the Mu Gia and Nape passes up North was about all they could do up on that end (which they did up to a point)...without invading the North as you mention.

Once in-country, the NVA often broke down into partisan units and spread out to the various 'hot' provinces. In more remote areas like in the Ia Drang (1965) they kept their divisions together. An interesting note is that after Tet, there were virtually no Southern born 'VC' left....having been decimated during the hundreds of near suicide attacks.

Otherwise, almost everything else was tried re: blocking the Trail...to limited effect. But Viet-Nam was truly a war fought with one hand and leg tied behind one's back. So the obvious choice was often not the political choice for the folks back home...as Nixon found out.

Edited February 12, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[JB Globe]

The difference being that random motorists aren't trying to kill you.

That's cold comfort when you're dead.

If we invested the same kind of effort into road safety as we do into fighting terrorism, we'd save a hell of a lot more lives.

But we don't, because road fatalities aren't sexy like terrorism is. We tend to over-estimate the safety of situations we're in control of (driving) and under-estimate situations we're not in control of (hence why most people are more fearful of flying than they are driving).

That and it's easier for a news outlet to sell a terrorism threat story, and it's easier for politicians to whip up emotions (and votes) with one.

How much terrorism is acceptable?

Depends on the society, but for me personally I think the Lightning Rule applies: you only start to THINK about a global project with the scope of a "war on terror" once terrorist attacks become more of a threat than lightning strikes.

And right now, the ratio is at 1:3 000 000 for terrorism, and 1:500 000 for lightning.

Also 'terrified of terrorism' is a tad redundant. If you're being terrorized, you tend to be terrified.

Terrorism is a tactic, it plays on the irrational fears many of us have and uses it to greatly over-state the power of the groups who utilize it. Being terrified is an emotional state, which can exist with or without terrorism - they two are entirely different things.

other one[/i] across town.

Of course, that is a scenario that doesn't seem likely in the near or distant future.

So why bother being scared about it?

We have CSIS for a reason, so we don't have to shit our collective pants about situations like this.

Frankly if people in London and Mumbai can hop on the trains as soon as they re-open following a terrorist attack, what excuse do any of us have?

[JB Globe]

People who commit or attempt suicide should be executed.

Cute, but what are you saying exactly?

That there is nothing that can be done to reduce suicide numbers?

[JB Globe]

People who drive 102 km/hour on the 400.

And apparently you think there is nothing we can do to make roads safer as well . . .

[JB Globe]

Well then, why waste money going after murderers, since a lot more Americans get killed in motor accidents than get murdered? As a side benefit, think of all the money we could save on police work and prisons.

Of course, this isn't an all-or-nothing situation. You allocate resources to were the threats are the greatest for the most part. Meaning for example - when crime rates have been falling for over a decade, you might want to focus more on road safety ahead of a major "tough on crime" policy, as Harper is doing.

There aren't any national campaigns for road safety?

Let me clarify - there aren't any campaigns on the scale of the "war on terror" in regards to road safety. How many hours do you think politicians spend dealing with road safety versus terrorism in Parliament?

There's only been one terrorist attack in ten years?

In North America, but even if you include all terrorist attacks in which Westerners have died, you still only get the odds of 1 in 3 million.

There likely would have been more if we weren't fighting it. You are aware of the attempts that have been thwarted, are you not?

Which is why you adjust your policies when things like 9/11 occur - you focus on things which don't cost that much but are extremely effective against preventing another attack: if I could pick one change as the most important, it would be reinforcing cockpit doors - it makes another 9/11 attack almost impossible.

What you don't do is play into the hands of terrorists and bankrupt yourself (financially and morally) in the false hope of perfect security.

They want you to be scared, so I figure - why give them the satisfaction?

I'm sure that's a real comfort to the minority of people who have been raped/murdered randomly walking home in the evening.

Again, you're making this out to be an all-or-nothing issue, as if I'm saying we should allocate no resources to deal with issues like people being murdered or raped by strangers. I'm not - I'm saying you deal with problems according to the threat and cost they pose to society. If you don't - you're not actually making anyone safer.

case in point - you create a "war on rape" focusing on women who are raped by strangers on the street, because that's what people are scared of happening. Does the rape rate go down at all? Maybe by a small fraction. But if you focused on rape IN GENERAL and allocated more resources to combating the most common kinds of rape (and smaller amounts to less common kinds), rather than which kinds of rape scare us most, you can be sure the rate would fall A LOT more.

Perhaps wanting to die and making it happen vs. not wanting to die and having someone kill you anyway could have something to do with that.

If you think the vast majority of people who commit suicide are exercising free will, you don't understand suicide.

Edited February 15, 2010 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

If you aren't going to "get tough" and fight back against people who are trying to kill you, who do you "get tough" with?

But how far do you go to fight back? And what are you wiling to sacrifice in order to deal with the most miniscule of threats?

[jbg]

Cute, but what are you saying exactly?

That there is nothing that can be done to reduce suicide numbers?

And apparently you think there is nothing we can do to make roads safer as well . . .

You have no sense of humor? Or humour?

[Wilber]

But how far do you go to fight back? And what are you wiling to sacrifice in order to deal with the most miniscule of threats?

Has it ever occured to you that the threat level is related to the response?

[jbg]

Has it ever occured to you that the threat level is related to the response?

I think some posters side with the West's enemies. They don't understand that cultures that are willing to encourage people to sew bombs into their bodies to more effectively butcher innocents are intolerable.

[Moonlight Graham]

That is exactly the reason, now these foreign policies we have are raising the chances of another terrorist attack occurring.

We should be asking what motivates a terrorist to be a terrorist but a lot of us are blinded by rage and think that if we flex our muscles, the terrorists will go away.

I did a research paper last year on what motivates Muslim terrorists, and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus on the main factors.

Western foreign policy in the Middle East is only half the issue. The foreign policy is the primary reason that makes them hate us the most in particular. However, it does not explain why they are trying to kill people in general. Why are radical Muslims the only people who have wage a global terror war against the West? Why not the Vietnamese? Koreans? So many in Latin America who have been f'ed by Western policy?

The reason is religion, more specifically radical Islamic fundamentalism. The teachings of Qutbism in particular have been a massive inspiration to bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and so many other jihadists and comprise most of the ideological basis for them. Here is a brief overview of Qutbism's influence on al-Qaeda from wikipedia's main entry on "al-Qaeda":

Qutbism:

The radical Islamist movement in general and al-Qaeda in particular developed during the Islamic revival and Islamist movement of the last three decades of the 20th century along with less extreme movements.

Some have argued that "without the writings" of Islamic author and thinker Sayyid Qutb "al-Qaeda would not have existed."[21] Qutb preached that because of the lack of sharia law the Muslim world was no longer Muslim, having reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as jahiliyyah.

To restore Islam, a vanguard movement of righteous Muslims was needed to establish "true Islamic states", implement Sharia, and rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences, such as concepts like socialism or nationalism. Enemies of Islam included "treacherous Orientalists"[22] and "world Jewry", who plotted "conspiracies" and "wicked[ly]" opposed Islam.

In the words of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a close college friend of Osama bin Laden: Islam is different from any other religion; it's a way of life. We [Khalifa and bin Laden] were trying to understand what Islam has to say about how we eat, who we marry, how we talk. We read Sayyid Qutb. He was the one who most affected our generation.

Qutb had an even greater influence on Osama bin Laden's mentor and another leading member of al-Qaeda,[24] Ayman al-Zawahiri. Zawahiri's uncle and maternal family patriarch, Mafouz Azzam, was Qutb's student, then protégé, then personal lawyer and finally executor of his estate—one of the last people to see Qutb before his execution. "Young Ayman al-Zawahiri heard again and again from his beloved uncle Mahfouz about the purity of Qutb's character and the torment he had endured in prison."[25] Zawahiri paid homage to Qutb in his work Knights under the Prophet's Banner.

One of the most powerful effects of Qutb's ideas was the idea that many who said they were Muslims were not, i.e., they were apostates, which not only gave jihadists "a legal loophole around the prohibition of killing another Muslim," but made "it a religious obligation to execute" the self-professed Muslim. These alleged apostates included leaders of Muslim countries, since they failed to enforce sharia law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-qaeda#Ideology

I recommend everyone research Qutbism on wikipedia or in other more scholarly sources. It is fascinating. That article doesn't mention that Qutb lived the U.S. for a few years and wrote how he despised their culture (obviously it was much different than traditional Islamic culture).

Edited February 15, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[JB Globe]

Has it ever occured to you that the threat level is related to the response?

If by that you mean we sometimes over-reach in our response and stir up more problems by being unnecessarily heavy-handed, than yeah - I'm aware of that.

Edited February 15, 2010 by JB Globe

[eyeball]

I think some posters side with the West's enemies. They don't understand that cultures that are willing to encourage people to sew bombs into their bodies to more effectively butcher innocents are intolerable.

Understanding the West's enemy's motivations simply do not equate to taking sides with them or tolerance for their actions. That said you do risk the development of intolerance towards people who refuse to accept this and who persist in mis-characterizing skeptics of the War on Terror as traitors.

[Guest American Woman]

Wilber, on 14 February 2010 - 01:41 PM, said: Has it ever occured to you that the threat level is related to the response?

If by that you mean we sometimes over-reach in our response and stir up more problems by being unnecessarily heavy-handed, than yeah - I'm aware of that.

Let's recap. According to you the threat level is related to our being unnecessarily heavy-handed, and also according to you the threat is practically non-existent; so one can conclude, according to you, that we are rarely unnecessarily heavy-handed.

[bloodyminded]

Understanding the West's enemy's motivations simply do not equate to taking sides with them or tolerance for their actions. That said you do risk the development of intolerance towards people who refuse to accept this and who persist in mis-characterizing skeptics of the War on Terror as traitors.

What irks the most is that the leaders and planners are not so ignorant as are their dewy-eyed Believers.

When President Bush said "They hate us for our freedoms," he was being thoroughly and consciously disingenuous. Powerful governments are full of hubris, but they cannot afford to be absolutely ignorant of current events.

So Bush's advisors and his coterie of intellectuals were well aware of the grievances, both legitimate and otherwise, which birthed the terrorist attacks.

But it was a perfect moment to play the Good vs. Evil card. And many people swallowed it whole, because it's easy, it's delightfully masturbatory, and it allows us to avoid looking into a profoundly uncomfortable mirror.

Even those who should have known better--say, Christopher Hitchens--became bellicose at the very IDEA that reasons should be examined. (Even as the government he supported was undoubtedly doing exactly that, quietly and without public fanfare.)

Hell, Hitchens even went one authoritarian step further than most, explicitly asserting that the government was "forced" to lie the poeple into the Iraq war. (That he is a fan of Orwell adds deliciously to the irony.)

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[JB Globe]

Let's recap. According to you the threat level is related to our being unnecessarily heavy-handed, and also according to you the threat is practically non-existent; so one can conclude, according to you, that we are rarely unnecessarily heavy-handed.

Let me clarify.

By being heavy-handed I'm talking specifically about the recent Western adventures in Afghanistan & Iraq, and more specifically about the kind of operation we've chosen to pursue there for most of the period of engagement (put simply, the strategy has been - kill all the terrorists . . . or rather the people we define as terrorists).

The troops feel that increased threat as a result of our misguided policies, but the average Western citizen doesn't feel it that much, except when it comes time to pay for those foreign excursions.

Of course, I've yet to see any tangible evidence that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have made any of us any safer, they certainly serve as convenient recruitment tools for the next-gen of Al Qaeda, and thus may in fact benefit them (since it seems they can pick up and move to Pakistan when the situation in Afghanistan gets tough).

So to sum it up - those heavy-handed moves to invade foreign countries put our troops in harms way, cost a lot of money, and may increase the threat for the average citizen only slightly (which of course, given that the threat is so small to begin with, still does not make it significant) - meaning that over-all, there really isn't a benefit to us being there.

So, why are we still there?

[jbg]

Of course, I've yet to see any tangible evidence that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have made any of us any safer, they certainly serve as convenient recruitment tools for the next-gen of Al Qaeda, and thus may in fact benefit them (since it seems they can pick up and move to Pakistan when the situation in Afghanistan gets tough).

Well, for the post-September 11 period, and prior to Obama's inauguration there were no attacks in the U.S. or even attacks on U.S. interests outside the battle zones. That would seem to be good evidence.

Of course, Obama's equivocal views on terror and shaky support for U.S. allies has, in my opinion, contributed to the attempted attacks on the airplane landing in Detroit on Christmas 2009 and the attempted Times Square bombing.

[bloodyminded]

Well, for the post-September 11 period, and prior to Obama's inauguration there were no attacks in the U.S. or even attacks on U.S. interests outside the battle zones. That would seem to be good evidence.

Of course, Obama's equivocal views on terror and shaky support for U.S. allies has, in my opinion, contributed to the attempted attacks on the airplane landing in Detroit on Christmas 2009 and the attempted Times Square bombing.

First of all, there were attempts during the Bush administration, such as the "shoe bomber."

Second, the so-called "war on terror" has possibly increased radicalism, and increased the threat of terrorism.

When civilians are killed, their surviving loved ones presumably do not imagine the good intentions of NATO or Canadians or Americans, and think these deaths are preferable to the Taliban or to radical Islamists. They see their loved ones killed. And if we put ourselves in our shoes, it's easy enough to understand.

(I've heard people make the jaw-dropping claim that such survivors are "ungrateful." Think about this for a second!)

Rather, such deaths--in Iraq and Afghanistan--fuel terrorist recruitment.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Second, the so-called "war on terror" has possibly increased radicalism, and increased the threat of terrorism.

When civilians are killed, their surviving loved ones presumably do not imagine the good intentions of NATO or Canadians or Americans, and think these deaths are preferable to the Taliban or to radical Islamists. They see their loved ones killed. And if we put ourselves in our shoes, it's easy enough to understand.

Let me see if I get this. Their loved ones are killed, so they encourage their own flesh and blood to kill themselves in suicide operations?

[bloodyminded]

Let me see if I get this. Their loved ones are killed, so they encourage their own flesh and blood to kill themselves in suicide operations?

I don't klnow about that. It intensifies recruitment. It might not be about encouraging loved ones to suicide operations, but to themselves engage in them.

But suicide operations are not the only form. They can get involved in terrorism, or in non-terrorist insurgency operaitons, without killing themselves.

Killing civilians is bad for anti-terror policy...and we're killin g more of them, not fewer.

(Not that the West is actually opposed to terrorism anyway, so perhaps it's a moot point.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me see if I get this. Their loved ones are killed, so they encourage their own flesh and blood to kill themselves in suicide operations?

Yes..this brilliant theory would have Canada girding for suicide attacks from Serbians, Iraqis, and Haitians. The USA will be suicide attacked by Vietnamese, Chileans, and Panamanians.

How can a good Kamikaze pilot get any respect around here?

[GostHacked]

I've never been to BC. But I do know that everyone keeps to 110 in Alberta and 100 in Ontario.

Not many in Ottawa do 100, and you need to do at least 120 in the GTA.

[GostHacked]

Let me see if I get this. Their loved ones are killed, so they encourage their own flesh and blood to kill themselves in suicide operations?

When more civilians are getting killed due to 'collateral damage' than terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see how and why they would join the Jihad. It's similar in how the US Army saw a huge spike in recruitment just after the WTC attacks. Patriotism for a country or a religion in a way.

[jbg]

Not many in Ottawa do 100, and you need to do at least 120 in the GTA.

I was kidding. I myself kept to around 115 on the 400.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't klnow about that. It intensifies recruitment. It might not be about encouraging loved ones to suicide operations, but to themselves engage in them.

But suicide operations are not the only form. They can get involved in terrorism, or in non-terrorist insurgency operaitons, without killing themselves.

Killing civilians is bad for anti-terror policy...and we're killin g more of them, not fewer.

(Not that the West is actually opposed to terrorism anyway, so perhaps it's a moot point.)

So I'm curious. Are you saying you understand that? That you understand why they would get involved in terrorist insurgency operations, purposely targeting innocent civilians?

[Peter F]

So I'm curious. Are you saying you understand that? That you understand why they would get involved in terrorist insurgency operations, purposely targeting innocent civilians?

Its called Vengeance. Its irrational but emotionaly appealing to those who have suffered great loss due to anothers actions. Vengeance rarely recognizes 'innocent civilians'. Blood needs be drawn - any blood will do. See WWII or I or the Boxer rebellion or the Boer war or ...

It what keeps us going when the going gets rough!

Edited August 6, 2010 by Peter F