[Kr0nos]

We Have Met the Enemy in the War On Terror. . . and He Is Us
by Doug Newman
dougnewman@juno.com

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the vise grip tightening?

Thursday's news read as follows: "Airline passengers around the country stood in line for hours and airport trash bins bulged with everything from mouthwash and shaving cream to maple syrup and fine wine Thursday in a security crackdown prompted by the discovery of a terror plot in Britain."

Imagine this. In "the land of the free and the home of the brave" there is a "security crackdown." Crackdown on whom, may I ask?

Full article…

There is little I can ad to this, other than it pretty much reflects how I personally see the situation.

Let's see who will be declared a "terrorist" next…

[Sky Captain]

Remember that when some fundamentalist takes 2 bottles of "shampoo", mixes them together.
One containing nitric, sulfuric acid and the other glycerine. Then tosses it to the floor of the aircraft.

But it's our fault, right?

[OreoCookie]

… and that's supposed to give you nitroglycerine?
(besides, it's three bottles of shampoo, not two )

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Remember that when some fundamentalist takes 2 bottles of "shampoo", mixes them together.
One containing nitric, sulfuric acid and the other glycerine. Then tosses it to the floor of the aircraft.

But it's our fault, right?

I think the question is: where does the paranoia and fear end? This is endless... You could feasibly make a weapon out of just about anything. At some point, all of this cracking down does affect our civil liberties. Where should the line be drawn.

Personally, I can't imagine how a terrorist on a plane (particular a small commuter plane) could go unnoticed while sitting in some area mixing together three bottles of shampoo.

He could probably pour some solution of acid or something into a single bottle of shampoo in advance. Does this mean we should ban shampoo bottles or something? See how this becomes a rather slippery slope?

Again, my point: where does this end?

[Helmling]

The line should have been drawn back there, behind the hill that we've already passed.

I fear the day that the "terrorists" will be people rising up to take back our liberty...I fear that my children will live through those days and I tremble to think what will become of them if they choose the wrong side...or the right one.

[badidea]

Sorry Captain but I think you missed the point here!

If this paranoia continues we will soon have full cavity search at EVERY door - yes, even at your own home when you want to exit to go on the street! (<- very exaggerated)

Why?
Because...

Remember that when some fundamentalist takes 2 bottles of "shampoo", mixes them together.
One containing nitric, sulfuric acid and the other glycerine. Then tosses it to the floor in the middle of a crowd shopping downtown.


Islamistic terror exists since quite a long time but why has it become so much worse in the last 5 years?
Or hasn't it?
If it's still the same or even less (because the "war on terror" is a success, right?) then why should we act any different than we did pre 2001??

I feel still quite safe and want to keep my 'freedom'!!

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think the question is: where does the paranoia and fear end? This is endless... You could feasibly make a weapon out of just about anything. At some point, all of this cracking down does affect our civil liberties. Where should the line be drawn.

Personally, I can't imagine how a terrorist on a plane (particular a small commuter plane) could go unnoticed while sitting in some area mixing together three bottles of shampoo.

He could probably pour some solution of acid or something into a single bottle of shampoo in advance. Does this mean we should ban shampoo bottles or something? See how this becomes a rather slippery slope?

Again, my point: where does this end?

And what about all the alchohal and perfume (duty free cart) that is on the plane anyway? Someone could just buy a few bottles of it and make a molotav cocktail. How easy is that?

[Sky Captain]

Try and burn a bottle of perfume.

And airliner produces more psycologicaal terror than a shopping mall.
You can run in a shopping mall. You can't jump to safety from an airliner.

So the solution that Kronos is suggesting is to just accept the dangers of terrorists and end security?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Try and burn a bottle of perfume.

And airliner produces more psycologicaal terror than a shopping mall.
You can run in a shopping mall. You can't jump to safety from an airliner.

So the solution that Kronos is suggesting is to just accept the dangers of terrorists and end security?

No, (and this is my response to Nicko too), you just have to decide on where to draw the line and simply do what you can. There is no absolute solution that will make airlines (or anywhere else) absolutely safe.

[Landos Mustache]

watch V for Vendetta. The US at is current rate is will end up being the same in the future as people give up all their freedom for false security.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

So the solution that Kronos is suggesting is to just accept the dangers of terrorists and end security?

I doubt it. But I do think he is suggesting that we not waste efforts on measures that won't work, and focus on things that actually stand a chance. As it happens, those things that actually have a possibility of working don't tend to encroach on the rights of the innocent, and even when they do they tend to do so far less than more invasive but ultimately less effective procedures.

[Sky Captain]

And which measures actually work?
Racial profiling?
Screening all baggage?
Explosives "sniffers"?

I have been given a list of "clues" to look for in passenger behavior.
But I rarely if everinteract with the pax. Unless it's a casual charter flight.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And airliner produces more psycologicaal terror than a shopping mall.
You can run in a shopping mall. You can't jump to safety from an airliner.

Run from an explosion??
I wonder why all those poor souls that died from suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel stayed and died instead of just running away!?

[OreoCookie]

I think Millenium nailed it.
For instance, one of the measures that I think to be among the most effective are armored cockpit doors. Before 9/11, planes were hijacked and not crashed, so it's not even `anybody's fault', a strange of strategy necessitated to rethink security measures.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by badidea

Sorry Captain but I think you missed the point here!

If this paranoia continues we will soon have full cavity search at EVERY door - yes, even at your own home when you want to exit to go on the street! (<- very exaggerated)

The craziness is political correctness run amuck. El Al has what I consider an extremely effective policy of screening and as far as I know it has nothing to do with full cavity searches at EVERY door. We have to be able to embrace common sense in society today.

Islamistic terror exists since quite a long time but why has it become so much worse in the last 5 years?

It seems the public is more keenly aware that terrorism is not isolated to the Middle East, but has been driven by the desire to and in fact has spread.

Or hasn't it?

Perception is reality.

If it's still the same or even less (because the "war on terror" is a success, right?)

right! Issues like wire-tapping and the Patriot Act linking various investigations knowledge together has attributed to this successful record I believe. All results of a terrorist attack directly on American infrastructure.

then why should we act any different than we did pre 2001??

I'm sure you've seen the varioius answers to this question, take 'em or leave 'em I guess.

I feel still quite safe and want to keep my 'freedom'!!

While I'm inclined to agree, I don't recall the tenets of freedom including the freedom to bring shampoo on domestic air travel. We sure have come a long way in society.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by badidea

Run from an explosion??
I wonder why all those poor souls that died from suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel stayed and died instead of just running away!?

It's stil more terrorising to bring down an airliner than blow up in a market.
You have hundreds of victims vs 10-20 usually.

And people will feel "safer" in an open market vs an enclosed airliner.
After an explosion in an open air market, people who don't get hit by shrapnel can run.
Airline passangers can't.

It's about the terror, not the victims.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by badidea

Run from an explosion??

edited to delete my entire statement as Sky Captain beat me to it. More effectively I might add.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

But it's our fault, right?

No. But at the same time, it's been pointed out that the measures to truly stop terrorists from bringing explosives onto planes -which would mean banning basically all personal belongings and even some forms of clothing- are not acceptable, while lesser forms of these measures are relatively easy to defeat. Therefore, perhaps our security measures shouldn't focus on "bringing explosives onto a plane" as the choke point, and should find new choke points where screening can be more effective.

The other problem is that there are some methods which we know would work, but are just plain unethical. For example, we know that the terrorists who threaten airlines come basically universally from a narrow band of ethnicities and religions: they have a lot of trouble recruiting from outside of these bands, and while terrorist groups exist outside of these bands they do not favor this particular method. But in order to harness this information, we would have to descend into racial and religious profiling, which is a line that Must Not Be Crossed.

I am not trying to say that there is an easy answer to this question. There may not be any answers at all. What I am trying to say is that our current "answer" has been proven ineffective, and there needs to be research into more effective answers.

[nonhuman]

So apparently the whole concept of this supposed plan was a crock of ****.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

It's stil more terrorising to bring down an airliner than blow up in a market.
You have hundreds of victims vs 10-20 usually.

And people will feel "safer" in an open market vs an enclosed airliner.
After an explosion in an open air market, people who don't get hit by shrapnel can run.
Airline passangers can't.

It's about the terror, not the victims.

Sure, I almost completely agree with this - except that deep in my heart I feel a bit different about the importance of the number of deaths!

1 dead innocent is enough - more than 1 is more than enough!
(that's why I cannot accept collateral damage)

It's something like this for me:

1 dead
<------------------------------>
100 dead
<----------------------------------->
1000 dead
<------------------------------------->



As I said before, I exaggerated quite a bit!

I do not really believe that there will ever be full cavity search at every door!

I also accept that airplanes need a higher security standard than other things (especially because it's possible there)!

But I hope that banning all kinds of liquids (and similar bans like that) will not be a permanent rule for entering an airplane!
While I don't need to bring a shampoo, I really enjoy it very much to go to the bathroom at the end of a 8+ hour flight to wash my face, brush my teeth (with toothpaste) and cream my hands (with cream of course) because of the very dry air...

That's a small price to pay right now but it really shouldn't get worse!

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Millennium

But in order to harness this information, we would have to descend into racial and religious profiling, which is a line that Must Not Be Crossed.

The we will continue to be in danger.
I didn't say it was right. I'm saying it will be the ultimate solution.
Next to these that are from that narrow band of recruits being stopped at the source. At their home. By reprogramming thier thought process.

Untill then, we have to have some kind of effective filter.
Or continue to accept the odds at which an airliner will become a tool of terror. For the grace of Allah.


*EDITED, my thought processor froze*

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

So apparently the whole concept of this supposed plan was a crock of ****.

A) that's the Register.
B) Greene is an uninformed reporter on many issues. This is one of them.

http://www.fixor.com/


FIXOR is a two-component explosive kit, based on a flammable liquid. It has been designed to replace the use of plastic explosives and block TNT as traditional demining and UXO explosive charges. Unlike ammonium nitrate based binary explosives and traditional explosives:

FIXOR can be transported around the world by any method, including as cargo formally booked on commercial passenger aircraft. This makes FIXOR rapidly available to those Customers who require safe, secure, single-purpose, demolition explosives throughout the world.

FIXOR Explosive self-neutralizes after a period of time, becoming a non-explosive. This unique characteristic of FIXOR is very important to those Customers concerned with the proliferation of explosives-based terrorist devices.

FIXOR is in operational use in many landmine affected countries and has been proven effective at destroying a large variety of anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines as well as unexploded ordnance (UXO).


Basically, it's a liquid and powder that when mixed are good for two hours. The mix can be bounced around without explosion as it requires something to detonate it. We already know that detonators are easy. This is something that could be done bouncing around in the airplane bathroom.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A) that's the Register.
B) Greene is an uninformed reporter on many issues. This is one of them.

A) So everything they report is unequivocally wrong?
B) But that's not the explosive that it was reported they were planning on using.

[Monique]

With the media spying on every move of everybody it is true that the ennemy will become us. A woman panicks and suddenly they are talking about terrorism and evacuate the plane like it was the end of civilization. It is ashamed that it is getting to that point. Really airports need better systems not more paranoia.

[vmarks]

A) you wouldn't trust them as your primary source on something.
B) he chalks it all up to Hollywood. I'm pointing out that it is a real possibility.

[davesimondotcom]

I think that it's rather telling that it's the United Kingdom where iPods, laptops, etc. are banned from the plane as well as liquids, yet the author of the article decided he needed to pick on "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Meaning the United States.

I've been saying for a long time that terrorists will continue to find the weaknesses and exploit it. When we're looking for sharp objects, they'll bring liquids. Now we're looking for liquids - what's next? Well, how about prescription medicine?

We need to find ways to preserve freedom for the good guys and crack down on the bad guys.

But I know that it is the same people who are criticizing the "paranoia" (is it still paranoia if they are really out to get you?) and loss of freedom are the very same people who would be up in arms if the only logical solution was applied: profiling. Right or wrong, it works - ask El Al.

And the other factor - kill them where they are, not where we are. Meaning fight a real war, not a politically correct war.

[OreoCookie]

Well, as far as I have heard, TAPT was supposedly the explosive of choice, although details are scarce. While there are binary explosives which actually work as `in Hollywood movies', Spliffidaddy's reply is right up there as well.

It takes more expertise than just mixing liquid A and B to get nitroglycerin (which is what I guess he wanted to produce in his example). Also, the threat of using liquid explosives is not new (here, the liquid explosive PLX and C4 were used).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A) you wouldn't trust them as your primary source on something.

Since it was reported that home-made TAPT was used, they still have a point: rather than spreading FUD, giving the impression it's a new danger and that everybody and my grandmother can produce a binary explosive -- which isn't the case.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The we will continue to be in danger.

If so, then so be it. There are things more important than safety.

Untill then, we have to have some kind of effective filter.

Then we should work on finding one, because we don't have one as things currently stand.

Or continue to accept the odds at which an airliner will become a tool of terror. For the grace of Allah.

...and if the reports of the attacks in the past five years, successful and thwarted combined, are any indication, then those odds are long indeed. Still unacceptably high, to be sure, but low enough to be better than the alternatives.

[Kr0nos]

Somewhat related.

Seems like the war is on, and the US has just won an important battle:

Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program…

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If so, then so be it. There are things more important than safety.

Exactly

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and if the reports of the attacks in the past five years, successful and thwarted combined, are any indication, then those odds are long indeed. Still unacceptably high, to be sure, but low enough to be better than the alternatives.

As far as I see, we don't have a massive problem with plane hijackings at the moment and the security mechanisms which are in place work on an acceptable level. Since the problem with liquid explosives is not new (in 1987, a Korean Air 707 was blown up by North Korean agents with a liquid explosive and C4), I don't even see a reason why we should make the regulations regarding liquids and whatnot a lot stricter.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Somewhat related.

Seems like the war is on, and the US has just won an important battle:

Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program…

Woohoo! Score one for the good guys!

[Spliffdaddy]

If we must give up some liberties in order to defeat the enemy - so be it. We've done it before. It is a temporary condition.

If we wait too long, there will come a time when we will not have the luxury of choosing which liberties we will give up.

In an effort to keep it all, comes a risk of losing it all.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Somewhat related.

Seems like the war is on, and the US has just won an important battle:

Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program…

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

The ACLU tried 6 different times before they found a federal judge that would side with them. After losing before the most liberal judges on Earth.

I'd say Dubya will win the appeal easily.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Full article…

There is little I can ad to this, other than it pretty much reflects how I personally see the situation.

Let's see who will be declared a "terrorist" next…

I'm reminded of the small dog which felt pretty agitated that his master was driving so wildly over a washboarded country dirt road. All the unavoidable erratic car movements tossed Fido all over the passenger compartment and when he had enough of that aggravation he began biting the driver. He couldn't see the reason for the things the car was doing. All Fido could understand was that the driver had control and Fido didn't like it so he started letting his displeasure be known.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm reminded of the small dog which felt pretty agitated that his master was driving so wildly over a washboarded country dirt road. All the unavoidable erratic car movements tossed Fido all over the passenger compartment and when he had enough of that aggravation he began biting the driver. He couldn't see the reason for the things the car was doing. All Fido could understand was that the driver had control and Fido didn't like it so he started letting his displeasure be known.

Turns out his driver was drunk. Or didn't know how to drive.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If so, then so be it. There are things more important than safety.

Don't you think it's time we all stop pushing each other's buttons on this issue?

The President understands your concerns and that's why he hasn't been reckless by trying to throw the whole Constitution out the window in his efforts to do his job. You do recognize he hasn't been cavalier in his attitude about trying to keep America safe, right?

The art of governing in view of this matter, anyway, is knowing how much is enough and how much is too much. I see him trying to have the tools he believes he needs to do the job. Your saying, "there are some things more important than safety" is predictably going to incite those who view safety as a non-negotiable. And you also know their argument, "if you are dead civil liberties don't mean much."

And they know your view that, "there's no point of living if we aren't protected by our freedoms."

The President is trying to find the right balance. Wasn't habeas corpus suspended during the Civil War? I know you couldn't imagine enduring something like that today. But the President needs the power to use the tools he needs to do the job. If there were a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a return of all civil liberties to pre-war levels after peace was restored would that make you feel more secure?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Don't you think it's time we all stop pushing each other's buttons on this issue?

The President understands your concerns and that's why he hasn't been reckless by trying to throw the whole Constitution out the window in his efforts to do his job. You do recognize he hasn't been cavalier in his attitude about trying to keep America safe, right?

The art of governing in view of this matter, anyway, is knowing how much is enough and how much is too much. I see him trying to have the tools he believes he needs to do the job. Your saying, "there are some things more important than safety" is predictably going to incite those who view safety as a non-negotiable. And you also know their argument, "if you are dead civil liberties don't mean much."

And they know your view that, "there's no point of living if we aren't protected by our freedoms."

The President is trying to find the right balance. Wasn't habeas corpus suspended during the Civil War? I know you couldn't imagine enduring something like that today. But the President needs the power to use the tools he needs to do the job. If there were a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a return of all civil liberties to pre-war levels after peace was restored would that make you feel more secure?

You are pushing my buttons by both pretending that you know exactly what the president thinks and feels, and that you somehow have this clear vision that we lack.

If you want to stop pushing buttons, why not acknowledge the *mere possibility* that the administration is corrupt and is not looking out for our best interests? Just a possibility...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Turns out his driver was drunk. Or didn't know how to drive.

Did Fido help his driving by biting him? Did Fido help himself by biting the hand that fed (and drove) him?

And besides, that was FIDO'S side of the story! You can't trust him. He doesn't have a license to drive so Jeff Gordon could have been driving and Fido wouldn't know the difference. And Fido's too young to drink, so he thought the minty green Listerine on his master's breath was peppermint schnapps. But it wasn't.

And finally, what does Fido know anyway?

He's just a friggin dog.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Did Fido help his driving by biting him? Did Fido help himself by biting the hand that fed (and drove) him?

Sure. Maybe the driver should/would have realized he was upsetting the dog because he was driving pretty poorly and dangerously.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You are pushing my buttons by both pretending that you know exactly what the president thinks and feels, and that you somehow have this clear vision that we lack.

If you want to stop pushing buttons, why not acknowledge the *mere possibility* that the administration is corrupt and is not looking out for our best interests? Just a possibility...

I have found the easiest way for me to remain on an even keel is to take baby steps in dealing with especially provocative situations.

With that in mind I will pass on replying immediately or directly to your post.

You know how I sometimes get.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I have found the easiest way for me to remain on an even keel is to take baby steps in dealing with especially provocative situations.

With that in mind I will pass on replying immediately or directly to your post.

You know how I sometimes get.

Why is this provocative enough to make you freak out? Perhaps because you are extremely commited to your point of view?


WIth that in mind, I hope you'll understand my skepticism in you wanting to have a genuine conversation here (and in your other thread).

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sure. Maybe the driver should/would have realized he was upsetting the dog because he was driving pretty poorly and dangerously.

AHHH! I knew you would take Fido's point of view and that points out the dynamic going on here with the Administration.

The driver was rushing Fido to the vet to get him treated for a possibly rabid raccoon bite before the Animal Clinic closed.

But there is no way the driver could tell this to Fido and no way Fido could understand his life was in danger unless the driver did what he did.

And so what happened?

A cop stops him for speeding.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why is this provocative enough to make you freak out? Perhaps because you are extremely commited to your point of view?


WIth that in mind, I hope you'll understand my skepticism in you wanting to have a genuine conversation here (and in your other thread).

Originally Posted by besson3c

If you want to stop pushing buttons, why not acknowledge the *mere possibility* that the administration is corrupt and is not looking out for our best interests? Just a possibility...

This is incendiary stuff.

[besson3c]

You certainly go to creative lengths to try to convince us that your view is right and ours is wrong... Fido?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

This is incendiary stuff.

It could also be true... It's certainly not unprecedented in politics. Some would say that we haven't had a politician that wasn't a pretty vile dude since the 1970s.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You certainly go to creative lengths to try to convince us that your view is right and ours is wrong... Fido?

Just giving you the scenic tour of politics. Showing you the sights you might have missed

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It could also be true... It's certainly not unprecedented in politics. Some would say that we haven't had a politician that wasn't a pretty vile dude since the 1970s.

To say this administration is corrupt is outrageous and I won't hear of any talk of it.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

AHHH! I knew you would take Fido's point of view and that points out the dynamic going on here with the Administration.

No, it points out that I'm bored and am enjoying picking apart another lame metaphor.

Originally Posted by mojo2

The driver was rushing Fido to the vet to get him treated for a possibly rabid raccoon bite before the Animal Clinic closed.

Too bad the way the driver was going he was just as likely to put Fido and himself in a ditch long before getting to the vet. That wouldn't do Fido a lot of good, now would it?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

No, it points out that I'm bored and am enjoying picking apart another lame metaphor.

Too bad the way the driver was going he was just as likely to put Fido and himself in a ditch long before getting to the vet. That wouldn't do Fido a lot of good, now would it?

If Fido actually has been bitten by a rabid 'coon the driver is his only hope. No matter how good or bad the road was or how well or poorly the driver negotiated it.

Biting him as he tried driving was not going to help things. But then again, he's a friggin dog.

If Fido had the sense of a human being he would understand that if he really does have a rabies bite he could very well die an agonizing death unless the driver successfully gets him to the vet in time. And even if the driver was driving haphazardly on this very challenging road the best thing to do would be to give him the optimal driving situation instead of making it more difficult to drive.