Sci-fi Writers Join War on Terror

yoyoq writes "Homeland Security is looking for suggestions from sci-fi writers. "Looking to prevent the next terrorist attack, the Homeland Security Department is tapping into the wild imaginations of a group of self-described "deviant" thinkers: science-fiction writers." Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door."

Comments

Idea!!!

[TheRealMindChild]

Put a Terminator on every plane. What could go wrong?

Re:Idea!!!

[Holmwood]

Ha!

Leaving aside the Terminator suggestion, the SF writer involvement in suggesting government policy isn't actually quite as crazy (or as unprecedented) as it sounds.

One of the requirements for this group is that the individual has to have a PhD in a technical area (physics, engineering, etc.). These aren't just random writers off the street.

As TFA notes, the 9/11 commission said the attacks were a result, in part, of the government's "failure of imagination". SF writers, unlike some beltway bureaucrats and politicians, aren't lacking in that, at least.

As for precedent, both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (coauthors of Footfall, and the Mote in God's Eye amongst other works) were a significant part of the push in the 80's to develop what is now National Missile Defense.

(Of course, that may or may not be a good program, but it's certainly an example of educated SF writers influencing public policy).

Holmwood

Re:Idea!!!

[gbobeck]

Put a Terminator on every plane. What could go wrong?

Did you ever see Terminator 3?

Besides, having your security device being confused with the Govenator of California isn't exactly the most ideal situation in the world.

Personally, I think it would be better to put a Dalek on every plane. Cold. Efficient. Deadly accurate with their gun and sucker. Not able to be reprogrammed by the terrorists. Hell, they can even be considered multi-functional, as they can even use their built-in plunger to fix a stoppage in the lav.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Failure of imagination" is just dumb. There's always another threat.

The way to improve security is to have well-trained guards in vulnerable places, looking for anything out of the ordinary, combined with investing far more heavily in recovery and response. As Schneier notes, this is generally beneficial as it helps with natural disasters and other unforeseen events as well as terrorist attacks.

Of course, the real way to stop terrorism is to get everyone to watch videos like this one.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

as always, the suggestions given here are solutions to symptoms, not the desease.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, in a very important sense. If we want strong security, we need to focus on the fundamentals. But the anonymous GP was right about the fundamentals. We need well trained guards at key points. And by well trained, I mean we need people who are trained to look out for the exceptional (in the "out of place" sense) sorts of events. And they have to be willing to investigate these kinds of events, either to put them in the "sorts of things that happen here" category, or the "this doesn't happen here so often, so we should investigate more" category.

The government can learn a lot about security from Israel, though that level of security doesn't need to happen everywhere.

Re:Idea!!!

[suv4x4]

One of the requirements for this group is that the individual has to have a PhD in a technical area (physics, engineering, etc.). These aren't just random writers off the street.

As TFA notes, the 9/11 commission said the attacks were a result, in part, of the government's "failure of imagination". SF writers, unlike some beltway bureaucrats and politicians, aren't lacking in that, at least.

Right... I'm afraid that hiring sci-fi writers to predict terrorist acts was quite the example of failure of imagination on their side. The irony.

USA isn't threatened by mad sci-fi writers threatening to write a sequel for Armagedon if their demands are not met, for what I know.

If this was serious at all, first, it'd be a team of professionals related to the area: military, technology (not sci-fi one), and I'd give them one task: go out there, and the first one who finds an actual weak spot (not sci-fi one) which also doesn't need a maze of unlikely events to happen to occur, gets a bonus. Use your imagination (not sci-fi one).

Second, and even more important: we wouldn't be reading about it. Because what exactly is the point of assembling a team of [whatever] for suggestions, is this will be in the wide open for the potential terrorists learn from. I mean, *who* are we giving suggestions here in the end?

I'm afraid there's only one area where sci-fi writers would excel helping the military: fear mongering. Imagine the heaps of scary scenarios those geniuses will spill over the US population.

Yes, you should live in fear, people. You never know when the terrorists will attack you with a weapon so scary and so lethal, so unexpected, as if it came out of the mind of a sci-fi writer.

The president election campaigns have obviously began, and the teams are getting ready.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I strictly don't recommend getting inspiration or ideas from 24 and Jack Bauer. Unless they want to have a day-long crisis every year.

Re:Idea!!!

[jimicus]

Yes, but it's a lot easier to declare war on a concept that (more or less by definition) you can't beat by shooting at than it is to solve world hunger and abolish inequality over the entire planet.

Or, to put it another way (for those who still think the US is doing well in Iraq): Think of terrorism like a vicious, unpredictable animal that wants to attack you. That's easy enough. But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it?

Re:Idea!!!

[mrjb]

> Did you ever see Terminator 3? Assuming it's as bad as they say- thankfully I didn't.

Re:Idea!!!

[garoo]

AFAIK, Larry Niven doesn't actually have a PhD in a technical area. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics. I believe that Washburn eventually got round to awarding him an honorary doctorate in Letters, but the point stands that had the 80s group worked according to the rules given for this particular group, he would presumably have been rejected as a random writer off the street.

Maybe the PhD isn't the best identifying mark of a fertile imagination...

Re:Idea!!!

[ocbwilg]

As TFA notes, the 9/11 commission said the attacks were a result, in part, of the government's "failure of imagination". SF writers, unlike some beltway bureaucrats and politicians, aren't lacking in that, at least.

I think that comment very often gets taken out of context in order to justify exotic anti-terrorism schemes. It wasn't a "failure of imagination" in the sense that nobody in their wildest dreams thought that it could happen. I mean, let's face it, there's nothing far fetched about smuggling weapons onto a plane. That's why they have metal detectors at the gates. There's nothing far fetched about hijacking a plane. That's happened dozens, if not hundreds of times, in the past 30-40 years. There's nothing far-fetched about suicide bombers. They blow themselves up on a daily basis in the middle east. There's nothing far fetched about attacking the WTC. That had already happened once. The only "failure in imagination" is the failure to believe that terrorists would combine their most effective and well-known tactics into a single act.

But the worst part is that the "failure of imagination" wasn't the reason that 9/11 happened. It was the failure to prevent people from smuggling weapons onto planes and hijacking them that allowed 9/11 to happen, and those are threats that have been around for a very long time.

It's like Bruce Schneier has said many times, if you're spending time and effort in trying to prevent hollywood movie-style terrorist attacks instead of the routine, more effective (and much more likely) types of attacks, then you're probably wasting your time and resources. We're far more likely to end up with car bombs blowing up bridges or suicide bombers blowing themselves up at shopping malls than we are to end up with some exotic antrhax-infected mutant sharks with laserbeams. Hell, a handful of Beslan-style school attacks executed simultaneously across the US would probably have as big of an impact as 9/11 (look what happened with the relatively minor Virginia Tech incident), and it would probably be easier to implement too.

Re:Idea!!!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world.

Its a misnomer to apply the term "world" to a group of discrete units. In most of Europe and the USA, for example, there is to a very great degree of equality, more so than has ever existed in the world before. And where there is inequality, there are structures in place to deal with it. Outside these areas however you're dealing with third world despots, corruption, and non elected officials with more power than the elected.

The most direct method to bring equality and freedom to these places is literally to invade and occupy them, or use some other means to destabilise and depose the government there. Change must come from within, etc., but its hard to effect change with a boot on your neck. Where does that become the west imposing its cultural vaues and judgements on other nations, however? Its a bit tricky...

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it?..."

Very simple! Our jobs depend on there being a vicious animal that wants to attack us. This was fine during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and we had good job prospects. We got lots of established government funds.

Then, in the 90s, our vicious animal suddenly died on us. We were stuck. We weren't just going to quietly retire. We tried to invent drug barons, organised crime, and minor foreign countries as a new vicious animal, but it wasn't the same.

Now we have Islam! If we had been clever, we could have encouraged this ourselves, and paid Osama to crash those planes. We probably didn't, not because we wouldn't, but because we didn't have the foresight. But now it's happened, we're back in clover.

And we're damn well not going to mess this one up. It's going to last a long time, just like the Russian animal. Have you noticed how we insist that speeches are made stressing that this willl be a 'long haul'? Too right. We're not stupid. Everyone told us that invading Iraq would make things worse. Why do you think we did it?

Re:Idea!!!

[pete.com]

No not a terminator we should use the ED-209.... they are foolproof.

Drop your nail file..... you have 5 seconds to comply.

Re:Idea!!!

[Holmwood]

The way to improve security is to have well-trained guards in vulnerable places

Well, this is certainly a good brute-force approach. The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of vulnerable places. Schools, shopping malls, stadia, airplanes, hospitals, large buildings, bridges, factories, food processing plants, ports, power plants, electrical grid, network control centers... and the list goes on. So that means millions of guards. Possibly tens of millions. Assuming you're actually going to protect vulnerable places with well-trained guards. In a modern technological densely-populated society, that's a lot of places to protect.

Now if you want well-trained, highly competent guards, you're going to have to pay them more than the typical rent-a-cop rates. That'll be expensive. You'll have to arm them (with at least non-lethal weapons).

Let's say you only need 2.5 million guards in North America. (well under 1% of the population). Of course, they only work 40 hours a week, so you're looking at just over 4 shifts. OK, 10 million guards. Well-trained, highly competent, so you'll probably have salaries of around 50k, and support infrastructure and overhead that doubles that. 100k/year. That's a trillion dollars a year.

Is that really the best way to improve security? I can think of a lot of ways other than spending a trillion dollars on 'well trained guards in [all] vulnerable places'.

And you'll have something much closer to a police state -- either they'll be government guards or corporate guards.

And if you miss just one vulnerable place, then the approach fails. No, I'd rather apply intellect and thought to the problem rather than try and brute force it. I'm not sure the SF writers are the way to go, but I think it's a lot better than going the police state road and spending a trillion a year for the privilege.

-Holmwood

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ha!

It must be my font size: for a moment I read that as Hal..

using HAL would work nicely though, _and_ have prevented 9/11

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Mr. Atta"

Re:Idea!!!

[garlicbready]

when I read that all of a sudden an image popped into my head

A darlek slowly trundling down the aisle carrying a tray with a few sorted goods
ANY DRINKS OR REFRESHMENTS
I SAID ANY DRINKS OR RE-FRESH-MENTS (much louder this time)

a guy the next seat over starts to panic and quickly orders an orange juice

Re:Idea!!!

[gawdonblue]

Probably better to have two Daleks on each plane - salt and pepper

Re:Idea!!!

[Holmwood]

"But the worst part is that the "failure of imagination" wasn't the reason that 9/11 happened. It was the failure to prevent people from smuggling weapons onto planes and hijacking"

Is this really possible though? Can we really 100% guarantee stopping every weapon getting onto a plane? After all, post 9/11, Richard Reid the infamous shoe bomber got on with explosives that might well have downed the plane. He was stopped by alert passengers, not by the bureaucracy.

In many cases, the weapons are already onboard the plane -- e.g. seatbelt extenders.

Far better to change the protocols and assume that a hijacked plane will try and be suicided into a building. Have the passengers be alert and on the lookout for the Richard Reids. (Yes, you'll get false alarms. And our present security system wastes countless hours in airports for every passenger. Both are painful prices).

"if you're spending time and effort in trying to prevent hollywood movie-style terrorist attacks instead of the routine, more effective (and much more likely) types of attacks, then you're probably wasting your time and resources."

I agree in part. Where I disagree is the view that you shouldn't be paying attention to both, with (I think we'd agree) most attention focused on the latter. Keep in mind, though, that terrorists seem to like the 'spectacular'. It wasn't Glasgow's transport system, or Barcelona's that were targeted in Europe, it was London and Madrid. It wasn't Peoria's school buses, but airplanes that headed to New York and Washington.

To repeat; I'm not sure that SF writers are the way to go, but I'd rather have a broader more expansive look at the problems we face than a narrow one with solely the same beltway bureaucratic filtered through a partisan political prism. Provided of course that we're still doing the detailed thinking about how to respond to exactly the kinds of smaller-scale terrorism that you quite rightly suggest we need to focus on.

Holmwood

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of the requirements for this group is that the individual has to have a PhD in a technical area (physics, engineering, etc.)." AFAIK, Larry Niven, while a fairly good writer, doesn't have an advanced degree. iirc, he has a bachelor's degree after dropping out of Cal Tech. Jerry P. and Greg Bear have doctorates.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

Outside these areas however you're dealing with third world despots, corruption, and non elected officials with more power than the elected. I suggest you look at which countries are doing that. Compare that list to the countries that have gold, diamond,oil, copper or something similar in their soil. You'll see a remarkable similarity. The best thing a third world country can have is "empty" soil. WE ARE the ones that make these despots powerful.

Re:Idea!!!

[Wyrmy]

Or, to put it another way (for those who still think the US is doing well in Iraq): Think of terrorism like a vicious, unpredictable animal that wants to attack you. That's easy enough. But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it? So let us blow up our own buildings until terrorism weakens into non-existence...

Re:Idea!!!

[Tuoqui]

The terrorist attack of 9/11 lies solely on the shoulders of the government. I can tell you that 100% of the people in congress had locks on their doors. Why the hell was there not a lock on the door to the plane?

It is also not like they didnt know something like this could have happened either. Terrorists have only been hijacking planes since what was it the 70's? Combine that with suicide bombers in the homeland and they should have been able to put 2 and 2 together.

Its like seeing your house robbed and going 'Meh' and not putting a new lock on the door. If you get robbed again its all your fault.

Re:Idea!!!

[Simon Garlick]

I can see the terrorist running up into First Class and yelling down "Yeah, stairs motherfucker!"

Re:Idea!!!

[fbjon]

An even better idea!:

Surah Al-An`aam (6:151) says: "Do not even go near lewdness - whether overt or covert"

Therefore, simply hang hard-core porn on the cockpit door. Unfortunately, this might be an issue with pilots of Emirates Airline, and it doesn't stop atheist terrorists either. Damn those uncontrollable atheists!

</politically anticorrect>

Re:Idea!!!

[Speare]

As for precedent, both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (coauthors of Footfall, amongst other works) were a significant part of the push in the 80's to develop what is now National Missile Defense.

As for precedent, both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven wrote actual scenes into some of their books (including Footfall), where the hapless government rounded up a bunch of balding geek-a-zoid sci-fi writers as non-traditional "technical experts" to help strategy and intel efforts against an unusual threat.

Re:Idea!!!

[VON-MAN]

"The most direct method to bring equality and freedom to these places is literally to invade and occupy them, or use some other means to destabilize and depose the government there."
You got some examples of this method being successfully used?

Re:Idea!!!

[iocat]

The fact that the dominant power structure in this country does better for itself when there's an outside threat doesn't in turn mean that all outside threats are created by that power structure, or that all outside threats are actually harmless.

Put more simply: The president may be a tool, but that doesn't mean that the people he's railing against aren't also tools, or even much worse than he is. That's the biggest problem I have with "progressives" in this country -- they think evil or incompetence is a kind of zero sum game. If the president of the US is bad, his enemies can't *really* be all that bad, which is totally untrue.

Re:Idea!!!

[4e617474]

But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it?

Because it also gets stronger if you don't do anything violent towards it and don't let it dictate your agenda, and then you'd have to explain to your constituents that you did nothing. It's a problem that calls for doing things that are sneaky and clever, but the jackasses we have running the place aren't up to the challenge. And the War on Terror is to Gulf War II as the War on Drugs is to petty shakedowns and "Drug Checkpoint" extortion rackets - convenient excuse for something that greedy, powerful people wanted to do anyway for self-serving reasons.

Re:Idea!!!

[elrous0]

Good science fiction writers would never be so arrogant as to think they can predict the future. What they'll end up with is a bunch of hacks who will take their money and send them off in a bunch of wild directions (none of which will prove even remotely useful). All that will be accomplished is a lot of wasted time and money, more $ added to our grandkids' national debt, a false sense that the government is actually doing something, and nothing to show for any of it.

But then again, why should we be surprised? These geniuses; who we've given so much power, money, and faith to in the last few years; were the same idiots who were giving millions of $ to witches, tarot card readers, and "psychics" up until 1995.

Re:Idea!!!

[mlush]

It's like Bruce Schneier has said many times, if you're spending time and effort in trying to prevent hollywood movie-style terrorist attacks instead of the routine, more effective (and much more likely) types of attacks, then you're probably wasting your time and resources.

What they really need to deal hollywood movie-style terrorist attacks is a bright 6 year old to point out the gaping and exploitable holes in the attack plans

Re:Idea!!!

[Savage-Rabbit]

It's like Bruce Schneier has said many times, if you're spending time and effort in trying to prevent hollywood movie-style terrorist attacks instead of the routine, more effective (and much more likely) types of attacks, then you're probably wasting your time and resources. We're far more likely to end up with car bombs blowing up bridges or suicide bombers blowing themselves up at shopping malls than we are to end up with some exotic antrhax-infected mutant sharks with laserbeams. Hell, a handful of Beslan-style school attacks executed simultaneously across the US would probably have as big of an impact as 9/11 (look what happened with the relatively minor Virginia Tech incident), and it would probably be easier to implement too. I agree, and the scary part is that all you need for such attacks is readily available in the US. Military grade automatic weapons can be bought on the black market or if you are handy enough to convert them to full automatic you can buy them over the counter in some states with minimal effort. As long as they are smart enough to cover their tracks, not make bulk purchases and pick frontmen who don't have "islamic fundamentalist" written all over them terrorists can easily build up a considerable arsenal in the USA. Just imagine to what new hights a group of armor wearing and combat trained Al Quaeda activists carrying AK-47's with 100 round snail drum magazines (anybody remember the North Hollywood shootout?) and some satchel charges and nail bombs thrown in for good measure could take highschool massacres. Even if Al Quaeda only let loose, say..... 8-10 sniper teams in various cities in the USA, judging by how difficult it was to apprehend Beltway Snipers, the terror effect should be considerable. Al Quaeda doesn't need to raid super secret laboratories in Russia or the USA for high tech biological weapons of futuristic fusion bombs to terrorize the US population. They are, as you pointed out, far more likely to do what they did with 9/11 which was to combine and/or improve previously successful conventional tactics to achieve even greater effect.

Re:Idea!!!

[FauxPasIII]

> That's a trillion dollars a year.

Or approximately 0.23% of what we have spent so far in Iraq. Sounds like a winner to me.

Re:Idea!!!

[KKlaus]

This is an overly simplistic view. The people that orchestrated the war in Iraq were not doing it out of any fear of job security. Obviously neither the position of Secretary of Defense, Vice president, or Deputy Secretary of Defense are going to go away if we aren't locked in a state of ever present war. It may be true that corporations in the defense and arms business have a vested interest in fomenting world conflict, but to imply that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al led us to war out of some perceived fear that they would become useless organs of government is ludicrous.

They went to war because they thought they could win easily, and it would be a good idea. They were wrong, on a number of levels, but that doesn't mean they're happy about or moreover intended the current situation over there, and to imply anything else, like I said, is pretty ridiculous.

Re:Idea!!!

[drsmithy]

But the worst part is that the "failure of imagination" wasn't the reason that 9/11 happened. It was the failure to prevent people from smuggling weapons onto planes and hijacking them that allowed 9/11 to happen, and those are threats that have been around for a very long time.

I disagree. None of the weapons used in the 9/11 attacks were particularly ferocious. IMHO it *was* "lack of imagination" that ended up causing it since no-one really thought they'd end up being flown into a building - because while people are (or were) blowing themselves up fairly regularly in the Middle East, the Middle East is a long way away from the average domestic flyer's thoughts.

Indeed, even without any additional security steps, 9/11 would be highly unlikely to ever happen again. No air crew or group of passengers is ever going to let a bunch of hijackers take control of a plane again without some serious resistance.

Re:Idea!!!

[clambake]

The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of vulnerable places. Schools, shopping malls, stadia, airplanes, hospitals, large buildings, bridges, factories, food processing plants, ports, power plants, electrical grid, network control centers... and the list goes on.

And NONE of these have been attacked in the *slightest* way, even in the face of MULTIPLE national disaster emergencies in the last five to sevent years that could have been the OPPORTUNE time to make even a *token* effort (look at the scare the Comedy Central guys caused with something that looks NOTHING like a bomb... Imagine if you had a fake bomb that DOES look like one) yet cause a tremendous panic... But nothing. Hmmm, how odd.

"Terrorists" are either the *stupidest* motherfuckers on the planet, or else ... what? Why are they being so lax?

Re:Idea!!!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You got some examples of this method being successfully used?

Japan and Germany, circa 1945...

Re:Idea!!!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

The best thing a third world country can have is "empty" soil. WE ARE the ones that make these despots powerful.

Aha but you are making the mistake of thinking that interfering with a tyrant to bring freedom to people, and looting the weak of their few riches are the same thing. They are not... War in Iraq, and general US policy, that is the latter. Knocking over Tokyo and Berlin at the end of world war 2, the former.

Re:Idea!!!

[Charcharodon]

I love kid's skewed view of things. They think everything was invented just a few years ago. Now this "new vicious" animal, aka Islam terrorist/jihadists, that is part of the whole military-industrial conspiracy that the United States has just now "recently" provoked, has been on the warpath for over thirteen centuries now, that's 1300 years kidos. That's more than 1000 years longer than the US has even been around. Just because you, Hollywood, and 90% of Congress took till the late nineties to figure it out, doesn't make it new. Even the "current" mess in the middle east started before all of this during WW I after the British and the French divide up the spoils. Before them the Ottomans had it and before them the Persians. All through history, the locals have been rebelling and every single group in power has thrown troops at the problem. There is no conspiracy going on here. The only thing the US government is guilty of is ignoring history and being overly optimistic on the ability of Democracy/Republic style of governments being the solution to the problem.

Re:Idea!!!

[Lumpy]

hello! Those problems are exactly what gives governments and men power.

Are you out of your mind suggesting that the proponents of inequality and slavery work to remove it?

The only way to establish equality and abolish slavery is to make it no longer profitable or give you power.

and that is by causing a uprising in the lower ranks, slaves banding together to burn the master's homes and to overtake that which is the spoils of oppression.

Anyone thinks they can convince a dictator or opressive leader that he needs to give up all his power and wealth because it will make those below him feel good is nuts. Want an example of how to fix inequality? Simply look at the French revolution.

This is basic history folks, Never has a oppressive leader woke up and said, "Sorry, My bad! All of you are now free!"

Re:Idea!!!

[morgan_greywolf]

Bingo! Why do you suppose Bush is proposing South Korea as a model for Iraq? We've had troops in South Korea since the early 1950s. That's right. Almost 60 years. Terrorism is the new bogeyman. Nevermind that we don't actually need one with Iran, North Korea and China all ready to push the nuke button at us. It's just that unlike Iran, North Korea and China, terrorism is easy to put a face to for the American public: Osama bin Laden. Let's face it: the idea that another 9/11 could occur scares the crap out of us. Now I don't know that the government didn't pay Osama to crash those planes (Bush isn't that bright, but there are those in the CIA and NSA who are). But I don't know that they did. What I do know is that the government has been using 9/11 to take away all of our Constitutional rights, to garner public support for massive amounts of military and intelligence spending, and to basically keep us all afraid so that it appears that we have no choice but to trust that the government will protect us. Which maybe they can't. And that's what you should be afraid of.

Re:Idea!!!

[Ranten_N_Raven]

"Good science fiction writers...?"

You must not be familiar with Niven and Pournelle!

As for "a bunch of wild directions" both are grounded in their science. SCIENCE, not wild ideas. Both are adept at looking at on-the-edge break throughs and figuring out the impact it could have on society. For instance, there has been increasing news reports about the sale of the organs of political prisoners in China. Rich people can get whatever they need for a few tens of thousands of dollars. Of course it's all illegal but that is no problem when there are corrupt officials. All of this is no surprise to those of us who read Niven's work in the 1970s. He called them "Organ-leggers."

Oh, and Pournelle has also been a successful computer columnist for many years. His "Chaos Manor" column was one of the best things in Byte magazine. Do check out his Chaos Manor Reviews at http://www.chaosmanorreviews.com/ and his Chaos Manor Musings at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/index.html.

Re:Idea!!!

[squiggleslash]

I'd say that saying "fundamental inequality and slavery is the cause of all terrorism" is as simplistic as saying "They hate us because of our freedom."

Let me go off on a minor tangent here, bear with me: The direct purpose of terrorism is to exact a response. The indirect purpose is to use the results of that response, where the results could be any number of things. In the case of 9/11, the clear purpose of the attacks was to cause America to react - nobody could possibly be so stupid as to think the most powerful country on Earth would just ignore thousands of its civilians being killed on its home turf. The only place America was likely to react was the Middle East. Therefore, very likely the purpose of 9/11 was to get the most powerful country on Earth to do a bull-in-a-china-shop act in the Middle East.

Why would OBL want that? OBL's direct aim is not to bring peace and prosperity to Palestine. It's not to ensure oppressed Muslims in Saudi Arabia worship on their own terms rather than the Saudi Royal Family's. It's not to make Afghanistan a modern, wealthy, state able to take care of its citizens. OBL's aim, as expressed repeatedly, is to create an Arab superstate, overthrowing the local governments there, and creating instead a single Islamic nation.

What does any of that have to do with inequality and slavery? Not a great deal. It's all about power, and it's a power struggle between the entrenched incumbent elite and a body that disagrees with them. But the disagreement isn't over the relatively lack of equality, it's a disagreement over an entirely different issue of religious and political significance. Insofar as equality is a factor, OBL feels obliged to use terrorism to achieve his aims because he doesn't have an army.

But if he had an army, he'd use that instead. Equality wouldn't prevent the war, it would just change how its fought. Which isn't really what, I think, you meant.

It's very tempting to look at terrorism as being purely a last resort of the oppressed, but it doesn't always work like that. Terrorism is frequently merely the first resort of those who want power over others, but do not have it yet.

Re:Idea!!!

[bkr1_2k]

While I don't disagree with your point that the enemy is bad, even if the President is an idiot, there are plenty of places in this world that are in far worse shape than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. You've heard of Sudan right? The President just made some sort of speech about it, several years after we learned about the problem and over a year after his administration claimed they would do something proactive about it.

And lets not get into Indonesia and all the problems there that we could have helped with, or Tibet, or Nepal. You do know there was essentially a civil war in Nepal for the last 10 years right? Oh, and the monarch disolved the parliament and basically imposed martial law on the place. What about Thailand, and the military coup that just occured?

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man doing bad things. The point is, however, he was an "evil" we understood how to deal with. He was essentially no threat to anyone but himself and his own people. Yes that's bad, but his conflict wasn't causing issues any different than the others that have been going on at the same time. We did however decide to put on our big boy shoes and step in his playground to pick a fight with him as opposed to others. Why? Because it was a name people recognized (so even if it was the wrong choice at least some people would support it on name recognition alone), it was a profitable place to pick a fight, and it was during a period of economic "recession", which always calls for war. It's the great economic provider for the USA, and has been for a very long time. I won't even speculate at the personal economic gains of the administration, which others probably have far more information about.

Re:Idea!!!

[Webmasterguy]

makes sense since the war on terror is a work of fiction anyway Webmaster http:http://www.seowebsiteadvice.com

Re:Idea!!!

[FlyingSquidStudios]

USA isn't threatened by mad sci-fi writers threatening to write a sequel for Armagedon if their demands are not met, for what I know.>

Thank god, because if they threatened that, I'd do whatever they said!

Re:Idea!!!

[martin-boundary]

Well, if you want crazy advisors in office, Jerry Pournelle is probably a good choice, since he believes that America actually won the Viet Nam war. It's a bit long to read, so I'll give you the gist of it: he believes that America won in Viet Nam, and then the Evil Democrats decided to go home early just when an extra surge or two more would have... well, you can imagine the rest.

Don't get me wrong, I liked The Mote In God's Eye, but I wish he'd write more SF and less political analysis.

Re:Idea!!!

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Oh, well hey, a computer columnist! That's good enough for me. Look out, terrorists! A computer columnist who uses science in his books is coming!

Re:Idea!!!

[maxume]

So you didn't think that the sci fi adviser stuff in Footfall was a ridiculous circle jerk? I sure did.

Why Jerry, you are simply looking marvelous this morning. Well thank you Larry, you look most excellent yourself. Indubitably. Yes. Most Excellent. After you sir. No, after you. No, I insist, after you.

Re:Idea!!!

[Holmwood]

None of these have been attacked in the slightest way? I have to ask what planet you've been living on for the last ten years. Pick up a newspaper sometime, you might be surprised. I have trouble believing this is a serious post.

But even leaving that aside, your assumption seems to be that because preventative actions have succeeded in some parts of the world, that that counts as "not an attack".

And what country are you talking about? If you view the US as the only country worth worrying about on the planet, then that's your lookout, but the rest of us live on earth, which is composed of many countries, many of which also have a terrorism problem. Many of these locations have been attacked by terrorists all over the world. (See Beslan (school), see schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia, stores (many in Israel, many elsewhere, in prior decades in the UK), Richard Reid (airplanes, fortunately an unsuccessful attack), Kaithadi Bridge, ports in Sri Lanka, factories in Indonesia, power plants and grids in the far east... I could go on, but really, 20 seconds of googling is enough.

But let's ignore the fact that attacks have occurred. (and in many cases thwarted; again, see Richard Reid). Let's ignore the fact that the US is not the only country in the world. Are you seriously suggesting that if you harden a whole series of vulnerable targets, that terrorists will not look for non-hardened targets? This is fascinating thinking.

And I'll repeat -- I don't think the solution is to brute-force the situation. That's a static defense and in war, sports and history such defenses don't do so well against a determined adversary.

Holmwood.

Re:Idea!!!

[kaiser423]

It wasn't even a failure in imagination.

In 1999, I belive that the high school debate topic was American energy policy. One of the negative scenarios to not using alternative energies was that we would continue to piss off the Islamic faction, Osama bin Laden specifically, and that he would fly planes into the WTC. This was in 1999, and it was being debated in classrooms all across the US.

There were government research reports that predicted this. This was out there. It's just that no one cared. It seemed a long way off.

Re:Idea!!!

[elrous0]

Both writers cited have also made about 1,000 "predictions" which were dead wrong. You can handpick an example from any sci-fi writer that they got "kinda right." And, most of the time, what they DID get right wasn't exactly surprising. The possibility of poor people selling their organs has been discussed since the concept of organ transplants began. In fact, some of the earliest ethical debates in the medical field centered on this possibility and how to combat it.

Re:Idea!!!

[Chatterton]

There is a shift between the plane hijacking in the 70 and now. In the 70, the hijackers have the goal to be alive and their wish accepted. And it was not in their best interest to kill one hostage. Then letting them hijack a plane was not a problem as far their is no victims. Having a lock on the cockpit could only make them more dangerous because then they will need to make some menace to have the door open and then making all this process more dangerous for the passengers. But now, they don't care anymore to kill someone and be alive. And then locking the door is not anymore more dangerous (in fact less) because they can kill all the passengers, the plane will not crash on a building making more victims.
And putting 2 and 2 together is not so simple in this case. It is very easy and cheap to create a suicide bomber. Take the most stupid idiot in your groups and 'train' him to push on the little button only when he is at his destinations. It cost 'nothing' and get rid of the more stupid of your group. Now, with the plane you need educated people with enough intelligence to have the capability to learn to flight and train them to it. It cost time, money and you can't take anyone anymore. You need enough educated and suicidal persons. And this step is not easy to overcome to add 2 and 2 to put lock on the cockpit...

Re:Idea!!!

[dave420]

Even if that idea were a success, it only takes a few of those guards to be working with "the bad guys", and all hell's going to break loose. The "bad guys" aren't stupid - they don't spend all their money on tanks to drive at armoured columns in hopes of beating them - they spend them on IEDs, RPGs, and suicide belts, and get far more bang for their buck, literally.

The only way to stop this is to not be a target. Don't do stuff to others you wouldn't like done to you. Listen. Talk to folks so they don't have to blow up stuff you like to get your attention. For example: the Brits spoke to the IRA, even after the IRA were terrorists, and now the IRA isn't blowing up trucks full of explosives in London. It's not as if terrorists don't have stated goals - Al Qaida have said a million times what's pissing them off, and yet we don't do a damned thing about it. Americans would be pissed off if, say, China put a shitload of Chinese troops in America during a brief spat with Canada, and then didn't take them away afterwards, yet we expect Al Qaida to roll over and just take it when we do it to them. I'm not supporting any kind of violence towards anyone - that's doomed to fail. Talking is the way forward - it's what people are good at, and it fuckin' WORKS.

Re:Idea!!!

[rohan972]

Not exactly what you asked for (or what the GP said) but: "We find that the successful assassination of autocrats produces institutional change - substantially raising the probability that a country transitions to democracy," say the American economists Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olkin in a paper published yesterday by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Note: I am not arguing for or against this behaviour, just giving a relevant link.

Re:Idea!!!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Tell me this Slashdot: is it any more pathetic to believe in a ridiculous government conspiracy theory than to accuse the government of intention to commit a conspiracy if only they had thought of it?

Re:Idea!!!

[kingtonm]

Wow, how original, do yer reading. They can fly

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual paper available as pdf http://www.cid.harvard.edu/bread/abstracts/150.htm

rohan972

Re:Idea!!!

[mmdog]

Mod parent up!!!

I've never wished I had mod points more than after reading the parent. People in general just do not know nearly enough about world history to really even get a decent grasp of the status quo.

Re:Idea!!!

[tzot]

I love kid's skewed view of things.

ICBW, but I perceived his post as plain, good irony. Irony of the kind that flies by your head and you don't typically notice.

Re:Idea!!!

[VON-MAN]

Is that the best you can do? The two major losers of WWII. Both countries also had experience with democracy, Germamy extensive. Sorry, no good.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

japan? maybe not a good example. as far as i know they were able to keep their tenno after the war. so there was no real destabilization there.

Re:Idea!!!

[readin]

you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world. The problem is, there is very little the U.S. can do about the inequality and slavery in the world. Our efforts are generally ineffective and condemned by the rest of the world. We've tried sanctions. We've tried throwing money at the problem in grants, foreign aid, and the IMF. But the leaders who control the guns in many countries don't care about the welfare of the people, they like the inequality and slavery. But military hasn't been very successful either.

Re:Idea!!!

[bkr1_2k]

It's telling that you mention "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Al Quaeda" multiple times in your post. the damage has already been done, just by the mere fact you've mentioned a specific terrorist group by name. As the saying goes, "to name a thing, is to give it power".

You (and most of us) have already fallen prey to the fear mongers. Everything is now an islamic fundamentalist or Al Quaeda. We've forgotten our own home-grown terrors, like Timothy McVegh and Ted Kazinski because they look like us and they talk like us. It's always something different that galvanizes fear, not something familiar.

Education is the key to fixing this problem, and that's where this administration (and most of its predecessors) have gone wrong. Instead of teaching people about islam and about how to protect ourselves, the government has bolstered the false security of metal detectors and no liquids on airplanes and an attitude of hate. Fix that first. Then we will have a much smaller problem to deal with when it actually happens instead of a ghost enemy that is primarily our own fear that we're fighting to our own ruin.

Anyone that thinks they can guarantee (or can have) 100% security should be locked in a padded cell because they need far more help than security can provide.

Re:Idea!!!

[Tatarize]

Failure of imagination is an excuse. There was plenty of evidence that that was a very real possibility. It was widely known throughout the intelligence community.

Re:Idea!!!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

ICBW, but I perceived his post as plain, good irony. Irony of the kind that flies by your head and you don't typically notice. Sadly, I am pretty sure the poster has zero understanding of the concept. Most of the time, the guys accusing the rest of us of being ignorant of history are doing so because they've been spoon-fed a handful of one-sided "facts" -- completely without context -- and lack the aptitude or the moral courage, to actually follow their own advice. There will always be people who prefer to believe that, "the Russians do not love their children too."

Re:Idea!!!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

What makes you think China is ready to push the nuke button? They were doing everything they could to get North Korea to stop pissing us off. China would rather be able to hold our debt to them over our head than hold nukes over our heads.

Re:Idea!!!

[Corwn of Amber]

Interesting. Both those countries 1.had cultures that emphasized discipline VERY much, and 2. the friendly officials that the US put in place then and there were quite free to choose how to rebuild the country and its administration ... This is NOT the case in Iraq.

If you want to see really stupid reasons to go to war, go read up on the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam. Short version : In 650 or something there was a war between two tribes whose chiefs had both usurped the succession to Muhammad. One won but it was the one with the least legitimacy. One tribe became Sunni and the other Shi'ite. Can't remember which was which. They've been fighting EVER SINCE. Now if I remember right you have one that usually run things because they are more clever or because they historically have led their countries and the other are ten times more numerous.

Click here if you want to know the real reasons humans do wars.

Re:Idea!!!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The people that orchestrated the war in Iraq were not doing it out of any fear of job security. That all depends on your definition of "job security." After reading many of the position papers at www.newamericancentury.org - homebase of the neo-cons - I've come to the conclusion that these guys have a very simple philosophy. They think that with the rise of china and other world powers, the USA will be in decline for most of the rest of this century. Believing that decline to be inevitable, they want to "get while the getting is good." They don't really seem to care how screwed up they leave things in the long run, because they believe that in the long run the USA is screwed anyways.

They went to war because they thought they could win easily, and it would be a good idea. They were wrong, on a number of levels, but that doesn't mean they're happy about or moreover intended the current situation over there, and to imply anything else, like I said, is pretty ridiculous. For them, going over the top now was the best way to, "get while the getting is good," regardless of the ultimate consquences. And in keeping with that attitude they don't seem all that broken up about the state of things now. More so that they've lost political credibility than that they've really damaged the USA's credibility both domestic and foreign.

Re:Idea!!!

[Corwn of Amber]

The IRA went out of business because the social primates in Ireland were getting fed better when they restored their economy and did it fucking SO WELL that with a quality of life going higher there was no need to go attack the tribe with more resources in the next valley. Going to war is a species-typical behavior. Activated by an environmental switch (I will get less food). Mediated by xenophobic memes ("Allah u-Akbar" ... "Oust the uncatholic invaders" ... "Dieu et mon droit" ... "Terrorists! Kill kill kill!" ... whatever).

Re:Idea!!!

[Eli Gottlieb]

I could swear I know of somebody who does something just like that -- soldiers guarding the damned shopping plazas. Now how did their name start? The letter 'I'? Yeah. Then... then came a... I think a 'D'. And it definitely ended with 'F'.

Oh, that's right, the I.D.F.! We should ask them for advice!

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we really 100% guarantee stopping every weapon getting onto a plane?

9/11 wasn't opportunist terrorism, it did not depend on one potential weapon slipping through security once. A great deal of planning went into what happened that day, including several "test smugglings" of weapons onto planes. These people found security lapse, and they took calculated advantage of that.

We can't 100% guarantee anything in our control, but finding decent security methods and sticking to them will greatly reduce the chances of terroristic types using the same attack method again.

Re:Idea!!!

[itlurksbeneath]

But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it? Yes.. In the Sci-Fi movies, when the hero stops shooting at it, it withers and dies. I think the problem with terrorists is that when you stop shooting at them, turn your back and announce that you are not afraid of them, they take that opportunity to stab you in the back.

Re:Idea!!!

[VON-MAN]

Yes, I'm sure that -logically speaking- he is completely right. After chaos comes order, and maybe even democracy. However, I find positively repulsive hearing economists speaking of kicking (other) countries in chaos, and they're probably thinking of the possibility of economical advantages, not democracy.

Re:Idea!!!

[prgrmr]

being overly optimistic on the ability of Democracy/Republic style of governments being the solution to the problem.

The representative form of government is the best solution for the problem; the sticking point in Iraq is the implementation, because the vast majority of the locals have to really want it--and want it at almost any cost--if it's never been in place before. Look at every nation, from the birth of the United States to former Soviet republics now trying a representative government that is more democracy than rubber stamp. The rich, the poor, the working class, the business owners, everyone has to want to make it work. And a key component to that is one thing that you will rarely, if ever, read or hear about in the popular news media: cultural integrity.

One of the major problems in Iraq is the simple fact that the cultural bias is to never be 100% honest, because recent history shows that will more likely get you killed or your family killed than not. Until we find a way to not only encourage but to actually get the leaders in Irag at every level of government to be as close to 100% honest, as close to 100% of the time about their intentions as well as their actions in order to be role models for the Iraqis (and Iranians and Syrians and Turks and Kurds and every other local ethnic and political group with an interest in Iraq), democracy is never going to "thrive" on a scale comparable to any given Western government.

Re:Idea!!!

[Hubbell]

Terrorism is a saiyan? No fucking way.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

Our efforts are generally ineffective and condemned by the rest of the world. Try "our efforts are directed by our need for oil"

Re:Idea!!!

[SoulRider]

That's a trillion dollars a year.

It would probably be cheaper than starting a war that is only adding fuel to the fire.

Re:Idea!!!

[Maxo-Texas]

Of course. And that's why Obama used his great wealth to help poor people.

Oh wait, instead he used it to kill people.

And now that includes lots of poor people.

The fundamental problem is that some people grow up evil.

Re:Idea!!!

[jadin]

We're far more likely to end up with car bombs blowing up bridges or suicide bombers blowing themselves up at shopping malls than we are to end up with some exotic antrhax-infected mutant sharks with laserbeams. Great. Now I have to rewrite chapter 3.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one without a PhD in a technical area, (physics, engineering, etc.) has ever come up with an intelligent idea before.

Re:Idea!!!

[rbanffy]

Really?

How much would it cost to eradicate poverty?

How much would it cost to feed and give health care to every human being that is starving? To educate every child? To nurture healthy economies where there are none or where corrupt governments ruined it?

Compare that with the cost of one week of Iraq occupation. How much money is being wasted in a war that gives nothing in return but a general feeling Americans are evil?

My grand mother went to tears every time she told me the story of how American troops shared their supplies with local refugees in the devastated Europe towards the end of the war. She never mentioned the government, invasions, nazis, politics or the reasons for the war - she remembered how generous they in helping her and her husband (along with hundreds of refugees) to feed their children in times of extreme hardship.

This is a good way to win lifetime loyalty - to help people. Not to bomb them back into stone-age and then invade, overthrow a bad and corrupt government for no better reason than to outdo a former president who couldn't (or didn't really want to) get rid of him and then push the country in the chaos of a virtual civil war and pave the way to a theocracy. Not to endorse corrupt and blood-thirsty dictators just because they oppose anyone to the left of the most far right extremists.

I do not blame people for the actions of their government, but not everyone is as enlightened. You can't expect to be popular, or safe, with a foreign policy like this.

And you don't need a sci-fi writer to figure that out.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

uhuh. too bad the bush-clan couldn't control him anymore.

Re:Idea!!!

[rohan972]

Well, I haven't read much of the paper yet, but there is a big difference between noting the historical effects of assasination and advocating assasination. I haven't read enough yet to know what position the authors take. It could also be that knowing this could be used to help a country towards democracy rather than having another dictator installed after an assasination done internally, ie could be useful practical information even if you don't initiate assasinations.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your view seems more simplistic that the one of the GP: it is simpler to think that they just wanted to carry out their duty, rather than create new ones to justify their work.
Also, it is naive to believe that war in Iraq would be an easy task, and Rumsfeld is not of the naive type.
However, from the war industry perspective, it was indeed a good idea.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we are putting money into their economy. THEY ARE the ones that are using that money to make themselves powerful. They could be using that money to give thier people better lives, make their country a better place.

Re:Idea!!!

[OldeTimeGeek]

The best thing a third world country can have is "empty" soil.

Best for whom? For the populace? With nothing of any interest to anybody and no money for infrastructure, how, exactly, are they going to survive? The only influence that most third-world nations have at all is the mineral or biological (trees, plants that are used for medicines, etc.) wealth that they control.

Without something of interest to someone, who would care? Companies looking for a cheap/slave labor pool to pick from, the traffickers that make money selling them and political movements looking for followers, that's who...

Re:Idea!!!

[Gilmoure]

Never assign to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity?

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, of course. But many people said before the war that it would be "pouring gasoline on the fire", and that's exactly what it has been. It was forseeable. People compared it to a third country stepping into the middle of the religiously-motivated conflict in Northern Ireland, only several times worse (the intersection of 3 major religious/ethic groups instead of 2, and surrounded by countries with their own interests). It was freaking nuts -- like rolling somebody else's loaded dice and expecting things turn out in your favour anyway. On top of that the stated reasons for doing so were completely bogus (WMDs and "imminent threat"), and many people thought the claims were bogus at the beginning. In time, it caused the most amazing turnaround, with the US changing from a focus of global sympathy after 9/11 to global pariah.

It is pretty bizarre that people in charge were self-deluded enough to think it would be an easy task (eople so lacking in historical perspective that they called it a "crusade" -- wow, that's really dumb). How could smart people be so spectacularly wrong? Unfortunately this isn't just hindsight. People in the military were warning about not enough troops and other concerns long beforehand, and that's only the practical aspects of the preparations that were giving warning signs.

It is certainly understandable why the situation is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, but stupidity is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. It's always more likely. So, I'm with you. The architects of the war were smart but thoroughly self-deluded. Simple. It happens. History is littered with such people.

The truly hard part to explain is why so many of them still have jobs, but that's not really their fault. It's us.

The whole thing reads more like a Shakespearean tragedy than sci-fi (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course). In the months before the war you may as well have had a bunch of witches standing around a cauldron in the back yard of the White House, wailing "Buuush .... Buuuush ... Beware Iraq!"

Re:Idea!!!

[BrettJB]

He did? Well, I'm sure as heck not voting for THAT guy in '08 now!

Re:Idea!!!

[rubberchickenboy]

As for precedent, both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (coauthors of Footfall, and the Mote in God's Eye amongst other works) were a significant part of the push in the 80's to develop what is now National Missile Defense.

This makes me afraid. Jerry Pournelle's writing -- without Larry Niven to stay his hand -- borders on fascism. In person, he's even worse.

Re:Idea!!!

[kencurry]

They went to war because they thought they could win easily, and it would be a good idea. They were wrong, on a number of levels, but that doesn't mean they're happy about or moreover intended the current situation over there, and to imply anything else, like I said, is pretty ridiculous. totally wrong.

We are at war in Iraq because Iraq has oil, and is in a region with huge petroleum reserves. We need a stable platform to get to that oil THAT WE CONTROL.

The rest of the oversimplified morality/idealogy/anti-terrorisms expoused on this topic are bullsh*t.

Re:Idea!!!

[Captain Splendid]

Put more simply: The president may be a tool, but that doesn't mean that the people he's railing against aren't also tools, or even much worse than he is. That's the biggest problem I have with "progressives" in this country -- they think evil or incompetence is a kind of zero sum game. If the president of the US is bad, his enemies can't *really* be all that bad, which is totally untrue.

Any references for that sweeping generalisation? Let me clue you in. Your average progresssive spends most of his time bitching about Bush and not bitching about, say, Osama Bin Laden, because unless you're a complete retard, it's common knowledge that OBL is a scumfuck of the highest order, whereas Bush is nominally not supposed to invade sovereign countries, spy on his citizens, etc.

That's why it seems to you to be that way.

Re:Idea!!!

[dave420]

The IRA were from Northern Ireland, not Eire. The IRA stopped fighting when they received representation in the discussion that they were trying to take part in. Once that happened, the violence didn't make sense, as they were fighting people who were trying to help them, and they stopped. If you think the conflict was due to food, you are hundreds of years out of date. But nice try.

Re:Idea!!!

[readin]

Try "our efforts are directed by our need for oil" More like, our efforts influenced in part by our need for oil. The U.S. way of government is far to complex to have oil control everything. Yes, there is recognition of the strategic and economic importance of oil. But there is also the simple niceness and decency of the majority of the American voters. Both are considered when U.S. foreign policy is made. In general, the more visibility an issue has, the more it is influenced by the niceness and decency of Americans. The less visibility an issue has, the more likely it is to be influenced by selfishness and special interests.

Re:Idea!!!

[Captain Splendid]

job security

Man, that's funny! Just using Donald Rumsfeld as an example, we can see that being part of the dominant power structure does indeed grant you a tremendous amount of job security.

Re:Idea!!!

[rjschwarz]

Or, to put it another way (for those who still think the US is doing well in Iraq): Think of terrorism like a vicious, unpredictable animal that wants to attack you. That's easy enough. But there's a twist: it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it. Why are you still shooting at it? This is the lamest analogy I've seen in a long time. It might apply to the Irish (which did not have a world conquest motivation) but not to Al Queda. You admit the animal is vicisous, unpredicatable and wants to attack you so you are basically saying lie down and die rather than risk making it stronger. If the end result is to be killed by the animal either way I think I'd rather risk fighting, hoping that the enemy doesn't actually get stronger but that it has better manipulated world opinion into thinking that way (Bush's big failure has been in the court of public opinion). If you think the other option is to retreat you are saying you'd be happy to eventual fight against that viscious, unpredicatable animal later when it is far, far stronger from conquests. Either that or just kill the gays, enslave the women, and give up on booze and bacon, and pray to Mecca five times a day.

Re:Idea!!!

[Rei]

Yeah. They just die or are replaced through internal mechanizations (bloody or bloodless), and the next leader does it. It's happened time and time again.

Very few are cases like postwar Japan -- a country with a tradition of absolutist leaders that ended up a peaceful democracy after the being conquered by a foreign nation. Very, very few. Countries with strong democratic traditions from pre-war stand a fair chance of keeping them after their leaders are overthrown by foreign influence (although it's certainly not a sure thing). However, by far, the post-invasion situation in most countries is rife with chaos and new strongmen, or frail democracies that fall or become horribly corrupt within a few years to a decade.

By far again, the vast majority of peaceful, stable democracies in the world came about not through foreign intervention, but through internal mechanizations.
Wars leave people bitter and wanting revenge for old or fresh wrongs. Internal changes in power in the direction that the people want gives them a sense of accomplishment and a drive to move forward.

Re:Idea!!!

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Many progressives wanted the Bush Administration to capture and try Osama bin Laden for the crimes he committed. The Bush Administration, after 9/11, and after Tora Bora, said that getting bin Laden wasn't that important. Yes, bin Laden is what you say he is. Yes, the Bush Administration didn't care.

That he wasn't a serious threat any more. And then the Bush Administration started the war they wanted to fight, and kicked off events that have killed half a million Iraqis. That's pretty scumfuckerisious.

Re:Idea!!!

[General Wesc]

Iraq has something to do with US national security?

Re:Idea!!!

[Zaatxe]

Put a Terminator on every plane.

If will only work if Sarah Connor become an airplane hijacker...

Re:Idea!!!

[lag00natic]

The war in Middle East is entirely about our national interests. Stability in the Middle East is a national interest: reduce the threat of future terrorist attacks and stabilize one of the largest oil producing countries are DEFINITELY in our national interest. The atrocities in all those other regions like Darfur, Indonesia, Thailand, etc are horrible - yes - but do not affect our nations ability to function or negatively impact our economy.

This is the brutal truth. Our government has to choose it's battles and it will only get involved in conflicts that are in our best national interest.

Re:Idea!!!

[Rei]

Wow, really? I thought he was a big supporter of the poor.

If he's out there killing poor people, I better not vote for the guy after all.

Re:Idea!!!

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The only "failure of imagination" was in Bush Administration officials. When George or Dick or Condi said "noone could have imagined that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings", they were demonstrating their own incompetence. That very scenario was planned for and defended against at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the 2000 Athens Olympics, and various G7/G8 Summits.

And let's not forget the government's reaction to "bin Laden determined to attack America", "OK, you've covered your ass". Now there's a failure of imagination.

Re:Idea!!!

[lag00natic]

I could not have said it better myself. Yet another example of how the media and Hollywood limousine liberals completely ignore history and the fact this is not a new issue.

Look back in just the past 20 years at all the Islamofacist attacks on western society, namely, US interests. People are quick to forget that 9/11 happened BEFORE the US invaded Afganistan and Iraq. How about all those embassy bombings, the USS Cole, PanAm flight, the first World Trade Center bombings (remember that one?) Who was the President during the these events?

Oh yea... I forgot... somehow we 'evil' Americans brought this terrorism on ourselves by believing in free societies, women's rights, capitalism, etc.

Re:Idea!!!

[Rei]

Just to head a response off at the pass...

Japan is one of the only cases in modern history where a country with a strong tradition of authoritarian leaders ended up a peaceful democracy after conquest by a foreign nation. Almost all other cases of countries without strong democratic traditions gaining them are through internal change. Even the oft-hailed example of South Korea doesn't fit, as South Korea was under strict rule postwar and only slowly shed that authoritarian control over the course of half a century of peacetime. They didn't even have their first civilian president until '92.

Re:Idea!!!

[shilly]

I'm not sure your last paragraph is entirely realistic, for a couple of reasons:
1) Impact is all in terrorism. There'll be a lot of impact from simultaneous multiple acts on soft targets such as shopping malls, but much more from hard targets. That's why they're hardened. Al Qaeda could have chosen an easier, less risky route than 9/11 but didn't because it wanted as much impact as possible.
2) Risks of compromise rise dramatically as the scale of the terror plot increases. To have the same impact as a 9/11 through hitting softer targets, a terror group would need to attack many more targets (see 1 above). This is feasible, and of course, some other risks decrease, but it's not clear that they'll fall enough to compensate from the rise in compromise risk associated with a larger scale plot.

Re:Idea!!!

[drsquare]

you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world.

Wasn't Osama Bin Laden incredibly rich? I don't think he was a slave either. Terrorists aren't blowing up buildings because they're poor and enslaved, they're generally pretty well off, they're doing it because they're psycopathic scum, and the only cure is to either kill them all or inprison them.

Re:Idea!!!

[shilly]

I've always been struck by how closely Iraq has followed the path described by that all-American sf writer, Robert Heinlein, in so many of his juvenile novels (e.g., Red Planet) -- the invading power conquers at first through the use of overwhelming force, but is drummed out in the end by guerilla resistance. In his novels, the resistors are always noble and never vicious, but apart from that, the similarities are pretty damned close.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're damn well not going to mess this one up. It's going to last a long time, just like the Russian animal. Have you noticed how we insist that speeches are made stressing that this willl be a 'long haul'? Too right. We're not stupid. Everyone told us that invading Iraq would make things worse. Why do you think we did it?

And from today's paper (among others):

What was Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, getting at today when he likened the role that the U.S. military might play down the road in Iraq with the role it still plays in South Korea - with tens of thousands of U.S. troops still deployed there five decades after war?

<snip>

For clarity, here is the conversation that took place at today's press briefing, building upon a question that veteran White House correspondent and columnist Helen Thomas had asked in an earlier and more informal morning press "gaggle'' with the press secretary:

-mcgrew

Re:Idea!!!

[danheretic]

Just to be a devil's advocate, that's 10 million new jobs for Americans. Quite a boost to the economy!

(No, I don't actually espouse the brute force approach as you put it, but there would be a silver lining.)

Re:Idea!!!

[FauxPasIII]

> Iraq has something to do with US national security?

Good god yes. We're spending all our money (and a lot of China and Japan's) on Iraq when we could be inspecting cargo containers, securing our borders, training and deploying domestic security forces as the above poster suggests, or the real U.S. national security golden ring, getting ourselves off of mid-east oil. We've broken our military in Iraq to the point that they would be hard pressed to respond to a genuine threat to U.S. national security. We've overtaxed our reservists to the point that we can't even deal with comparatively mundane threats like wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Our actions in Iraq have radicalized previously moderate peoples to join various terrorist organizations in unprecedented numbers. We've alienated our allies, which weakens us militarily and economically.

Should I go on?

Iraq has everything to do with U.S. national security, just not the way the administration says it does.

Re:Idea!!!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Who was the President during the these events?
>Oh yea... I forgot... somehow we 'evil' Americans brought this terrorism on ourselves by believing in free societies, women's rights, capitalism, etc.

Not commenting on the actual thought content of your post, but what were you trying to say here? Was there a non-American who was president of America at some point?

Re:Idea!!!

[drsquare]

The only way to stop this is to not be a target. Don't do stuff to others you wouldn't like done to you. Listen. Talk to folks so they don't have to blow up stuff you like to get your attention.

So what did the people in the World Trade Centre do to Osama Bin Laden? Did he make any attempt to get their attention to talk to them?

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

by 'tapping' they mean wire tapping and phone tapping, isp tapping, searching your emails and search history, they can do all of that..

also if your ideas are too good you get sent to guantanimo

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is basic history folks, Never has a oppressive leader woke up and said, "Sorry, My bad! All of you are now free!"

One word: Lincoln.

Re:Idea!!!

[RealGrouchy]

I can see the terrorist running up into First Class and yelling down "Yeah, stairs motherfucker!" Ah, but you see, the Dalek is on a plane. Therefore, it can fly.

If the Dalek can fly, stairs are no match for it!

- RG>

Re:Idea!!!

[DanQuixote]

Yes, but instead of "Terminators" we call them "Federal Marshalls"

They're there to protect you. Really!

Re:Idea!!!

[Scrameustache]

I wish he'd write more SF and less political analysis. What makes you say that wasn't science fiction? :)

Re:Idea!!!

[Foobar of Borg]

Wasn't Osama Bin Laden incredibly rich?

Not all terrorists are OBL. OBL is simply one of the guys running things. Comparing the wealth of an average terrorist with OBL is like comparing the wealth of an average American soldier with W. Those in charge are generally very wealthy. Those doing the actual fighting and dying - not so much.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right but the problem at hand didn't affect us until recently and so that's when it came to light. Up until 1990 we were so worried about communism and no jihadist(for lack of a better term to use here) planned a direct attack on the u.s. or some other country(like England) that would affect our interest and no one gave much thought about it. Russia communism has come and gone. attacks and open threats are being made on us and now we have a new interest in place and people starting seeing this and taking to it.

I'm not saying its always right but the general mentality is until it affects you personally, no one cares about it. Attacks 1300 years ago or any time before the US was born does not affect us(how can it we didn't exist yet?). Attacks on governments half way around the world had no affect on the general population and no one cared. Attacks on government with countries that have a large oil supply affects us and attacks on us surely affects us thus, people start taking notice....

Re:Idea!!!

[tbo]

you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world.

That's not the cause of terrorism. Look at the London Tube bombers--fairly well-off and at least superficially assimilated. Osama bin Laden: rich and well-educated. I remember a study (sorry, no link) that found a positive correlation between education and suicide bombing in Palestine (sorry, no link handy); smarter, better-educated terrorists were more likely to carry out more deadly attacks. Furthermore, if it were inequality and slavery that caused terrorism, one would expect Africa and South America to be major exporters of terrorism, which of course they are not.

I have my own theories about what causes terrorism (I think it's ideological in nature), but the point is that if you can't agree on the cause, treating the symptoms is not a bad idea.

Re:Idea!!!

[BlueStraggler]

You think that Rumsfeld's real job was as a Secretary of Defense? The reality is that he, Cheney, and the others are on a little public service sabbatical from their real paymasters. In Rumsfeld's case, he has deep connections in finance and technology (pharma, electronics, engineering, and defense). He can expect to be paid more from a single board appointment than he was as SoD, and he can expect to hold numerous such board appointments in his "retirement" from that "job", just like he did before becoming SoD. That's the job secutiry the GP was referring to.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

. Both are considered when U.S. foreign policy is made. Yeah, we can see that in the Iraq policy. I thought a VERY clear signal was given half a year ago?

Maybe you can give an example of this good influence the US had anywhere?

Re:Idea!!!

[teh_chrizzle]

Well, this is certainly a good brute-force approach. The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of vulnerable places.

the art of war by sun tzu is pretty much a handbook on guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare (which is all that terrorism is) can be summed up in two quotes from the art of war: 1) when the enemy is of superior strength, evade him and 2) those skillful in offense attack points which cannot be defended, those skillful in defense present points which cannot be attacked.

the point is that you cannot fight an enemy that won't fight you back (like the US learned in vietnam) so force of arms alone is rarely sufficient against guerilla tactics. you also can't devote tons of resources to policing a handful of radicals (like every taskforce ever assembled to catch a serial killer) because the cost is too great for the benefit achieved. because they will only hit what is not protected, you will never be able to mount an effective defense against terrorists. because they will not confront you in the open, you can never mount an effective offense against terrorists. once you close the hole they exploited last time, they will simply find another hole that you didn't know existed. all you can hope to do in that situation is take steps to minimize the damage done and speed and simplify recovery.

Is that really the best way to improve security? I can think of a lot of ways other than spending a trillion dollars on 'well trained guards in [all] vulnerable places'.

a group that is sufficiently clever and sufficiently motivated will hit some weak point that cannot be conceived of with conventional thinking, the US will then react by fixing the vulnerability and enacting newer and more restrictive policies. the group will then locate a new vulnerability and the process will repeat itself. much like the cat and mouse game played by makers of copy protection and the breakers of copy protection, the problem with such a scenario is that the enemy is working with infinite resources (cleverness and time) and the good guys are working with finite resources (money).

so, rather than take a pervasively defensive posture against terrorism, we should realize that this is insurgency rather than terrorism, and our responses should be counter-insurgent rather than counter-terrorist. the problem of course is that counter insurgency measures are very unpleasant and are probably political suicide for the leaders who invoke them.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a choad... And this is going to HURT our chances of protecting ourselves from terrorists HOW, exactly? Why shouldn't we get all the creative minds we can at least thinking about how we can prevent theatrical (yes, 9/11 was theatrical) terrorists trying to make us afraid to even drop a deuce?

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

treating the symptoms I don't see ANY successful results ...

it's ideological in nature This Ideology only gets a chance trough the hate the US creates (by for example veto-ing _ALL_ UN resolutions about Israel, and by continuously interfering in other countries)

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. That is your view, but you are not everyone. IN actuality the best form of government for an area is the form with greatest legitimacy. Now, I understand you and so many others can only see legitimacy in a democratic form but many, many others do not. It is not like some damned game of civilization where democracy is more advanced or somehow magically brings greater benefits than other forms. What is real is that the systems need to fit the situation they are in. Dictatorships have just as much of a chance for generating legitimacy, as do the communist states, and the fascist one.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

putting money into their economy Uhuh. We're giving money to the mining companies, which "invest" them in warlords.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

Best for whom? For the populace? Yes, that works great. My country(Belgium) has NOTHING in the soil. poverty is very low, >80% of families are homeowner, ...

Without something of interest to someone, who would care? They can slowly develop themselves, which is the ONLY way for a bright future; forcing democracy at gunpoint DOES NOT WORK _EVER_.

Re:Idea!!!

[downhole]

I agree with just about all of that (and I'd give a mod point if I had one today) except for OBL's expected response to 9/11. I think he really expected us to do next to nothing, or maybe pull troops out of the Middle East.

See, to most Americans, America is the country that won WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, the first country to develop nuclear weapons and the first and so far the only one to use them in anger. We believe that the USA has the most powerful military in the world, and is capable of doing just about anything if the will is there.

But OBL had no reason to see things that way. To him, we were the country that hasn't done anything significant in response to dozens of terrorist attacks against our people and our interests, the country that pulls out of a conflict whenever it gets tough, paper tigers happy to drop bombs from 30k ft, but with no stomach for a hard fight. Given what he's seen the last 10-20 years in the Middle East, he has every reason to think that way.

I believe that, when he managed to pull off the 9/11 attacks, OBL expected us to give up and decrease our influence in the Middle East. I think he was genuinely stunned to see us respond by overthrowing the Taliban effortlessly (compared to the Soviets), and then later overthrowing Saddam with similar ease.

Re:Idea!!!

[nine-times]

OBL's aim, as expressed repeatedly, is to create an Arab superstate, overthrowing the local governments there, and creating instead a single Islamic nation.

And more specifically, an superstate where OBL is in charge. He's looking for power, and he's using other people's religious fervor to accomplish this goal.

On the other hand, it seems like he'd have less likelihood finding help if the people in that area didn't hate/resent the West (and US specifically) as much as they do. They resentment comes from a variety of causes, and some of the reasons they resent the West are valid (though they don't justify acts of terrorism IMO).

Re:Idea!!!

[spun]

As simplistic as it sounds, people growing up evil is the fundamental problem. I don't like to use the word evil, though. I'd say, sociopaths and psychopaths are the problem. Not so much for what they do, but for the over-reaction they cause in others. Look, any socio-political system would work perfectly if people were perfect. All such systems are fundamentally in place not to deal with the 97+% of people who are basically decent, they are in place to deal with the psychos. The problem is how to deal with the psychos without either a.) letting them gain control of the mechanisms meant to control them, or b.) fucking over the regular people with draconian measures that destroy more freedom than they protect.

Any ideas on this matter are welcome, because quite frankly, we haven't got the balance right yet.

Re:Idea!!!

[Lord Ender]

Huh? Read BinLaden's "Letter to America" if you think his organization is motivated by "inequality and slavery."

His stated reasons for killing american civilians are:

• he wants Sharia law across the world (succinctly: 'they hate our freedom')
  
• he wants arab control of Israel (and considers US taxpayers to be military targets because they directly fund the Israeli military)
  
• he wants to end all lending with interest (a policy which will just make inequality worse)
  
• he wants to end interventionist US foreign policy
  
• he wants to convert or kill believers in false religions
  

Inequality and slavery are not among the terrorists' stated reasons for attacking.

It does stand to reason that wealth creation and distribution in the arab world might make it harder for him to recruit suicide bombers (a man with something to lose might have more motivation to stay alive). But saying inequality is their reason to attack is just bogus.

Re:Idea!!!

[Johnny5000]

Best for whom? For the populace? With nothing of any interest to anybody and no money for infrastructure, how, exactly, are they going to survive? The only influence that most third-world nations have at all is the mineral or biological (trees, plants that are used for medicines, etc.) wealth that they control.

Ah yes, who can forget the wealthy utopian wonderlands that are the mineral- and biologically- rich countries of the world!
Plenty of mineral wealth in the ground (and in the hands of the ruling class), but not so much of it trickles down to the populace.

What infrastructure that does exist generally is built to export the mineral wealth out of the country as quickly as possible. Oh, and to displace any inconvenient people who happen to be living in the areas to be mined.

How are they going to survive? I don't know- how did the human species manage to survive for millions of years before someone showed up with a pickaxe and a shovel and started hauling minerals out of the ground?
I'll give you a hint- it doesn't involve giving them jobs as miners.

Re:Idea!!!

[Maxo-Texas]

Hhehe.

Aye, vote for Obama bin ladin.... such are the typos that make baby jesus cry.

So... obviously, i meant Osama bin Ladin. And lots of other rich, powerful people who stir up crap and get people killed because they enjoy it, it gives purpose to their life.

People can be poor and very happy. People can be rich and miserable. People who are really not that bad off can be stirred up to think things are horrible by the powers that be.

The fact is that if most of the middle east would just let go of the jewish issue and stop attacking them, they would outbreed isreal out of existence in 20 to 50 years. But no.. they have to keep stirring up crap and killing teenagers because of something that happened 60 YEARS ago (three generations). It's over-- let it go and move on.

Re:Idea!!!

[Ranten_N_Raven]

Well, fine then. Let's leave the fiction out of it.

Before he chaired the committee that came up with SDI, he co-authored a book that was used at several of the service academies, "The Strategy of Technology" http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_1.htm. His words summarize this best (follow the link for access to the links he provides) http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail454.html#SD I

Not sure what you want me to say. It's no great secret that Niven hosted, and I chaired, the meetings in Tarzana that drafted the space defense policy transition team papers, and that we continued to submit papers through the National Security Advisor that were taken directly to President Reagan. The SDI policies were jointly developed by a number of organizations. The late General Dan Graham was in DC and developed much of the political support both grass roots and working with the services and the White House. My Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy argued for strategic defense in line with the "Assured Survival" chapter of The Strategy of Technology by Stefan Possony and Jerry Pournelle (1970). Strategy of Technology was used as a textbook in service academies, and had some influence over cadets who later became senior officers.

We later developed and advocated the DC/X as part of a technology for making America a Space-faring Nation again (a goal advocated by the Council). Some of the DC/X story including a picture of me, General Graham, and Max Hunter presenting the DC/X pitch to the Chairman of the National Space Council (VP Dan Quayle), and some discussion can be found here.

I probably should update the space papers section of this web site, but it's one more thing to do and I don't have anyone to do it but me. The best summary I have managed is found here.

The story of the Council and how Niven and I "brought down the Soviet Union" has been told in a number of places including a BBC special filmed here and at Niven's house that at one time got considerable exposure, but I suspect it is no longer available; I certainly don't know where it is. That, of course, is an overstatement. SDI was certainly crucial; Gorbachev has often said so. If one had to name a single individual as the most important in getting SDI adopted as a national policy, it would have to be General Dan Graham, who stayed in Washington and coordinated political, military, and scientific efforts into a single policy; and kept those policy recommendations at the forefront of discussion. This was particularly important after the first National Security Advisors (Dick Allen and Judge Clarke) left the White House. SDI would not have been adopted without General Graham.

Dan has said he couldn't have done it without me, and immodestly I have to agree; but I couldn't have done any of this without many others. Niven's role was as host and providing an atmosphere in which a meeting of 70 influential and often temperamental people could spend weekends working on policy; the atmosphere of a high tech California millionaire's home was crucial in keeping people polite and allowing me to chair the meetings. Mrs. Marilyn Niven and a number of volunteers provided gourmet meals for this crowd in the early meetings. Later meetings were held in my home and Mrs. Roberta Pournelle was hostess and provided the meals and atmosphere. DC/X was designed and the briefing that brought it to life was written in those meetings at my home with Roberta as hostess.

And do note that I was chairman, not dictator; the SDI papers were drafted by over 70 people including Buzz Aldrin, Phil Chapman, Lowell Wood, John McCarthy, Danny Hillis, the invaluable Stefan Possony, George Merrick, Dr. Gould, the late Max Hunter, Greg Benford, the late Harry Stine, and many others, some now famous and some not. The reports were effective in large part because we had Robert Heinlein, Poul Ande

Re:Idea!!!

[davidsyes]

When I served aboard my 2nd ship in the USN, I became regularly tapped as the local onbooard terrorist. Eventually, as the CDO (Command Duty Officer) cheated in order to cope with my complex, but still realistic scenarios, the CDOs would cheat more to get to do their 8 o'clock reports done. I'd become more pissed off and ratchet things up, like stealing the Dynalec (intership microphone to the announcing system), "kill" off key officers and leave alive or resurrect ill-trained enlistedmen.

Finally, one night, one of the CDOs admitted that had my scenario been the real thing, he'd have had to call the CIA (and other agencies) to respond.

I've already posted it before, so if any of you have subscription, you can dig it up.

(One to deal with is the possibilty of yardbirds (civilian yard workers) perusing the crew leave listing, breaking into said person/s' lockers and planting time-delayed bombs -- assuming the opportunity to sneak it aboard, which would have been possible in the 80's and early to mid 90's. I'd used that in my scenario and because the CDO cheadet, I took the libberty of yelling "BULLSHIT, CDO! YOU CAN'T CHECK EVERY LOCKER IN 10 MINUTES..." when he cheated.)

see my incubator/s at:

http://www.otanashide.com/14.html
http://www.underway-shift-colors.com/6.html
http://www.unaun-shiftcolors.com/3.html

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now we have Islam! If we had been clever, we could have encouraged this ourselves, and paid Osama to crash those planes. "

We didn't even have to pay him. We just needed to look the other way in key places at key moments to let it happen. I mean, do you really believe that 20 guys with boxcutters could cripple the most advanced intelligence system in the world?? If so, it is time to scrap the ENTIRE information gathering system and start over from scratch, because we don't know squat about anything.

Re:Idea!!!

[mrbooze]

I wonder why they didn't call the writers/producers of The Lone Gunmen. They had a storyline about a plane being flown into the World Trade Center in March, 2001.

Wait a minute...maybe we should be *arresting* them!!!

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven ... were a significant part of the push in the 80's to develop what is now National Missile Defense. (Of course, that may or may not be a good program, ...

Yeah, for the worse. Billions down the drain. Can't wait to get me more of that SciFi defence.

Re:Idea!!!

[Danse]

Also, it is naive to believe that war in Iraq would be an easy task, and Rumsfeld is not of the naive type.

So you're saying that his thoughts that we'd be in and out in a matter of a few months weren't naive? He said as much on a number of occasions leading up to the invasion. He thought we would simply take out Saddam's government and the Iraqis would somehow come to a quick consensus and install a new democratically elected government. This despite all the warnings and advice to the contrary, which he persistently ignored because they didn't fit his idea of how he'd like to see things go, and his ideas of a leaner more mobile military that could do more with less troops. You're really saying that he wasn't terribly naive? If not, then what were his true motives in disregarding all of the information that didn't fit with his unbelievably rosey predictions?

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

might make it harder for him to recruit suicide bombers nutcases like that are everywhere, but he can only get through when there's a feeding ground for
hate.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yea... I forgot... somehow we 'evil' Americans brought this terrorism on ourselves by believing in free societies, women's rights, capitalism, etc.

What a load of bullshit. America never does anything bad, right? We never help out the bad guys, right? We never do anything to prop up illegitimate governments, dictators or warlords, right? You're so deluded it's sad. The U.S. has done a lot of bad shit to piss off a lot of people over the years. We've been lucky that our enemies haven't been able to inflict more than a small fraction of the damage and casualties we've inflicted on other countries in the years since WWII. The idea that our government has always been on the side of right is simply moronic. We've been on the side of short-sighted political expediency many times as well, and that has come back to bite us more than once.

Re:Idea!!!

[thegsusfreek]

The terrorist attack of 9/11 lies solely on the shoulders of the government. I can tell you that 100% of the people in congress had locks on their doors. Why the hell was there not a lock on the door to the plane?

There are ways to get around locks. At the very least, the terrorists could take a flight attendant hostage and force them to ask the pilots to unlock the door.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The direct purpose of terrorism is to exact a response.

Maybe for certain leaders the purpose of terrorism is to exact a response but not for the guys actually making it happen. The guys making it happen end up dead - so what ever happens after doesn't matter to them in any rational sense. Even if they did manage to change the world, they're not going to be part of the world.

What motivates the guys making it happen is raw emotion - anger, despair, loneliness, etc. They're not thinking rationally. They probably don't even know what they're feeling exactly. They just act on overwhelming negative emotions.

OBL's direct aim is not to bring peace and prosperity to Palestine. It's not to ensure oppressed Muslims in Saudi Arabia worship on their own terms rather than the Saudi Royal Family's. It's not to make Afghanistan a modern, wealthy, state able to take care of its citizens.

All these circumstances contribute to the overwhelming anger and despair and loneliness of the guys that actually make it happen. Correctly, or incorrectly, they see these global injustices as the cause of their own suffering. In their view, it will be impossible for them to be happy as long as these global injustices are unresolved.

OBL feels obliged to use terrorism to achieve his aims because he doesn't have an army.

OBL wouldn't even be able to use terrorism (let alone an army) if it weren't for the aforementioned global injustices.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"he believes that America won in Viet Nam, and then the Evil Democrats decided to go home early just when an extra surge or two more would have..."

I'm not sure what you were reading, but it wasn't what he wrote.

The most significant conclusion he seems to have reached is that if we'd continued to provide substantial support to the South Vietnamese, they would have repelled the 1975 NVA invasion just as they had done in 1972 (which is rather different than "an extra surge or two"). The other conclusion that he stresses is that the U.S. public generally (and sometimes also people in the chain of command) did not understand the nature of the war over there, nor our actual strategic position. The fault for this is not ascribed to a particular party.

Re:Idea!!!

[ultranova]

We are at war in Iraq because Iraq has oil, and is in a region with huge petroleum reserves. We need a stable platform to get to that oil THAT WE CONTROL.

If and when oil starts running out, you won't be able to maintain control of Middle-East. It's right next to Europe, and near India and China. Even Africa, if it ever gets its act together, is closer to it than you are. If and when any of these powers go for that oil, they will not only be able to stop you from resupplying any troops in the area, but they can do supply easily.

And, of course, there's the little fact that the local populace hates your guts, and you've been unable to pacify the area even without such outside interference.

Re:Idea!!!

[Johnny5000]

smarter, better-educated terrorists were more likely to carry out more deadly attacks.

A lot of this education is likely to be religious in nature, no?
Better education = more exposure to the extremist religious teachings.

I think what's often overlooked is that these people believe exactly what they say they believe.
That is, killing unbelievers is God's work, and blowing yourself up to do so will put you on the fast track to heaven. All of that education they've received only serves to reinforce that point.
I don't think it gets any deeper than that- I don't think there's any hidden reasons,
just pure, unwaivering faith in their religion.

Re:Idea!!!

[spickus]

"Obama"

Ahem.

Re:Idea!!!

[Maxo-Texas]

yea... that's why we are giving 30 billion dollars to africa for aids.

Oil is high on the agenda but it's not all about oil, dude.

Re:Idea!!!

[treeves]

You're right, of course, except for the Freudian slip Obama!=Osama, although Obama's middle name IS Hussein. ;-)

Re:Idea!!!

[jimicus]

They did win easily. Saddam lasted a few weeks.

But they're now discovering that one of the hardest jobs an army can be tasked with is to keep the peace.

Re:Idea!!!

[VON-MAN]

Japan is an "only" in many things. And the history of Japanese democracy is more complicated than WWII -> conquest -> democracy. Anyway, I would not use Japan to make a point like that. But Germany is a poor example as well. Heh.

Re:Idea!!!

[buxton2k]

I actually agree with your analysis. Almost completely. But you're missing a key aspect by focusing on Osama bin Laden. ObL is a leader, and this may describe his position - but it doesn't describe the position of the suicide bombers, the foot soldiers, the 9/11 hijackers themselves. In other words, why does anyone listen to ObL (or any similar person - why does anyone listen to Bush for that matter?).

The simple fact is that life for the lower classes in most of the world varies from difficult to an insane hell. This includes presumably advanced nations like the U.S. where it may be merely difficult compared to Saudi Arabia, but its still not something people would choose on its own merits. People have been looking for solutions for a long time, and some of those solutions have had mitigating effects on poverty and oppression, but certainly have not eliminated the deep problems that come with being on the bottom. The worse life on the bottom of the food chain becomes, the more desparate people get, and the more they want to lash out - moreover, the worse things get, the less they have to lose.

There's a passage in the movie Syriana that sums up what I think is going on for a lot of lower and middle class youths in the most oppressive nations - I'm just paraphrasing because I have a horrible memory for detailed quotations:

Communism has failed, capitalism and liberalism have failed. None of the ideologies have lived up to their promises that they would make a better life for us and our families. Things continue to get worse. We must understand we have always had the solution - the Koran tells us what to do, how to live in such a way as to make life better. But we have abandoned our faith. Only by going back to the old ways, the ways of faith, will things improve.

This is (again paraphrased) spoken by a terrorist recruiter roping in teenage boys. ObL, Bush or any other leader can scream all they want, and no one will go fight if the people themselves are convinced that the external threat is threatening them or keeping them from a better life in some way. Most of the terrorist/insurgent/what have you foot soldiers, I suspect, are not engaged in high-level thought about caliphates and theocratic political models. What they are is pissed off that they and their friends are oppressed and dying because of the local tyrant or his foreign allies, and someone has offered them an answer. When the U.S. comes along (whatever the leaders intentions) and bombs the hell out of their town, or soldiers kick their doors in an treat them like criminals, that answer starts to look increasingly correct - at least, its an option that gives them something they can do.

Re:Idea!!!

[jimicus]

In all fairness, we are talking about the middle east here. A part of the world which has been at war on and off for longer than many of the countries there have existed.

Various governments both within the middle east and outside it have been trying to calm the situation down there and so far they've had a 0% success rate. Were it not for the violence spilling into the US in the 9/11 attacks.

One suggestion that's been expounded is to introduce Marmite to the middle east. Myself, I think it smacks slightly of desperation, but hey....

Re:Idea!!!

[Copid]

The question isn't why the nutball extremists hate us. Yes, we could do things to give them fewer legitimate reasons to hate us, but we'll never do away with all terrorists by simply being nice. The important question is why do those nutball extremists find it so easy to get support and financing? That's a question we can much more easily deal with, and it has a whole lot more to do with how we act and how we're perceived in the world than a lot of people want to admit.

The fact is, there will always be violent extremism. We have our own homegrown terrorists in the US. The difference is, they're so far out on the fringe in the US that it's hard for them to operate. They don't get millions in donations, and their neighbors don't look the other way when they start building bombs. The fact that the situation isn't so great elsewhere is largely a product of the fact that we've managed to lose the PR war so spectacularly that it's not uncommon for people to think that organizations like Al Qaeda are actually fighting for justice.

We're losing a PR war to the types of people who behead reporters and blow up vegetable markets, and we're losing that war because the people of the middle east have their own media now. We can't say one thing and do another because we're going to get called on it. They're not relying on CNN and the BBC for the scoop anymore. They didn't watch the siege of Fallujah from the outside on CNN like we did. They watched it from the inside on Al Jazeera. That makes all the difference in the world, and when you apply that fact to everything we're doing in that region, you have to wonder whether we could build a worse reputation there if we tried. We actually have to make an effort to promote justice there rather than simply paying lip service to it, and the strategy of saying "We'll be nice to you when you stop supporting terrorists" is the same thing as saying, "Well be nice to you when you start liking us enough to care about the terrorists operating in your neighborhood." Come on, "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is not a viable strategy.

No, we didn't "deserve" 9/11. It wasn't our "fault." It was the fault of violent extremists who should be brought to justice. What is our fault is that we and our leaders have managed to allow our reputation in the region to become so bad that those violent extremists aren't marginalized. Once that happens, there's no way we can fight them because every one we kill will be replaced by another volunteer. The fact that our leaders simply don't get this still blows my mind. Use force against the terrorists by all means, but unless you've managed to marginalize the terrorists, you're not going to get anywhere. That's where our leadership has failed, and that appears to be where they will continue to fail until enough people have the balls to stand up and point out that maybe the sun doesn't shine out our ass in all corners of the world, and maybe we should spend some time thinking about how our foreign policy reflects that.

Re:Idea!!!

[bkr1_2k]

There was more stability in the middle east before removing Hussein from power. That's exactly my point.

"Our government has to choose it's battles and it will only get involved in conflicts that are in our best national interest."

Yes, I agree. I think the question is who defines "our national interest" and what exactly is it? We definitely have more people (Americans and otherwise) dying in the middle east right now than there were 5 years ago, so how is it more stable? I'll say, it's not. I think you'd also be highly disocunting the effect of general asian instability by saying atrocities in Indonesia and Thailand don't have any impact on our economy. Those things significantly impact the local economies, which in turn ripples into ours because we do business with them, through outsourcing of textile production, electronics assembly, and other things. Check out a pair of sneakers sometime, and see where they are manufactured. Odds are, it's in southeast Asia. Thailand is currently in an economic recession that has definitely been felt all over Asia and in our consumer electronics market as well.

Is oil a more direct impact? Absolutely. Should that be reason for war? I don't happen to think so.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find fascinating is the fact that there exists tons of evidence of your goverment involvement to the 9/11 attacks - and still the intelligent folks at Slashdot make intelligent looking arguments only about terrorists. It just proves how powerfull force denial is. I guess it does not matter much, if your parents are insane, or your "country's parents" are insane, it easy for even the intelligent ones to fall into denial. And before you flame me, please do your homework. It took serious research for me to become convinced ("it can not be true"). In fact I claim, that anyone with a brain will have to notice that the official story simply can not be true, if he/she spends just couple of days _really_ studying the hard facts.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/psych iatrists-and-psychologists.html

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

source ?

Re:Idea!!!

[readin]

Maybe you can give an example of this good influence the US had anywhere?

Anything the US has done has had good and bad. We ended the Japanese occupation of China, and now we're branded as the only country that has ever use atomic weapons. We protected Western Europe from being overrun by Communists at the end of WWII, and I actually heard a fellow student claim that the U.S. bombing of Dresden was "the single greatest atrocity of WWII" (fortunately another student quickly replied "next to the slaughter of 6 million Jews").

I don't think I can say a single thing that you would be willing to consider a positive, because whatever negative you could find would be what you would focus on.

Wait, how about this? It's small, but maybe by being small it can squeeze through. In the 1970s and 80s, the US gave sanctuary to some Russian Pentacostals. Reagan did some dealing and managed to get the Russian government to let them go. Find something wrong with that! Oh? Oh yes, you're right. The flew out of Russia in airplanes and contributed to global warming. Pure evil that was. Should have kept them locked away where their carbon footprint would have been smaller.

Re:Idea!!!

[mfrank]

Germany. Japan.

Re:Idea!!!

[squiggleslash]

OBL has been describing the US as "cowboys" for a very long time. That, too, is part of his rhetoric. It's improbable that he believed a direct attack on the US wouldn't be responded to disproportionately and without direction.

I think the entire aim of 9/11 was to have us undermine the governments of the region by building resentment against those supporting the US, and by toppling those in opposition to the US.

Re:Idea!!!

[Maxo-Texas]

Bush's last speech? they have been playing quotes from it on the radio.

We've given way over 30 billion in the past- that 30 billion is the new proposed higher level

Here's some already spent here: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/

Re:Idea!!!

[Arthur B.]

Hum slavery has been mostly eradicated. Care to say who currently is a slave? (Hint, so-called "wage-slavery" is *not* slavery)

Can you also define what inequalities you are referring to?

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

"some already spent"
lets see on your site http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/ overview.html for their total spending in 2006.
I see there "Combating HIV/AIDS and Protecting Human Health: $391,936,000" that's 1,3% of that 30 billion. Err...

Re:Idea!!!

[danpsmith]

Why would OBL want that? OBL's direct aim is not to bring peace and prosperity to Palestine. It's not to ensure oppressed Muslims in Saudi Arabia worship on their own terms rather than the Saudi Royal Family's. It's not to make Afghanistan a modern, wealthy, state able to take care of its citizens. OBL's aim, as expressed repeatedly, is to create an Arab superstate, overthrowing the local governments there, and creating instead a single Islamic nation.

I'm sure this is the conclusion you were reaching for, however, you didn't really spell it out and it definitely brought something to mind for me. If the US does do as you say, and continues to do a "bull in a china shop" job in the middle east, effectively destabilizing all stable governments in the region, I would guess then that OBL would hope to one day unite these previously separate countries. That being the case, the US intrusion actually provides the perfect catalyst. Not only does the US ripping down stable governments cause chaos, but it also makes them to blame, giving all of these previously stable countries a common goal and enemy. Even if this doesn't mean that the newly established state can defeat the US directly, it gives them a flag to fly and possibly, a chance at a better organized conflict with Israel.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

Yes, You're right. The US did something good for democracy in Europe. But since the sixties, your government has been taken in control of some people who give your country a very bad name, these people are a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards. I hope we can keep them out in Europe for a while longer.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

another suggestion : reign in israel. give gaza and the west-bank to the palestinians, and occupy both israel and palestine with a UN-force to disarm them both.

Re:Idea!!!

[roddymclachlan]

Perfect. (I wish you weren't AC.) It's worth quoting Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, when he was told that it was only easy for a dictatorship to push an unwilling population towards war: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Without this enemy, we'd have had to invent another.

A great way to invent new threats is to torture someone until they invent a new plot to please their interrogators - that's how the 'Dirty Bomb' - useless in practice, was invented.

I suspect we'll get some equally bogus threats to instill popular fear through this new exercise.

Re:Idea!!!

[edunbar93]

Just as importantly, if Osama *did* have a proper army, there's still no way in hell he can conquer the entire arab world like Mohammed did back in the day. The UN just doesn't allow that, the other arab countries just wouldn't allow that, and the US has too much interest in the region's oil to let it happen. Osama's just the kind of guy who would simply turn off the tap and let America starve.

But, if he can get America to barge into a bunch of countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan, destroy the government and try to install some kind of weak democracy, he can make his own armies in situ to fight against the occupying forces. In the meantime, it's the US that catches all the flak for doing the invading and he just takes over after the smoke clears.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give every single passenger a gun. Who's going to attempt to hijack a plane when they'll have 50+ guns pointed at their head?

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Oliver North still in prison?

Re:Idea!!!

[Copid]

Can we really 100% guarantee stopping every weapon getting onto a plane?

I think that Doug Stanhope made a good point when he said (paraphrasing): "You'll never keep weapons off of planes. We can't keep weapons out of prisons, and in prisons they're even allowed to search in your ass."

Re:Idea!!!

[fritsd]

That's funny.. when you mentioned Heinlein, I immediately thought of "Revolt in 2100" instead :-)

Re:Idea!!!

[jimicus]

You'd probably wind up replacing two governments at war with a bunch of guerilla fighters of varying levels of sophistication and organisation.

I would point out that "a bunch of guerilla fighters" like I just described isn't a million miles away from the current situation in Iraq as I understand it and look how well that's turning out.

Re:Idea!!!

[Voltaire759]

I was wondering if someone would mention Niven and Pournelle. "Footfall" actually has a couple of SF writer teams gathered to evaluate the alien threat in the novel.

Re:Idea!!!

[sgt scrub]

OK. Then here you go. The disease is people like bushwaker. People that go to fiction class every Sunday, hate people that go to different fiction classes on different days, and are so ignorant even a science fiction writer could come up with better solution to clean up their stupid mistakes. Unfortunately the bushwakers make up 37% of the US population and almost all of them vote. Maybe a "insert genre here" writer could come up with a solution to get the other 60% to the polls. afaict THAT is the solution.

Re:Idea!!!

[polar red]

Robert fisk about the middle east:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhKNGnpHEYw&mode=re lated&search=

Re:Idea!!!

[readin]

Yes, You're right. The US did something good for democracy in Europe. But since the sixties, your government has been taken in control of some people who give your country a very bad name, these people are a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards. I hope we can keep them out in Europe for a while longer. Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind if the U.S. pulled out of most of Europe. There are some countries that appreciate our presence there, but a lot of others don't.

Re:Idea!!!

[KudyardRipling]

**WARNING**

The following is strong language that must be understood in proper context:

                The solution is simple. Ban cash and chip people. This is not science fiction, This is a technologically feasable political fact (Pet Finder and Digital Angel, anyone?). Terrorism needs anonymous movement of people, money, and weapons. Doing this eliminates all of that.

            With something like that said, it won't stop there. The one who successfully does the above will invariably have the following in mind:

            Who dare oppose such an effective security measure? DAMN those Christians! Anyone who believes in that god has no right to live; their form of exclusivism is obscene to all humanity! How DARE they say that theirs is the only way! DAMN those Jews! They are the foulest mother who gave birth to these foul Christians! How bigoted these are! [I caught some of you smiling, tsk,tsk...] DAMN the rest of the exclusivists! They are not team players in our world system! They have 'burned their humanity membership card'! Who is that contractor? Ready the concentration camps YESTERDAY! Ready the body processors (mobile tungsten-toothed wood-chipper based liquid-oxygen-assisted cremators)! Mine their ashes for ores (abundant calcium phosphate from bones)! Capture their volatiles for fuel (via Fischer-Tropf process)! Make war on those nations who do not follow! Sanctions, subversion, chemicals, germs, NUCLEAR WEAPONS if need be. Gather all the nations against Israel! STERILIZE THIS PLANET ONCE FOR ALL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT BEGETTER OF ALL OBSCENITIES: YHWH!

[catching my breath here]

That's not sci-fi; that sounds like the Bible (after soiling oneself)...

Re:Idea!!!

[mangu]

it gets stronger every time you shoot at it, bomb it or do anything violent towards it

Does it, really? How many skyscrapers in New York have been destroyed by terrorists after the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

OTOH, insurgents in Iraq have been shooting at, bombing, and doing all sorts of violent things against the US military there. Do you think the US is getting stronger in Iraq?

Re:Idea!!!

[martin-boundary]

There are two problems with those conclusions. First, it narrows down an assessment of the outcome of the war to a short phase of it (the successful halting of the easter offensive of 72) and then it generalizes wildly from this to predict victory in all future invasions, eg 1975.

It's a very limited and some would say irrelevant viewpoint. By that approach, one could assert that the French won WWII because the Maginot line successfully stopped a military invasion: it was never breached, which proves how strong it was (the Germans just happened to go around it).

Perhaps the public didn't understand the nature of the war there, but he didn't. This is clear when he insists on separating narrowly defined military actions from other aspects, such as the impact of public opinion and the draft, the bigger players supporting the north, etc.

"And it is not good history to say that the US armed forces lost a war they were no longer fighting when their last engagement in that theater was an unalloyed victory."

All I have to say to that is: Military victories without context are meaningless. One doesn't win a game by winning a few points and claiming that the other points could be won too if only one wanted to.

Re:Idea!!!

[stmfreak]

As for precedent, both Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (coauthors of Footfall, and the Mote in God's Eye amongst other works) were a significant part of the push in the 80's to develop what is now National Missile Defense.

Niven also wrote "The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton" which was about Gil, a diagnosed schizophrenic, who was paid by the government to go off his meds for periods of time to tap into his paranoid creativity and anticipate threats against the homeland. In this future world, they had an entire department of these people trying to anticipate the badness.

I really admire Niven's SF writing. Hell, I admire Bear and Pournelle too. The other's I haven't read. But somehow, SF writers advising government on public policy sounds a lot like celebrities advising america on which candidate to vote for, or how much toilet paper they should use per restroom visit. Non Sequitur, is the term I believe I'm looking for.

Terrorism, like most criminal acts, is conducted by exploiting opportunity. If you remove the opportunity to carry box cutters onto a plane, then they will find another opportunity to exploit. That might involve planes, it might not. Which is why we are wasting our time standing in line for TSA to search, sniff and seize our shampoos. Okay, so now we're safe from knives, shoe bombs and liquid explosives in quantities over 3 oz. Does that make our planes safe? No. Our planes are safe because the ratio of actual terrorists trying to hijack or explode planes vs. actual planes is infinitesimally low.

When they want to blow up the next plane, they'll use 2.5 oz of high-yield liquid explosive pressed up against the window and detonate it with the battery in their cellphone. After cellphones are banned and no liquids are allowed, they'll find another way. Or they'll stop targetting planes and go after shopping malls instead. It doesn't take a SF writer to guess this stuff out into the open, but I'm sure they enjoy the attention.

Probably the real reason we're so safe in america these days is that there seems to be an all-hand's meeting of terrorists going on in iraq. They're very determined to make sure we lose the engagement over there; figuratively, actually, and publicly. Once they've accomplished that, which they will due to our own schizophrenic form of government, if we don't stop our international meddling ways, we'll probably start seeing a rash of attacks at home from random and unpredictable sources--just like the 9/11 terrorists.

And they won't crash through our barricades or evade our procedures. They'll search for and exploit opportunities within our existing "safety" systems.

And then we'll lose another dozen liberties.

Re:Idea!!!

[Charcharodon]

I love posts such as yours, because they seem to be missing a paragraph or two in order for it to make sense.

I'm assuming that you assumed that in my original post that I assumed that some how the US was entirely blameless in the current conflict. I made no such assumtion. My only real point was to point out to the parent of my original reply that the US is a Johnny come lately to a fight that has been going on for centuries. We were hardly the cause of it, but unfortunately we are the latest world power that thought we had the answer to all the problems and could end it.

Personally I think there is nothing shy of a carpeting the whole region with nukes that is going to end it, but that's not a very viable solution now is it?

Re:Idea!!!

[Charcharodon]

Irony, that's a multi-vitamin suplement isn't it?

There are no such thing as one-sided facts. The facts are they facts, the only thing left to dissagree about is one's point of view and perception of the facts. Your snide remarks shows you to just as one-sided as you are accusing me to be.

And yes, most people are very ignorant of history, me, you, and the rest of the inmates here at /.

Re:Idea!!!

[ocbwilg]

Is this really possible though? Can we really 100% guarantee stopping every weapon getting onto a plane? After all, post 9/11, Richard Reid the infamous shoe bomber got on with explosives that might well have downed the plane. He was stopped by alert passengers, not by the bureaucracy.

No, we can't. The only thing that I'm 100% sure of is that we'll rarely be 100% with regards to anything. However, there's a big difference between the occasional weapon slipping past security and 15 weapons carried by 15 different people slipping past security on the same day at the same airport at roughly the same time. The first should be a rare but unavoidable occurrance. The second should never happen.

Regarding Richard Reid, I think that he's been the exception and not the rule. IIRC, he couldn't even get his shoe-bombs to light properly, which is why he got noticed. Had he gotten them to light and explode, he could have blown a hole in the side of a plane. He probably would have killed and injured some people. But he wouldn't necessarily have taken down the plane (though I admit that I don't know the quantity or type of explosives involved). I do recall an incident where a section of the fuselage of a plane blew off on a flight to Hawaii (due to a structural flaw, not a bomb), and while some people were killed/sucked out, the majority of the passengers survived and the plane was landed.

Even a planeload of people being blown up is a far cry from 15 guys with boxcutters taking down the WTC, yet we still have to send our shoes through the x-ray machine before every flight (those to and from the US anyway, the rest of the world is still safe). Why? The shoe-bombing has only been attempted once and failed. They've never caught someone even attempting it since. If you were the sort who wanted to blow up a plane, you could probably bring on the same sort of explosive in similar quantities in your pockets or strapped to your body somewhere if you wanted to. The whole shoe thing is just security theater.

Re:Idea!!!

[Charcharodon]

No irony would have been a waste of time; most people don't get it unless you point it out to them. I was only pointing out the ignorance of the parent with my reply, the kind of over self-confident narrow minded ignorance that seems to flood your brain just about the time you enter college.

Of course there are those that immediately say wow you are so right and others that say you are so wrong. Those responses are a form of irony I guess, since both sides are both full of shit.

There is nothing new about the conflict in Iraq and the number of players involved, but there is far more to it than "unilateral US imperial aggression" and the "evil Islamic terrorists". Nothing is ever that cut and dried.

Re:Idea!!!

[ocbwilg]

I disagree. None of the weapons used in the 9/11 attacks were particularly ferocious. IMHO it *was* "lack of imagination" that ended up causing it since no-one really thought they'd end up being flown into a building - because while people are (or were) blowing themselves up fairly regularly in the Middle East, the Middle East is a long way away from the average domestic flyer's thoughts.

It doesn't matter how ferocious a weapon it is (and a boxcutter can certainly be used to kill someone, as one of the flight attendants on 9/11 had her throat slit), the rule is no weapons on planes. This rule has included knives for a very long time, and yet boxcutters were smuggled onboard. If those boxcutters had been stopped at the airport, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. For that matter, there are probably another half dozen things that could have been done along the way that could have prevented 9/11 from happening, and none of them have anything to do with being able to imagine someone intentionally flying planes into buildings (though apparently that particular attack vector actually *had* been imagined previously and even made it into a PDB).

Re:Idea!!!

[ocbwilg]

1) Impact is all in terrorism. There'll be a lot of impact from simultaneous multiple acts on soft targets such as shopping malls, but much more from hard targets. That's why they're hardened. Al Qaeda could have chosen an easier, less risky route than 9/11 but didn't because it wanted as much impact as possible.

If your end goal is terror, then hard targets versus soft targets is largely irrelevant. The terror effect comes from people thinking "that could have been me" or "that could be me next time". Most people don't spend a lot of time at hardened targets. Striking hardened targets is certainly much more impressive, and taking down the WTC not only impresses but also takes out a symbol of western capitalism, but it was not necessary to create terror.

If it's pure terror that you want, you get a much greater effect in hitting people where they live and feel safe. After 9/11, many people stopped flying and refused to go into large buildings because they were afraid. But how do you avoid going to the mall or grocery store? How do you avoid sending your kids to school?

2) Risks of compromise rise dramatically as the scale of the terror plot increases. To have the same impact as a 9/11 through hitting softer targets, a terror group would need to attack many more targets (see 1 above). This is feasible, and of course, some other risks decrease, but it's not clear that they'll fall enough to compensate from the rise in compromise risk associated with a larger scale plot.

This is true, which is why 9/11 used multiple cells of individuals who didn't know each other or who else was involved. And there are certainly other ways of reducing the risk of compromise, like shorter times to train and assemble the teams. Instead of training them to fly a plane into a building and performing recon on the airports and planes, all you have to do is have them buy some guns (or have someone else buy them for them) and pick a suitable target on a specific day.

During 9/11 they used what, 15-19 hijackers? How hard would it be to split them into 4 or 5 cells and have them each take out a school somewhere? While we're discussing the virtues of softer versus harder targets, I bet that if they attacked elementary schools instead of high schools not only would they have an easier target, but I suspect that the terror effect would be much, much greater. In some cases the softest targets can have the greatest effect.

Re:Idea!!!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There are no such thing as one-sided facts. Bingo!!! Now you know why I put the word in quotes.

Your snide remarks shows you to just as one-sided as you are accusing me to be. Lol! Sure it does. All my snideness does is show that I'm confident in your ignorance, nothing more. You dhimmi-wannabes are all the same, if I've heard your deliberately one-sided spiel once I've heard it a thousand times. Cue the protestations of not recognizing yourself.

Re:Idea!!!

[ximo88]

In the rebelion of the Pawns only the king must die so in the near future changes in democracy will be made that one that wants to get the power knows that his/her living days depends on if in their mandate there are no victims caused for the lack of respect to the ideas and mores of the people. Long Live to the Pawns !!!! If someone wants to make a movie I want some money for the idea I'm not a P.K.Dick but ....

Re:Idea!!!

[Weedlekin]

"we are talking about the middle east here. A part of the world which has been at war on and off for longer than many of the countries there have existed."

The same can be said of Europe, the Far East, Africa, the pre-Columbian Americas, etc., etc., etc.

Re:Idea!!!

[tzot]

Obviously I wasn't clear enough. I replied to your (Charcharodon (btw I didn't look it up, but this nickname in Greek can be translated as Sharktooth)) post that was a reply to an AC post, and I meant that I perceived as ironic the AC post, not yours.

So all I wanted to say was that, perhaps, your suggesting that the AC was historically-challenged was misdirected.

Re:Idea!!!

[shilly]

But the end goal of terrorism isn't terror. Terror is a means to an end. Impact is all, as I say. And there's greater impact from hitting hard targets than soft. The aim isn't to terrify an entire population, but to have maximum impact on the government (and possibly economy). Al Qaeda is seeking to change US policy in the Middle East and establish a caliphate -- it seeks to terrorise the US population only as a means to that end.

As for your second point, I think the impact of 911 would have been much much less had the attackers split up into 4-5 school shooting groups rather hijacking four planes and crashing them into the WTC and Pentagon. Even if they'd killed kiddies. I rather think your example proves my point -- they'd have needed to attack 30 or 40 schools and killed dozens of children to have achieved similar levels of impact, and even then it would have been lessened by the precedent of other school shooters (eg Columbine).

Re:Idea!!!

[zolaar]

[...] when you stop shooting at them, turn your back and [...]

Who said what now 'bout us turnin' our back?

Boy, I only done stopped that thar shootin' fer cuz I's be born fer WRASSLIN' !!!!!

::bear-hugs for peace::

Re:Idea!!!

[VON-MAN]

No. Try to read the other replies, please.

Re:Idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get these motherfuckin' stairs off my motherfuckin' plane!

Re:Idea!!!

[DavidTC]

His stated reasons for killing american civilians are:

he wants Sharia law across the world (succinctly: 'they hate our freedom')

Lie. He says our entanglement with Muslim countries prevents them from enforcing Sharia law. Not one mention of it in any other place is made.

he wants arab control of Israel (and considers US taxpayers to be military targets because they directly fund the Israeli military)

Lie. He wants Israel to leave Palestine alone, and to leave the Al-Aqsa mosque alone.

he wants to end all lending with interest (a policy which will just make inequality worse)

No, he says that allowing usury has allowed the Jews to take over our country, and points out it's been forbidden by 'all religions'. (He's right WRT Islam and Judaism and Christianity, I don't know about anything else.) This, however, is not one of the reasons he states for attacking us.

he wants to end interventionist US foreign policy

No shit, Sherlock.

he wants to convert or kill believers in false religions

No, he suggests we join Islam, to fix our 'moral decay'. He doesn't say anything about 'converting' us, or that he or we should or will kill non-believers.

Here are his actual reasons stated for attacking the US:

The US attacked first in a) Palestine, b) Somalia, supported Russian atrocities against them in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against them in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against them in Lebanon, c) control their own governments, preventing their own citizens from enacting Sharia (1), humiliate them, steal their wealth, and surrender to the Jews, d) we ourselves steal their oil, e) we keep forces in their lands, f) starved the children of Iraq(2) with sanctions, and g) gave the Jews Jerusalem.(3)

Then he's got some bullshit justification for attacking civilians, and then he moves on to the second question, what he thinks are our root problems of immorality and suggestions how to solve them. The last three of those have vague threats attached, and those last three are the things they listed as reasons for the attack in the first place. The rests have no threats at all.

The entire letter has two parts, defined very very clearly: Why are they attacking us, and what they are 'calling on us to do', with the first part being reasons for the attack, aka, 'crimes', and the second part just being suggestions to 'clean ourselves up' so we start behaving in a better manner.

If you don't understand this concept: If you get caught driving while drunk, the court may sentence you to attend AA. Or even just recommend it. However, failure to attend AA was not your crime.

Now, bin Laden's suggestions are somewhat stupid and naive about how the US works. Trying to imply that he will continue to attack us as long as we don't follow them all, however, is idiotic. He will presumably continue to attack us as long as we continue to do the things he said made him attack us. If he attacked us for some other reason, presumably he'd put it in as a reason. If he wanted to attach threats to the other suggestions, he presumably would have done so.

Pretending that he will continue to attack us until every suggestion is followed is idiotic fearmongering designed to make it look like all his 'reasons' were nonsense. The justification for the attacks were nonsense, the actual reasons really do exist and really are things the US has done, although certainly random people don't deserve to be murdered for that.

The letter is here. Feel free to actually read it. It's not formatted on the website, if you've got Word or another word processor you can paste it in and autoformat it to it laid out in easy to understand sections.

1) Which may be what you were talking about above, but you'd missed the point that he was saying the US supports their governme

Re:Idea!!!

[DavidTC]

If the president of the US is bad, his enemies can't *really* be all that bad, which is totally untrue.

If there really is a bad enemy out there, (And considering the absurd 'plots' the government foils and touts until forced to admit it captured someone who planned to dismantle the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch or something equally absurd, it really doesn't look like there is.) then we need to do something about the fool in office even more.

You know, the fool who gave Iraq to Iran, and now is threating Iran, despite Iran not only not doing a damn thing to harm us, but the one counterbalance to Sunni extremism (You know, the people who attacked us?) in the area? The fool who continues to cozy up to the Saudi (Again, the people who attacked us?) and their big money? The fool who still thinks he can salvage something out of Iraq besides more dead soldiers and more hate from the Iraqi population? The fool who still hasn't managed to try anyone for terrorism because of his pathological need to randomly hurt 'the bad guys' instead of operating like governments are supposed to act by 'arresting' and 'trying' criminals for crimes they've committed? The fool who let bin Laden get away and has let the Taliban take back over Afganistan? The fool who doesn't do anything about Pakistan's support of terrorist groups?

And that's just the foreign stupidity.

We "progressives" are just hoping and praying that the threat is not real. If it's not real, the president is just a criminal, a Nixon who's more organized. If it is real, we're fucked.

Re:Idea!!!

[DavidTC]

I'll point out we could have solved Iraq without a war at all. Saddam, when he realized war was actually going to happen regardless of weapon inspections, started making plans to, in essense, 'give' his nation to the Arab League and step down, with a promise of immunity to prosecution for him and his family and the idea they would hold free elections in six months.

The Arab League ultimately refused, and we knew all this was happening. We could have, at any time, offered him the same deal, and gained Iraq completely bloodlessly.

We almost did gain it bloodlessly anyway, but Iraq wouldn't have been in such craptacular shape from all the bombings, and the Baathists would have been much more subdued, and the government would have been perceived as more 'legitimate'.

Genius yoyoq!!!

[spazoid12]

Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.

Everyone's a snide little clever genius after the fact.

Here's a suggestion: no, it could not have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door. It would have likely been a somewhat different attack, but it still would have happened.

Meanwhile, people still catch colds despite having a supply of tissue in the house.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[QuantumG]

No. You're wrong. Everyone knows that locks are impossible to get around.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Snarl]

Yeah really. There's always a way. If the door was locked, how long would it take for the pilot to open the door if the terrorist started executing one passanger a minute until the door was opened?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[tezbobobo]

Then why do we now have locks on the doors?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[91degrees]

The same reason that they ban knittign needles. It makes things appear safer.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[EvanED]

If the door was locked, how long would it take for the pilot to open the door if the terrorist started executing one passanger a minute until the door was opened?

On the flip side, how many of those executions would it take before the passengers turned *all* the flights into flight 93?

Then it's just a race to see whether the passengers react or the pilot caves first. My suggestion: with the terrorists with knives instead of guns, the passengers.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[EvanED]

Then why do we now have locks on the doors?

Same reason we have most airport security: it provides the illusion of security.

(Okay, so it probably helps a little bit. Personally, I suspect that door locks would very possibly either prevented or more likely substantially lessened the severity of 9/11. I also think that the GP is right, and we would have just seen a different attack.)

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[yotto]

Before 9/11, if your plane got hijacked, you'd likely have to fly to Cuba or somewhere, unload the terrorists, and then sit around until someone negotiated you out of there. So, sitting there flying the plane while they execute passengers would be dumb.

After 9/11, hijacking = you crash into a building. So, sitting there flying the plane while they execute passengers is the smartest thing you can do.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[dbIII]

Everyone's a snide little clever genius after the fact.

People worldwide had been saying for year that US airport security was worthless - paticularly when stuck in line behind a US tourist abroad complaining long and loud that as an American they never should have to put up with having their bag searched. Now it has swung to another extreme with security theatre that is often mindless, inflexible and carried out by the pooorly trained due to the need to take on a lot of staff suddenly (I would really hate to be old or disabled and have to deal with a random bit of security theatre).

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[phayes]

Then why do we now have locks on the doors?

Because, ignorant one, before 9/11 the threat was different. Prior to 9/11 every single instance where control was violently seized from the pilots it was to hijack the plane & take the passengers hostage. Pilots were trained to go along with any threat that they judged placed the life of one of their passengers in jeopardy because in the long run even if they blew up the plane as they did in Beirut, passenger safety was primordial. When the 9/11 terrorists showed that they were willing to die with everyone else on the plane, the threat (& thus techniques for mitigating it) changed.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[growse]

Didn't one airline (may have been Israeli) suggest that they actually build a bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger compartment? The pilot/copilot would then have their own external door to enter/exit the plane. They theorised that hijackings would reduce, because there's no way of moving from the passenger area to the cockpit whilst the plane is in flight without structurally damaging the airframe. Seems a good, if expensive, idea to me...

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

primordial means old mothafucka

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Threni]

> If the door was locked, how long would it take for the pilot to open the door if the terrorist started executing one passanger a
> minute until the door was opened?

Who cares? There weren't 3000 people in the plane.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Ihlosi]

Didn't one airline (may have been Israeli) suggest that they actually build a bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger compartment?

And then, both pilots die from food poisoning and a whole plane full of retired pilots crashes since no once could actually get into the cockpit to land the darn thing.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Madman]

There ARE lock on the door, and there WERE lock on the door in 911. The terrorists didn't break the doors down, they knocked and the pilots opened them. It wasn't a failure of the locks or the doors, but a failure of everyone involved to maintain vigilance.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Professor_UNIX]

And then, both pilots die from food poisoning and a whole plane full of retired pilots crashes since no once could actually get into the cockpit to land the darn thing.

In the event of a hijacking or loss of the flight crew the plane would just revert automatically to autopilot and only take commands from the ground. The autopilot can easily be made to land a jumbo jet these days, it's just cocky pilots don't want to sit around and do nothing while the plane flies itself.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[growse]

You been watching Airplane too much?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[massivefoot]

That's not quite true. An autopilot can fly a very good flight path provided all the nav radios etc are working, but it lacks a decent pair of eyes. With only an autopilot there's nothing to stop you having a collision with a stay light aircraft, or a jumbo with a broken transponder. It also can't "think on its feet" if something goes wrong.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Christian Benesch]

Or the pilot has to go to the loo. Transcontinental flights .... patience .... Christian

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Crizp]

The autopilot can easily be made to land a jumbo jet these days, it's just cocky pilots don't want to sit around and do nothing while the plane flies itself.

Mind you, not all airports have the "modern" ILS necessary for autopilot landing. Still, an instrumentation downlink from the plane to the ground is enough to land the damn thing by remote control anyways.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Ihlosi]

Still, an instrumentation downlink from the plane to the ground is enough to land the damn thing by remote control anyways.

It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[poopdeville]

Security is as hard as the enemy wants it to be. This is the most important thing we can understand about security.

I don't mean to say that your comment wasn't insightful. It was. But as they raise the stakes, we have to too.

Then again, I don't want to sound like I'm on the DHS's side. They have a lot to learn, and it will be too late before their process of security by committee does.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

With knitting needles someone could knit an Afghan.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[mr100percent]

Ralph Nader had as a campaign promise that every airplane in America should have stronger cockpit doors. This was in 2000 at the latest.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Locks don't always a lot of good and not everything important is locked. I once was on a Convair passenger aircraft that lost power due to severe turbulence that shook a critical power connector open, and a crewman flung the passenger aisle carpet aside, yanked a covered trapdoor open, and dived down to the under-cabin baggage area where the connector was to replug it. We got the engine back. Turns out a lot of cables are routed down there. I don't know what modern aircraft are like, but I bet there's still something similar.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Scynet85]

Also, the public doesn't *want* computers to fly their planes. For as long as people refuse to step on a plane with an empty cockpit, it's not gonna happen. Even if the pilots just sits on their butts, they're still wanted there.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[jimicus]

Further to that, prior to 9/11, 99% of hijackings resulted in one of two things:

1. Hijacker is arrested the moment they get off the plane and spends a nice long time in prison.
2. Hijacker is shot the moment they get off the plane and spends a nice long time dead.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If I were a terrorist, and found the cockpit door locked, I would threaten to kill a passanger. If that doesn't do it, I kill them and pick another. And so on, until the pilot opens the door. I would, of course, tell the pilot that I only wanted to land the plane somewhere so I could claim political asylum or disappear.

2. If I were a terrorist, I wouldn't be trying 911 again. Its been done, too much security. I would find a few fanatics, strap them with explosives and jagged metal, and give them orders to all blow up in the halls of primary schools across the country on the same day. The result would be mass-panic and huge disruption, and a lot of parents keeping their children home for months.

3. Other plans include deliberatly spreading drug-resistant TB, paying unskilled labor (ie, gangs) to hijack trucks and drive them into power lines or substations, modifying a car to drop tire-puncturing nails and using it on a packed motorway or interstate, sneaking onto a train track and taking some welding equipment to the track to cause a derailment... there are far too many potential attacks to make specific plans against each one.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Carewolf]

Which all happens very rarely. So in the rare case both pilots die from food-poising, there is still a 99.4297% chance the autopilot can land the plane safely by itself.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[jimicus]

I'm not an aircraft designer, so I know bugger all about what I'm talking. (Why I think I'm therefore qualified to expound at length on the subject on /. is a separate discussion for another day).

If you're talking about completely re-engineering the fuselage with a bloody great bulkhead between cockpit and cabin, fitting another door on the outside and getting all that past the various safety authorities (either retrofitting an existing plane or building into the design of a new one), adding "fit a modern ILS" doesn't sound so prohibitive. Particularly if you design it into new planes rather than try retrofitting.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Crizp]

All new aircraft of a certain size have modern, auto-landing-capable ILS systems -- but the airports need to be equipped for it too since the ILS data comes from there :)

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[WoodenRobot]

It's my understanding that the pilots in aricraft always have different meals to each other to prevent both getting ill.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[bolek_b]

I think unless there is a serious flaw on the side of airport security, the equipment advantage of the bad guys is not so big. The ONLY weapons which caused 911 were surprise and bad assumptions. The terrorists were allowed into cockpit with the assumption that it is just one of "routine hijackings" (scenario: land somewhere, demand something, negotiate, release hostages). The incorectness of the assumption was the moment of surprise and I truly believe that all pilots since then have to consider a 911 scenario as well.

Let us now think about those executions of passengers. We may not prevent them, but we can reduce the casualties. Assume that there are approx. 6 bad guys armed with improvised cold weapons, therefore effective attack range of each member is cca 1 meter. What are tactical options of passengers?

• They have vast numeric advantage. Say at least 50 men and don't forget about capabilities of many angry women.
• They may create improvised weapons and shields as well. Trays, belts, blankets...
• The cramped space onboard in my opinion favors the defense. The movement of attackers can be obstructed by improvised barricades (luggage)

As long as the cockpit is not penetrated, the pilots may help with another effective countermeasures (but they would require a tactically skilled flight attendant coordinating the actions, or some kind of CCTV in the cabin):

• Perform sudden maneuvers (rapid descent, steep banking) to incapacitate attackers; they won't probably wear belts during the incident
• Change parameters of cabin environment: temperature, light, sound -- anything which may disrupt focus and coordination of the attacking group
• Decompress the cabin and therefore restrict the movement of all passengers
• I personally can think of merits of equipping flight attendants with tasers, sticky foam, pepper spray (or even stun grenades)

In this mental exercise are some assumptions as well. The foremost is that only cold weapons are available to terrorists. Here we have to rely on the integrity and skill of airport personnel, but even with handguns I believe passengers with improvised shields would stand a chance. When it comes to bombs, well, bad luck, BUT: the bad guys can destroy the plane, but they will not control it.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[butlerdi]

Well, they have been discussing remote control features for commercial traffic where if there was a problem which incapacitated the crew..... perhaps this or some variation is what inspired the plan.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

i know this may sound stupid to americans, but over here in germany, our grundgesetz (equivalent to your constitution) says that it is illegal to weigh one live against another - so you can't shoot down a plane with 1 innocent guy in it, even if you could guaranteed save 1000 people by doing so. the bundeswehr is only allowed to do so, if the death of this one innocent guy is also clear (the plane will definitely crash, killing all aboard) - just the suspicion isn't enough. and i like that law - i could be the one inside.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Separate the cockpit into two sections, one connected to the rest of the plane and the other one only accessible from a separate door. The pilot stays in the inaccessible section and his or her controls take priority over the copilot's controls.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Mordaximus]

Who cares? There weren't 3000 people in the plane.

The needs of the many, Spock? Good point. Perhaps you could shed some light on how the pilot, sitting in the locked cockpit, knows that the hijackers intended to fly the plane into a tall populated building? Or do you think the point of every hijacking is demolition?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Richard_at_work]

I suggest you take a look into the Air France flight 8969 hijacking in December 24th, 1994. The purpose of that hijacking was to fly the aircraft to Paris and blow it up at a very low altitude, possibly with the Eiffle Tower as a target.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[badasscat]

On the flip side, how many of those executions would it take before the passengers turned *all* the flights into flight 93?

Flight 93 was only a failure because the timing got messed up - the passengers all knew they were on a suicide mission anyway.

One of the tactics the terrorists used was telling everybody they had a bomb on board - they all had a guy stationed at the front of the cabin who they said was wearing one. Given that, I would think the result would have been exactly the same had there been locks on the cockpit door. Without the knowledge of previous attacks like those on flight 93 had, and with the assumption that there *could* be a bomb on board, and the knowledge that people *will* continue to be executed unless the pilot cooperates, I would give it a maximum of three minutes before that cockpit door is opened. It's the pilot's primary responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers, and he's looking at a situation where on the one hand you've got a hijacking (most of which previously had ended safely) and on the other hand you've got passengers being executed if he does nothing. Really, he'd be derelict in his duties if he *didn't* open the cockpit door.

We think differently since 9/11. Don't forget that. Before 9/11, the thought was a hijacking is dangerous but generally survivable, so it would certainly be preferable to allowing a bomb to go off on board.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[thefirelane]

just revert automatically to autopilot and only take commands from the ground Genius, now the terrorists just attack the control tower.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[DoctorFrog]

The control tower is already a butt-obvious target for terrorism. I would hope there are already serious security measures in place there. Then again, both terrorists and counter-terrorists seem to lack imagination to a remarkable degree; I guess that explains this program.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[CarpetShark]

Everyone's a snide little clever genius after the fact.

I don't know about that. Plenty of people hated Bush before 9/11.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Threni]

> The needs of the many, Spock? Good point. Perhaps you could shed some light on how the pilot, sitting in the locked cockpit, knows
> that the hijackers intended to fly the plane into a tall populated building?

Procedure. You don't open the door for any reason. The pilot doesn't need to speculate on what the hijackers are doing. If he stays in the cockpit and lands the plane immediately it minimizes deaths. Or are you suggesting the pilot should become Spock and open the door and say "well, perhaps he'll kill me and take over the plane but it might save other lives".

> Or do you think the point of every hijacking is demolition?

If someone has hijacked a plane in the hope of getting asylum in a country but they kill someone in the process, they're going to get stuck in prison then deported at the end of the sentence. Some people are mentally ill, but there's no point in adjusting policy for them because they're not able to be dealt with rationally so policy there is irrelevant.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Himring]

I disagree. Some things are the result of sheer idiocy. Allowing the president to ride through town in a convertible: dumb. Allowing levees to deteriorate when people living just beneath them are reporting seepage in their yards, and when there are discovery channel shows depicting the impact of a hurricane some 10 years prior to the event: dumb. Not listening or heeding the warning from think-tank groups regarding cockpit doors in passenger planes: dumb. Yes, there were warnings given and they were not heeded.

Just because something happened doesn't mean it could not have been prevented. That's flawed logic.

Failure to imagine? I say failure of bureaucracy maybe. More than anything, just stupid....

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[samkass]

Locks on the cockpit door would not have helped, because the pilots would have invited the hijackers into the cockpit. I know that sounds absurd now, but at the time the conventional wisdom was that hijackers generally wanted to make some political statement before releasing everyone, and obeying their demands was the best way to protect the lives of the passengers and crew.

The only thing that would have helped is better collection, coordination and analysis of information.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[McGurk]

Snide little clevel genius? Damn, I'm an asshole. First thing that came to my mind when I read the submitter was "cunt."

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The needs of the many, Spock?

Using reason is bad? Perhaps you can justify that? Oh I forgot - using logic is bad too. You can just make any statement you want...suggest/implement any policy/procedure you want, based soley on emotion rather than common sense, safe in the knowledge that your choices can't be attacked.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They did that in Die Hard 2

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[dave420]

No! Because the 20 doctors in first class who are going to a convention can just... oh, wait.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[steveo777]

Very interesting. I think it was a Stephen King book that I was reading back in the 90's, The Drawing of the Three(?), where an attendant boiled up a pot of coffee to ambush a passenger she thought was going to try something. She just waited in the cabin with the lid off the coffee.

I'm thinking that surprise and ingenuity would be the real reasons for what happened after those hijackings. Yes, lock the cabin doors. But let's have a contingency plan. And let's realize that things with sharp edges and gunpowder are not the only weapons available to either terrorists or everyday Joe Heroes. I remember on 9/11 thinking that, if the guys didn't have guns, then why the hell didn't the passengers stop them?! Maybe I live in my own sci-fi world, but I know for damn sure I couldn't just sit back and think, "Well, they're hijacking the plane... again..." I've seen too many movies to sit back and take it.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh you saw that movie too?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[dr_dank]

On a related note, did a hijacking ever result in the hijackers getting their demands met and allowed to get away? I can't recall any other outcome than the ones described above.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Maximum Prophet]

Note that we went the entire cold war with just protocol and encryption keys keeping someone from hijacking our nuclear arsenal.

The space shuttle and every space launch we're sent into space can be detonated remotely. So far no one's been able to break the system. (and at least on some unmanned flights, it's been used properly)

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[kthejoker]

So always let local control be able to disable remote control. If the pilots can still fly and someone tries to remotely hijack the plane, they can just kill the receiver on the plane (no more remote control) and fly manually.

And of course report the attempt.

And in the unlikely event that both pilots die, remote control is activated, and then it's hijacked, have an emergency local override for the chief flight attendant that puts the plane on local autopilot (and circling) until the hijack is over.

There's always a contingency plan, don't act so smug in pronouncing an idea invalid just because you have a hack.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[mjeffers]

It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.

I can't see how changing the attack scenario from "lets get 5 guys and some box cutters to bust down the door and grab the steering wheel" to "Lets get a highly technical person to crack the encryption to take over the automatic pilot" could be seen as anything but successful security. You've massively increased the cost of an attack to the point where it's probably not worth it compared to other types of high-profile attacks.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[cei]

One might argue DB Cooper may have gotten away...

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[epine]

It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too.

Douglas Adams

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[SydShamino]

They don't ban knitting needles. My wife takes several pairs with her everywhere she flies, and that includes 18+ hour international flights where the planes are loaded with passengers and fuel.

Three-inch box cutter blades can do a world of hurt, but five pairs of six-to-twelve-inch spikes could never harm anyone. Besides, the knitting lobby would raise hell if they couldn't work on planes...

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[dodobh]

But why would the next attack be using _airplanes_? Way easier to explode a few cars in a shopping district. Or gas a metro line.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[readin]

It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.

1. The pilot has a switch that allows the plane to be controlled from the ground. Without the switch (a physical switch, not a logical one), the tower can't do anything.

2. The switch, once thrown, is protected by a combination lock. Yes, locks can be picked/broken, but that takes time. Or maybe once thrown, the switch is locked in place with no way for pilot or crew to change back to pilot control.

So in the event of hijackign or pilot death, the switch is thrown (by pilot, stewardess, anyone who has a couple seconds to act). Unless the hijackers are smart enough to overcome the locks or have managed to simultaneously take over plane and tower, have guaranteed landing. Even if the hijackers overcome the locks, it may be so difficult that all they do is disable tower control. They'll crash the plane, but not into any buildings.

This system could also be used in an emergency where the pilot and co-pilot become incapacitated for other reasons.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[phayes]

I've met a few members of the GIGN team that assaulted the plane, so I'm well aware of the circumstances. None believed at the time that the GIA intended to die in a mass suicide. Much of the reasoning that 8969 was a suicide mission is from the fact that one of their main demands was for a fully fueled plane. Post 9/11, many outsiders have reinterpreted that it was so that they could crash the plane in Paris, yet at the time everyone believed that it was so that the plane could fly to Beirut to make good their escape. Another difference between 9/11 & 8969 (bringing the thread back to the original point) is that on 8969, the terrorists boarded before the flight took off when the cabin was open and had firearms. Placing locks on the cabin doors could not have helped on 8969 so there was no pressure to do so after it's resolution.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[mmdog]

That's why most people who are serious about this suggest an entirely separate entrance to the cockpit from the outside of the plane, with NO access to the passenger area.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[thesandtiger]

Uh, no, actually. There have been several hijackings since 9/11 and they haven't resulted in planes crashing into buildings. They've resulted in planes being diverted to wherever the hell the hijackers wanted, if I remember correctly. Oh, and no "passenger revolt" either.

Granted, these haven't been US flights or US airline flights that have been hijacked, but "hijacking == planes crashing into buildings" is simply not true.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Kokuyo]

And that's why pilot and co-pilot shouldn't eat the same menu. Preferrrably, they have their own food prepared in their hotel or by their beloved wife.

Seriously, how often has this scenario happened apart from movies?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Guido von Guido]

They don't ban knitting needles.

My wife had a pair of (cheap) knitting needles taken in the Toronto airport a couple of years ago. The guy who took them was both French Canadian and the only polite person in airport security I've ever met.

However, most of the time she doesn't have any problems with knitting needles on planes.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[bcharr2]

Against terrorists armed with box cutters in the confines of an aircraft, I've always favored the defense of a scalding hot pot of coffee. Just a little splash will do 'ya.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So, if both pilot and co-pilot die, which has a very slim chance of happening, someone only has to disable/disrupt/jam/take over the transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.

Problem there, is that you can't predict what plane will have both pilot and co-pilot die, and you can't be constantly ready to take over/jam/whatever every single plane up there.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Everyone's a snide little clever genius after the fact.

You win comment of the week. :) My God, if that isn't *the* thing that's infecting (and destroying) topical debate these days...

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[bigdavex]

And then, both pilots die from food poisoning and a whole plane full of retired pilots crashes since no once could actually get into the cockpit to land the darn thing.

Don't let them both eat the fish.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Go before you leave? Have a series of tubes?

In before "What good will the internet do them?"

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[bolek_b]

Good point. As Schneier's essay published on his blog today states, from the point of view of terrorists it's just a choice of tactic in order to reach the goal: to terrorize. In another words, perform some spectacular violent act which will attract a lot of media coverage. One day, it is an airplane used as a guided missile. Another day, it may have been completely different plot (hijacking and blowing up a supertanker; sniper hidden in the car cruising the country...).

And we need to remember that so far most of the attacks were quite unsofisticated and only crudely coordinated. Despite this they were considered as a success. I don't want to know what would happen if someone skilled in psychology and urban warfare was to plan a blow to the society. Imagine for example this IMO easy to execute (for dedicated terrorists with some training) plan:

1. A small decoy bombs are blown in several subway stations, preferably geografically near. Casualties ~ virtually zero, the purpose is to ignite panic.
2. As scared mass of people tries to evacuate, detonate much bigger bombs near to exits from the stations. Not necessarily very lethal, but...
3. Now you have many instances of hysteric, panicked crowd in a small space (as subway exits tend to be). As was noticed many times during for example fire accidents, such crowd is very lethal thing.
4. In older times, you would have to consider how to ensure proper access for news crews. It has changed, the victims will without doubt provide their own coverage via phones, and it has the necessary "feel" of authenticity.

Just remember how much fear generated one single guy equipped with a gun. And there you will have multiphase attack simultaneously in several places. Next week, the target could be an armed assault on nearest TV station, with a live broadcast of murders etc. The options for terrorists' goal are virtually endless. So our defense should go deeper and mitigate tactical advantages of terrorists: Media coverage - why? (If nobody in terrorist's tribe knows about his deed, would they celebrate him as a hero? I doubt it.)

I do not have a proper reference (and I'm unable to verify), but I remember somebody to claim that during IRA bombings in UK, the media coverage was inversely proportional to human losses. Sounds plausible to me and logical as well. If you deny access to the media, those terrorists will become just criminals. But here we come across an interesting find: terrorists and media live in a strange symbiosis. Media equation: more terror = more revenue for media. Terrorist's equation: more media coverage - more fear in society. In both cases, the objective is reached. Tough luck for the victims who happen to stay between these two parties.

And though I'm from different country, my memories of IRA times tell me something was fundamentally different: the people were not being scared by their own government. The response was more similar to police investigation than to full-scale military response. But these days no, we are so soft that we even bow down when some unimportant people don't like a sheet of caricatures.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[stud9920]

Before 9/11, if your plane got hijacked, you'd likely have to fly to Cuba or somewhere, unload the terrorists, and then sit around until someone negotiated you out of there

Those muslims put legitimate pop and mom terrorists out of business !

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[AnonymousRobin]

A lot of these thoughts are quite interesting, and tactically, you're certainly right. The problem is that most people are cowards who will just sit there doing nothing in an emegency and they aren't trained to listen to people like flight attendant who suddenly are acting like commanding officers. There is no way 6 people can kung fu their way through an entire plane full of people if everyone was actually standing in their way. The problem is if you take a box cutter and threaten one child, most people won't do anything. Even if you didn't, many people won't do much.

I do think that arming the flight attendants and certainly the pilots is a good idea as a middle ground, though. I mean, if all else fails, taser everyone and even if the terrorists get a hold of the non-lethal weapons, you still have more armed people. The solution I think is personally best is to arm everyone. Or at least allow everyone to carry small firearms. There's good reasons you shouldn't shoot an AK47 full auto in the middle of a plane under any circumstances, but if the terrorists have an unknown (and likely superior) number of armed civilians that are already surrounding them by the nature of the layout of the plane, and it's impossible to know who is and isn't armed, so you can't use a hostage and demand weapons reliably, and it only takes one copetent individual to take one or more of them down, it becomes much, much more difficult to repeat 9/11 - even if they're armed themselves. Yes, this solution would cause casualties and there would be accidents when no terrorists were around, and that one nutcase could suddenly open fire on people (before getting shot soon after), but if the belief is that terrorists are a great threat, we've got more to worry about than just one plane of people when they try to do stuff. And likely, you'd save the plane with this strategy anyway.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[rmstar]

> i know this may sound stupid to americans

It's not just Americans it sounds stupid to.

Seconded. I am German, and have thought about this time and time again. I haven't been able to think of it as something that is not utterly and deeply stupid. The constitutional court judges, when they turned down the law that would allow the army to do something in such a case, even went so far as to say that "a state that weighted human lives against each other is unthinkable" ("Undenkbar"). How about that? Just fucking Unthinkable!

The fact that many fellow Germans think that this was a good decision scares me. It confirms my suspicion that the German public is living in a land of fantasy, at the same time reduced to a crippling state of cowardice and egoism. "I wouldn't want to take responsibility for such a decision". I wonder if they really wouldn't set a threshold. Suppose a bunch of terrorists with a nuclear bomb in a plane with 10 civilians heads towards Berlin. Still unthinkable to kill the 10 civilians including terrorists? Maybe if the 10 civilians file a petition?

I hope that, if it ever comes to that, someone will "disobey orders" and shoot down the plane. He will probably rot for years in a German prison, though.

From that decision of the constitutional court, and its large support in the population, it also follows that Germany would rather be shredded to pieces than ever go to war again.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

i know this may sound stupid to americans, but over here in germany, our grundgesetz (equivalent to your constitution) says that it is illegal to weigh one live against another - so you can't shoot down a plane with 1 innocent guy in it, even if you could guaranteed save 1000 people by doing so. the bundeswehr is only allowed to do so, if the death of this one innocent guy is also clear (the plane will definitely crash, killing all aboard) - just the suspicion isn't enough. and i like that law - i could be the one inside. You're right - it sounds stupid to Americans. We're brought up to love and protect those around us, even if it means giving our own life. You, evidently, are brought up to be more worried about saving your own sorry ass, even if it puts 1000 others at serious risk.

I would bet you dollars to donuts though, that if push came to shove, a "clear" reason would be invented, if necessary, to justify shooting down the hijacked plane you are riding in. It wouldn't be that hard, really. One false turn by the terrorists and boom, the government can say it was definitely going to crash.

      Marc

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[yoyoq]

there is nothing snide or clever or genius about that fact. it is true. if the cockpit doors were locked and remained locked, it wouldn't have happened. my point is we don't have to go overboard to provide reasonable security. if you sneeze over everything than your housemates have a better chance of catching a cold. so tissues in the house do help other people not catch cold.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[drinkypoo]

No. You're wrong. Everyone knows that locks are impossible to get around.

It does not take much imagination to come up with a lock you couldn't get around. You might have to design up the cockpit door, too.

Personally I might consider making it an electronic lock, which you don't get to pick, and with a remote unlock so that if the pilots are dead or something, it's possible to get someone in there. But a better solution is probably just being able to fly the plane remotely, or to have a class-IV or whatever autopilot that can land the plane unattended.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[ArsonSmith]

I'd guess never in a commercial flight. Although there is one humorous story about an incident my father got blamed for. It seems a bunch of his friends and my mother were invited to go on a plane trip and he wasn't invited. About half way through the trip everyone on the plane got sever diarrhea. Including one outright accident. My father was blamed for switching all their gum with laxative gum. He said he wished he could claim that because it was genius, but alas he was unable to claim it. Nobody knows for sure what happened.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Only good enough if situation is simple. If there are "interesting" wind issues and such, autopilots can't cope.

The pilot is really only there for those "oh crap" moments.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Organic User]

The airline in question is El Al. The national Israeli airline. One they don't suggest it. They have been doing it for at least 30 years. They do it because they have to. Almost all El Al pilots former Israeli Air Force fighter pilots. A majority of the passengers and serve in the Israeli Defence Force. The IDF recalls everyone who isn't exempt one month a year for training. A hijacking of the ground tower is unlikely in Israel because of its security. Not something can be said about most countries.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[ArsonSmith]

He got elected so apparently it wasn't "plenty."

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Organic User]

I got the solution! We can use the same technique for the control tower.

On a serious note: This is a problem for the Israelis. As a majority for the population are trained in hand-to-hand combat. The country is built upon being secure.

My aunt, who lives in Israel, was once on a bus in Jerusalem. She and someone sitting near her suspected someone being a suicide bomber. My aunt went to the bus drive and told him. He pushed the trigger. Within 12 seconds the bus was surrounded by police in regular and police cars and everyone in the bus had to have their hands up in the air. They got the suspect in a matter of seconds. My aunt didn't find out exactly find what was the outcome but she heard from friends that he was just on quiet a lot of drugs.

Guess you shouldn't do drugs in Israel.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[NilObject]

The ONLY weapons which caused 911 were surprise and bad assumptions.

Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons...

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[nine-times]

Here's a suggestion: no, it could not have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door

I agree, specifically because no one on the plane was anticipating that the hijackers wanted to use the planes as missiles. On the one plane where the passengers did suspect it, they overwhelmed the terrorists and stopped the attack (though at the expense of their own lives).

I'd bet that, even if the cockpits were locked and impregnable, the pilots would have opened the door if the hijackers threatened to kill passengers if the door were not opened.

Essentially, we don't need to prevent another 9/11, because 9/11 won't happen again. No one will allow a hijacker to get direct control of a plane and steer it into a heavily populated area. Not anymore.

So forget protecting against the same attack, figure out what the next attack will be. It's a common strategic mistake-- to guard against past attacks when future attacks will probably come from a different vector.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...in case you missed it, more people voted for Gore.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[spazoid12]

you're sticking with your story? wow! It *would* have happened. Come on now. Admit your error and move along.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[yoyoq]

sticking with my story?
error?

if the cockpit door was locked how could someone else fly the plane?

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[spazoid12]

Hmmm, maybe I should've worded my original thing a little better. What I intended to suggest was that maybe locked doors would have changed the nature of the attack, but there would have been an attack in either case. Maybe not flying into buildings. Anyways, for the record... I only combined all those adjectives into a "fightin' words" phrase because I thought we're supposed to be inflammatory here on slashdot. I'm sure you're not "little" :P

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"So always let local control be able to disable remote control." and therefore nullify the whole point of having possible ground-controlled flight (which is strictly forbidden in FAA regs anyway) when the hijackers flip the switch & disable it.

Or were you still working with the ill-concieved 'bulkhead between the cockpit & the cabin' idea? Keep in mind that it also requires an additional lavatory and galley for the crew since theyre now cut off from the rest of the cabin. Once its said & done youve wasted over 1000 lbs of carrying capacity on new aircraft and you can forget about retrofitting existing airliners this way, it would cost more than the value of the aircraft.

I know its trendy & fun to think you can easily solve complex problems by simply 'thinking outside the box' but really, the solution is already in the box.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[houghi]

After 9/11, hijacking = you crash into a building.

That was not after, that was during. If anything, the hijacking made an end to traditional airplane hijacking where people try to negotiate.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[HiThere]

I can see a lot of merit in the sticky-foam suggestion. I'm not sure about pepper-spray in a confined space with restricted air circulation.

What makes most sense to me is to allow the pilots to adjust the oxy ratio till everyone passed out. Of course, the bad guys would soon decide to carry their own oxy...still, hypo-oxy can be sneaky. And someone with sticky-foam on part of their face is going to be at a disadvantage in doning an air-mask. Besides, someone with a weak heart would die, and they pilot or airline would get sued. It's a pity there still isn't a decent anesthetic. Something without a slender range where it's active but not fatal, which isn't explosive, and which could be carried through the skin in a DMSO mist. (Equipment to get around something like that would be blatant.)

Probably the best answer would be to issue each passenger on boarding a seven-inch switchblade. The passengers might not be good with it (but some would have mis-spend childhoods), but it would help even the odds. There should probably be a couple of air-marshalls in each flight, also, who would probably carry pellet pistols (less risk of a puncture). They'd be in random seats near the cabin door with a mode of 3 rows back and aisle.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[Abcd1234]

My wife takes several pairs with her everywhere she flies

This varies greatly from airport to airport (as these things usually do). Officially, they're allowed. And I've brought my knitting needles (though only a plastic circular kit) on a domestic Canadian flight without difficulty. Other times, I've had staff tell me to pack them in my checked bag. And I'll guarantee you gender makes a difference. Something tells me, while your wife might not have trouble, I make get taken aside if I tried to bring a pair of long aluminum straight needles onto a US-destined flight.

Thus, the general advice is to bring needles you don't care about (chopsticks make great makeshift ~size 6) and some spare yarn, in case you have to surrender them.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[ArsonSmith]

Actually I didn't miss it, and my comment still stands. It wasn't "Plenty." In this case it turns out that even a simple majority wasn't plenty.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[bill_kress]

At the time there was no concept that this could happen. A little social engineering would have unlocked the door in seconds--or it would have been propped open, or they would have waited for someone to come out and take a leak.

If they had simply started shooting passengers, I'm guessing most pilots at the time would have opened the door--unable to conceive of the fact that this could cost even more lives than those on the plane.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[icegreentea]

having a remote override is even worse. now you can get hijacked without the hijackers even being on the plane... also, even with an unopenable door, they could still yell through, threatening that they're killing all the passengers or something, less takes place. as gp said, it could have occured, but differently.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[drinkypoo]

having a remote override is even worse. now you can get hijacked without the hijackers even being on the plane...

All you have to do is put a button in the cockpit labeled "autopilot override" to solve this problem. Put in a ten second delay before override overrides.

also, even with an unopenable door, they could still yell through, threatening that they're killing all the passengers or something, less takes place. as gp said, it could have occured, but differently.

Are you still talking about how we could have avoided this in the first place? That's not very interesting to me. I want to talk about what to do now. I don't intend to forget history or anything, but really, what could have occurred is uninteresting. Let's talk about making it not happen again.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[dodobh]

I know. My home city has been bombed a few times (multiple synchronised attacks, from between 5 to 12 locations at a time) at various soft targets. The stock market, transporatation, railway stations, ...

On the other hand, the response to all these was simply life as usual.

Re:Genius yoyoq!!!

[SydShamino]

Thus, the general advice is to bring needles you don't care about (chopsticks make great makeshift ~size 6)

Aye, she won't fly with the knitting needles she inherited from her great aunt, in case she runs into Mr. Stupid. But she's had no problems so far.

here's a crazy idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let everyone onboard with any weapon (firearm) they are legally permitted to carry otherwise. Who is going to try and jack a bus, plane, car (name your mode of transportation here) if the bad guy thinks there is a high probability that somebody on that (mode of transportation) is most likely ARMED TO THE TEETH!? ooh yea, and I liked that idea above, about putting locks on the cockpit doors, might as well arm the pilots too while we are at it.

no, SERIOUSLY.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[tezbobobo]

Fuck yeah - a pitched gun battle at 60,000 feet. That's what I'm talking about. Actually, if the terrorists were smart then they'd just book out an entire flight to themselves. They'd know exactly who the air marshalls were but probably wouldn't give a fuck coz a gun can only hold so many bullets. Plus, it would only be a matter of time before they broke down the door (regardless of the lock). In a movie I saw they used a drinks cart. Good idea.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[iamdrscience]

I know you're trolling, but I just wanted to say that at the very least that wouldn't work because most people that are licensed to carry guns will not have a permit in both the state they're departing from and the state they're arriving in, not to mention the states they land in for layovers and such.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[CmdrGravy]

And you're certainly going to find yourself in a lot of hassle turning up at any UK airport with a loaded weapon so any sensible terrorist will just hijack international flights.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[andr0meda]

I think by then the lady with the 3 screaming kids would have been shot, the pilots forced to jump without parachute because of the rocky stormy weather, the stewardesses raped in the toilets and half the plane actively being recast in an episode of some epic Western hollywood production everyone suddenly remembers..

Remember, everyone has limits to his civilized upbringing. It's hard to get that across to people who like guns and who think themselves as shiny examples of western society. The truth is that they are all terribly and sorrowly mistaken on the day "an accident happened".

now, I have no idea I should whish for that day or not..

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[mrjb]

Let everyone onboard with any weapon (firearm) they are legally permitted to carry otherwise.
From my European perspective this is a Bad Idea. More innocent people are shot in the US than anywhere else in the world.
might as well arm the pilots too while we are at it.
Not as crazy as you think. Some people need to carry guns for their occupations (cops, for instance). What might happen is demonstrated by the case of an armed pilot of Garuda, Indonesian airways. Things more or less evolved in the following manner:
Hijacker (as he enters the cockpit): "This plane is hijacked!"
Pilot (shoots the hijacker) : "Not anymore."
Not a single passenger got injured.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[Ihlosi]

And then you try to fire your gun again, but it won't fucking work without oxygen, you idiot.

I think you need to read up on what makes explosives (including gunpowder) go boom, actually. Hint: They do contain their own oxidizer.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[WoodenRobot]

Isn't this the idea behind air marshals?

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[vrmlguy]

An explosion is the result of a solid (or sometimes liquid) material being converted into a gas in a confinded volume. In most cases, the conversion has to happen faster than the gas can leak out of an enclosure. Most explosives are comnustable material that's been mixed with an oxidizer so it burn really, really fast. Without the oxidizer, oxygen can't get to the combustion fast enough and the gas escapes, turning the BOOM into a POP. Since there's an oxidizer present, these types of explosives work quite well in total vacumns, and yes, gunpowder falls into that group.

In other words, your gun will fucking work without oxygen, you moron.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

>And then you try to fire your gun again, but it won't fucking work without oxygen, you idiot.

Mr Kettle, meet Mr Pot. Gunpowder contains it's own oxidizer, and will explode without air. No solid explosives require oxygen - O2 flow would be the limiting factor in detonation rate. Fuel-Air explosives do require O2, and need fuel misting and mixing time to work properly.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[halivar]

From my European perspective this is a Bad Idea. More innocent people are shot in the US than anywhere else in the world.

I am simply astonished at the flat wrongness of this assertion:

Murders with firearms (98-2000):
South Africa: 31,918
Colombia: 21,898
Thailand: 20,032
United States: 8,259

When you count murders with firearms per capita, the US falls to #8. When you count all murders, with and without firearms, the US falls to #24.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[Fex303]

Glad to see the US is in such good company. That cogent argument has certainly ensured my support for firearms.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[halivar]

Huh? Did you not look at the numbers? The United States has less than half the murders by firearm at #4 than Thailand does at #3. Now consider that the United stats has 5 times the population of Thailand.

South Africa? Almost 4 times as many murders and one sixth the population.

The large number (but still not even close to #1 as the great-grandparent post suggested) of murders by firearm in the US is floated almost entirely by the fact that it's the third most populated country on the planet.

To say we're "in company" with these countries is ignorant at best, and intentionally duplicitous at worst.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[rohan972]

More innocent people are shot in the US than anywhere else in the world.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and some german guy. Totals about 100 million or so if I remember correctly. Any tally of gun deaths that doesn't include civilians killed by their own or an invading government is deceptive if used to show the effects of private gun ownership.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[dave420]

Yeah! Because no-one ever attacks the police, and they're armed, so clearly everyone who wants to do harm is in full control of their faculties! Idiot. It's folks like you in the Pentagon who cause this shit in the first place. Use some sense, will you?

And just imagine. At the moment there are air-rage incidents where folks get all drunk and start all kinds of shit. They ALWAYS end up in jail, and yet they keep on doing it. Throw some guns into the mix, and you'll end up with people being killed every single day of every single week on flights. Brilliant. Fucking genius.

I hope you're joking :)

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[PMBjornerud]

If I remember the statistics correctly, USA has about 10 times the murder rate per population, compared to other western countries.

So while you maybe don't qualify for the South Africa league, you're an order of magnitude from other civilized countries.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[mrjb]

I am simply astonished at the flat wrongness of this assertion:
I stand corrected. Thank you for the numbers. These are just civil murders, right?

When you count murders with firearms per capita, the US falls to #8.
Then the US can be proud to still be in the top 5/top 10 respectively.

When you count all murders, with and without firearms, the US falls to #24.
Which only goes to show how much firearms contribute to the murder rate. Only counting firearms, the makes the top 5/top 10. Counting the rest as well, the US doesn't even make the top 20. Still sounds like a case against the use of firearms to me.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[halivar]

Which only goes to show how much firearms contribute to the murder rate. Only counting firearms, the makes the top 5/top 10. Counting the rest as well, the US doesn't even make the top 20. Still sounds like a case against the use of firearms to me.

No, it means that 20 countries still have higher murder-per-capita rates than us even without guns.

Re:here's a crazy idea...

[halivar]

USA has about 10 times the murder rate per population, compared to other western countries.

This is also wrong. For instance, the US and France differ on murders per capita by 2.5 out of 100,000 people. I'm not a statistician, so I can't tell you whether or not that is a statistically significant number, but I think I can deduce that since France has a much lower murder-by-firearm per capita than murder per capita, they must be making up for it with murders without firearms.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Stupid

[CmdrGravy]

Here's an idea, why not stop wasting time on this sort of, headline grabbing, nonsense and sort out the existing agencies who are supposed to be responsible for this sort of thing so they can gain some actual intelligence about what the terrorists are actually planning and actually do something to stop that.

If Homeland Security really are trying to think of more innovative solutions they might consider putting a stop to some of the activities the US is or has been involved in which tend to increase the number of available terrorists wanting to attack it. This might involve stopping the CIA kidnapping people and taking them off to be tortured, stop starting pointless wars and stop interfering in other countries in order to install regimes that suit your own purposes.

Re:Stupid

[Opportunist]

Are you nuts? That could actually work, how the heck do you want to push more laws towards the police state goal when there's no threat anymore?

You'll never be a good politician, stay with your honest daytime job.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Since what you said is sane, it wont happen

Re:Stupid

[giorgiofr]

Pointless wars?
1. Your latest war on Iraq has guaranteed that no sane country will as much as *think* of switching to the PetrolEuro ever again. HUGE economic advantage for you. 2. It has also set the grounds for convenient exploitation of oil wells in Southern Iraq. Considerable economic advantage. 3. It also managed to get a few terrorists killed. Smallish morale gain. 4. It allowed your gov't to gain more power. Again, huge advantage (ok, this only benefits them and not you).
So in what way was that all POINTLESS again? You can claim it's good/bad/expensive/whathaveyou but there is no way in hell is was pointless.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity."

Re:Stupid

[Britz]

Actually, although I am very much opposed to stupid politics like kidnapping and such stuff, it would change nothing about the attackers of 9/11. Those nutjobs were religious zealots, they don't care about politics. They just attacked the freedom. And they very much succeeded. Guantanamo and that kinda stuff is exactly the opposite of the freedom we are supposed to stand for. And it wouldn't have been possible without the attacks.

The terrorists have won. Freedom was defeated. We can go home now.

Apart from that it might reduce the support infrastructure of terrorists if the USA gained their good image back. Because people would maybe fret on those nutjobs instead of thinking "They will hit the right guys". Though I really don't know how many years of "good/better" foreign politics it would take now to get that image back.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you steal and bully other countries, and are proud of it.
Good luck. I hope someone does the same to you.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Because where every other nation in the world its considered good for the economy of your country to exploit others, have a powerful government that doesn't loose much if they don't give in, and it's ok to kill somebody if you've got an overbearingly large reason...

Whereas here in the US, it's not right to exploit others, a powerful government with the capability to stop their country from getting blown up is a bad thing, and oh ya, even if it was the devil himself you aren't allowed to kill him because of naive people...

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it was not pointless:
1. Killed near 700,000 Iraqi Bush blood appetite, you gained more enemies.
2. Funding goes for military sub contracts->Bush administration related companies.
3. Oil in Iraq-> Again Bush administration companies.
4. Killed few terrorist-> you gained much much more.
.
.
.
Full of points

Re:Stupid

[zericm]

Uh, no. The idiots who flew the planes were nutjobs, but bin Laden had a very specific political goal in mind: he wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Pre-9/11, there were US troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden launches an attack on US soil, we invade Iraq and then remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.

Folks rarely throw their lives away for abstract concepts like "hating our freedoms." bin Laden wanted the US out of SA, most of the hijackers were from SA, and they all got what they wanted. And 10 or 20 years from now when we are attacked by terrorists from Iraq, they won't be here because they hate our freedoms.

They're going about this wrong

[simong]

They should get a science fiction writer to create a religion to create an alternative to Islam. Oh.

Re:They're going about this wrong

[Opportunist]

Fallacy: The average Terrorist IS already either brainwashed into a mindless drone or quite intelligent (depending on whether he's working front or back office).

Re:They're going about this wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they could successfully convince us that alien life forms exist, are more advanced than us and show that any religions belief that its followers are the chosen ones favoured by God are bunkum and really we need to get out of the dark ages...

Re:They're going about this wrong

[ghmh]

They should get a science fiction writer to create a religion to create an alternative to Islam. Oh.

Xenu is watching you

am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[misanthrope101]

I'm sick of it taking up every waking moment of our intellectual lives. About 3000 people were killed in 9/11, and that was how many years ago? The flu kills about 15000 Americans each year. The flu. Let's not even go into cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and all the rest of the diseases that kill us off by the hundreds of thousands. Worldwide, cholera and other diseases that could be remedied by clean water kill vastly more than terrorism.

Our sense of risk is so badly out of whack that we're just being ridiculous--it isn't even hysteria anymore, not after this many years. We're being suckered by a sensationalistic media working in cohorts with government, which always, always wants more power. I'd say it was shocking if I could even muster any surprize at how stupid we're being over this.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[hoojus]

You better be careful what you say as homeland security may monitor this forum and you may be wiretapped right now. People like you are helping kill the troops in iraq /sarcasm

I actually agree completely and Osama if you read this I want my 2 bottles of vodka that airport security confiscated from me!!

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[jmv]

About 3000 people were killed in 9/11, and that was how many years ago? The flu kills about 15000 Americans each year. The flu.

Sure, but which one do you think works best when you want to restrict civic liberties?
- We declare war on terrorism, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they're terrorists.
or
- We declare war on flu, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they've got the flu.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Opportunist]

Why go that far? Car accidents? Household accidents? So far, I don't see people avoiding cars like the plague and envy homeless people for their safe lifestyle.

But it gets better. The craze went over to countries that haven't EVER been the target for any kind of organised terrorism whatsoever (aside of domestic terrorism, when some nut decided it's fun to blow up a few pipes). How the heck can you explain that?

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Weston O'Reilly]

+5 Insightful? Only on Slashdot. You're overlooking a few things. First, SKYSCRAPERS being demolished in a major US city, causing tremendous damage to the economy and infrastructure for years and years, as well as the fact that innocent people were MURDERED by terrorist agents is a pretty big fucking deal. The knowledge that we were woefully unprepared for it and that foreign agents are actively working to do it again is also a pretty big fucking deal. Saying that disease kills more people, or accidents kill more people and therefore terrorism threats should be ignored is so bloody asinine and outrageous. People like you apparently would be content to have building after building come down, and as long as there are still natural and accidental causes of death that have higher death tolls, no big deal. Unreal.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[misanthrope101]

Yes, that is my very objection. Would-be totalitarians have a ratchet-like mechanism. They want more power, so they wait for something to happen. Something happens, and they ratchet away a little on civil liberties. Now this new, lower, level of freedom becomes normal. Something else will happen eventually, so one more click of civil liberties are in the past. The new, yet lower, level becomes normal, and so on. Sometimes something big happens like 9/11, and we get a few whole turns of the wrench, so we end up with military tribunals, warrantless surveillance, torture, secret prisons, the whole bit.

We don't go all the way to gulags, not right away, at least not on US soil, because people won't stand for it--yet. But once something else happens--and it always does, eventually, with or without an agent provocateur--the current level of freedom will seem excessive, and we get a few more clicks towards totalitarianism.

There are already feelers out investigating exactly what conditions would have to exist for elections to be suspended and the current President to be just "in charge." Will it happen? No, I don't think it will, even in my most paranoid moods. The population won't stand for it--yet. But if there is a big attack, at least by someone with brown/olive skin, it would be easy to temporarily "put off" the election. An attack by a white supremacist or Christian Identity group wouldn't cut it (and probably would barely make the news), but one by Muslims would be center stage on all the networks, around the clock.

Would we see death camps and Stalinesque tactics? No, I don't think so. Michael Moore and Rosie wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned, much less shot, Ann Coulter's book sales notwithstanding. But a "unitary Executive" or whatever his lawyers are calling him this week, in charge of the entire federal government, exempted (de facto, if not de jure) from oversight or checks/balances by the legislative and judicial branches, who can suspend elections at will--what else do you really need? As long as there wasn't any slaughter or mass imprisonment, which there wouldn't be, would people really take to the streets for democracy? I wonder.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[misanthrope101]

I didn't say terrorism should be ignored. I said we should have perspective. Would you like me to link to a dictionary? We had terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, and we dealt with them. We used the military, police, international pressure, and so on. There isn't much else to respond to in your post, since your outrage is directed not at what I said, but towards some imaginary composite terrorist-loving liberal or whatever you think I am. I said what I said, not what you think I might as well have said, or could very well have said, and so on. I loved it that my message of perspective mutated into...

"People like you apparently would be content to have building after building come down"

Yep, I'd be "content" with all that utter destruction. That was exactly my point--you saw right to the heart of my message. Now go take your pills.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[khallow]

I agree that the response to 9/11 is excessive and continues to be. However, we need to keep in mind a huge difference between death from natural causes and murder by an intelligent being who deliberately kills another and intends to kill another. I don't think it unreasonable to devote between one and two orders of magnitude more resources to addressing the cause of 9/11 than to addressing a curable disease that kills the same number of people.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[QuantumG]

Ignoring it is exactly what you should have done. The fact that you all had a big cry about it and then fucked up your own economy has nothing to do with the attacks.. it has to do with your sense of invulnerability being shattered. Get over yourselves.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how you mention the damage to theinfrastructure and economy BEFORE human lives. That suggests a true sense of perspective.Infrastructures and economies can be repaired, lives can't.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[maxwell demon]

Those officers taking the vodka away from you were probably really tarnished islamic activists who wanted to deny you from drinking that un-islamic alcoholic stuff. :-)

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[bramez]

those poor bastards in Guantanamo sure are

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[LarsG]

See, kids? This is what happens if you watch too much Fox News.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Tickletaint]

You know, I used to work in a building directly across West Street from the WTC. Two people from the floor below mine were trapped in an elevator and killed as the building was consumed by fire. And contrary to what you'd apparently expect, I agree with your parent post, and what's more so do most of my friends and colleagues, and probably most people in my city.

So next time you presume to speak for those affected by terrorism, how about you shut your fucking trap? Or at least tone it down with the hysteria. Most of my city wanted Bush out of office in 2004 because we understand his policies are making us less safe; if you ask me in a less guarded moment, I'm apt to say I think flyover country, in that election, aided the terrorists by ignoring our very real security concerns and reelecting a global menace.

By the way, I hear my old office building's been turned into a high-end condo development. Lesson being that life goes on; the world hasn't turned on end; what was sensible before 9/11 is sensible still, particularly OP's suggestion of helping to ensure peace and stability at home by doing less to make people around the world feel insecure.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[mdobossy]

Michael Moore and Rosie wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned, much less shot
Damn.. thats the one thing I was looking forward to in our Brave New World.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[ElephanTS]

absolutely. Another statistic: Everyday 15,000 children under the age of 5 die from malnutrition. Surely some perspective is required but all we get is scaremongering.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Dan667]

I could not agree with you more. Also, I hate all this, "we are at war" crap. Hussein has been executed, there is no Iraq state we are fighting. I wish there was a death cage match we could have with radical Islam and neo conservative christians. They are all the same crazy to me.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Rick17JJ]

That trend makes me uncomfortable with the recent directive that Bush issued on May 9 signed that grants near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. I am surprised that directive has not yet received much discussion in the press or by Congress.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51 and HSPD-20

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you made it a pay-per-view event, you could probably pay off a large chunk of the national debt as well.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[sikandril]

I tend to disagree - the flu numbers you talk about are in all probability mostly composed of elderly citizens / chidren who are too frail to withstand flu, and it is only the trigger for a series of bodily systems shutting down, eventually resulting in death.

In fact, I think you are pooh-pooing this without properly looking at the significance of the attacks.

First, please remember that 3000 casualties is about the same as Pearl Harbor, and we all know the consequences of that event.

Second, even one were to agree that the casualty count is somehow digestible, the significance of these attacks is not in the number of people killed but in the significance of a massive successful attack on the worlds' top financial and military power center.

If you haven't realized it yet, the images of the planes crashing into WTC 1&2 will probably be remembered as the pivotal event of the 21st century. The attacks convey, at least to me, an image of a weak America, a lost America that is also losing its say in international politics, science, culture, etc.

The fact of the matter is that a few dozen crazies with turbans managed to do what Soviet Russia with all its might could only hope to achieve. The fact of the matter is that your highly touted security services failed miserably at basic risk assessment and intelligence gathering, your airforce failed miserably at mounting any kind of response and your president made a cowardly run to Airforce 1 and could not be seen or heard days after the attack.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[thesandtiger]

I have a question.

3000 people to terrorism vs. 15000 to the flu sure sounds like we're making terrorists into a bigger deal than they are, right?

But what happens when they get weapons able to kill 30,000 people? Or 300,000? Or 3,000,000? I'm thinking of biological weaponry. "Simple" scenario is some random lethal (but not immediately) virus being released in key areas and able to spread quickly across the globe. "Complicated" case would be something like a virus designed to become active only in people with certain genetic markers.

Is that sci-fi? I dunno. 50 years ago, it was thought by some in the know that there'd be a world need for 5 or 6 computers, yet now I personally own 2 very powerful ones and dozens of simple (by today's standards) ones. Right now, I imagine it would be very expensive to create a virus capable of spreading widely before suddenly going lethal - maybe too expensive for a terrorist organization. But 10 years from now? 20?

I'm in favor of perspective and proportion, as you say, but I'm also, when the possible outcome is incredibly dire, in favor of at least spending a bit of effort trying to think about possible big-bads and maybe ways to counter them. It isn't like we can't afford it, and it isn't like everyone really is really spending "every waking moment of [their] intellectual lives" on the problem.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Elsan]

would people really take to the streets for democracy? I wonder. Well, people aren't doing it now to get a better democracy(this one sucks, representative democracy sucks), so I don't really expect it.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[toddhisattva]

I'm sick of it taking up every waking moment of our intellectual lives.

Then don't let it.

Learn a new musical instrument or something to take your mind off terrorism.

Quit watching the news. They've been writing the same story ever since Coalition forces were bogged down in Mazar.

I'll give you next week's news, "bogged down, bogged down, bogged down, bogged down, bogged down, bogged down, and an editorial page devoted to bogged down."

Ever get the idea that some people want you to feel fatigued about the GWoT? Hmm, who would that be?

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[smellsofbikes]

Executive incursions into civil liberties happen, but sometimes, when they go too far, too fast, or they're just discovered suddenly, they get ratcheted right back to where they started. Much of what Bush is doing -- well, much of what the people telling Bush what to do -- is seen explicitly as a reaction to the loss of Presidential power following the Nixon debacle. Nixon screwed up, and many privileges the Executive had assumed or had abused were removed, and oversight was put in place. What Bush's cronies are trying to do is turn back the clock to Eisenhower's time.

But those are small-scale corrections. What you're talking about, the full-fledged descent into fascism, is much nastier because by the time that the problem is apparent, there's no longer any system for correcting the problems, because that system has been ripped out. When the vox populi is silent out of fear, the system's probably no longer closed-loop and there are no limits in how bad it can get.

The scary thing is that at least at the beginning, it's probably not possible to tell whether it's heading down the small-correction route or the big-disaster route, and probably by the time it is, it's already too late in the case that it's the big-disaster route.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[markbt73]

Sure, I'd take to the streets.

Of Canada.

That fucker serves ONE DAY past January 20, 2009, and we aren't the USA anymore. And it's just not worth fighting for at that point.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[ArsonSmith]

So start looking and voting for candidates that are for the reduction of federal power. The problems with the two party system is you have the Democrats creating more power for the government through more government programs, taxes and regulation typically in the name of helping the little guy. It may or may not help but they do it anyway. Then the Republicans can come in and abuse that power. They feed off of each other to continuously grow big brother.

I will always vote Libertarian. Even if I don't 100% agree with them. For two reasons:
1) It's not like a few Libertarian's in government is going to turn us into an anarcho-capitalist society over night.
2) Their base idea of government reduction is far superior to the base ideas of both other two parties of fast government growth or slow government growth.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[nine-times]

Would we see death camps and Stalinesque tactics? No, I don't think so. Michael Moore and Rosie wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned, much less shot

Rosie who? The only person I can think of who has ever been referred to as just "Rosie" is Rosie O'Donnell, and... well, I just can't imagine how she could be relevant to the discussion...

Oh, wait, did Stalin execute obnoxious fat people?

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Abcd1234]

Well, just to bring down the hysteria a little, these presidential signing orders are *not* law, and only have force over the executive branch. In fact, the introductory text in the order says it:

"...prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency" (emphasis mine)

Further, it says:

"Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government."

Which only reinforces that this is only applicable to the executive branch, and has no force over the legislative or judicial branches.

Put another way, the WorldNetDaily columnist is a moron... which is hardly surprising, since it *is* WorldNetDaily, after all.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of it taking up every waking moment of our intellectual lives. About 3000 people were killed in 9/11, and that was how many years ago?

Think of the 9/11 attack on the WTC as a proof of concept. What if the next attack is on the Superbowl or the Rose Bowl or any other event with 80000+ people attending?

For the record, I don't agree with most the legislation passed to deal with this. I'm just making a point.

Re:am I the only one who is tired of terrorism?

[misanthrope101]

I don't think the Saudis wear turbans. And I doubt that history will take the destruction of 2 buildings, however iconic, to be all that important in the long-term picture. It's normal that we consider our people and our landmarks to be invested with an almost mystical significance, but if the 9/11 attacks symbolize anything long-term, it will be the blossoming of terrorism that we enabled by invading Iraq, which wasn't the nationality (or money, or supplies, or planning, or even post-it notes) of any that attacked us on 9/11. We have been instrumental in undermining the international respect for the rule of law, and destabilizing an entire region. That, if anything, is what the 9/11 attacks will bring to mind.

A group of opportunistic would-be visionary politicians with a pre-existing plan (PNAC) took the gift of 9/11 and used it to run with their program, which proved to be a lot uglier and nastier than they thought it would be. And the CIA did warn the White House about terrorists using planes to attack the USA. Our security services didn't fail--it's more accurate to say that you can't prevent everything, all the time, indefinitely. Preventing a nuclear attack is easy compared to preventing all the improvised attacks that could possibly occur at any time in any venue.

Then attack would be carried out differently

[iamacat]

Pilots would be blackmailed into opening cockpit doors at the threat of killing everyone in the cabin. Terrorists would learn lock picking. WTC would be brought down by a big truck with explosives instead of planes. Al-Quida would carry out a chemical or biological attack. Let's face it, targets are endless and internal security is only a small part of preventing terrorism. Withdrawing from Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand and refusing to do any business with Islamic countries on the other would deprive terrorists of both recruits and resources and have a much bigger effect on new attacks. We can also distinguish religious freedom from calls for violence against everyone and deport or deny visas to extremists of every faith - muslim, christian, scientology, falun gong...

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[Yoozer]

Withdrawing from Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one hand and refusing to do any business with Islamic countries on the other would deprive terrorists of both recruits and resources and have a much bigger effect on new attacks.

If only that were possible. But, in the meantime, the business is oil which we can't do without and the conflict is because Israel is a little democratic island in a sea of theocracy.

We can also distinguish religious freedom from calls for violence against everyone and deport or deny visas to extremists of every faith - muslim, christian, scientology, falun gong...

Now you're raving. Surely, Pat Robertson would object to not being able to travel abroad.

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[Anonymous Coward]

WTC would be brought down by a big truck with explosives instead of planes. Actually they tried that and failed in 1993.

Cham

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[dkf]

Pilots would be blackmailed into opening cockpit doors at the threat of killing everyone in the cabin.

I really doubt it these days. If I was a pilot and I got that sort of threat, I'd be thinking "everyone in there is dead whether I let those loons in here or not, what with the fact that the plane will be shot down rather than being allowed anywhere near a sensitive target, so I might as well keep myself alive".

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[wild_berry]

I don't know if you were around in February 1993 when Al Qaeda operatives tried that with a truck full of explosives, planning to have Tower One collapse into and take down Tower Two. But the structure in the WTC towers were stronger than that, having load-bearing columns in the external frame of the building as well as its core. The truck bomb filled the central core with smoke, but it wasn't enough to do more than a five-storey (out of 110) hole -- with the building still standing.

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[stud9920]

is because Israel is a little democratic island in a sea of theocracy.

As much a democracy as Athens was I guess...

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[iamacat]

But, in the meantime, the business is oil which we can't do without and the conflict is because Israel is a little democratic island in a sea of theocracy.

I didn't know Palestinians democratically chose to stay in concentration camps. Doesn't democracy normally extend to everyone living on a given peace of land, not just persons of a single nationality/religion?

Now you're raving. Surely, Pat Robertson would object to not being able to travel abroad.

Well, there wouldn't be any problem with him leaving...

Re:Then attack would be carried out differently

[iamacat]

Yeah, and box cutters are also not allowed in planes - these days. In the meantime, anyone can drill some screws into rails and cause a toxic or even radioactive spill in an urban area. There are just so many attack vectors, even on today's planes, that you can not achieve good security just by closing ones that were already used. Having armed pilots behind closed doors and passengers who know they'll all die anyway if they don't fight terrorists would be probably enough to prevent a copycat of 9/11. But the real solution is halting mass recruitment of terrorists, cutting off their financial backing and make sure that people who advocate violence or have cult mentality to blindly follow whatever the church leaders say do not enter or stay in US.

Better Sci-Fi Authors

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I would like to see sci-fi authors like cory doctrow or scott sigler invited to "secure the country" not because i think they would be exceptionaly good at it (not to say they wouldn't be ...) but i do think their solutions would be rather interesting to say the least..

"well, we came up with the idea to take the brains from these genetically created ancestor creatures, then dump them into a jar hook them up with multiple cybernetic bodies and train them act like a swarm of rabid squirrels"

Lemme see...

[Moraelin]

Lemme see...

- train your stormtroopers so they can hit a man sized target at 100 ft distance

- don't have your war droids depend on a centralized node that, when destroyed, would disable the whole army

- make sure there are no vents leading directly to your death star's reactor, no matter how hard or unlikely to hit they are

- fun as it may be, and sure as you may be that he's a complete bastard, don't send a father to torture his daughter and duel his son. They might end up working together against you. Also, if you've decided to replace him with his son, don't tell it to his face.

- don't make yourself hated by whole populations in the first place. Destroying whole planets just to show you can, is actually pretty bad PR. It's bad for your tax income too. Noone will rise in rebellion or send suicide bombers against you for just treating them right and creating employment.

- make sure the doors, especially prison doors or doors to critical command rooms, can't be opened by shooting the control panel. And generally, security means everything should fail in the way that is the least of a security problem. Losing electricity should cause the door bolts to lock the door (e.g., they're on springs that push them to the locked state, and you need current to pull them open), not unlock it.

- for that matter, and according to the same principle, a damaged reactor should tend to shut down, not blow up. There's a reason 20'th century nuclear reactors need current to keep the moderator rods out, and get to shut down if they lose that current

- control consoles don't have much of a reason to explode when the ship takes a hit in some point half a mile away. You may need that console again, and trained specialist officers that operate them are expensive to replace too

- invest in some shielding technology, or at least armour. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero fared poorer than you'd think with only speed and maneuverability as its only defenses, and got shot by airplanes which could take a whole clip and keep flying. The TIE fighter is just repeating an existing mistake. Don't do it.

And generally, read the evil overlord's list already.

Re:Lemme see...

[Kirth]

- don't make yourself hated by whole populations in the first place. Destroying whole planets just to show you can, is actually pretty bad PR. It's bad for your tax income too. Noone will rise in rebellion or send suicide bombers against you for just treating them right and creating employment.

Wow! What a good idea! This would have come in handy if they only knew it before invading Iraq.

Re:Lemme see...

[davevr]

Sure, this is all obvious in retrospect, but you are forgetting that Star Wars took place A LONG TIME AGO!! (in a galaxy far away, no less)

- davevr

Re:Lemme see...

[ErroneousBee]

Lemme see...

• train your stormtroopers so they can hit a man sized target at 100 ft distance
  Fixed. Ground troops replaced with an airforce that bombs everything flat.
• don't have your war droids depend on a centralized node that, when destroyed, would disable the whole army
  Fixed Droids now have autonomous rape, pillage and Abu Gharib modes.
• make sure there are no vents leading directly to your death star's reactor, no matter how hard or unlikely to hit they are
  ToDo In fact, still fixing the requirements so that our preferred bidders win the contracts.
• fun as it may be, and sure as you may be that he's a complete bastard, don't send a father to torture his daughter and duel his son. They might end up working together against you. Also, if you've decided to replace him with his son, don't tell it to his face.
  Fixed In fact, Daddy Bush was completely happy to see his son take over.
• don't make yourself hated by whole populations in the first place. Destroying whole planets just to show you can, is actually pretty bad PR. It's bad for your tax income too. Noone will rise in rebellion or send suicide bombers against you for just treating them right and creating employment.
  Not a problem We need rebelious planets, otherwise the Military Industrial complex on the home planets wont have any outlets for its products.
• make sure the doors, especially prison doors or doors to critical command rooms, can't be opened by shooting the control panel. And generally, security means everything should fail in the way that is the least of a security problem. Losing electricity should cause the door bolts to lock the door (e.g., they're on springs that push them to the locked state, and you need current to pull them open), not unlock it.
  Fixed We now keep the whole population under surveillance. Criminals are forced to work in government, obviating the need for prisons.
• for that matter, and according to the same principle, a damaged reactor should tend to shut down, not blow up. There's a reason 20'th century nuclear reactors need current to keep the moderator rods out, and get to shut down if they lose that current
  ToDo To busy securing the oil supply to worry about that stuff.
• control consoles don't have much of a reason to explode when the ship takes a hit in some point half a mile away. You may need that console again, and trained specialist officers that operate them are expensive to replace too
  Not a problem Are you kidding? The monkeys we pay to watch those screens are even more expendable than the ground troopers.
• invest in some shielding technology, or at least armour. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero fared poorer than you'd think with only speed and maneuverability as its only defenses, and got shot by airplanes which could take a whole clip and keep flying. The TIE fighter is just repeating an existing mistake. Don't do it.
  Not a problem The best defense is a good offense. All ships now equiped with really big bombs for use against villagers, so we are really, really offensive.
• And generally, read the evil overlord's list already.

Read it? We wrote it!

Karl, Dick and Donald.

Re:Lemme see...

[Jesus_666]

Criminals are forced to work in government, obviating the need for prisons.

You demons! No wonder everyboody hates you!

Re:Lemme see...

[Garabito]

don't make yourself hated by whole populations in the first place. Destroying whole planets just to show you can, is actually pretty bad PR

If the U.S. government followed this advice, they could actually succeed fighting terrorism.

Re:How about

[Elsapotk421]

what about transcontinental flights where the pilot goes to sleep so he can later safely land the plane?

You're missing the point.

[Nameless Horror]

The bogus threat of terrorism has been the greatest bonanza for greedy and power-hungry politicians in recent US and world history. So why would they give that up now?

Re:You're missing the point.

[rtb61]

This whole idea of generating new methods of committing terrorist attacks so they can defend against them stinks to high heaven of adding indefensible attacks into the terrorist arsenal to promote further attacks. Attempt to defend against some methods of attack and all you will do is promote them in the eyes of those criminals, including the ones already in US government employ who are already working both sides of the fence.

Besides you don't want PHDs, you want infrastructure specialists, people who know and understand the fabric of civilization and how best to disrupt it. The really smart ones already have lots of ideas but are keeping their mouths shut to avoid adding fuel to the fire and they certainly wont be giving them to a load of incompetent government boobs associated with the current US administration with demonstratively questionable morals and motives.

Maybe...

[ArcSecond]

Maybe some genius SF writer could come up with a technology that solves the social problems that promote terrorism.

Well, one not involving everyone dying, hopefully.

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

:) :) :)

Re:Maybe...

[hey!]

Maybe some genius SF writer could come up with a technology that solves the social problems that promote terrorism.

Oh, but they have. The simplest and most practical, of course, is to compulsively copulate with everything in sight. It helps if everything in sight it hot, but it isn't hard to posit a future of highly effective cosmetic surgery. As far as STDs, I propose we use biotechnology to develop disposable, one use genitalia.

Re:Maybe...

[Petersson]

Just by comparing old scifi movies and today's reality, the scifi writers have poor fantasy compared to engineers, who actually create things that no scifi or novel writer could forsee.

Of course, there are some exceptions (communications satelites, 1984), but generally future looks very differently from scifi novels and scifi technologies mostly don't work.

But the idea of scifi writers could work in case the writer would be a terrorist. Just give all the guys at Guantanamo Bay paper and pen and see what happens...

Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix the voting system so we don't wind up with another President that seems to be determined to piss off the entire planet. It's really not meant to be a troll but a fact. Both of the last elections were seriously in doubt. 911 may have been unavoidable but does anyone seriously believe we'd have this mess in Iraq if Gore had won in 2000? You want to stop terrorist end the conditions creating them. Prevention is always the best medicine.

Fucking great

[iamdrscience]

A year from now we'll all have to take Voight-Kampff tests to prove that we're not super-strong replicants programmed to take over the plane.

Not SDI again

[MichaelSmith]

It worked in Footfall but the world was being attacked by aliens in that book. Saudi terrorists are not aliens and I don't think Larry and Jerry are the best people to call on unless you want to be told to strike back with an Orion pulse rocket.

Given a more real world scenario I suggest the Homeland Security Department look to people who really were thinking ahead during the 70's and 80's and ask them to think ahead from now.

Actually, here's a better question

[Moraelin]

Actually, here's a better question: How many americans were killed in terrorist attacks in the year _before_ 9/11? Exactly zero.

Saying "we haven't had other attacks since then" just begs for the "see? so our paranoid security works!" answer. The fact is, there weren't that many before either. Sure, 9/11 was most unfortunate, but it was by and large a one time event.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Anspen]

While I agree with your sentiment ( "The terrorist threat is hyped" ), there were these little incidents. Oklahoma, the first WTC bombing, even Beirut in '81 if you count attacks abroad.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Opportunist]

Erh... I think there have been a few terrorist attacks, on US embassies for example, before 9/11. Also, the towers were the target of a terror attack before. Not to mention the "domestic terror" that existed before the coordinated attack.

And, quite frankly, if I wanted to conduct a terrorist attack on the US, it would be far from impossible. Maybe a stunt like 9/11 is incredibly hard to pull through today, but small scale attacks akin to those in Israel would be no biggie. If an outsider really wanted to, he could terrorize the US, easily. A bomb in a shopping mall, how would you even want to avoid it?

In reply to the "see?", I think pretty much everyone here will get the hint when I say, I'm willing to sell you a stone...

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[hey!]

Actually, DHS does not seem to be particular effective or efficient at anything it does. It's not just FEMA; what about that guy with TB that got back into the country by flying to Montreal and driving through a border checkpoint?

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Marauder2]

"Actually, here's a better question: How many americans were killed in terrorist attacks in the year _before_ 9/11? Exactly zero."

Actually, I can think of 17 right off the bat. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by a small inflatable boat in Yemen in October of 2000, killing 17 American sailors. Bin Ladin was responsible. True it was a military target, but so was the pentagon on 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

"Saying "we haven't had other attacks since then" just begs for the "see? so our paranoid security works!" answer."

We have not had any attacks on American soil (however many have been thwarted). Does this mean that all of our security works? Of course not. But, like in computer security, a good posture is many layers of security and even security measures that might not do much by themselves can provide some layer of deterrent and slow down would be wrongdoers.

That said, I personally know of instances where airport security screeners missed major items like a steak knife in someone's carry-on that should have been immediately caught and maybe even won the carrier a trip to the "secret room" for some questions.

"The fact is, there weren't that many before either. Sure, 9/11 was most unfortunate, but it was by and large a one time event."

More then you seem to remember. There have been only a handful of attacks inside the 50 states, yes. And a number of attacks against US soil overseas (such as embassies which are considered the sovereign soil of the country they represent.)

9/11 was hopefully a "one time event". That attack vector is now well known. The next time someone tries to hijack an aircraft, people will be less inclined to cooperate and quicker to resist and fight back. Sure, they can still blow the planes up, but hijacking them and crashing into buildings is now more unlikely.

The biggest problem in the security is the reactionism. They crash commercial aircraft into skyscrapers, let's reinforce the cockpit, let's make airport security feel like a soviet border crossing, etc. We are essentially turning off ports only after we get port scanned (better late then never I suppose) instead of taking a proactive "what are the best way to protect against threats we have not even thought of?" approach and thinking up more generic and general ways to protect ourselves.

9/11 was new. There had been suspicion and reports about this possible type of attack but it had never been carried out before and most people within Government had no idea or suspicion about a "hijack aircraft full of passengers and fuel and fly them into buildings to knock them down" sort of attack.

The likelihood is good that there will be more attacks on US Soil and abroad. The question is what can we do to secure the attack vector's we've never even thought about because that's where the next major attack is likely going to come from.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Zantetsuken]

also the USS Cole and the US Embassy in Kenya...

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Firethorn]

I once theorized about a plan - involving about a hundred people, that would of had far more effect than 9/11. And it involved no planes.

It was remarkably similar to what the Beltway snipers were planning. I figured 100 people, 50 2 man teams. Each is given an overlapping area and tasks to do. Call them 'dirty tricks'. Sniping, bombing, random destruction. How difficult is it to disrail a train?

By keeping a cell structure, each team can't help in the catching of other teams.

Fact is, our civilization is incredibly dependant upon people playing by the rules. It has limited resources for stopping those that don't. I think that the idea of 'everyone's a detector', and everybody has a chance to stop is a good one. A sniper immediately tracked by armed resources in the area has little chance of escape. Observing the vehicle is of limited use - it can be disposed of.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Opportunist]

Everyone's a detector relies on one cardinal fallacy: That people actually care about their country. Why should they, when their country quite blatantly doesn't give a rat's rear about them?

Frankly? When asked to be a "detector", I would immediately ask what's in for me, when I should risk my sweet li'l ass for the country. Ya know, watching a criminal too closely usually convinces him that you'd be better be disposed of.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Firethorn]

When asked to be a "detector", I would immediately ask what's in for me, when I should risk my sweet li'l ass for the country.

To be honest: Primarily I'd go back to instilling pride for our nation in the schools; with emphasis on that it takes individuals to keep it on the right path(IE we're proud of our country, but do not blindly believe that it's perfect, that it CAN be improved, and it's up to me/us to improve it).

Secondly I'd institute a reward system for reporting/stopping true threats.

Finally, being a detector doesn't really place you in any extra hazard. If you see somebody placing a bomb on the subway it's in your best interests to report it. After all, if you're seeing the bomb being placed, you probably use the subway. Do you really want your line closed down for a month? Do you really want a derailment around your area? Depending on the train's cargo, it can affect quite an area. Some industrial chemicals can release gasses hazardous for miles in the quantities loaded on a train.

Ya know, watching a criminal too closely usually convinces him that you'd be better be disposed of.

Most criminals are petty, and know full well that bodies get way too much attention. For terrorist type stuff, I'm talking more about being a tripwire than a camera. You see something suspicious - report it, you don't need to personally stay there and try to pull a Jack Bauer.

Of course, I'd personally love to legalize drugs. Since it wouldn't be acceptable to just fire all the WoD officers, I'd redirect them towards fighting what I consider real crimes. IE those with victims, or at least an obvious intent to create victims, such as planting bombs.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[toddhisattva]

Actually, here's a better question: How many americans were killed in terrorist attacks in the year _before_ 9/11? Exactly zero.

Please do some research before posting.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000#Events_of_2000

"March 20 - Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown), a former Black Panther, is captured after a gun battle in Atlanta, Georgia, that leaves a sheriff's deputy dead."

"October 12 - In Aden, Yemen, the USS Cole is badly damaged by two suicide bombers, who placed a small boat laden with explosives along-side the United States Navy destroyer, killing 17 crew members and wounding at least 39."

There were at least 18 Americans killed by terrorists in 2000, one by a domestic terrorist.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Scrameustache]

also the USS Cole Attempting to sink a warship isn't terrorism, it's guerrilla.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Anonymous Coward]

I once theorized about a plan - involving about a hundred people, that would of had far more effect than 9/11. And it involved no planes.

Interesting. So, perhaps there really is no plan to get the sci-fi writers together to think up attacks -- the plan is simply to announce it on Slashdot (and other discussion sites where high-tech, educated, IT folks linger), and let them come up with the attack vectors for free.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Opportunist]

Then first of all you have to start practicing what you preach. But this is exactly what does not happen. I see it every day, first hand.

After WW2, we really had Grade A politicians. "Perfect" people. Well, as perfect as human beings can be, some had their issues... but generally, they did what politicians are here for: Acting for the benefit of the country they represent.

They were given ample opportunity to throw us into the maws of either east or west, and it surfaced now that there was something in for them, too, considerably more than what they could've gotten from a burned-down country like ours.

They declined. In fact, they went out of their way and I know at least of one person who actually decided to bring the peace talk to an end instead of tending to his own health, knowing that Molotov would not trust any other person and that it would put our treaty in peril if he didn't go. He went. He died a few months later. He could have lived longer, but the country was more important to him.

Show me one, a single one, politician who would go to remotely similar lenghts today!

Of course those people had the support of the population. They said we'll have hard years ahead, with hard work and little gain, and that they could not give us anything, because they got nothing, but please, please believe in your country. Do you think anyone questioned it?

Today, whenever I hear a politician talk, the first thing that comes to my mind is "How's he gonna rip us off now?" Because it simply is true! Politicians today aren't anything but puppets of some corporations that want to maximize their profits. With that last subordinate clause fitting to both, corporations and politicians.

And for THOSE people, for THIS country, I should lift a finger? You're kidding me.

If you want to instill people with some "pride" (I'd rather call it some sense of responsibility) for their country, start at those people who act as our leaders. They're quick with the call for putting the countries interest before yours, but themselves, they only care about their own pockets.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Anonymous Coward]

The point, I think, is that the attack vectors are effectively infinite. Anyone with a bit of imagination and knowledge can come up with all sorts of ways of causing large amounts of destruction on a shoestring budget. As others have alluded to, such attacks cannot be prevented without imposing a police state.

But that's easy. A more interesting though experiment is how to kill a well-protected public figure, and get away with it. My pet solution involves little remote-control airplanes, but if that's too silly for you, try the low-tech way of a few mortar crews with good aim.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Firethorn]

Then first of all you have to start practicing what you preach. But this is exactly what does not happen. I see it every day, first hand.

I do try to practice what I preach, it's a little difficult to demonstrate this aspect through the internet though.

After WW2, we really had Grade A politicians. "Perfect" people. Well, as perfect as human beings can be, some had their issues... but generally, they did what politicians are here for: Acting for the benefit of the country they represent.

Heh... They most certainly weren't perfect. But they kept their imperfections to themselves and people didn't look too closely.

They declined. In fact, they went out of their way and I know at least of one person who actually decided to bring the peace talk to an end instead of tending to his own health, knowing that Molotov would not trust any other person and that it would put our treaty in peril if he didn't go. He went. He died a few months later. He could have lived longer, but the country was more important to him.

Patriots still exist. What I'm proposing is a return to a time when we tried to make our children patriots as well. Please note that I'm not talking blind patriotism, but a honest pride in our country, a desire to make it better, combined with the belief that we can do so.

Today, whenever I hear a politician talk, the first thing that comes to my mind is "How's he gonna rip us off now?" Because it simply is true! Politicians today aren't anything but puppets of some corporations that want to maximize their profits. With that last subordinate clause fitting to both, corporations and politicians.

Then run for office, to make it better!

If you want to instill people with some "pride" (I'd rather call it some sense of responsibility) for their country, start at those people who act as our leaders. They're quick with the call for putting the countries interest before yours, but themselves, they only care about their own pockets.

I used the word pride, but in my mind a sense of responsibility comes with it. You make a good point though. I've frequently thought about our system of government, and possible methods to increase accountability, reduce the benefit of incumbence* in elections, etc...

*Once you make a house/senate office, odds are you'll stay there until you decide that you don't want to be their anymore.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Opportunist]

How can you be patriotic if you get shown that you have to be a fool if you are? How can you be patriotic when you see that every sacrifice you make doesn't go to the benefit of your country but much rather the pocket of some politician or his buddies in the industry?

Sorry, but I cannot. If you want people to believe in their country and live for it, give them a reason to. I certainly don't want to work for my country only to see this go to some leeches rather. In that case, I'd rather do the same.

If you want patriots, you first of all give them a reason to be patriotic.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Firethorn]

Why do you think that I keep pointing out that this shouldn't be a blind patriotism? That we need to teach people that it can be improved?

A real patriot will campaign against a candidate that he believes unworthy of the office.

Re:Actually, here's a better question

[Opportunist]

Senior Quixote, I honor the attempt and I wish you all luck in the world, but I doubt you can bring the two-party windmill down.

Forget the safe-bet experts

[Nymz]

This group is a professinal think tank, those in the picture all look over 55, and to be a member you need a technical doctorate degree. How much of a "deviant" thinker or "rebel" can they really be? Aren't people that come up with the most inventive and "crazy" ideas a bit younger? I like the idea of employing think tanks, it shows initiative which is vital, but if they really want some results I think they're going to have to attract a different set of thinkers.

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[witte]

They'd be better off by setting up a fake al qaeda think tank and have the 'terrorists' do the thinking for them.

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[SpecBear]

A lot of young people think that they're original and deviant, but really most of them are just rehashing ideas that are centuries old. Truly deviant people have a thorough knowledge of what's come before them, and have consciously chosen to reject it. And that knowledge comes with age and experience.

In other words: The greatest quantity of radical thought comes from the young, but the greatest quality comes from the old.

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[Jesus_666]

Also, what good is a think tank without tracks and armor? We need motorized brains, dammit! No wonder the terrists keep blowing up stuff (mostly themselves, granted).

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA says that you need a technical doctorate degree, but Niven has an undergrad degree in Math. That's it. According to the Wikipedia article on him:

He briefly attended the California Institute of Technology and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics (with a minor in psychology) from Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas, in 1962. He did a year of graduate work in mathematics at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Maybe they mean for new members to join they need doctorates.

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[khallow]

Or maybe it's to cut down on the applications that they ignore. My bet is that if you're the appropriate sort of science fiction writer (ie, fit the ideology and have a good high profile), then they'll invite you otherwise it's probably not worth your bother.

Re:Forget the safe-bet experts

[Maltheus]

How much of a "deviant" thinker or "rebel" can they really be? Aren't people that come up with the most inventive and "crazy" ideas a bit younger?

Are you talking bout the same kids who all get tattoos so they can be different? For a kid, being a rebel means fitting a certain rebellious image. They don't quite get the irony at their age. The whole point of public education was to turn them into a bunch of conformists who don't mind working menial jobs and we've succeeded wildly there. The true rebels are the ones who've managed to unlearn the drivel we teach our youth. That's why seniors can be such a hoot, they'll often say any wild shit.

More ideas to be ignored.

[Irvu]

Leaving aside the Monday morning quarterbacking there is ample evidence to suggest that the "ideas" of 9-11 from the tactical nature of the attacks to the identities of the attackers was in fact known or knowable. Al-Quaeda was, in fact on the intelligence community's radar screen and warnings about Osama Bin-Laden were prevalent even in Presidential Daily Briefings. Additionally there had been an exercise simulating exactly the kind of attack that occurred. So it wasn't that the idea had not arisen or that noone had suggested things.

Rather, its apparent that the suggestions were ignored. Whether they were ignored because Bush wanted to focus on other things or that the nature of the ideas somehow rendered them ignorable is unclear. What is clear is that they were, in fact, present and had been suggested.

Post 9-11 a great deal of effort has been spent on garnering "ideas" for attack styles on the grounds that "we didn't know". While it is nice to see people expanding their minds it is a little worrisome that they have not done so before. It is also a little worrisome because the new ideas seem to fall into two categories, those that get ignored and those that are overreacted upon.

In the former class we have things such as not throwing children year olds into Guantanamo Bay, and adding armor to protect our troops against IEDs (something that was so badly rejected that the solders were ordered by the White House to remove armor that they had added in the field). A great example of the latter comes from one of Bob Woodward's books on Bush. Some of you may remember that point about a year or so ago when the terror alert levels jumped and new, ominous, warnings came out about Al-Quaeda hijacking trains and filling them with chemicals. It turns out a bunch of guys were sitting around a meeting and one of them said: "You know it would suck if Al-Qaueda stole a train and loaded it with chemicals..." A few days later they lock down all the train stations.

So with all due respect to DHS's desire for new info but I'd like to see them make better use of what they've already got.

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[Opportunist]

Why it was ignored? Cui bono?

I'm not trying to add more fuel to some oddball conspiracy theories, but seriously: Who benefited the most from the attacks?

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[ocbwilg]

Rather, its apparent that the suggestions were ignored. Whether they were ignored because Bush wanted to focus on other things or that the nature of the ideas somehow rendered them ignorable is unclear. What is clear is that they were, in fact, present and had been suggested.

Really? I can't imagine our government ignoring anything that important. Anyone heard of the Millenium Challenge? The Pentagon put together a war simulation in 2002 as a bit of a dry run to invading a middle-eastern country, and they hired an "outside of the box" thinker named Paul K. Van Riper to play the part of the enemy leader. After thoroughly outsmarting the Pentagon's best war thinkers and dealing the "US forces" a critical blow at the start of the exercise, the Pentagon folks declared a do-over. They basically restarted the exercise from scratch, and instead of letting Van Riper actually do the thinking and leading, they gave him a script to use that guaranteed that the "US forces" would have a dominating victory.

So much for thinking outside of the box.

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[The_mad_linguist]

From what I've heard, it was more along the lines of "that was interesting. Now why don'y you try some other tactics, since we still have time left in the exercise"

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[BlackCobra43]

The Carlyle Group,Haliburton & KBR.

You might see some *familiar* names on their board of directors. Names like Richard Cheney, George Herbert Walker Bush...

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your own government planned and executed 9-11, what makes you think anything could have stopped it from happening?

Everyone with half a brain knows Bin Laden had nothing to do with it.

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[Danse]

From what I've heard, it was more along the lines of "that was interesting. Now why don'y you try some other tactics, since we still have time left in the exercise"

Not sure what gets accomplished by using a scripted response. Doesn't sound like something that would actually improve strategic thinking or raise any new issues that they might want to consider responses for. More like a cakewalk so that everyone could pat each other on the back after they win.

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[dodongo]

As well as everyone who dumped airline stock the day before, for example. And, of course, the neoconservatives (at least in the short-term) who were actively seeking a "modern-day Pearl Harbor" to enable the implementation of their ideology.

Re:More ideas to be ignored.

[ocbwilg]

From what I've heard, it was more along the lines of "that was interesting. Now why don'y you try some other tactics, since we still have time left in the exercise"

The books and articles that I have seen that reference Millenium Challenge '02 have all stated that the second time around they "scripted" the actions and responses of the "non-US" team. At least one source indicated that Van Riper was not allowed to issue any orders. That's a far cry from "that was interesting, why don't you try some other tactics." It's more like, "holy shit our billion dollar decision matrix toolset just got whooped by one man, we better do something to make ourselves look good quick!"

The entire purpose of the exercise was to test JFCOM's ability to make use of the Operational Net Assessment, Effects-Based Operations, and the Common Relevant Operational Picture tools against an adversary that didn't have such tools available. These were the strategic military tools that were supposed to insure the US military's dominance into the 21st century. Van Riper showed that while they might be useful, they didn't come anywhere near making a victory assured, even if you had overwhelming force on your side. Of course, that's not what the Pentagon brass was told about it when the execise was finished.

So let me get this straight..

[Mystery00]

Homeland Security has invited sci-fi writers...to do their job for them?

They might as well just post the discussion here.

Here's my list:

1. Equip every passenger with anti-terrorist lasers, because of their nature, terrorists will shoot themselves by accident.
2. Shield the entire airplane with a time distortion device, except the cockpit, the passengers will be in "slow-time", so for them the plane would take off and land within seconds, not enough time for any terrorist to do anything.
3. Mother-F%*$ING SNAKES, with mother-F@#(@ING LASERS on their heads put as security guards. No terrorist will dare.
4. Virtual reality helmets for every passenger. Terrorists can act out their evil deeds to their hearts content in the safety of their own virtual plane. Of course every helmet will be recoded, and the terrorists apprehended upon landing.
5. Replace bomb sniffing dogs with jedi knights. Explanation not required.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[iamdrscience]

Equip every passenger with anti-terrorist lasers, because of their nature, terrorists will shoot themselves by accident.

I don't think this would work because, c'mon, if somebody handed me a laser gun, there's no way I'm not trying it out a couple times, no matter what the consequences. I mean, it's fucking laser gun. Your other arguements are airtight though, bravo.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Mystery00]

In light of your argument I will add this: Because of their nature, anybody playing with the laser will shoot a terrorist.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Opportunist]

As a beneficial side effect, that way we might get rid of unemployment after only a few thousand flights...

Re:So let me get this straight..

[carpe_noctem]

5. Replace bomb sniffing dogs with jedi knights. Explanation not required.

"These aren't the hand cremes and fingernail clippers that you're looking for..."

Re:So let me get this straight..

[arashi no garou]

Dude, it's Slashdot. You can say motherfucking if you want.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Kim Jong Ill]

Replace bomb sniffing dogs with jedi knights. Explanation not required.

These aren't the bombs you are looking for. Move along (there's nothing to see here).

Okay DHS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did the investigation into all the strange stock trades the day before 9/11 lead? Cause you know, if you want to prevent something like this from happening again you need to know who was responsible and it's pretty clear that the Saudis and the Bush regime are in it up to their necks.

We should start by repealing patriot style laws and restricting the over reaching powers of so-called 'homeland security' agencies. Then we can have a decent investigation and bring those responsible to justice instead of using 9/11 as an excuse to start illegal wars. Just a suggestion but obviously I'm a 'deviant thinker' for not swallowing the kool aid.

Re:Okay DHS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that stunning tin foil hat?

CiC start reading and complying with alerts?

[ketilwaa]

Wasn't the title of one of the reports presented to Dubya prior to 9-11 "Terrorists plan an attack on American soil with commercial airliners" or something like that? Don't have to be a sci-fi writer to interpret that... So, "reading and complying with warnings" might be a place to start. And for those that think terrorism is an Islamic problem: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518, 476599,00.html (500 Terror Attacks in EU in 2006 - But Only 1 by Islamists)

War on Terror

[franksands]

I think that Michael Moore said it best: You cannot win the war on terror, because you cannot go to war with a noun.

Re:War on Terror

[Opportunist]

...and you can't win a war against an idea. The US is used to winning such a war, since the "war against communism" was "won". Well, they won against the Soviet Union, in a way, but communism itself is still there. And, frankly, since it was pretty much outlawed in the US and everyone was trained to hate communism by itself, the war against it in the US was over before it started.

You can't eradicate an idea worldwide. Ask the Catholic Church, as maybe THE power in medieval times, how it fared against the protestants. Now THAT was a war on an idea! The outcome is known, I guess. For those that don't know: The goal of the Catholic Church was to become (again) the only christian church. I leave it to the reader to decide whether they achived that goal...

Re:War on Terror

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is Germany not a noun? Or Iraq? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Iran? Or.......?

Re:War on Terror

[franksands]

Let us be very careful now, we are almost reaching Godwin's law. What I meant to say is that you cannot declare war on an abstract idea. I know "terrorism" has many tragic, real and concrete consequences, but "terror" by itself is an abstract idea.

Can't they read?

[Madman]

If they can't read what's already out there what's the use of writing any more? Read a Dale Brown novel for chrissake! In one of his books terrorists use jetliners to attack targets in the US, including the capitol. Can't get closer than that!

Re:Can't they read?

[jackb_guppy]

And one guy in a Clance novel flew a 747 into the Capitol and made the ex-head of CIA president.

Then again we did that with votes. (George Bush, Sr)

Re:Can't they read?

[Anspen]

They didn't even have to read it, they could've just watched TV. Just a six months before the attack there was a network (well Fox, but close enough) TV show that had terrorist flying a plane into the the world trade towers. How much more accurate can you get?

Hmm. A Sci-Fi show, presumably with Sc-Fi writers predicting 9/11. Maybe they're on to something. Though on the onther hand in the example it was a chip hijacking the plane, which might be to much imagination

Starship Trooper

[Pond823]

Maube they could try and understand why the bugs launch their attacks at earth?

If you don't like locks...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a sane foreign policy? Like cockpit locks, it won't prevent all terrorist attacks, but less bullying and more actual diplomacy will help. It also wouldn't hurt to examine economic policies and disproportionate consumption of resources. America is a colonial power by fiat and as long as that is so, there will continue to be terrorists.

The sci-fi angle is just silliness, in my opinion.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[sanman2]

I'm sure there are plenty of non-Muslim people who object to the foreign policies of Islamic countries/groups, and yet you don't see suicide bombings happening against them.

No, the answer is not appeasement, otherwise then everyone will be threatening suicide bombings anytime they want something.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The single objective of keeping America safe is best served when people in other nations are secure and feel invested." —Barack Obama

Re:If you don't like locks...

[CmdrGravy]

You think the Iranians are building nuclear weapons in order to carry out a nuclear strike on America. Are you stupid ?

You realise the Iranians are probably perfectly well aware of how many nuclear warheads the US has and what would happen to them if they even thought about launching anything towards America.

No, the Iranians are doing their best to build nuclear weapons because once they have them the US is far less likely to invade them - which is something they the US has been making low level threats to do for quite a while now. If I was Iran I'd want a nuclear capability too.

This isn't too say I'm happy to see the spread of nuclear weapons to somewhat less than well balanced countries, in fact it's really worrying, but perhaps if people weren't afraid they were facing the imminent invasion by US "Freedom Fighters" they wouldn't be so desperate to develop them.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[moeinvt]

"Yes, let's be nice to the Iranians. I'm sure they'll never seek to hurt us with the nuclear weapons they're building. . . Moron."

Quit listening to government and media propaganda numbnuts.

-As a signatory to the Nuclear non-Proliferation treaty, Iran has a RIGHT to develop nuclear energy, which includes Uranium enrichment capability.

-Taking an arrogant and belligerent stance toward Iran only gives them MORE incentive to develop weapons. We name three countries an "Axis of Evil", then attack one of them with overwhelming military force. Don't you think that the other two would be inclined to ramp up their military capabilities?

-Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. They're well aware of the fact that if they attacked the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, it would definitely mean their own destruction.

"As to us being a 'colonial power by fiat' - what nonsense. . . .I prefer to have the US run things internationally . . ."

So which is it? You say it's nonsense to suggest that we're a colonial (imperial) power, yet conclude that we "run things internationally." How does that work? Why would we be "screwed economically" by dismantling some of our network of 700+ major foreign military bases, ending our trillion dollar war and reducing military spending? We could buy every drop of oil we need with the amount of money we're spending on the war and the DoD budget. We're going to screw ourselves through renegade government spending and idiotic imperialistic crusades like the Iraq war.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

More to the point, they don't have a delivery system which could get a nuke anywhere even close to the U.S.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Kymermosst]

More to the point, they don't have a delivery system which could get a nuke anywhere even close to the U.S.

Only because your definition of "delivery system" is probably too narrow.

If I was orchestrating such an attack, I'd ship the parts for the weapon to Mexico or Central/South America, and then use the same techniques that the drug suppliers and illegal immigrants use to get drugs/people into the United States. Once all the parts arrive in the U.S., assemble and deliver.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Glock27]

More to the point, they don't have a delivery system which could get a nuke anywhere even close to the U.S.

Sure they don't. There's no way a cargo ship (or sub for that matter, and Iran does have them) could sail into an American harbor and detonate a nuke. It'll never happen. After all, where would they find a crew willing to commit suicide?

Oh, wait...

(And, to respond to another poster, why would they do that knowing we have a large arsenal? Because we'd have no way of knowing who detonated the device - and it would still have a catastrophic effect on America. Think if multiple devices were detonated...)

So, to those who rated my original post 'flamebait', I say "stick your heads back in the sand...or back into the orifice from whence it came".

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Ihlosi]

Because we'd have no way of knowing who detonated the device -

The list of suspects is very short, and the list of suspects with a MAD scenario in case of nuclear attack is even shorter. The suspects who are on the former list but not on the latter would find their country reduced to a radioactive desert in a matter of hours.

That's why you _need_ appropriate delivery methods (i.e. ones that can deliver nukes within a matter of minutes) if you want to play nuclear war.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Glock27]

Quit listening to government and media propaganda numbnuts.

I form my opinions based on objective fact as best I can determine it. I'm much less likely a propaganda victim than yourself.

-As a signatory to the Nuclear non-Proliferation treaty, Iran has a RIGHT to develop nuclear energy, which includes Uranium enrichment capability."

Sure, it has a right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Since it is clearly pursuing non-peaceful purposes, it has no such right.

-Taking an arrogant and belligerent stance toward Iran only gives them MORE incentive to develop weapons. We name three countries an "Axis of Evil", then attack one of them with overwhelming military force. Don't you think that the other two would be inclined to ramp up their military capabilities?

Not if they're smart. Libya, for instance, was smart.

We named them an "Axis of Evil", stated our objections to their behavior, and asked them to change it. Has it changed?

-Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. They're well aware of the fact that if they attacked the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, it would definitely mean their own destruction.

First, you're making quite an assumption in saying Iran isn't "suicidal", and one I'm not willing to make. We're really speaking of Iran's leadership here, who are true believers in an apocalyptic religion and want to bring the end times. Where is the disincentive to use nuclear weapons again?

However, even if that were not the case, how would a nuke detonation in the states automatically point to Iran? What if the detonation uses Russian nuclear material? I'm missing the mechanism through which we retaliate against the right entity. Things are even muddier if the nuke is delivered through a third party like Al Qaida.

So which is it? You say it's nonsense to suggest that we're a colonial (imperial) power, yet conclude that we "run things internationally." How does that work? Why would we be "screwed economically" by dismantling some of our network of 700+ major foreign military bases, ending our trillion dollar war and reducing military spending? We could buy every drop of oil we need with the amount of money we're spending on the war and the DoD budget. We're going to screw ourselves through renegade government spending and idiotic imperialistic crusades like the Iraq war.

I guess you missed the point that our military expense goes towards fueling our economic might. You'd probably also be surprised at how much military R&D benefits the civilian sector.

I agree with you about government spending, but my concerns revolve around the (far more expensive) Social Security and Medicare programs. Dollars spent on the military and defense are some of the best and most necessary government expenditures in my book. Whether you choose to admit it or not, regardless of what America does there will be those who seek her downfall. The military will be out there defending your sorry ass whether or not you appreciate that service.

It's sad when someone like you who's clearly benefited from being an American is so clueless about the simple realities of life. If we have to rely on the likes of you for our future, I'm quite sure America will quickly achieve second-rate status in the world.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Glock27]

The list of suspects is very short, and the list of suspects with a MAD scenario in case of nuclear attack is even shorter. The suspects who are on the former list but not on the latter would find their country reduced to a radioactive desert in a matter of hours.

Is that what you think, that the US would blindly lash out at several countries with nuclear weapons? Aside from almost certainly triggering WW III, such a move would be stupid from the standpoint that some third party (say, Russia) could nuke several cities and escape retaliation.

I find your scenario implausible.

That's why you _need_ appropriate delivery methods (i.e. ones that can deliver nukes within a matter of minutes) if you want to play nuclear war.

A sub/ship in the harbor is a 0-minute delivery method.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[ciggieposeur]

Whether you choose to admit it or not, regardless of what America does there will be those who seek her downfall.

You seem to think that the majority of people who "seek America's downfall" do so irrationally, as though all our Cold War sins never really happened. News flash: our government spread quite a bit more misery throughout the world between 1945 and 1990 than peace and prosperity.

The military will be out there defending your sorry ass whether or not you appreciate that service.

My particular "sorry ass" would rather our military actually spend its time on defense rather than re-enact adolescent boy fantasies of being the Toughest Shit in the 'Hood.

It's sad when someone like you who's clearly benefited from being an American is so clueless about the simple realities of life. If we have to rely on the likes of you for our future, I'm quite sure America will quickly achieve second-rate status in the world.

America already IS second-rate in most of the developed world, thanks largely to our aversion to actually use public money to further the public good because that's too "socialist".

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Moofie]

You mean like a shipping container? Yeah, there sure aren't any of those.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[MillionthMonkey]

I form my opinions based on objective fact as best I can determine it. I'm much less likely a propaganda victim than yourself.

You may want to reevaluate how you form your opinions. You may have some valid points but I see a lot of familiar propaganda being parroted in your post.

Since it is clearly pursuing non-peaceful purposes, it has no such right.

Clearly? As in, more "clearly" than we are? Who says? Cheney, whose credibility is shot to hell? Nobody in the world believes anything the United States says anymore.

We named them an "Axis of Evil", stated our objections to their behavior, and asked them to change it. Has it changed?

You have the order of events ass-backwards. This process had already been started by Clinton and predates the "Axis of Evil" crap. Bush succeeded in preventing diplomacy around the world but he was not able to put a stop to a diplomatic process with Libya that was already underway by the time he took office.

BTW "Axis of Evil" was a sucker punch to democratic movements around the world. It was "bring them on"-stupid.

First, you're making quite an assumption in saying Iran isn't "suicidal", and one I'm not willing to make. We're really speaking of Iran's leadership here, who are true believers in an apocalyptic religion and want to bring the end times.

This strikes me as projection. All three Western religions have been apocalyptic ever since Daniel interpreted Nebuchadrezzar's dream. The United States is acting suicidally because it's caught itself in a "winning vs. losing" mentality and no longer recognizes what would be in its best interests. Our country is under the command of true believers.

Plus this is a silly argument. "Saddam Hussein is crazy! We can't trust him not to give a nuclear weapon to AQ!" Remember that one? Saddam was soooo crazy he was going to hand out strategically important nuclear material worth billions of dollars to scraggly terrorists.

Where is the disincentive to use nuclear weapons again?

Nuclear weapons are like sex... something that everyone wants, with obviously dangerous consequences. An outsider can't incentivize" such a thing. If they're as crazy as you say, they'll nuke us anyway.

The military will be out there defending your sorry ass whether or not you appreciate that service.

Only if they have orders to do it.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realise the Iranians are probably perfectly well aware of how many nuclear warheads the US has and what would happen to them if they even thought about launching anything towards America.

A few days ago I was thinking about this in the shower and came to essentially the same conclusion. The only time it would make sense for Iran to use a nuke against the USA would be if the USA had already invaded and occupied Iran. Otherwise, the USA could justify nuking Iran or at the very least invading and occupying Iran.

Basically, the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons so that the USA doesn't do the same thing to them that it did to Saddam Hussein.

In particular, nukes won't make it possible for Iran to force Israel to stop beating up on the Palestinians. Nukes won't even be useful in deterring the USA from launching cruise missiles against Iran.

The only use Iran has for nukes is to prevent an all out invasion and occupation by the USA.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[CmdrGravy]

You obviously don't realise that it's extremely easy to determine the source of a nuclear weapon by analysing the fall out and radiation. The US would know in a matter of days where the weapon originated from and a matter of minutes later, where it came from - in your implausible scenario this is Iran, would be reduced to a heap of smoking rubble.

So, if you can demonstrate any scenario at all in which Iran is plausibly going to initiate a nuclear attack on the US please go ahead ...

Re:If you don't like locks...

[CmdrGravy]

See my reply below for details on why your shipping container idea won't work and please explain what Iran has to gain by initiating a nuclear attack in the US ?

Re:If you don't like locks...

[Glock27]

You obviously don't realise that it's extremely easy to determine the source of a nuclear weapon by analysing the fall out and radiation. The US would know in a matter of days where the weapon originated from and a matter of minutes later, where it came from - in your implausible scenario this is Iran, would be reduced to a heap of smoking rubble.

So, if you can demonstrate any scenario at all in which Iran is plausibly going to initiate a nuclear attack on the US please go ahead

You need to read up on the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He is the central figure of a Muslim sect to which the President of Iran is an adherent. It is apocalyptic, and the prophecy involves a time of great troubles after which the people of Islam will unite and conquer the world.

So, your basic assumption that the government of Iran wants to avoid nuclear attack is probably flawed.

Further, your assumption that the US could quickly identify the source of the weapon is suspect. What if the weapon was made with material smuggled from somewhere else, or some was mixed in? What if some other major power wanted to cause mischief and used Iranian ore to manufacture a bomb? Even in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, the US won't rush to judgment, at least in a nuclear manner.

Re:If you don't like locks...

[CmdrGravy]

Perhaps you ought to take some note of what a lot of people believe the bible says about things like the anti christ and the rapture and global apocolpyse, I believe the American president is a born again Christian as well like the people who believe this nonsense. However based on that alone I don't believe the US is likely to launch any pre-emptive nuclear strikes in order to bring about an apocalpyse and for the same reasons I don't think Iran will either.

So, your basic assumption is definitely flawed and doesn't seem to have any grounding in anything except some kind of anti Iranian paranoia.

Your last paragraph is basically nonsense.

Q) What if the weapon was made from material smuggled from somewhere else ?

A) If Iran could simply smuggle in nuclear weapons they probably wouldn't bother causing themselves so many problems continuing with their nuclear research.

Why would another country allow nuclear materials which could be traced back to it be used in an attack on the US ? Assuming they had the capability they'd be better off with a full scale all out pre-emptive strike, if they don't then will face immediate destruction. What would be the motivation for that ?

Why would Iran mix in it's own 100% identifiable nuclear materials with those of another country and bring on it's own certain destruction ?

Q) Even in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, the US won't rush to judgment, at least in a nuclear manner.

Given the reaction after a few skyscrapers were destroyed what do you think the reaction is going to be if a major city is destroyed in a pre-emptive nuclear attack ? An attack where you can be certain where the weaponary orignated from. Whoever was responsible would not have long before all hell was unleashed on them and the rest of the world would be fully supportive in the face of such an unprovoked atrocity.

Heres a suggestion.

[supersnail]

Rather than screening people coming into the USA why not screen people leaving the USA.

You could come up with a standardised "AQ" (Asshole Quotent) score and refuse exit to anyone scoring more than 100.

Answering "Yes" to questions like "Do you believe there should be Starbucks outlet in every culturaly important site" gets you five points.

Aswering "Yes" to a question like "Do you believe it is acceptable to shout out 'Does anyone in this joint speak English' when visting a foriegn art gallery" get you ten points.

Answering "Yes" to a question like "Do you believe its wrong to provide condoms to people who are HIV positive" gets you 50 points.

By screening people leaving your country in this way you could promote the illusion that USAians are polite considerate respectfull people and you hatred and bombs would be better directed at Candadians or Swedes.

Also candidates for high office could boast about thier high scores come lection time.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Answering "Yes" to questions like "Do you believe there should be Starbucks outlet in every culturaly important site" gets you five points.

My God, five points?

People should be shot on site for answering yes to this.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Opportunist]

...and then our TV networks buy a new season of Jerry Springer and all is void again...

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[supersnail]

I know it deserves more points but as far as I can work out there is already a starbucks at every tourist attraction.

There is certainly a Starbuck in hte heart of the Forbidden City in Biejing.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[TempeTerra]

As an "America-hating Furriner" I'd like to say that I agree with your sentiment. The problem is that the people you describe already stay in their own country, from whence they make their crappy, far reaching decisions. Americans who choose to travel are the open minded, educated, polite ones who know there's actually something worth seeing outside the states.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[castrox]

What in the world did Sweden do? We're neutral - officially. In bed with the US - inofficially. We go down - you go down!

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Anon-Admin]

LOL and I am an American...

It is even funnier because of the trip last summer.

The family went to Canada for vacation. So we are up in the Quebec area and standing in line at a restaurant and the people in front of us are speaking French. My brother then says, loud enough for them to here, "They should speak the language before they come to this country." (Add a southern accent. We are from the south.)

I slapped him up side the head and said "You are in there country, now apologize to them in French!"

He just turned red and walked away. I then, in French, asked them to excuse l'idiot and apologized for his behavior. My French is bad but they understood and responded in English.

I will never forget it! I can only hope that it sticks in his mind and he NEVER does it again.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

So every American is held responsible for the actions of one American company?

I don't own stock in Starbucks.
I don't drink Starbucks.
I don't sit in on some sort of corporate board of directors meeting where they decide where to open new locations for the purposes of world domination.

I'm sorry that the Starbucks corporation has gotten your panties in a twist over something, but really, I and 99.999% of other Americans had nothing to do with it.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha that's great, thanks for sharing that story. It's nice to hear that some of you have some sense.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[Maltheus]

I dunno about the others, but I still feel ripped off buying that cheese from you guys, only to find a bunch of holes in it. It's called quality control.

Re:Heres a suggestion.

[castrox]

Hehe, didn't know Sweden was known for its Greve-cheese.. ;-)

It's been done before..

[Dynamoo]

Reagan famously consulted scifi authors to come up with ideas for SDI (for example, Jerry Pournelle and others. Allegedly, they came up with some of the more interesting ideas which were just plausible enough to gain credibility.. at least for a time. (A strange case of life mirroring art.. or at least mirroring Footfall.

Depending on your interpretation of history, it could be argued that this was one of the things that let to the collapse of the Soviet Union as they couldn't compete with the proposed SDI technologies.

Yeah, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that locks on the doors on 9/11 could have been useful, but really some blue sky thinking will do no harm.

Re:It's been done before..

[Fuzzums]

It's hard to believe that they left the doors unlocked in the twintower offices.
And how a locked office would keep out airplanes entering from the windows...

I suggest metal bars in front of the windows.

Re:It's been done before..

[Dynamoo]

Well, seriously an anti-aircraft battery could have at least taken down one of the aircraft after the true nature of the threat became known. One thing that 9/11 demonstrated is that the US was woefully unprepared for hostile action on its own territory.

Re:It's been done before..

[RMH101]

aside from the cavalier attitude to opening fire on a passenger airplane, how much damage would a falling airliner downed by a missile have caused?

Scare Tactics

[gsslay]

Dear Sci-Fi writers,

We're flat out of fanciful terrorist ideas to scare the public with and need some new ones. Have you got any? Don't worry if they sound totally implausible, once we're finished sprucing them up only the unpatriotic will be laughing at them.

Yours,

Authorities

Re:Terminator not required

[Lost Penguin]

Nah, just an ED209 on every plane.
What could possibly....
But wait.

LOL

Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[Nymz]

For example, if you don't want to see any stories regarding Paris Hilton, then use -"paris hilton". When enough people are using the filter, then publishers will stop publishing stories that readers refuse to view.

Oh well, I thought it was a good idea, but I also thought putting locks on cockpit doors was a good idea too, but we all know how that one turned out...

Re:Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[misanthrope101]

I'm not upset over there being a Slashdot story on terrorism. I'm upset over our larger cultural obsession with terrorism. Whether or not there is yet another terrorism post on Slashdot is nothing compared to the rest of the wide-ranging effects of our hysteria over this.

The dilution of habeus corpus, the normalization of torture, the normalization of warrantless surveillance, an open-ended war that is making the world more dangerous, the fact that we as a nation are represented by George Bush and the neocons--all of this is what I am upset over, and all is traceable to a fear of terrorism that is vastly disproportionate to the actual risk. If you have a Firefox extension that can deal with all of this, please send me a link. I'm all about installing it.

Re:Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[cliffski]

on a wider issue, I tend to use a terrorism filter on pretty much everything news and entertainment related. If a game casts me as a 'special ops guy fighting middle east terrorists" then no sale. If a movie depicts an american hero fighting evil terrorists, I don't see it, ditto books, TV, etc etc. Any sci-fi author that jumps on the terrorism bandwagon will likely lose a lot of readers.
It's as bad now with 'evil terrorists' as it was in the cold war with 'evil communists'.

Re:Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[giorgiofr]

You, as a nation, are represented by...

The exchange students coming from your country. Totally normal people who wanted to study a bit, get drunk, party, explore, talk about everyday stuff and more important things as well. People with a personality. People that, sometimes, I thought should have studied a bit more in their younger years: to be honest I am always surprised at how little kids outside Europe are taught at school.
The spoiled brats on MTV. No comment here :)
The wide-eyed tourists I meet. OMG is my country beautiful! It's average, I guess.
The annoyed tourists I meet. OMG is my country badly organized. It's average, I guess.
The geeks on /., debating contrasting viewpoints in a relaxed atmosphere... kind of.
And all sorts of other people.

The people who take GWB as your representative are the ones that hate you unconditionally. They're a lost cause and you can't possibly hope to win them over. They're fueled by the EU propaganda and the fashionable antiamericanism that pervades our life - and they are blissfully oblivious to how American they themselves are in their everyday life.
But there are also smarter people, like me, who don't need to oversimplify and hate. You can rest assured that some people assess your actions critically and logically, and guess how you come out of that? Average.

Re:Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[WilliamSChips]

The people who take GWB as your representative are the ones that need to learn that most of us hate him too, now.

Re:Place -terrorism in your /. filter then

[SenseiLeNoir]

Well said, I am from London, And I simply see Americans as just normal people, with a little bit different culture, and a slight accent.. other than that... just normal.

And carefully reading certain memos

[jfern]

It might have helped if the President had carefully read a certain August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.

Of course, Bush spent the rest of the day fishing.

Re:And carefully reading certain memos

[value_added]

It might have helped if the President had carefully read a certain August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.

For all we know, he did read the memo.

Otherwise, I'd say you were onto something. Just think where we'd be today if we elected a President could read and wasn't an ex oil man, a Vice President without ties to Halliburton, or a Secretary of State whose specialty wasn't Russian studies. Come to think of it, if it wasn't real, you'd think only a science fiction writer could come up with that scenario.

Re:And carefully reading certain memos

[Dachannien]

OMFG, and maybe it would have helped if he'd watched The Lone Gunmen!

Grateful For Bush's Policies

[s7uar7]

We should be thankful to GWB for the fact that there haven't been any further attacks on the US, clearly his anti-terrorism policies have worked.

I'm also a smoker but don't have cancer, so clearly cigarettes prevent cancer.

Then talk to people

[PMBjornerud]

I don't live over there, so I'm not changing anything. But I think some intelligent people over in the US should really start making those very valid points. Talk to your friends and family, and make it clear how utterly irrelevant it is to be worried about terror. Unless terrorists obtain nukes or other WMD's, terror is a complete non-issue for the average joe. Like spending your life fearing that you should be suddenly killed by lightning.

Oh, and if you're taking the global perspective, try these numbers: around 24.000 people die every day due to hunger. Though americans may be annoyed if you take that perspective too far. If disasters were measured solely in terms of human lives lost, 9/11 wouldn't be the headline even on the day it happened.

Re:Then talk to people

[timmarhy]

if they had WMD's the US is royally fucked. we've already seen how good they are at finding them.

Some more ideas

[pakar]

- Separate the cockpit from the rest of the plane and have their own entrance to it, if the pilots need access to the rest of the plane then make it the other way around by having the passenger area separate from the rest of the plane.
- Have a signal that can be sent to the plane that will allow remote-control or autopilot to the closest airport that the pilots cannot override without clearance from the ground.
- Signal from the ground can make the autopilot to set a specific course and altitude for a number of minutes.
- The lock on the cockpit door can only be unlocked by someone on the ground.
- Knockout gas that the pilots can release into the passenger area. (maybe better that a few people dies than the whole plane crashes)

And to make the communication with the plane more secure (so no one can interfere with the signals) allow for both laser and RF communication, maybe even put the whole passenger area in a faraday-cage and have 2 antennas for separate sat and ground communication.

Re:Some more ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not watching enough TV.

Jake 2.0 : take over a plane from ground to crash it.

You are not watching enough Movies.

Die Harder : Set landing beacon to have wrong alitude reference to crash it.

---------------
When the HP Laser (later known as I) came out, we in the programming department looked at an said "Add a scanner and modem, we have a copier and fax machine" then dismissed that idea as too ovious.

When the GPS receivers where coming out, we though over lunch how that would make any plane a curse missile. Another too ovious idea.

Re:Some more ideas

[pakar]

If they wanna blow just the plane then it's probably impossible to stop them with any tech on the plane, but with a knockout gas they can at least prevent them from crashing the plane into a building..

Planes today can fly and even land automatically but it's not allowed to use yet since the tech is very new and not tested enough so that's why they still need pilots.. And just get a route to the closest airport and land there is probably allot easier than to have a spy-plane that flies on it's own in enemy territory where it has to avoid missiles and stuff.

And about security... Have a look at the televised encryption, the way they have broken that in the past is via hacking the cards to get the master-keys.. If you want something more secure for the planes then make the 'cards' unique for every plane and bump up the key-length and number of keys that needs to be used. So to make something like this secure is probably the easiest part. The hardest issues here are still the human factor since someone could pose as an engineer and do something to the plane, but they can do that even today if they just wanna crash the plane.. Doing something like this moves the security issue to the ground to the engineers, and it's probably much easier to catch someone tampering with the plane on the ground than it is to catch someone that just really wanna blow up a plane in the air.

I'm from Europe and... well... what should I say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sci-fi Writers Join War on Terror ...ahhhh-HAHAHAHA... You're so fucked in the ass... hahaha... You're sooo fucked in the ass...

It's your taxmoney workin' you poor little American taxpayer-bastards. Europe certainly sucks. But, hey, it's the stories from the US that make us laugh.

George Orwell

[Fuzzums]

Needless to say they started with reading and implementing ideas from 1984. Including but not limited to the war in Eurmiddeleastia.

That outsourcing would be cheaper too

[Nymz]

Actually, we used to have programs in place that would pay informants for information on ideas and plans against us. But in the 90s those programs were canceled because they paid "bad" people. The alternative we are stuck with now was documented in a movie, Team America:World Police, where the only way left for us to infiltrate cells are to... well, just watch the movie baka-huka-baka-baka.

Orwell helped the bastards too much already

[fossilstar]

George Orwell's classic has been used by this administration as a "how-to guide." Yeah, SF writers will get right on that.

Schneier on Movie-Plot Threads

[Alphager]

http://www.schneier.com/essay-087.html

Sometimes it seems like the people in charge of homeland security spend too much time watching action movies. They defend against specific movie plots instead of against the broad threats of terrorism. We all do it. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats. We imagine anthrax spread from crop dusters. Or a contaminated milk supply. Or terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Before long, we're envisioning an entire movie plot, without Bruce Willis saving the day. And we're scared. Psychologically, this all makes sense. Humans have good imaginations. Box cutters and shoe bombs conjure vivid mental images. "We must protect the Super Bowl" packs more emotional punch than the vague "we should defend ourselves against terrorism." The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It's not that there's a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It's that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were. Commuter terrorism is the new movie plot. The London bombers carried bombs into the subway, so now we search people entering the subways. They used cell phones, so we're talking about ways to shut down the cell-phone network. It's too early to tell if hurricanes are the next movie-plot threat that captures the imagination. The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we've wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we're no safer overall. [continues]

Sci-fi authors look away now

[Anonymous Coward]

- "Now our terrorist-pilots can fly into buildings safe in the knowledge that the passengers cannot interfere"

- "Terrorists capture remote-control office and fly planes into buildings remotely. Pilots unable to stop the inevitable"

- "Terrorists convince planes to fly into mountains, killing all onboard. "

- "Terrorists take over plane, using knockout gas provided by the government to keep passengers from halting their evil deeds"

Those who don't learn from history...

[Moraelin]

Well, all the more reason to learn from the mistakes of the past, don't you think? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And it would be a shame to have to blow the death star again.

Not to mention other historical stuff that doesn't necessarily need repeating. Like Napoleon's wars, for example. Marching in a column with flintlock muskets is just no longer hip, you know. Or like assassinating Caesar. The poor guy suffered enough the first time, I see no reason to be mean and put him through that again. Etc.

Mmmm... sounds like a movie I saw

[mqtthiqs]

Hey, this reminds me a lot of a movie from the 70's: Three days of the Condor, by Sydney Pollack.
There was this special CIA unit in NY which goal was to read every sci-fi and thriller books, entering the stories in a beautiful old DEC tape computer. But one day, Robert Redford (The Condor) discovers a story that sounds so real that some people (the bad guys) decide to "terminate" this unit by killing everyone.

Great movie!

"It WILL happen again"

[MillionthMonkey]

People are totally innumerate and they overreact to rare, dramatic events. Everyone went nuts over the VT tragedy because it was "the worst school shooting in history" even though it only killed 30+ people. That's less than an average day's worth of gun deaths, or about six hours of car accidents. Now it's almost six years later and people are still overreacting to 9/11. I mean, 3000 deaths in one day and at the same place is impressive, but it still totals to just one month of car accidents. Think of how miserable we've made ourselves since then. Was it worth it?

Asking "whether the next 9/11 can be prevented" is a dumb question to try to answer. It's like "how do we prevent the next car accident?" The sort of questions we should be asking sound cold and calculating, which is unfortunate because it keeps us from asking them:

- Is it possible to reduce the number of terrorist attacks?
- Is it possible to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to zero?
- What is the probability per year that a terrorist act might affect you?
- What is the probability per year that our self-flagellating counterterrorism efforts might affect you?
- Since 9/11, how many additional hours of your life have been spent in airports?
- How many years of your life have been spent as a soldier overseas?
- How many years of your life have been lost as a soldier overseas?
- Is terrorism even something most of us worry about personally anymore?

It's unfortunate that we have created security monsters like TSA that simultaneously don't work and would be political suicide to get rid of.

My own idea for "preventing the next VT tragedy" was to crack down on the manufacturers of doors, not the sellers of handguns. If it were illegal to manufacture doors with closed loops in their handles, the guy wouldn't have been able to chain the door shut.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[JordanL]

Since 9/11, how many additional hours of your life have been spent in airports?

I have been on no less than 20 round trip flights, 2 international, since 9/11. There is nothing unreasonable and rediculous about them at all. In fact, the only place I ever really waited in line for long was in Denver, and that was situational.

In fact, having flown many times, I actually am concerned about the lack of time many airports spend on security. I was coming back from Tokyo in the San Francisco and due to a malfunction in the baggage return I was delayed 45 minutes on a connecting flight that was only 1:10 after I landed. I was sure that there was no way I could get my bags and get to the connecting gate, in the domestic terminal, in time.

Fortunately for me, customs waved me through without so much as wanding me. Unfortunately, that isn't what customs is supposed to do. I should have missed that flight.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[DrSkwid]

I did 3 hours in a queue at Heathrow 4 weeks after the stupid liquid nonsense.

"Take your shoes off please."

What did the Swiss do : tell everybody to fly armed !

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[drsmithy]

I did 3 hours in a queue at Heathrow 4 weeks after the stupid liquid nonsense.

I was unlucky enough to by flying out of London (to Belfast) the day after that stupidity went down. On a flight that had originally been scheduled for an 9am departure (certainly made getting the rental car back in time interesting after those extra few hours standing in line had to be allowed for - the the flight was obviously delayed for hours anyway).

However, not as unlucky as some friends who happened to be in the air, on the way to London from Australia, when it happened. They had nearly a thousand dollars (Australian) worth of duty free alcohol and cosmetics confiscated (trying to get back onto the plane) during the few hours layover in Singapore when the new rules went into effect. I told them to hit the airport and airline up for reimbursement, but I'm not sure if they were successful.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[cybermage]

My own idea for "preventing the next VT tragedy" was to crack down on the manufacturers of doors, not the sellers of handguns. If it were illegal to manufacture doors with closed loops in their handles, the guy wouldn't have been able to chain the door shut.

Tiny nitpick about your otherwise insightful rant: Door manufacturers typically do not supply nor dictate the choice of handles.

Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do." If you think guns don't kill people, try to shoot someone without one.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[mdielmann]

Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do." If you think guns don't kill people, try to shoot someone without one. While I don't agree that his idea would have changed much (too many ways to effectively seal a door), you're also missing the point. Knives are as useful in a trained hand in close combat as a gun is, and it doesn't run out. Molotov cocktails have as good a spread effect as a shotgun, and you can carry about as many (effective) rounds. A car is a wonderful tool for killing a person in an open area, and it happens every day.
While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[drinkypoo]

In fact, having flown many times, I actually am concerned about the lack of time many airports spend on security.

What bothers me is that they are engaging in utterly useless bullshit in the name of security. If the "additional measures" they were taking would somehow improve security, I might be more sympathetic.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever calculate how many years, at current rates, we'll need to have soldiers in Iraq in order to lose as many people as we do in any given year due to drunk driving? Pretty scary. Yet, with the exception of MADD, I don't see the moral outrage, the marches, the congressional inquiries.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[MillionthMonkey]

Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do."

I was making fun of people who come up with bizarre ideas that might have worked once to prevent a one-time event that already happened, and don't make any sense most of the time, like "let's give guns to everyone on the plane". There is a controversy about the WTC being fireproofed up to the 64th floor because the asbestos steel beam coating they used was banned in the middle of construction, so that the asbestos ban "caused" 3000 deaths. Whether that's true or not, asbestos has been banned since I was a kid and it still kills 30 people every day just in the U.S.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[Scrameustache]

Since 9/11, how many additional hours of your life have been spent in airports?

I have been on no less than 20 round trip flights, 2 international, since 9/11. There is nothing unreasonable and rediculous about them at all. Last summer, a junior security screener started to make a fuss about the three drops of water left at the bottom of my bottle (but was calmed down by a more mature colleague).

When I unpacked that carry-on bag at home, I realized I'd forgotten to remove my metal knife-fork-spoon travel utensils, an almost full dispenser of gelatinous deodorant, and my Swedish firesteel. They went through security on the transcontinental security check, and the domestic cross-country transfer (where the fuss was made).

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[zippthorne]

You can make a device for shooting people with things you find around your house. This is true even if your "house" is a cave in the woods. Further, the device will impart more energy per shot than a 9mm handgun would. It won't be quite as concealable though.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[MillionthMonkey]

Ever calculate how many years, at current rates, we'll need to have soldiers in Iraq in order to lose as many people as we do in any given year due to drunk driving? Pretty scary. Yet, with the exception of MADD, I don't see the moral outrage, the marches, the congressional inquiries.

But that's irrelevant. You're failing to distinguish between collective and individual decisions.

Collectively (thanks to MADD) we have already taken sound measures to minimize loss of life from drunk drivers. I know someone who can't legally drive again for another ten years. Some people's cars have breathalyzers to prevent them from starting. To prevent further deaths would require us to do things that would significantly degrade our quality of life, like banning alcohol or cars, or engaging in a massive crackdown on individual behavior. Deaths due to drunk driving are now the result of poor individual decisions, which we have made a reasonable effort to influence.

Wars are a little different, since they can be stopped by governments. They are subject to collective decision making in a way that drunk driving and terrorism are not.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[cybermage]

While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.

Ok. Well, trees can be used to build things, not just club people. Knives can be used to prepare food and eat food, not just kill people. Guns are used to kill people and what else?

Guns are never a tool, they are only a weapon. The only reason to have a gun is to kill with it. Yes, a tiny minority of people use guns to hunt animals, sometimes even for food, but it's still killing. If you want a rifle that holds a few rounds at a time to hunt with, be my guest; but, don't pretend that people hunt with 9mm pistols and assault rifles. You're just insulting the intelligence of your audience. Also, don't wrap yourself in the flag or the constitution on this issue: you just look stubborn and immature. When the right to keep and bear arms was put in the constitution, guns couldn't hold more than one round and couldn't be fired reliably more than 30 yards or so. The government certainly can and must regulate the sophisticated weaponry available today.

The founding fathers were not omniscient geniuses, and the document is not carved in stone. If the constitution were the same today as it was when the 2nd Amendment was added, blacks would be slaves and anyone who isn't a white male landowner wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[wronskyMan]

P2P is not a tool, it is only a piracy weapon. The only reason to have P2P is to pirate with it. Yes, a tiny minority of people use P2P to download legal stuff, sometimes even Linux ISOs, but it's still an illegal network. If you want a P2P app that only downloads files with centrally approved hashes, be my guest; but, don't pretend that people are only downloading backups of CDs/DVDs they own. You're just insulting the intelligence of your audience. Also, don't wrap yourself in the 1st Amendment on this issue: you just look stubborn and immature. When freedom of speech was put in the constitution, the fastest communications technology was the printing press. The government certainly can and must regulate the sophisticated communications technology available today.

The founding fathers were not omniscient geniuses, and the document is not carved in stone. If the constitution were the same today as it was when the 2nd Amendment was added, blacks would be slaves and anyone who isn't a white male landowner wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:"It WILL happen again"

[mdielmann]

What I'm getting at is the weapon is not the problem, the person is. The only exception to that is that, as a weapon, guns are much more effective than anything else out there. And guns shoot, possibly even kill people, but there are plenty of ways to accomplish the task. It's just that, as usual, people often use the most effective means at their disposal.

I have a friend whose sister was killed by her husband when she asked him for a divorce. He was an avid hunter, both bow and gun IIRC. I don't think he had any handguns. When he killed his wife, he beat her to death with a baseball bat. It seemed to work well enough. When he killed himself, he used a gun (shotgun IIRC). I kind of curious, in an abstract kind of way, if their two boys are going to be against guns, baseball bats (clubs?), both, or neither. Of course, what I really hope for is that they can see that the quality of the person has more relevance than the tools they have at their disposal. It's important in many more situations than solely life-and-death ones.

Bruce Schneier way ahead of you

[fLiXUs]

Second annual movie-plot threat contest already has loads of suggestions: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/04/anno uncing_seco.html

Re:stop being a racist coward

[supersnail]

I am British and niether racist nor a coward.

We brits have no need to attract terrorists are we are self sufficient in this area
although we don't export that many.

As for the goods thing we do, well, its much the same as your list:-

Invade Afganistan.

Invade Iraq.

Murdoch dominated media.

etc. etc.

Plus a few extras like:-

Inflicting cricket on half the world (technically only the English are culpable for this).
We dont have a national dress anymore as all the world is stuffed into suits and ties -- this surely counts as the most pervasive and uncofrotable example of "cultural imperialism" ever.
The Spice Girls (we are truly sorry about Posh Spice - but very glad she is now living in LA).
etc. etc.

On the other hand:
We nearly always apologetic about invading someones country, sinking thier fleet, bombing thier cities etc. etc.
We accept that foriegners and ex-colonists are inferior so are carefull not to criticise them.
We try to be polite and orderly when in someone elses country (when sober!).
We only pick fights with with people who want to fight and/or the riot police (when drunk!).

In this way we are nearly always welcome back, and, have have the world lining up to take up residense
in our damp miserabl eover priced country.

Go figure.

Re:How about

[maxwell demon]

Have a sleeping room behind the cockpit, still separated from the passenger area.

No imagination required.

[Jainith]

No imagination required, its pretty much spelled right out for you in Dale Brown's "Storming Heaven" and that was published in 1994

Re:No imagination required.

[mh1997]

Many posts are joking about this, but this is a good thing.

For example, the idea of a commercial plane crashing into a building (the whitehouse) was in Tom Clancey's "Red Storm Rising" published in 1991.

Sadly when asked about 9/11, our government officials said that it never occured to anyone that a commercial plane would be used as a weapon.

Re:No imagination required.

[icebrain]

Actually, it was Debt of Honor, and the plane hit the Capitol during a joint session of Congress.

Re:No imagination required.

[Lt.Hawkins]

you mean Debt of Honor, published in 1994.

Red Storm Rising isn't even part of the Jack Ryan "universe".

just a pop culture nitpick :)

Re:No imagination required.

[mh1997]

Thanks, my mistake, I've read most of his books through the years and my mind has blurred and blended some of the books.

Re:No imagination required.

[DavidTC]

That's nothing, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, aired in 2001, had a plane almost being crashed into the World Trade Center.

The bad guys have PhDs, too

[petes_PoV]

So, your technically proficient Sci-Fi writers come up with a few ideas about possible threats.

Sadly, the baddies are quite capable of reading the books that these people have written, and can therefore see how they think and therefore what kinds of threat they are predisposed to put forward.
What you've effectively done is to say to the terrorists "don't bother with these strategies, 'cos we've already thought of them". All the terrorists will do is come up with some new and imaginative ones that none of the writers have ever written about.

Oh yes, what happens if the writers group comes up with a list of (say) 500 previously unconsidered potential threats. Will DHS provide funding to prevent all of them, or will they cherry-pick the most likely? Unless they cover all their bases, they're in a worse situation than before. Not only is there a high probability thay the next 9/11 won't have been one of the few that was countered, but if the authors propose enough possibles, the threat will have been on the list, but ignored. How will DHS cope with the "we told you so" backlash?

Jerry Pournelle

[hachete]

and a couple of other SF Writers-nutjobs were advisers to Reagan on Star Wars - see assorted nutjobs advise another on the conquest of space and look how well that's going. What can go wrong?

2 orders of magnitude? still far too much

[misanthrope101]

...than to addressing a curable disease that kills the same number of people.

But we aren't talking about two causes of death that kills the same number of people. And I was quite wrong about influenza deaths--according to the CDC, the value is 61,472 (1994). That means that 9/11 killed about 1/20th the people killed by the flu in one year.

Even if you wanted to give 2 orders of magnitude (a factor of 100) more money to preventing deliberate deaths than disease deaths, terrorism prevention is still vastly overfunded. Cancer kills 183 times more people than the 9/11 attacks, and it does so every year--even by your standard, we'd be putting 1.83 times as much as we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan every month towards cancer research.

Even that's being generous to antiterrorism funding, because if we annualize the 9/11 deaths out over the intervening years, every which of one saw ~500K cancer deaths, we'd be putting 9 times more money towards cancer than we do terrorism--and that's using your 2 orders of magnitude standard. And we aren't even getting to the other diseases yet, or things like auto or firearm deaths.

On top of all this, I don't even agree with your 2 orders of magnitude standard--why is the life of one who died from diabetes worth 100 times less research money than the person who got a plane flown into them by a Saudi with a boxcutter?

I've got two words for you:

[QuantumG]

Chuck Norris.

Dude must have a hell of time flying. He's a lethal weapon.

One roundhouse kick and the plane will fall out of the sky.

Not to mention the effect he has on the female cab crew.

Re:I've got two words for you:

[Legion303]

2005 called...they DON'T want their joke back.

Re:I've got two words for you:

[BlackCobra43]

The irony of this joke was too much for my mind to handle. My brains are now splattered all over my cubicle walls. Thanks, jerk.

Hey Homeland Security!

[MillionthMonkey]

I wonder if a science fiction writer could have come up with a story as screwed up as this one about the tuberculosis guy. A patient with tuberculosis flew to his wedding in Greece and while he was on his honeymoon in Italy he was notified by the CDC that his tuberculosis was a scary drug resistant strain, to avoid travel, and to turn himself in to Italian authorities to be quarantined. They also told him that he had been put on the no-fly list. But damn it, he's on his honeymoon. So what did he do? He flew from Prague to Montreal to successfully avoid the no-fly list, and then he drove across the border into New York State, with no-flying:

Health officials said the man had been advised not to fly and knew he could expose others when he boarded the jets from Atlanta to Paris, and later from Prague to Montreal.
The man, however, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that doctors didn't order him not to fly and only suggested he put off his long-planned wedding in Greece. He knew he had a form of tuberculosis and that it was resistant to first-line drugs, but he didn't realize it could be so dangerous, he said.
"We headed off to Greece thinking everything's fine," said the man, who declined to be identified because of the stigma attached to his diagnosis.
He flew to Paris on May 12 aboard Air France Flight 385. While in Europe, health authorities reached him with the news that further tests had revealed his TB was a rare, "extensively drug-resistant" form, far more dangerous than he knew. They ordered him into isolation, saying he should turn himself over to Italian officials.
Instead, the man flew from Prague to Montreal on May 24 aboard Czech Air Flight 0104, then drove into the United States at Champlain, N.Y. He told the newspaper he was afraid that if he didn't get back to the U.S., he wouldn't get the treatment he needed to survive.
...
The man told the Journal-Constitution he was in Rome during his honeymoon when the CDC notified him of the new tests and told him to turn himself in to Italian authorities to be isolated and be treated. The CDC told him he couldn't fly aboard commercial airliners.
"I thought to myself: You're nuts. I wasn't going to do that. They told me I had been put on the no-fly list and my passport was flagged," the man said.
He told the newspaper he and his wife decided to sneak back into the U.S. through Canada. He said he voluntarily went to a New York hospital, then was flown by the CDC to Atlanta.
He is not facing prosecution, health officials said.
"I'm a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person," he told the paper. "This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I've cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing."

So what was unfortunately revealed by this episode?

• After six good years of hysteric overspending we still can't track down TB patients on their honeymoons much less bioterrorists
• So we put patients with communicable diseases on our handy terrorist no-fly list
• Handy travel tip for anyone on the no-fly list: fly Czech Air to Canada and enter the U.S. via rental car!
• Tuberculosis causes dementia as is shown here by the illogical desire to get to the U.S. for medical treatment

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Opportunist]

Tuberculosis causes dementia as is shown here by the illogical desire to get to the U.S. for medical treatment

You have very obviously never been to an Italian hospital...
Then again, I have been to a US hospital and thus, yes, you're right. Quite illogical.

But hey, he was an US citizen. So a few things make sense in that context:

a) He thinks he is right, no matter what the doc says about him better not flying 'cause he might infect others. To hell with others, I'm more important!
b) Czech Air may screen you down to your underpants if you're a non-US citizen, but they wouldn't dare to do the same to a US citizen, because he just might complain and cause international affairs.
c) He thinks the US have the best health care system in the world, and Europe is essentially some backwards third world country when it comes to medical treatment. I mean, how could something be good if it's free?

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[thefirelane]

Tuberculosis causes dementia as is shown here by the illogical desire to get to the U.S. for medical treatment

I'm sorry, but what? Do you honestly not believe the US has the best hospitals, doctors, and medical research in the world?

I'm not saying it is the best system for everyone, or that the health insurance system is the best... but in terms of doctors, surgeons, and medical research.. the US is where you'd want to go.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person," he told the paper. "This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I've cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing."

Did he infect anybody during that stunt? If so, he should be fully liable for all costs and consequences, what a bastard.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm sorry, but what? Do you honestly not believe the US has the best hospitals, doctors, and medical research in the world?

How is that an excuse to possibly infect hundreds more people in getting there? I would call that the "asshole bastard syndrome".

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Nimey]

Yeah. Even though he thought he just had plain old treatable TB, I cannot understand why he'd proceed with his trip anyway.

The bastard in me wants him to be stuck in quarantine without treatment until he either dies or recovers on his own.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is his quote:

"I'm a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person," he told the paper. "This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I've cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing."

ARE YOU A DUMBASS?! You have a disease that, in its "normal" strain, is still passed on to people by you coughing or sneezing! And you fly overseas! Cooperating with the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing (not to mention the don't-travel-on-a-plane thing) is a very important thing! In fact, one could argue it is more important than cooperating with the "everything other" part.

The CDC flew him from NY to GA. On their own plane. So he couldn't infect anybody else. What makes him think they couldn't do that from Italy? Effing dumbass.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't believe what else: The TB guy (Andrew Speaker is his name) is a "personal injury attorney", his father-in-law works at the CDC, has worked with TB, and even gave the TB guy some "fatherly advice" (independent of the official advice). The news details are on the CNN web site, among many other places.

What the heck is this, a toned-down version of 12 Monkeys? This is a science fiction plot! Thank goodness his TB apparently isn't active, and therefore isn't very contagious.

I hope he's going to pull through his illness okay. Seriously...

So that if he isn't charged with a crime (he apparently didn't do anything specifically illegal), he can get his "very well-educated, successful, intelligent" ASS SUED OFF by all the dozens of people who he put at risk and who are now enjoying the hassle of testing for TB in half a dozen countries. My sympathy for him ends the moment his medical condition does.

It's too bad there is no medical cure for being a selfish ass, but maybe he will learn something positive from the experience: like caring about people other than himself.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Anonymous Coward]

The part of the story you're not mentioning, is that this particular form of TB (if it indeed turns out to be resistant to all drugs) can only be cured by surgically removing infected lung tissue; and the only clinic in the world that performs this surgery is in Denver. The CDC refused to fly him from Italy to US on their own plane, on the basis of cost. In other words they doomed him to slow death in a foreign country. If I was in that situation, I'd fucking swim across the Atlantic if I had to.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[Perky_Goth]

Yeah, cause europe just lets foreigns die of TB. Get a fucking clue. Even if only to avoid bad PR, he'd be well treated.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[thefirelane]

If you read my post, I wasn't defending his actions, but defending the US medical system. He shouldn't have traveled, but the US medical system is very good.

Re:Hey Homeland Security!

[MillionthMonkey]

The U.S. medical system is OK (if you're an individual lucky enough to have coverage), but as we just saw, we have a public health infrastructure so flimsy that we're forced to use mechanisms we set up for the War on Terror to supplement it. The WoT is not really something the rest of the world obsesses about the way we do. The CDC should have a mechanism to track plague patients that leverages universal concerns about disease, not one that hinges on local political attitudes worldwide to typical American bullying about a stupid "War on Something".

Quarantining just one guy can prevent expensive problems for millions of patients. But Americans are just fine with letting plague patients into the country if they've got PPOs for themselves. That's the sort of penny-wise pound-foolish collective decision making you get when you set everything up to be a market-based free for all with everyone looking out for himself. Nobody in the United States pays attention to public health anymore, except for tax cuts.

Stop angering the neutrals

[giafly]

There are any number of SF books where the war is mainly just the "enemy" reacting to hostility from our side. "Forever War" and "Deathworld" for example.

If the SF authors get that message across then just maybe they could stop the War Of Terror from escalating further.

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about Bear, Niven, and Pournelle here... they think that there's no "real" science-fiction being written except their own.
I read TFA:
      "During a coffee break at the conference, Walker, Bear and Andrews started talking about the government's bomb-sniffing dogs. Within minutes, they had conjured up a doggie brain-scanning skullcap that could tell agents what kind of explosive material a dog had picked up."
    OMG! We're all so stupid! Noone could ever have come up with that idea without "at least one technical doctorate"! Wow, I'm so in awe. How did we ever survive without "Sigma"?

Wouldn't have helped

[HangingChad]

Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.

In at least one case they threatened to kill one of the flight attendants and the pilots opened the door. A lock wouldn't have cured the "just cooperate" mentality that was so prevalent and probably company policy at the time. 90 people sat in their seats and watched it happen.

9-11 will never happen again because even the sheeple know there's no margin in cooperating with a hijacker. We're spending billions of dollars and inconveniencing millions for a scenario that's never going to happen again. Or at least not for a long time. You can never under-estimate the stupidity of sheep who depend on the government to protect their fat ass.

gulags

[themusicgod1]

What else would you call the large and growing prison labour population in the US? Granted I don't think it's quite as widespread as it was in the former soviet union(yet), but it is one of the biggest growing industries around today, so the US is certainly getting there in a hurry.

Three Days of the Condor

[rastos1]

They watched Three days of Condor and got great idea on how to get new great ideas ... head explodes.

Strip and handcuff passengers first

[Rick17JJ]

Have all of the passengers remove all their clothes and put on a disposable paper gown before boarding. That would make it much harder for them to hide a weapon, unless they used rectal explosives or were already infected with a deadly virsus or something. Don't allow them to bring any carry on any luggage aboard either, for the same reason. Then, handcuff all the passengers before boarding and keep them handcuffed until they unload. Have the stewardess lock each passenger into their seat as they load. They could be unlocked one at a time during the flight just long enough to go to the bathroom. To further control everyone, attach a radio controlled punishment collar to each passengers neck. Any troublesome passenger could then be punished or knocked be either an electric shock or anesthetic at the push of a button. An early Star Trek episode had Jim Kirk, Spock and McCoy being forced to wear such a device while visiting a colony ship.

To make sure that there are not any bombs hidden in the luggage, have all of the luggage sent on a different airplane by UPS, DHL or FedEx instead.

Of course once air travel became secure they would have to look a where else we are still vulnerable to terrorists. The recent news about poisonous animal feed contaminated with melamine from China suggests that our food supply is not secure. How about securing our borders too, who knows who might be crossing into our country from the Mexican border. I have also wondered if we can detect a nuclear device hidden in containerized cargo on a containerized cargo ship, before it enters a harbour? Probably not! What about a gunman in a school or a shopping mall? What if the envelopes we all lick before closing had been poisoned with poisonous glue? Then problem is not just how to protect ourselves against what the terrorists did yesterday, but against what they will do next.

Re:Strip and handcuff passengers first

[Rick17JJ]

Sorry about having to reply to my own post, but here goes. One overlooked type of possible attack is the vulnerability of modern electronic devices to a strong electromagnetic pulse (EMP). I have heard of claims of tests where a small crude electromagnetic bomb was set off and for hundreds of yards around, cars would not start and various other electromagnetic devices were ruined. The trouble is that computer chips are very delicate and easily damaged and such chips are in our cars and various electronic devices. I have heard several claims that a more powerful, more advanced EMP bomb could destroy electronic devices for hundreds of miles. Is that really true? Have we done anything at all to prepare major cities for such an attack? What effect would such an attack have on a heavily populated areas such as Southern California? Would such an attack on major cities be feasible and worthwhile for terrorists?

Perhaps each citizen should each have a rugged old fashioned vacuum tube radio stored unplugged and not connected to an antenna, at least we could still get news then. Either that or have each of us store a more modern radio and perhaps a few other inexpensive electronic devices inside a Faraday cage. Perhaps police departments, fire departments and ambulances should keep a few extra two way radios stored inside a Faraday cage ready to be used after such an attack.Hopefully, an occasional ham radio operator will do the same with one of their older radios and will still have some working type of emergency power too. Of course, that is assuming that such is scenario is really a valid threat.

• Faraday Cages
• Making Faraday Cages

Perhaps we should also have a few weeks food on hand for emergencies too. A few few inexpensive large cans of dried rice and beans and similar items, stored in a cool place, would probably not cost all that much. If our government were to discover that our food supply had been poisoned by terrorists, we could all switch to using our emergency supplies of several weeks until authorities announced that that food supply was safe once again. I have head that Mormons all keep several months of emergency food stored away, although I am not a Mormon myself. Emergency food supplies could be useful in a few other scenarios too. During a global bird flue pandemic some of us might just want to lock our doors and stay home and avoid contact with other people for a few weeks or months. Perhaps keeping some extra soap on hand for washing our hands thoroughly might help too. I suppose a gun, for self defence, might help too, since nearly everyone else out there already has one.

Perhaps we should all be using the type of envelopes that we do not need to lick to seal. On some envelops you just remove the strip of tape and seal them. At least we don't need to lick our stamps any more. Hopefully, none of these scenarios will never really happen within my lifetime.

Re:Strip and handcuff passengers first

[Ihlosi]

I have heard of claims of tests where a small crude electromagnetic bomb was set off and for hundreds of yards around, cars would not start and various other electromagnetic devices were ruined.

I would believe that to be an overstatement. Sure, you can fry some circuits, but what you're basically doing it simulating a nearby lightning strike. That's an event that happens ... I dunno ... tens of thousands of times every year ?

I have heard several claims that a more powerful, more advanced EMP bomb could destroy electronic devices for hundreds of miles. Is that really true?

Yes, that is true. Such an "EMP bomb" would actually be a nuclear bomb that is detonated in the upper atmosphere.

Have we done anything at all to prepare major cities for such an attack?

No. It's not necessary. If the terrorists ever get their hands on a nuke, sure as heck they won't detonate it in the upper atmosphere.

Re:Strip and handcuff passengers first

[Rick17JJ]

Posting yet again to my own post. I forgot to ask the question of whether or not such an electromagnetic pulse weapon would require the use a nuclear weapon. I am not an expert on the subject.

Straight Jackets

[Anonymous Coward]

A better idea would be to keep the passengers in padlocked straight jackets for the duration of the flight, chained to their seats.

Re:Straight Jackets

[Ihlosi]

Wasn't that the whole idea behind "Con Air" ? And we all know how that ended.

They should ask Tom Clancy

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, to some degree he predicted 9/11.

Deviant Thinker

[ehaggis]

You insensitive clod, /. is comprised of deviant thinkers.

Locks? Probably not...

[Glock27]

Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.

Probably not. The pilots would also have to have had enough resolve to not open the door to prevent crew and passengers from being slaughtered. Remember, nobody knew that the planes would be used as missiles.

Believe it or not, the most effective deterrents to another 9/11 type attack are the war in Iraq, and the upcoming pounding of Iran.

Pro-terror heads of state in the ME need to understand that bad things happening here in America means very bad things happening to them, personally.

Here is a radical thought

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Identify underlying legitimate grievances
2) Address grievances (even when they run counter to US interests)
3) Wait and watch support wither away

4)done

Why do you hate America?

[jack_n_jill]

Why are you helping the terrorists? George Bush wants to know your name.

it's not a crazy idea to aks writers

[circletimessquare]

the idea of entering cockpits and taking over airplanes and flying them into office towers is straight out of hollywood. stupidly easy to prevent, in terms of logistical hurdles and pre-existing intelligence, but straight out of hollywood nonetheless. in fact, were 9/11 a movie instead of reality, someone in the theatre would compain: "wouldn't they just lock the cockpit door? these hollywood screenwriters are so stupid"

which leads one to conclude 2 things:

1. if terrorists get their ideas from steven seagal/ jean-claude van damme scripts, then homeland security can do two things:
a. watch a lot of old bruce willis/ sylvester stallone movies, and compile a list of possible attack vectors
b. actively feed hollywood retarded movie scripts featuring attack vectors that would never work, and wait for the terrorists to try them

2. screw sci-fi writers. elicit the help of b-grade hollywood action movie writers. who wrote "true lies" with sylvester stallone? who wrote "the pacifier" starring vin diesel? sci-fi writers? ha! tom clancey is our go to man to simulate the imagination of terrorists

Re:it's not a crazy idea to aks writers

[lordmage]

Yea. Who WROTE.. "TRUE LIES" with Sylvester Stallone. I could have sworn it was Arnold in that movie.

Then again, I still say its Stallone in the Rocky Movies!!

Re:it's not a crazy idea to aks writers

[rantingkitten]

who wrote "true lies" with sylvester stallone?

It was Arnold, not Stallone, and the writer was James Cameron, who can hardly be called "b-grade".

Wow, this happens in a scifi book

[trawg]

Heh, a similar thing happens in Niven and Pournelle's book Footfall. Earth is invaded by aliens and the US government calls in the sci-fi writers.

Re:Wow, this happens in a scifi book

[Catbeller]

SF.

And Pournelle and Niven would be amongst the first to volunteer for such duty, hence their presence in the novel: that was Heinlein, Pournelle and Niven in disguise, if you catch the references.

Kurt Vonnegut Would Have Been a Good Addition

[datastrategy]

This group would benefit greatly from a real shake 'em up, iconoclastic thinker or two. It's really too bad Kurt Vonnegut is no longer alive. A guy who wrote things like Fahrenheit 451 and Slaughterhouse Five surely had a pretty good idea of what a terroristic future would/could look like (it often looks remarkably like the past), and how to depict it in stark, realistic terms. But alas, the group wouldn't have let Mr Vonnegut join them because their rules state that a member must have at least a PhD in at least one techical field, something Kurt never got around to doing (too busy writing great books, I guess). My next choice would be to add the writers of the Simpsons TV show (and I doubt that any of them possess technical PhDs either). The ideas they dream up may or may not come true, but they usually make you think and are almost always funny. And God knows we're going to need to find a way to hang on to our sense of humor as we face the challenges in the present and future of dealing with terrorism, no matter what form it takes.

Re:Kurt Vonnegut Would Have Been a Good Addition

[Legion303]

"Kurt Vonnegut [...] A guy who wrote things like Fahrenheit 451"

*slap*

Re:Kurt Vonnegut Would Have Been a Good Addition

[datastrategy]

And a well deserved slap, too! I was in the shower after writing the comment this morning and it dawned on me that I had confused Ray Bradbury with Kurt Vonnegut as author of Fahrenheit 451. But before I could get out of the shower and back to my computer to correct my original post, you (and probably a few others) had already noticed the mistake. In any case, thanks for reading my comment and replying. Although Kurt's no longer around to join that group, Ray Bradbury (still alive and kicking last time I checked) would make a great substitute.

Americans needs stop whining.

[jonr]

Go rent this movie and STFU.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395169/

How many people died on 9/11? 3000? Whoopie-doo. Probably more people die each day from other kinds of assaults in the USA.
After watching Hotel Rwanda, go and rent this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424435/

And thus...

[DrYak]

It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.

and thus we conclude, like the thread initiator, that physical separation between the passengers and the pilots (with a lock as suggested by the news poster or with a wall and separate doors as suggested earlier in this thread), WOULDNOT have prevented the 11th sepember attack. I WOULD ONLY have made a /different/ attack.

Albeit, no one, this time could have got his 20 virgins in heaven. Or at least, unless the cyber-terrorist did commit ritual suicide in front of his computer in his burka-wearing mom's basement.

Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you. Which requires complex diplomacy and well thinking one's foreign policy. Which sadly is much more difficult to achieve than simple technical solutions that bother everyone (100ml of fluid maximum) or sending the war machine in order to appear to be doing something.

Re:And thus...

[rohan972]

Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you. Which requires complex diplomacy and well thinking one's foreign policy.

People with a fundamentalist religious belief that all non-believers must be converted, subjugated or killed will stop hating you if you have complex diplomacy and a well thought out foreign policy? Good luck with that.

Re:And thus...

[digitig]

Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you. Which requires complex diplomacy and well thinking one's foreign policy.

People with a fundamentalist religious belief that all non-believers must be converted, subjugated or killed will stop hating you if you have complex diplomacy and a well thought out foreign policy? Good luck with that. People who are pissed off at interference in their own countries might be influenced by diplomacy, which could dramatically reduce the number of footsoldiers available to those fundamentalists.

Re:And thus...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not, but we may as well give the Christians the benefit of the doubt...

Re:And thus...

[rleibman]

Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you.
Let me amend that a bit:
Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you enough to kill themselves over it.
Islamic terrorists hate people of other religions particularly secularists, that's a fact, communists hate capitalists, that's a fact. We cannot eliminate this hate, because it is based on irrational arguments (faith, passion).
What we can eliminate (or at least reduce) are the additional incentives that terrorists have. OBL would have had much harder time recruiting terrorists if he was not armed with the very convincing arguments that the U.S., with its extreme foreign interventions are causing much strife throughout the world. In the same way that the Cuban embargo is used by the Cuban government to prove the evil of the U.S., the Iraqi war, and U.S. intervention in the middle east is used by terrorists to prove the evil of the U.S.

Re:And thus...

[Weedlekin]

"Terrorism can only be diminished by not having people who hate you enough to kill themselves over it. "

That will only stop suicide terrorists, who are actually a rather small and notably desperate subset of terrorists as a whole. Most terrorists are, and always have been, of the McVeigh / Unabomber / IRA variety, and have no intention whatsoever of being killed along with their victims.

Re:And thus...

[pwainwright]

Strawman.

A successful terrorist campaign can't thrive unless there is a surrounding community to give shelter, support and the odd recruit. These people don't necessarily have to agree with the motives of the leaders (non-believers must be converted etc...), they just have to have enough of a grudge against the "free world" that they won't act against the terrorists.

If you get the moderate Islamic world on board, you can practically eliminate terrorism. You don't have to eliminate every last OBL type nutjob. On the other hand, if you treat every Muslim as a potential terrorist you will reap what you sow...

Re:And thus...

[rohan972]

You might want to check out the history of Islamic nations and see how many became Islamic by jihad, so you can have some reality in that opinion. Yes, I know other religions have done this at times, yes I know that at different times and in different proportions there has been moderation in the way people follow Islam. Here's a problem though: the Taliban, Hamas, etc operate day care centres and schools. They have been doing this for some time, and have used them to produce a generation brainwashed to jihad. Some of these people may think about what they've been taught and reject it, but likely not many. I think it was a Catholic priest who said "If you get a boy by the time he's seven, you've got him for life". It may not by 100% accurate, but it is for precisely this reason that western government schooling doesn't contain religious instruction.

Diplomacy and being nice definitely have their place, but in this situation, they are too little too late. Maybe 50 years ago it would have been more significant. At this stage, I doubt that backing off militarily will have any effect but to accelerate the jihad.

But why a PhD, for **** sake?

[Flying pig]

A PhD doesn't actually guarantee a good imagination or even a sense of proportion. It shows you can study a small area of a specialist subject in depth for several years. This is a very valuable trait, and with the complexity of modern science PhDs are very necessary. But it is not a trait associated with wide, multivariate speculative thinking, and finding links between things. You could argue that the singlemindedness needed for a PhD suggests a lack of sense of proportion.

The science fiction writers mentioned are all a bit "cult". I like Niven's work, but his science is three dimensional and his sociology is two dimensional. The sort of person I would be looking to to advise the DHS would be more like Umberto Eco (read _Il pendolo di Foucault_/_Foucault's Pendulum_ to see what I mean.) Eco is a genuine polymath who has thought long and hard about cults, society in general, and the way different societies represent their beliefs.

My own belief is that to win a war against terrorists you need psychology and sociology as your core disciplines. This is what the US and Israel simply do not understand, because they have a gun mentality (i.e. project power remotely at an enemy) rather than a net mentality (catch your enemy and make him do what you want.). Northern Ireland is a battle that was won largely by psychology: getting the IRA to believe that it was infested with traitors, so it turned on itself, while persuading the leaders that democracy offered them better opportunities for status and respect than being seen as having gunmen at their command. Psychology is not, in fact, the soft option, nor is sociology.

The US, and Israel, do not seem to have grasped that the only way to stop chaotic, uneducated young men from behaving in an extremist way is to provide opportunities for the people who can possibly control them. Israel believes it can ultimately destroy all Palestinians, so sees no need to offer them a way out which makes renouncing violence attractive. The US believes it can win the "War on terror", so sees no need to create ways in which the controllers of the fundamentalists can get attention and status that exceeds what they get now in their tribal societies. That's a strategy for the long haul, but while the US refuses to be bound by treaties and, for instance, recognise the ICC, it is walking away from frameworks that could be made to enhance security.

Meanwhile, every time Bin Laden reads about another Homeland Security cock-up, or the cost of the Iraq war, he can convince himself that, even without actually killing Americans, he is damaging their economy, their prestige, and their political influence around the world. He is, in fact, largely succeeding through psychological warfare, which is in itself a good advertisement for its success rate.

I've got mixed feelings on this..

[Nim82]

On one hand, I really don't know if it's a good idea for politicians to read books at all, let alone speak to writers. Here in the UK someone misread 1984 and took it to be a guide book promoting the merits of the police state, complete with instructions.

On the the other hand though, if the writers really pushed the boat out and highlighted the - ever so real - danger of space based terrorism, who knows, NASA may get funding to build decent spacecraft (maybe even a Star Destroyer). Wouldn't want one of them little rascals redirecting an asteroid to hit N.Y. now would we?

Re:I've got mixed feelings on this..

[dodongo]

How's that Junior Anti-Sex League working out for ya?

This isn't about seurity, it's about theatre

[Anonymous Coward]

People are responding to this topic as if the government is doing this to enhance security. It's not. This is just a great way to come up with a bunch of great scare stories that can be fed to the American public in order to sustain a climate of fear.

Remember, a frightened population is a compliant population ... and if you don't believe that well then you must just want the terrorists to win.

Irony Alert: my captcha is "safely"

On a personal note...

[N8F8]

This story is a troll but then again Slashdot is run by Bush hating trolls.

Re:On a personal note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'm quite fond of Bush, and his father. Jeb Bush, despite my reservations about a Republican governor, did a passable job. He did speak up more often in favor of the Florida environment than his predecessors, sometimes running up against the President. Jeb also did some good things with the schools (though overall it's been somewhat of a wash). Jeb's father was also a very intelligent man. I felt that GHWB was unfairly blamed for some of the economic problems that the country was in. But despite the criticism of Bush Sr. as a shadow of Reagan, he did seem to put the country first.

As for the idiot son who's currently in the White House, that's another thing entirely.

Allow anyone to travel ... with BIG knives

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow anyone to travel anywhere without any checking of identity, luggage, or carry-on items. Hand out 8 inch knives to everyone as they board the plane.
I bet we'll all be a little more polite and all the BS with screening and the invasions of privacy go away.

Oh, and give the flight crews 9mm guns AND training on the use and time to practice weekly.

Then, perhaps, we can get back to traveling for fun. The TSA shows what happens if you let "mothers" worrying about protecting everyone and everything run things. Not a good idea - too many hormones.

Don't get me wrong, each country should know who is coming and out of them - that's different than taking a flight from Miami to Fargo. Nobody has any business what your name is so long as you pay for a ticket to travel.

Re:stop being a racist coward

[dwarfsoft]

...Inflicting cricket on half the world (technically only the English are culpable for this). ...We accept that foriegners and ex-colonists are inferior so are carefull not to criticise them.... [sic]

I hope you are not inferring that 'foreigners and ex-colonists are inferior' at Cricket. Or do you still consider Australia a Non-foreign Colony and enjoy being beaten at your own game (or at least the English that is)?

Anyway, I believe the solution to all 'differences of opinion' between countries should be played out in Virtual Reality. It is slowly moving this way with the use of remote controlled robots (in surveillance at least) and computer hacking during invasions. We just need to remove the robots and have them dual each other on a virtual field. Pity governments are too retarded and too stubborn to just STFU and try and resolve differences peacefully.

Teach security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach security at school.

There is only one way to get the point to a American: blow something big up. So if you want to reach the teaching system one has to blow it up.

WW1: A German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard.
WW2: Blow up pearl harbor. 2403 fatalities)
War against terrorism : Blow up a building in New York and kill 2,974

So one should blow up something visible to get US attention. ( 3000 people so something like that)

If someone decides to blow up a school or 2 in the US, US will respond by putting a big fence around every school and applying extreme access control that will make look like north-Korea a place or freedom.

Result:
-Americans spend so much on security they will loose the economic war.
-Children will learn security at all cost is important and privacy or personal life is less important.
-Security firms will earn BILLIONS.

So it is not hard to let the next generation of Americans live their life in fear by just a few well placed attacks.

Re:Teach security.

[Chatterton]

Mod parent up.

You can count in an other way:

How many American on the American soil being killed by a terrorist attack since 9/11?
How many American on the American soil being killed in a car accident since 9/11?
How many American on the American soil being killed by the cancer since 9/11?
How many American on the American soil being killed by whatever since 9/11?

How much was spent to reduce the number of American killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11? Where to money goes?
How much was spent to reduce the number of American killed by a car accident since 9/11? Where to money goes?
How much was spent to reduce the number of American killed by a cancer since 9/11? Where to money goes?
How much was spent to reduce the number of American killed by whatever since 9/11? Where to money goes?

Where is the best spend dollar?

Re:Teach security.

[gfxguy]

I think there is something to what you wrote, but I don't think it's a very strong case overall.

The difference between terrorism and cancer, lightening strikes, cancer, car accidents, etc., is that it is the intentional will of the terrorists to kill as many innocent people as they can.

As far as car accidents are concerned, everything in life has some "acceptable" risk. If you don't accept it, don't get in a car. Along the same lines, I don't care what the "terror level" is, if I want to go to a shopping mall, I'll go - for the very reason you point out - the terrorists can only terrorize us if we let them. You take your chances with whatever you do.

Re:Teach security.

[colinnwn]

I think while not worded well, his reasoning is sound.

You could argue the reason some people get cancer is the intentional will of companies that pollute to have fewer expenses, or more people die in car accidents due to the intentional will of car companies to produce a cheaper product with fewer safety features.

I don't think it is relevant to separate the intentional from the inadvertent risks in an activity when deciding where to spend your safety and prevention money. The largest determinants by far should be what are the overall risks of being killed or seriously injured in an activity, and how effective is money spent in alleviating that risk.

By those measures, terrorism security spending is virtually worthless. There are some basic and cheap things we can do to make ourselves safer from terrorism, but we have overcompensated by several orders of magnitude. It is time now to refocus more of that wasted money on cancer research, public transportation, environmental cleanup, smoking prevention, auto and road safety. If we were to do these things, we could save many millions more lives than spending ridiculous sums on terrorism prevention.

Re:Teach security.

[Branko]

How many American on the American soil being killed by...

Add guns to this.

Re:Teach security.

[Branko]

The difference between terrorism and cancer, lightening strikes, cancer, car accidents, etc., is that it is the intentional will of the terrorists to kill as many innocent people as they can.

This is not about presence of intention. The rational policy should aim to minimize lost lives, irrespective of how these people died. So if large number of people can be saved at expense of relatively few terrorist victims, this can only be a good thing.

Unfortunately, large number of people dying all by themselves does not seem to be as visible to the public opinion as relatively smaller number of people dying all at once in a single terrorist attack.

the terrorists can only terrorize us if we let them

You, of course, have a point here, but it is not limited to terrorists only. For example, some natural disasters that could have been be prevented were not (Catrina). So in a sense, these natural disasters will kill us only if "we let them".

Re:Teach security.

[gfxguy]

Well, last things first... you can't stop a hurricane.

But getting back to the topic, by that logic, we shouldn't try to stop homicides, either, because they account for less deaths than car crashes...

Of course there's SOME amount of effort we need to put into all of these things, and they should, more or less, reflect a variety of factors, including how destructive the particular problem is.

But there's other things, like chance of success, availability of resources to stop the problem, and the population's desire to stop the problem.. like car accidents. Sure, you can virtually eliminate deaths from car accidents by reducing speed limits to 25 and making cars cost $50k each by adding $25k more in protection, and then they get 8MPG. But that's not what we want. So throwing money at the car accident "problem" won't solve anything.

Re:Teach security.

[Maxo-Texas]

I do not really think you understand the world of hurt that would occur if identifiable terrorists killed a couple school's full of children. There is a touch of insanity in the american soul. When it gets out, cities burn.

Re:Teach security.

[Branko]

Well, last things first... you can't stop a hurricane.

Actually, you can. Look at Drowning New Orleans: The Original 2001 Scientific American Article or look at what Dutch did to protect themselves from the North Sea (not precisely a hurricane but close enough).

But getting back to the topic, by that logic, we shouldn't try to stop homicides, either, because they account for less deaths than car crashes...

I never said you should not try to stop the terrorism. Point I was trying to make was that budget should correspond to the real threat instead of the perceived threat and that American people are sadly off-balance when it comes to judging real threats.

As a consequence, it is worse for them as well as for the rest of the World.

For example, it was well known that an investment of around $14 billion would bring New Orleans to a reasonable safety level. Instead these $14b ended up in a sink-hole called "War on Terror".

Sure, you can virtually eliminate deaths from car accidents by reducing speed limits to 25 and making cars cost $50k each by adding $25k more in protection, and then they get 8MPG.

There are other ways you could do that. For example, reducing crash incompatibility, or developing public transportation (e.g. French TGV).

But that's not what we want.

Which is where a responsible govermnet comes into - to order people to do what will benefit them all in the long run, even against their immediate wishes. Sadly, Americans seem to have lost their ability to elect such a government.

Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Notquitecajun]

An armed citizenship, willing to protect itself, can, has, and will do this same job just as, if not more, effectively. It is why a plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania rather than another building in DC. It is why we have caught a handful of wannabe terrorists on our own soil.

If we are willing and able to defend ourselves on our own soil, we don't need constant monitoring. If we depend on government agencies, we won't do so well.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because the passengers were armed (with firearms, I presume from the gist of your post)? I didn't know that.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[uncledrax]

I think he was saying that Flight 93 crashed because the people on board it stood up, realized something was going on, and fought for themselves.. not that they specifically had firearms.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Lumpy]

Armed citizens cant be oppressed. Why do you think they want to ban guns everywhere and the propoganda that is all over how guns will kill your children and are unsafe?

If you are armed, it makes it harder to declare martial law. Also a generation of unarmed citizens are far more easy to control as the children never had exposure to guns and therefore are frightened of them and have a higher likeliness to not pick one up to defend themselves.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Ihlosi]

Armed citizens cant be oppressed.

Yes they can. Just use an imaginary or real external threat, tell them that any measures are just for their own security, and denounce anyone who doesn't agree with that as "unpatriotic".

Or just bring bigger guns.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

"bring bigger guns" is not working in Iraq where we are getting our asses handed to us.

nor did it work in Somalia where we were whipped hard.

Armed citizens that dont have to listen to some idiot officer that thinks he knows about combat and tactics and adheres to rules of war always win.

It's how the french resistance kicked the Nazi asses in WW-II, it's how the Continential army whipped the British in the American Revolution, it's how the insurgents are kicking the USA asses today.

you cant win against armed citizens.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[General Wesc]

Or just bring bigger guns.

I used to think this. I used to think a bunch of civilians with guns could never stand up to our highly-trained, well-equipped army with those tanks and bombs and whatnot. I figured that pro-gun rights argument had been obsolete for a hundred years.

Then we invaded Iraq. I was wrong. If you want to oppress the American population, need to convince them to let you. Bigger guns won't do it. Your first idea is the only winning strategy.

Shame we're applying it here instead of Iraq.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger guns do work, if you use them properly. You (the USA) just aren't using your superior firepower correctly in Iraq. Of course, the problem with applying it correctly is that you will then have to discard any remaining pretense of not being the brutal occupiers you are. eg. "Nice neighborhood you have there. It would be a shame if someone were to make trouble and we'd have to raze it to ground"

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Bovine Fertilizer. There's plenty of arms in Iraq. Plenty of violence, too.

And I don't see martial law in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, or Canada where there is much stricter regulation of handguns.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Lumpy]

the citizens are fighting for their homes. the soldiers are there because they were told to be there. That is a huge difference. If we got our asses out right now, the terrorist groups would be slaughtered in the street. American soldiers are invaders and therefore are solidifying the alliance between the locals and the terrorists. Eliminate the universal enemy and the terrorists would be slaughtered by the locals.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need martial law in the U.K.

Haven't you been reading /.? They're moving to a nanny-police state.

They've been mostly disarmed of firearms. They've got folks thinking taking kitchen cutlery away might be a good idea as well. They've got video cameras watching them just about everywhere but the loo, they're working on a new generation of cameras so that the watchers can say "Oy! You! Stop doing that right now!" And if you should be annoying enough they slap an ASBO on you which means "If you do that thing we told you not to do we're throwing you in jail."

They're way beyond needing martial law. A bunch of anarchist kids in their mass-produced Guy Fawkes masks won't get them out of the mess they've gotten themselves into.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Maltheus]

Armed citizens cant be oppressed.

This sentiment made sense in revolutionary times where the average firearm a citizen possessed was roughly equivalent to what the armies of the time were using. That started to change around the civil war when you had Gattling guns and other weapons that required some professional training to use. Now that you're up against tanks, F-16 and apache helicopters, personal ownership of firearms is on par with the personal ownership of knives.

If you go back through history and examine periods where the weapons of the day required professionals, you will always see a drift towards authoritarianism. Make no mistake, we are oppressed and your guns will do nothing to change that fact. Only the times will. I do think everyone should own a gun, but only in the same sense that everyone should own a hammer and a knife. Wars now (including any war to take back our country) are information wars first and foremost. Our best bet is to educate people not to believe anything the government says to the point where it's instinctual in all citizens.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Maltheus]

Right, and that's one of the reasons we've been unable to truly oppress them. It's also why the situation we're in was entirely foreseeable.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[quokkapox]

You're worried about martial law, while American society is deteriorating, rotting from the inside out!? Our only hope lies with people who wield ideas, not guns.

If guns are our only weapons, we're screwed.

Re:Ever heard of Conceal and Carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual quote, in bold below.

Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book 'Nuremberg Diary.'

Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Although this quote was indeed spoken by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering during the course of the Nuremburg Trials, it was not part of the trial records, since these remarks were made privately by Goering in a conversation with prison psychologist and U.S. Army Captain Gustave M. Gilbert that took place in Goering's jail cell.

The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Diplomacy

[gi.net]

I'm not a Sci-fi writer but here is what I suggest:

• 1) Fire/Execute the morons of your Homeland Security Department for not understanding the problem and suggesting such stupid ideas.
• 2) Fire/Execute your moronic president. Because of him and his father, your country is now the most hated country in the world.
• 3) Try to play nice with all the countries in the world. I know this is difficult, but it is called "Diplomacy".

Hello! We are not in a movie or a video game. We live in The Real World. People realy die, people realy suffer. We can't just rewind the movie or restart the game.

If you don't want someone to hurt you, don't be his enemy.

Re:Diplomacy

[tnk1]

2) Fire/Execute your moronic president. Because of him and his father, your country is now the most hated country in the world.

Actually Bush Sr. was rather diplomatic with that whole Gulf War thing.

As for most hated country in the world, I'd say it has a lot more to do with simply having the most power and exposure. Other countries screw up as much, if not more, but their scope for pissing people off scales with their profile. No one has a bigger profile than the US, at the moment.

Also, it is very likely that we are at the same time, the best liked country in the world as well. Even most Iranians like America, they just generally don't like the US Government. As an American, I don't believe that people in other countries, other than already committed militants, now suddenly want to kill me.

3) Try to play nice with all the countries in the world. I know this is difficult, but it is called "Diplomacy".

Diplomatic fiascos happen, it doesn't mean that the entire Diplomatic corps has suddenly stopped operating. The US is part of dozens of international organizations where it is using diplomacy just fine.

I'd also point out that the US spent years using diplomatic sanctions to work on Iraq as well. You may feel that the actual decision to tackle Iraq was wrong and handled undiplomatically, but there was no lack of diplomatic action.

If you don't want someone to hurt you, don't be his enemy.

If life were only so easy.

That comment completely overlooks the fact that the Islamists are capable of independent thinking and free action as well. The fact is, Islamists are our enemies because they want to be, our actions simply provide them with reinforcement and propaganda opportunities.

Islamists want an Islamic world. They believe that the current state of the world is due to a case of "insufficent jihad". They want this to be the 13th Century again, where Islam was top dog and much more unified. A real power, as opposed to a collection of strongmen, dust bowls, and oil emirates. They believe the way to get this is to be more Islamic, and make everyone else be that way too.

Don't believe the "Crusader" rhetoric that they spew, which makes them seem like defenders of their homes. They want a world that bows to Sharia law. This is 100% clear from what we have seen of what happens to countries like Afghanistan where they have held control for awhile. This is also clear from the usage of foreign fighters to spread their influence in battle zones.

Even if the US suddenly turned to a completely multilateralist stance, all this would do is perhaps make it a little harder for the Islamists to achieve their goals, but it certainly wouldn't make them "not our enemies". The US, and the West in general, can cease making tactical mistakes and strategic policy blunders, but that won't turn people who hate us for who we are into our friends. We're not Islamists, and nothing other than being an Islamist is going to make them like you.

There are only two ways to mitigate their threat:

1. Remove all their support and funding and isolate them into insignificance.
2. Failing #1, you'll need to find and then capture or kill them.

Re:Diplomacy

[Himring]

Just watched the episode of "20th Century Battles" where they covered the gulf war. You do realize that Sadam amassed his armor on the southern border of Kuwait, poised to take saudi arabia? The Saudis did not have the military to take him on. Sadam was about to control 50% of all oil in the world if he attacked. The coalation that entered, by request/permission of the saudis, was nearly global. To pin the gulf war on bush sr is rather narrow-sighted in light of all of that.

As far as diplomacy, regardless of how badly things have been handled by this administration, not all "nice guy" diplomacy makes sense. It made absolutely no sense prior to ww2 with all the efforts of neville chamberlain. His "let's not fight" diplomacy nearly handed hitler the world. Mind you, I'm not comparing the present situation to that, just rebutting your remark regarding "playing nice." There also comes a time to take the gloves off.

Knowing the difference, is, of course, key....

prevented with locks on the cockpit door

[N8F8]

Also true for allowing anyone with a permit to carry firearms aboard the plane.

Re:prevented with locks on the cockpit door

[808140]

While that might have acted as a deterrent, a firefight in a pressurized cabin with tons of innocent people around probably would not have been such a good idea. Better perhaps than certain death in an impact situation, but nonetheless not an ideal solution, I hope you'll agree.

It seems like arming the pilots and making the cockpit lockable, bulletproof, and soundproof would be a much simpler idea. The airlines would enforce the following protocol: in the event of a hijacking, the pilots (who fly with a locked cockpit by default) would turn off the communication devices that allow people sitting in the plane to communicate with them, report the hijacking and immediately land at the nearest friendly airport. By preventing communication with the back of the plane, they ensure that a hijacker does not have the ability to psychologically guarantee their compliance to demands by threatening to shoot hostages, for example.

Of course once you land you still have a hostage situation, which is not ideal, but the chances of the plane being used as a weapon are nullified. Allowing passengers to fly armed would help this, perhaps, but are the risks worth it? I've seen people freak out on planes -- first time fliers with an acute fear of flying -- who would beg and plead with the flight attendants to have the plane turned around. Do we want such people to have guns? What guarantee is there that armed passengers would only use their weapons in the event of a hijacking? What guarantee is there that they would use their weapons effectively, and not accidentally shoot the person next to them? It's sort of a complicated problem... Not to mention that it makes smuggling firearms onto a plane with the intention of hijacking it all the easier (while arguably rendering the effectiveness of such a strategy questionable).

I think El'Al's strategy of having armed escorts on planes is a good compromise. Have two uniformed guards with military credentials who you know can use their weapons sitting on the plane as a deterrent; have one or two more sitting plain clothes in the cabin, their identities secret from everyone on board. This has all the benefits of your idea without any of the apparent problems.

Re:prevented with locks on the cockpit door

[dave420]

I hope that was a joke!

save yourselves some time

[toby]

Read "1984".

An obvious one

[Toutatis]

The first thing to do to avoid Americans being killed by terrorists would be not to send them where terrorists are killing them, Iraq.

Re:An obvious one

[dave420]

Maybe the first thing to do would be to understand what the word "terrorism" means. Hint: It's not killing soldiers.

Re:An obvious one

[Catbeller]

We are being killed by the locals because we are occupying their country. That's called resisting invaders, not terrorism.

Help with making up excuses for politicians

[forcage]

It is a usual tactic of politicians to point at some internal or external danger to increase their power. (Jews, communists, imperialists, terrorists, depending on country and time.)
Now they just seek professional help to make this "threat" more convincing. The scariest things they come up with, the better.

Terror Fiction

[Doc Ruby]

I don't know about Walker, Andrews or Bear (though Bear is not a very good writer), but Pournelle and Niven (the past 20 years) are warmongers, especially Pournelle. Their books are filled with fighting to boost the testosterone, even if it's not very strategic or ever really wins.

Sounds like the Terror War marketers have got the perfect match for their own security theater scripts, instead of just CATCHING OSAMA and forcing Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban.

funny is your strong suit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, stick to making jokes, that way you won't have to make an ass of yourself when you try to make a factual point and get proven wrong.

Lock the cockpit doors?

[PFI_Optix]

Sure, and what happens the first time something goes wrong and the plane crew is incapacitated? Prior to 9/11, it was a far greater worry that the cockpit door would be locked when something went wrong than the idea of someone storming the cockpit with boxcutters.

In hindsight, we also should have trained pilots not to so easily relinquish control of the plane. Instead it was generally thought that hijackers should be allowed to take over the plane because they normally just landed somewhere and made demands.

Experience had taught us to expect completely different circumstances than we had on 9/11.

Too bad it won't work that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Identify underlying legitimate grievances
2) Address grievances (even when they run counter to US interests)
3) Wait and watch support wither away
4)done

Anyone can write a program in an editor. But at compile and run time, things may not work out as planned. Time for a little debugging:

1) Identify underlying legitimate grievances
1a) And do exactly what with the illegitimate ones? Who decides?

2) Address grievances (even when they run counter to US interests)
2a) Which proves that terrorism works. What if all they want is money? How many of these "grievances" are simply ransom demands wrapped in political camouflage?

3) Wait and watch support wither away
3a) Until 3 days later, when a new set of people with a new set of "grievances" (most likely of the 1a variety) expecting the rewards that you offered in section 2.

The result of this policy creates an implicit "GOTO 1" condition
Or for the non-programmer: Lather, rinse, and repeat.

4)done
The problem with an endless loop is that we never get to this part of the program

Then again, perhaps we can solve the whole thing with gun control. Yeah, that will scare the hell of them!

Tractor beam

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.

Or by a tractor beam!

Does it matter how you'd protect cockpit?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would have no direct effect on the shaped charges...

9-11 could have been prevented with locks ???

[Alain Williams]

I doubt it ... whoever was responsible for the inside job at the twin towers would have given the hijackers the keys to the door.

See: http://911proof.com/ and for mreresearch and studies .
Did you know that the building called World Trade Center 7 also collapsed in spite of not being hit by a jet and being 370 yards away ?

Re:9-11 could have been prevented with locks ???

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Stuff your paranoid delusions.

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html?page=1&c=y
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

Personally, much of my solution to the problem involves a shift in our teaching process. For years we've taught 'let the professionals handle it'. IE the police.

Even the police had been infected with this - during Columbine they secured a perimeter and waited for SWAT. This cost lives. Now standard procedure for many departments is that police go in when they get there. Officer Dan might not be SWAT, but he has a gun he should be competent with, and he's what's there, not what's going to take another 15 minutes(and possibly another 60 dead).

We saw the ultimate failure at Viginia Tech - Students hid under desks and tried to flee - from a single assailant. Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.

I think that a cultural change to one of resistance, one that venerates the 'one who stood first' would be a good thing, in many ways.

I believe there's a lot of truth to the saying: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

As for using scifi authers, I figure it's brainstorming, and a scifi author is generally both inventive and cheap. I can think of far worse things to spend ~30k on.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[mmdog]

I like the way you put that, changing to a culture of resistance.

My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards. That was my first impression after the VT shootings and I found myself using exactly those words in more than one conversation.

I can speculate many reasons behind the shift toward cowardice in the U.S. but all that does is create a lot of argument and derision from the people I'd lump in as cowards. I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.

I think putting sci-fi writers to work in this manner is a great idea. Most of them are fairly innovative thinkers who are going to see things in a different light than the typical 'security' expert. This can only be a good thing and in the grand scheme it's a bargain.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[olman]

We saw the ultimate failure at Viginia Tech - Students hid under desks and tried to flee - from a single assailant. Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.

I think that a cultural change to one of resistance, one that venerates the 'one who stood first' would be a good thing, in many ways.

Real easy to be smart alec with perfect hindsight.

Let's put it this way. Most people are not violent by nature. They may get really angry over something and/or drunk and start a fight but generally people have fairly high treshold to physically assault someone. This does not apply to children, of course..

So generally speaking you're advocating mandatory training that will desensitize people to violence. Meaning physical bone-crunching gouging other person's eye out -violence. That's perfectly possible of course. Most self defence classes train this at least to some degree as do military branches with more than a little hand-to-hand training. Heck, it's classic terrorist training item since times immemorial.

You would promote behavior in the general populace which matches the worst 5-10% scumbags out there. Bar fights become hell of a more lethal for participants when everyone has been trained to see any sharp and/or hard object as a potential weapon and does not hesitate to apply it in most damaging way possible (eyes, throat, knees..) Domestic violence becomes bit more intense as well. Hope you have lots of riot police lined up too as people start see violent demonstration as perfectly normal and generally fight a lot harder.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards.

I put it the way I did to both avoid angering people and to suggest a solution. Yelling 'We've become a nation of cowards' is likely to close ears before they have a chance to hear, and doesn't really suggest a solution. Saying we need to 'change to a culture of resistance' implies that the problem can be fixed.

I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.

I think you meant a glut of lawyers. Dearth means you don't have enough of them. As for the educational system, it's varied in the USA, we do indeed have many schools with problems with worrying too much about self esteem*. Still, I think that it's more of a problem because schools teach so much non-confrontation, get an adult/teacher/official type lessons that that's what they automatically do in a confrontation. If they were taught to intercede to stop a fight if they can, to assist police, to help, we'd be better off as a nation.

*Fixing self esteem problems calls for counseling, not non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events. The way I put it: For the average person, the occasional success far outweighs even frequent losses. In addition, self-esteem in helped more when true effort is recognized. IE A person takes a class and doesn't try hard, he gets a D. He decides to work on it more, put more effort into it, and his grade improves to a B. That's more of a self esteem builder.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

Real easy to be smart alec with perfect hindsight.

What makes me a smart alec?

Let's put it this way. Most people are not violent by nature. They may get really angry over something and/or drunk and start a fight but generally people have fairly high treshold to physically assault someone. This does not apply to children, of course..

Please note that I said resistance not violence. I'll fully admit that violent resistance would indeed be part of the equation, but as a general philosophy, it would be one of not tolerating wrongs.

So generally speaking you're advocating mandatory training that will desensitize people to violence. Meaning physical bone-crunching gouging other person's eye out -violence. That's perfectly possible of course. Most self defence classes train this at least to some degree as do military branches with more than a little hand-to-hand training. Heck, it's classic terrorist training item since times immemorial.

Actually I was figuring mostly on bum-rushing criminals and restraining them. While not the most effective of strategies, it can become very effective when you have a number of people. It's been used successfully a number of times in the news, including on airplanes. The bad guys are generally vastly outnumbered by the good guys. Now, as for self defense classes in school, why the heck not? We have driver's ed, sex ed, there are even classes in many schools to teach basic housework, since that's no longer taught in many homes. Many schools hold swimming lessons. Why shouldn't basic self defense be a class?

You would promote behavior in the general populace which matches the worst 5-10% scumbags out there. Bar fights become hell of a more lethal for participants when everyone has been trained to see any sharp and/or hard object as a potential weapon and does not hesitate to apply it in most damaging way possible (eyes, throat, knees..) Domestic violence becomes bit more intense as well. Hope you have lots of riot police lined up too as people start see violent demonstration as perfectly normal and generally fight a lot harder.

Sheesh... Sorry, it's nothing personal, but why does so many people seem to think that teaching people about violence will make them more violent? I've been a CCW permit holder since 2003. To date, I have not shot anyone, haven't even pointed any of my weapons at anyone. I've put a heck of a lot of holes in paper, but that's about it. From my conversations with other people who carry weapons for self defense, it results in them being more cautious about getting into potentially violent situations, because they know just how dangerous it could be.

To put it another way, there'd likely be fewer bar fights. In the world I envision, you'd have the more sober patrons assisting the bouncers in restraining the drunks. How the heck you believe that teaching people to resist wrongs violently if necessary would lead to violent demonstrations is beyond me. That'd be like expecting women who've taken an anti-rape defense class to suddenly start kicking anyone they're annoyed with in the nuts.

Remember, I'm talking about changing culural moores a little bit. Right along with any training in applied violence would be instruction on determining the right time and direction to use it.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[SparkleMotion88]

We saw the ultimate failure at Viginia Tech - Students hid under desks and tried to flee - from a single assailant. Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.

The problem with "attacking back" is that one person has to decide to attack back, and he has to go first. That person is almost certainly going to die. Each individual has a much higher chance of survival by hiding and evading. I imagine this is why this behavior is more common than groups of people fighting back in these situations.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

Humans are thinking beings, and both strategies are in our genetic 'programming'. However, culture and training has a large effect on which strategy we choose, so I'm proposing, for increased overall survivability, we train ourselves to select the 'fight' part a bit more often. As long as we're at it, we might as well push the 'do the right thing' a little more often.

Like I was saying - we're teaching flight in schools and classes, and therefore life. The adrenal response is called 'flight or fight' for a reason. Sometimes fighting is the correct choice.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[nyclinix]

Your point is right on the money. For years we have lived in a society where bank tellers give up the cash and do not resist, airline crews sumbit to hijacking and police departments try to negoitiate at all costs - even in the face of armed killers. Well, the bank robbers, hijackers, terrorists and killers who want to be on TV before they go out in a blaze of glory read the news and watch the tube and know how their actions will be responded to. I have seen video footage of anti-bank robbery systems in Europe that drop a steel wall down when a teller fears a robbery. I have been locked out of (or in) computer rooms I need to get into (or out of) - would a strong, locked, bullet resistent door on a plane make more sense than letting ANYONE unauthorized in the cabin? Would the VT killer have taken so many lives if the school had a one hour per semester "how to stay alive" seminar - as the previous writer indicated: If 32 students charged the gunman because they were taught that was the best way to stay alive the number of casulties would have been much lower. If that guy had attacked a room full of people convinced that a rush towards him was the best way to stay alive instead of just sitting there - or at least charging him when he had to reload - the results would have been different. I am not in favor of turning everything into a fortress or everyone into a group of avengers but the old idea that we should wait for someone else is obsolete. The Fergueson shooting case on the Long Island railroad several years ago would have been much like the VT case except that the people on the train attacked before he could reload. The wait for the professionals (esp. in light of Flight 93) mentality is still what the airlines and banks want to push because they are afraid of getting sued. Too F'ING bad. The police don't want people to "take the law into their own hands". Well FCUK that idea too, better to get arrested in order to stay alive than get dead to avoid getting arrested. Even the police have a saying to cover when they use too much force: "Better judged by 12 (jurors) than carried by six (pallbearers).

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[hypnagogue]

Each individual has a much higher chance of survival by hiding...

The biggest problem is that people believe this lie, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In nature, we call individuals that flee and hide "prey". It is a losing strategy reserved for those at the bottom of the food chain.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Maltheus]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

As long as those good men aren't paving the road to hell. I think the vast majority of evil in the world is simply the blowback of stupidity. Evil would never succeed as well as it has if good, yet stupid, people hadn't called for action time and time again.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[sgt_doom]

Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.

First, Firethorn, I take it you've never been in combat nor experienced any "live fire" situations? Nor do you appear to be experienced with assault rifles and other weaponry. (With the latest Sig automatic rifle I could take out most of a crowded football stadium in under five minutes - a slight exaggeration, but only slight!) Your suggestion as to what occurred at Virginia Tech is both highly insulting, highly ignorant and most obscene. There were unbelievable examples of heroism and valor on behalf of the faculty and students there - something sadly lacking from those politicians in elective office today (e.g., George W. Bush, direct commission to officer and then AWOLEE, Republican Representative John Boehner who has frequently listed his military service as the US Navy - he DID NOT even complete Navy basic training [something about chronic bedwetting], Richard Armitage, former Bush administration assist. secretary of state, claimed to have seen service as a Navy SEAL, when in fact he served but a few weeks during the time he was in Vietnam on riverine patrols [he couldn't cut it] as opposed to the lengthy combat service on those same riverine patrols by Senator John Kerry, and Senator John McCain - with lengthy service as a POW but less than one full day in actual combat).

Secondly, choosing the most clueless sci-fi writers - especially at this rather late date - is highly suspect and of little, if any, value. A clueless bone thrown to the terminally clueless...

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[icegreentea]

except those who don't die. those are called survivors. in order for the students to sucessfully defend themselves against a guy who has way more firepower on his side, they have to act in unison. kinda hard to find a bunch of people who are just as scared as you are and plan something. it can be done, as united 93 showed us, but then again, they knew they were all going to die anyways. much harder in this case.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

I wouldn't always call it a lie - If you're not a trained and equipped fire fighter, for example, you have a better chance if you flee a forest fire.

On the other hand, us humans actually have a chance to stand up to lions, tigers, and bears almost bare handed. I wouldn't call it a good chance, but there's a chance. Give us something so little as a knife, and suddenly even 80 year old women can drive mountain lions away(she actually did it with a pen). There have been cases of mountain men killing bears with a knife.

Predators like easy targets - which is why in the wild they go after the weak - the young, the sick, the injured. This is usually true even for human predators. Note where mass shooting usually occur - schools and other areas were weapons in the hands of civilians are not allowed. Note where mass shootings don't happen - police stations*, gun shows(and jewelry**), gun stores aren't robbed much in comparison to banks, etc...

*outside of movies
**Almost as many guns as at a gun show, and more of them are loaded.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

They're still prey, though. Just as deer do escape predators each year. They're the lucky ones. However, take more of a buffalo strategy. IE pound the predator into the mud. That's a predator that's not going to be coming again next week.

It takes ~18 years to raise an adult human. 'Run away or hide and hope you get lucky' is a strategy more for an animal that grows to adulthood in a year or less, not many times that.

Humans should not be prey.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

First, Firethorn, I take it you've never been in combat nor experienced any "live fire" situations?

Nope, have you? I consider myself lucky to have avoided that so far. Still, it's been a distinct possibility several times.

Nor do you appear to be experienced with assault rifles and other weaponry.

hehehehe...
Award(don't have a scan):
Gästeschießen
3./FmBtl 281
Beim Schießen mit dem Maschinengehr MG3 hat ***** ****** den 1. Platz belegt.
Gees, im September 200*
Reinhardt
Hauptmann u.
KpChef

I'm not a high-speed low drag individual, but I'm not unexperienced.

With the latest Sig automatic rifle I could take out most of a crowded football stadium in under five minutes - a slight exaggeration, but only slight!
Are you talking about this rifle?

Still, Slight exaggeration? Surely not! It's a gross exaggeration! Unless you're talking about a non-college, non-professional stadium, occupancy for my example football stadium is 81,067. A standard 5.56 magazine is 30 rounds. I own a AR-15, and have a number of 30 round magazines. The rifle, combined with 10 magazines(300 rounds total) is fairly heavy. I would be able to carry substantially more, true, but I'd be encumbered carrying that much and not moving very quickly. After all, a loaded magazine weighs .45 kg. A hundred loaded magazines would be 100 pounds to carry. That gives me 3000 rounds. I consider 300 rounds to be a decent range trip. 3k rounds would also cost around a thouand dollars, buying cheap.

Even carrying a hundred pounds of ammo, and killing somebody with each shot, you'd only get 3.7% of the stadium goers. More realistically, they'd trample more of each other trying to flee than what you'd kill.

Besides, talking about automatic rifles is totally besides the point when we're talking about a shooter using semi-automatic handguns with 15 round magazines. One of them a .22!

Your suggestion as to what occurred at Virginia Tech is both highly insulting, highly ignorant and most obscene. There were unbelievable examples of heroism and valor on behalf of the faculty and students there - something sadly lacking from those politicians in elective office today

What, the truth? From what I've read, NOT ONE PERSON IN THE BUILDING WENT AFTER THE SHOOTER. Yes, there were heroic acts I can only hope I would be capable of- but barricading a door, while smart, is not precisely heroic or valorous. Two professors held the classroom doors closed while Seung-Hui Cho shot him, one succeeded, one did not, both died. One went to investigate - and ended up shot. Being a hero, perhaps unfortuantly, requires one to be successful.

I DO NOT CONSIDER HIDING UNDER A DESK to be heroic, much less valorous. Read some decorations for medals of honor for heroic and valorous acts. Do you consider hiding under a desk or jumping out a window to be equivalent to, while wounded, grasping a lit flare and hauling it, while it's burning you, to the back of the aircraft to throw it out, like A1C John L. Levitow?

All I was saying was that if we'd trained the students there to consider offensive actions in such a situation, it probably would of resulted in fewer casualties. Even a fatally wounded individual would have probably been able to disable Cho long enough for others to finish the job.

Heros still exist today - I'm just questioning if they're being trained for the correct responses.

Where does our current elected officials come into this? This sort of thing isn't going to be initiated by these individuals. Nice ranting though.

Secondly, choosing the most clueless sci-fi writers - especially at this rather late da

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[ocbwilg]

The problem with "attacking back" is that one person has to decide to attack back, and he has to go first. That person is almost certainly going to die. Each individual has a much higher chance of survival by hiding and evading. I imagine this is why this behavior is more common than groups of people fighting back in these situations.

The classic conundrum: A gunman with a revolver is holding 15 people hostage and says "If any of you tries to come after me, I'll shoot you." A hostage says "There are 15 of us and you only have 6 bullets in your gun." The gunman says "So who wants to be the first 6 to die?"

Of course, it's not always a death sentence. Sometimes you just get shot and crippled. Sometimes you get shot and heal OK. But I think that flight 93 was an exception to the rule. The only reason that those people fought back was because they had found out (via phone calls to friends and family) that the planes were being used to crash into buildings and kill more people. The choice was simple: do nothing and everyone on the plane and many people on the ground die, or fight back and most likely everyone on the plane dies, though there would be a small chance that only some of the people on the plane would die and the flight could be saved. Would you rather have certain death or almost certain death? Most people would take option #2. The people on flight 93 were in a closed system that only allowed those two options.

At Virginia Tech, you had several options, and of those options the one that had the highest probability of death was fighting back.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[mmdog]

You of course are correct, I meant to say a glut of lawyers.

I'd have to say I think what we are talking about in education is the same thing, just a different choice of words. What I call self-esteem based education is exactly what you describe - a system based on non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events.

I spend about eight hours a week volunteering at my kids' school and I frequently find myself dismayed at how much consideration is given to protecting the feelings of the average and below average children at the expense of recognition for the true achievers. I also hold a leadership position in my son's Cub Scout pack. Even in an organization that supposedly exists for the development of character, one of the primary considerations in virtually event is what the Cubmaster refers to as the 'no-tears' factor. Basically nobody is ever allowed to fail or lose.

My opinion is that it's this sort of mentality that produces children who grow up unable to deal with the world as it is. They spend years being told they are special, never being given the opportunity to learn to deal with the emotions associated with loss and/or failure. Nobody would expect a child to learn to use a toilet, tie thier shoes, read, write or do just about anything that requires practice without giving them the opportunity to practice, yet somehow we as a culture have come to believe that they will learn how to deal with failure and loss by telling them all how special they are.

This is getting way longer than I intended this reply to be so I'll wrap it up as it's becoming more of a rant than anything else. Ultimately it boils down to something we all know - we learn far more from our mistakes and failures than we learn from our successes. Unfortunately as a society we now use every method we can conceive to prevent people from facing that fact.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[sgt_doom]

Yes - and while exhaustive and arbitrary verbiage is your obvious strongpoint - and probably your only one - you still don't offer any substantial argument. I would welcome the chance for you to charge a psycho - armed, ready and firing away - and should it ever come time, dood, may you show considerably more courage (as in any) than those gods you worship, Bush, Cheney, Boehner, Boortz and the rest of the rodger-dodgers......(Same war as Loadmaster Levitow, and I deeply regret the carnage wrought for profit by the US government!)

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[olman]

Sheesh... Sorry, it's nothing personal, but why does so many people seem to think that teaching people about violence will make them more violent? I've been a CCW permit holder since 2003. To date, I have not shot anyone, haven't even pointed any of my weapons at anyone. I've put a heck of a lot of holes in paper, but that's about it. From my conversations with other people who carry weapons for self defense, it results in them being more cautious about getting into potentially violent situations, because they know just how dangerous it could be.

Guns are different as you say yourself. Point and shoot, as it may be. To make people react more effectively in a completely off-the-wall situation like one day when you're at work picking your nose the quiet guy from down the hall comes into the room with a semi-auto.. you don't have a gun on you. You don't even have lots of time to think about it and psych up to it. Whatever you do is either what you do naturally (panic, most probably) or if you have fairly rare personality you may do something sensible like the guy who stopped the virginia shooter from entering a classroom so the students could escape from windows.. But to automatically without thinking about it grabbing nearest heavy object and try to rush a guy with a gun.. That takes training and acclimatization which has nothing to do with pointing and shooting. Shooting someone is neat and tidy for the person with the gun, stabbing someone with a screwdriver is not.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

I'll agree that it'd be difficult. Still, we don't need anything near a 100% response rate - in many cases even a 10% chance would be plenty. In a classroom of 30, 3 would charge, preferably followed by others who move a little slower.

It only takes one person holding onto the shooter's arm to severly limit the effectivness of the weapon. Stabbing with a screwdriver or pounding with heavy object isn't necessary.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do you appear to be experienced with assault rifles and other weaponry. (With the latest Sig automatic rifle I could take out most of a crowded football stadium in under five minutes - a slight exaggeration, but only slight!)

The Virginia Tech killer didn't have any "assault rifles" or "automatic rifle", nor any other kind of weapon capable of fully automatic fire. He had semi-automatic pistols that require a separate pull of the trigger for each shot fired.

Re:We need a change of philosophy...

[Firethorn]

Yes, I tend to be long. I like to cover many angles. No substantial arguement? How about looking at your posts?

those gods you worship, Bush, Cheney, Boehner, Boortz and the rest of the rodger-dodgers

Sheesh... When have I ever said that I even like the current administration? A very quick summary of my beliefs.

I would welcome the chance for you to charge a psycho - armed, ready and firing away

I'd much rather shoot him in the head from behind. It's effective, fast, and reasonably safe. If I'm the only one armed when a spree-shooter pops up, I'll be the only one around for a relatively long time(minutes, even seconds count here). You do the heroic thing when there's no other reasonable option available. If I have to shoot him while he's facing me, so be it. If I have to physically charge him, there's been a failure.

Sir...

[Yvanhoe]

"Sir, Our thinktank says that the most devastating potential terrorist threat is an attack on our Space Elevator"
"Our what ?"

The Phd

[dj245]

I think the requirement for a Phd is a bit steep. Given real-world experience in a practical field, the right person could do much more damage. For example, I only have a B.S. However I have worked in power stations and been exposed to power distribution maps and load spreadsheets. Given a cutting torch or other suitable destructive device, and I can take out a couple of towers and black out New York for a good amount of time.

Erk

[Moraelin]

Erk. Trust me, you don't want stun bombs in an airplane. Unlike the false impression that games leave people with, a flashbang is still an explosive device and it can still maim, cripple, even kill. It's a lot less lethal than a proper grenade, but you still don't want to throw it at someone's feet. And throwing it in a crowd is probably the most irresponsible thing I've ever read. Not to mention that the bad guys would have to look at it anyway to have any effect. SWAT troops throw it right in the doorway for example, on the assumption that the bad guys would be looking at the door when it gets kicked in. (And also because of the previous paragraph: probably noone will be on top of it when it blows.) If it rolls under a seat, you haven't solved much.

Re:Erk

[bcattwoo]

Not to mention that the bad guys would have to look at it anyway to have any effect. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the America's Army forums and according to the vets there, the concussive blast from a flashbang in a confined space like an airline cabin would be just as bad as or worse than the flash and completely unavoidable. I agree that they would be a poor choice though and likely difficult to deploy in an effective manner, i.e. blinding/disabling the terrorist more than the people meant to subdue him.

However, your post is not?

[Morosoph]

If this story is true, then it's obvious that the department of homeland security are conspiring to make Bush look stupid. After all, a straightforward Google search would have turned up Bruce Schneier's efforts to the same end.

Surely it would be far better to ask whether the policy or action makes any sense, rather than whether it was proposed by your team or the opposing team? Celebration or derision should follow, rather than preceeding the analysis.

The rest of the world gets a chuckle

[moeinvt]

The whole world has got to be laughing at us. This ranks right up there with the terror alert rainbow and hair gel ban. Let's bring in a bunch of clinically diagnosed paranoid schizophrenics to see what threats their "wild imaginations" can come up with. I'd LOL if I wasn't funding and sacrificing my liberty for this nonsense.

SciFi writers don't always paint positive futures

[HikingStick]

They might get some great ideas, but some other undesirable ones as well. A list might look like:

1) Implanted identification chip for every person, worldwide at birth. This (if engineered correctly) would make administering a no-fly list much easier. It would also make it easier to track all fertilizer and ammonia purchases, because the chip would be required for commerce, too.

2) Remote control of the plane, so some RC hobbyist can fly it to the ground. Or, better yet, some child who is playing a flight simulator game (oops, I read Ender's Game recently).

3) Rig all planes for remote auto-destruct. Wait! There's a suspected terrorist on that plane? Blow it up now, so they cannot kill additional people. Then there are public service announcements lauding the innocent passengers who were heros to the motherland.

4) Require all passengers to be put into stasis before flying. Then you can load them in cargo tubes and eliminate the first-class/coach price disparity.

5) Use amusement park style restraints that are locked before take-off and unlocked only when approaching the destination terminal. Built-in porta-pottys would be a must.

6) Clear vast areas of ground as designated fly-way corridors. These would lead to massive airports away form major metropolitan areas and would have massive ground transport hubs. If any plane veers out of the approved flight corridors, they are shot down.

7) Permanently ground domestic flights and force people to take the train. We know terrorists would never successfully pull off an attack on a train, because people might actually converse. It would be relatively easy to spot the non-conversant-I'm-ready-to-die crowd among the other social riders [OK. Inside joke here.]

8) Revisit that implanted chip. It now includes circuitry that can be remotely triggered to induce a major coronary event. Wait! That guy in 16b is acting suspicious! I'm going to trip his chip.

9) Nuke the entire planet. With no people around, there are no terrorists.

10) Make Sesame Street mandatory in-flight viewing for all flights. The colorful, friendly characters and their message of sharing and caring will re-program the minds of all passengers toward a life of increased harmony and peace (especially after the government adds subluminal anti-terror messages every few frames)!

Don't they mean War on Terra?

[syousef]

...but wouldn't it have been more accurate to suggest they're asking sci-fi writers to sell their soul to the devil? I mean I don't know what to do when the headline isn't sensationalist on /. - something's wrong...it's started.....common sense....it's taken over the Internet! Red alert!

Kevin J. Anderson

[jollyreaper]

For crimes against literature. If you want another name then I'll give you Herbert's son. When can we see them in Gitmo? What, I thought you were asking for authors to be turned in! Well shit, I bet the Muslims would issue a fatwa for me!

Re:stop being a racist coward

[supersnail]

'I hope you are not inferring that 'foreigners and ex-colonists are inferior' at Cricket.'

Absolutely not. The juxtaposition of the sentences was totally accidental.
Besides being Scottish I feel totally unqualified to judge inferiority or superiority
at cricket. As far as I can work out the weather has the best team " .. rain stopped play."

in a pre-9-11 world

[Random832]

Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.

No it couldn't have, because the pilots would have opened the locks. A lot of people don't realize what things were like pre-9-11. Hijackers usually _didn't_ intend harm to the people on the plane, etc, as a _goal_, just as a threat to get the pilots to give in t o their demands.

Obviously...

[p4rri11iz3r]

Give the pilots lightsabers and train them to use the force...

Let's put seatbelts in cars next!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door."

What? Has the author of this particular article ever been on a plane before? Cockpit doors ALREADY HAVE LOCKS, AND THEY'VE HAD THEM EVEN BEFORE 9-11.

Been happening already

[jgoemat]

At least I'm pretty sure they took some ideas from this book.

HaHa, Only Serious

[Hillgiant]

2. Shield the entire airplane with a time distortion device, except the cockpit, the passengers will be in "slow-time", so for them the plane would take off and land within seconds, not enough time for any terrorist to do anything.

I have been saying for a while that the next logical step in airline security is to just ship everyone via low berth.

Droll. Very droll.

[Tony]

Believe it or not, the most effective deterrents to another 9/11 type attack are the war in Iraq, and the upcoming pounding of Iran.

You are kidding, right?

Most of the attackers were from Saudia Arabia. We're not doing a *damned* thing about them. Our work in Afghanistan has replaced one set of warlords with another set of warlords. Our work in Iraq has turned a relatively-stable, more-or-less progressive country into a warzone. Where Iraqi citizens had a lot to lose before, they now have nothing to lose. Instead off reducing the likelihood of terrorist attacks, our unfounded war in Iraq has *increased* the available pool of terrorists.

Pro-terror heads of state in the ME need to understand that bad things happening here in America means very bad things happening to them, personally.

Do you believe Saddam Hussein had *anything* to do with 9/11? All we showed the middle east is that we attack random, mostly-stable countries when we can't catch those actually responsible. (That is, bin Laden, whom Bush swore to bring to justice.)

And in case you didn't notice, we're not winning in Iraq. The US spends 3 times as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and we can't even beat a few thousand poorly-funded "insurgents." I think the war is proving the US military is ineffective at urban warfare.

The thing that most prevents another 9/11-type attack is 9/11. You are right about one thing: the main reason 9/11 happened was because we in the US were naive. We ignored the fact that most other countries suffer from the occasional terrorist attack. (Some other countries see daily terrorist attacks.) Now, I doubt passengers are going to sit idly by during another plane hijacking.

Problem is, I doubt most folks here would recognize a different attack vector until it was too late. At least I'm giving up my liberties so I can have the illusion of safety.

Submitter should apply for the position.

[ROMRIX]

"Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door."

He has just the type of magical hindsight and keen grasp of the obvious they are looking for.

Failure of Imagination?

[*weasel]

As TFA notes, the 9/11 commission said the attacks were a result, in part, of the government's "failure of imagination".

How exactly did the government fail to imagine this type of attack?

Doesn't the military have training exercises designed around terrorists ramming civilian planes into buildings?
Didn't the intelligence community know for almost a decade that KSM was obsessed with the idea of flying passenger planes into buildings?
Hasn't the head structural engineer of the WTC project gone on the record as stating that the towers were designed to withstand a jet impact? (albeit, smaller.)
Aren't nuclear power plants also designed to withstand impact and fire from passenger jets?

I don't have a problem with the military getting free advice from creative types on outside-the-box attack vectors. But this particular attack seems to have been well-understood by people in the loop. It was the rest of us who were caught off-guard.

That's why cockpit door locks wouldn't have done anything on 9/11. The flightcrew let the hijackers in.
The failure of 9/11 was one of protocol. Neither the flightcrew nor the passengers had any idea of just how bad it would be to surrender the cockpit. And that problem was patched right around 10:00 am that same day.

No future pilot is going to allow a hijacker into the cockpit.
No future flight-crew or passenger load is going to idly sit and wait for the plane to 'return to the airport'.

Everything beyond reinforced cockpit doors and slightly better security at the airport has been an expensive waste of time.

Locks on the cockpit doors would NOT...

[artemis67]

have prevented 9/11.

The reason is that the terrorists had the element of surprise; nobody knew what they were going to do. Before 9/11, terrorists commandeered commercial aircraft, landed them somewhere, made outrageous demands while they had a standoff with police, and the hostages had a 50/50 chance of walking away alive.

The 9/11 hijackers were pretending that this was a typical hijack scenario when they took over the planes. If the cockpit doors had had locks on them, the terrorists would have started killing the passengers, one at a time, until the crew unlocked the door. The pilot would have unlocked the door, thinking that the was saving lives by doing so.

In the post-9/11 world, we now know that the aircraft has much more value as a weapon than as a device for taking hostages. But we ONLY know this because of 9/11.

Re:Locks on the cockpit doors would NOT...

[tompaulco]

Besides, cockpit doors already did have locks. After 9/11 it was mandated not that locks be put on the doors, since they already had them, but that doors be made stronger so that people couldn't ram through them.
And as you pointed out, you would still have the problem that the terrorists could kill people one by one until the pilots unlocked the door.

One way this could help

[sjames]

The one way this can help is if they can overwhealm DHS with so many crazy but just plausible scenerios that they FINALLY realize we could dump our entire GNP into creating Stasi part 2 and STILL not be "secure"

Here's a few to get them started:

Terrorist agents infiltrate the manufacturer of airport X-ray machines and subtly alter them such that they randomly leak dangerous levels of radiation. Ten years later, the U.S. suffers a plague of cancer. The plague primarily targets security people, government officials and business people.

Same scenerio except that metal detectors are rigget to emit brain subtly brain damaging em radiation. Instead of cancer we get a plague of dementia.

Terrorists continue convincing the U.S. they are holed up in various 3rd world countries and the U.S. continues invading country after country killing millions of innocents (and not even one actual terrorist). Finally the civilized world nukes Washington D.C. to end the nightmare once and for all. Remaining U.S. forces realize they've become so specialized at killing 3rd world civillians that they have no remaining counterstrike capability against a developed nation and so surrender. The world rejoices.

Inspired by Ronald Reagan's tactics against the USSR, terrorists convince DHS they are on the verge of pulling off any one of a number of worst case super-terrorist plots. The federal government taxes and spends our economy to death to defend against the imagined threats and results in a total collapse.

Terrorists continue to push all the right panic buttons throughout D.C. Sol much "expediant" legislation gets rammed through that the neocons manage to sieze power and nullify the constitution. Then, the neocons (the brains behind the terrorists) attempt to create their "neocon paradise" in the U.S. (just like they tried in Iraq) and the country is left in ruins. The neocons abscond to Argentina. Most others become refugees in Europe leaving only the various fundamentalist tribes behhind in the U.S. Those tribes spend the next 100 years beating each other to death in disputes over which edition of the Bible is the one true word.

Here's a suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to the public -- what really caused the World Trade Center buildings to fall?

(No modern steel skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire)

Re:Here's a suggestion

[belg4mit]

a) They weren't exactly "modern"
b) Yes, they have, case in point
c) There were a number of factors that contributed to their fall.
      Nova produced an excellent episode about the series of unfortunate events.
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Some of the highlights as I recall are:

The towers were "cleverly" designed with most of their supporting beams in the outside
walls. This means that having a large object moving at high speed ripping into the
building seriously compromised the structure.

The joints and welding technique used were "sub-par."

There was inadequate fire-shielding of the beams.

who's your daddy

[Anonymous Coward]

OKC-numerous dotgov agents and snitches inside watching and coordinating the whole thing going down. Witnesses told to shutup about it or else. One witness beaten to death inside fed prison, coroner rules it "suicide"

wtc1 fed snitch provocateur inside, who when he found out the truck device was real and armed complained to his handlers, yet was told to shutup and go through with it

Lebanon-foreign invaders on foreign soil, legit military target

wtc2-PUHLEEZE, links aplenty,google is your friend and you don't even need any "loose change" to find out some of the deal behind this latest "terrorstorm". An inside job from top to bottom, most likely using patsies then remote controlled planes for the final crashes, combined with pre wiring the buildings to affect controlled demo. Such a success they had guys "dancing the hora" while they took video of the buildings getting smacked-pure indication of inside knowledge and involvement. Even the Bebe announced the collapse of buildings before they happened-programmed propaganda news with a lot of slip-ups in the execution as they decided to "pull it" all down to introduce the police state, with perpetual foreign and domestic "enemies".

You've been conned so many times you can't see, or more likely don't want to see (the concept is too scary so it "doesn't exist", instant denial) the cons.

Another Genius Solution...

[crhylove]

...Is one that SHOULD have been implemented, but wasn't mysteriously due to Richard Cheney's "stand down" order.

That is the launch of F-16 fighters to physically force airplanes back on course, or in a worst case scenario, shoot them down for the protection of urban centers.

Now, why that didn't happen on September 11th, 2001, is anybody's guess, but old Dick rarely does interviews, so we may never know.

Re:Another Genius Solution...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

Re:Another Genius Solution...

[Catbeller]

As Bush was hale, hearty, and in communication with his government, Cheney had no authority to issue orders to take down airliners. What the hell was Bush doing? Running for cover. Nothing else illustrates so well that Bush is a self-important little puppet of the real president, Cheney.

Re:Another Genius Solution...

[Teancum]

Get a grip and read what happened and stop being an armchair historian in this case.

Bush on 9/11 was doing what any U.S. President would have done in that position: Tried to continue to lead the government and not die in the process of doing that. Or try to ram a suspected terrorist airplane with Air Force One? That is just too stupid to think about.

While you can debate the orders he gave for the invasion of Iraq, what Bush did on 9/11 itself is what any outstanding person holding that office would have done, and perhaps even better than most. In the heat of battle, communications often do get garbled in both directions, and there was some concern that at least some of the plane impacts were of a more traditional accidental nature, and some confusion over what planes really were full of terrorists and what ones may simply be slightly off course. The U.S. Air Force had not even trained at all for the possibility that they would have to shoot down a civilian airplane for military purposes, and instead hitting a plane like that was considered an act of an incompetent coward within the military. Something that would only show up in jokes, and not a serious training exercise. While in theory a fighter like an F-16 could certainly take out a civilian airplane like a 747, the protocols for doing so simply weren't established including trying to define what exactly was considered a target.

Trying to blame Bush/Cheney for this supposed inaction when orders were being issued on the fly and trying to establish a new policy dealing with this situation while it was happening simply isn't dealing with reality for how things like this would be done. I hardly think that you, Catbeller, could have done any better and would likely have fared far worse if you were in the same situation.

Re:Another Genius Solution...

[sgt_doom]

Good Citizen crhylove, you will note the post following yours offers a number of web sites, ostensibly "debunking" your logical suppositions. These sites, some of them seemingly practical, some very nonsensical - may even make sense to a handful of noncritical thinking types - but to anyone with experience in military command and control they are most idiotic.

The orders giving Cheney (for the first time in US history) any authority of North American airspace in lieu of generals in the USAF, etc., are incredible and is one hellaciously farfetched event. Next, the very and most relevant fact that SO MANY military exercises occurred concurrently - rendering the Eastern Seaboard defenseless - is virtually incomprensible. And those sites claiming to debunk the always ready squadrons at Andrews AFB - tasked with guarding the D.C. airspace - is pure bullcrap. When one - as you are most surely aware of as an elightened and critically thinking poster, crhylove - ponders the extraordinary number of "coincidences" which occurred that day and those days immediately leading up to it - it is obvious that much collusion - or inside strategic planning - took place. (I posted this to your post as I would add to it and no longer bother to argue with the nominds and lowbrows amongst us.)

Here's a good idea

[AcCompressor]

Let's try this idea. Ask the terrorists want they want and then give it to them. 1) At the time of 9/11, Ben Laden wanted two things--- the US out of Saudi because our presence defiled the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and an end to the Israeli-Arab war. In subsequent events, the Saudis kicked us out of their country and we have continually fumbled resolving the Israeli-Palestinian war, in addition to the Afghanistan mess and the Iraq mess. No wonder Ben Laden plans to attack us again. 2) The latest demand isn't too much higher than his first demands. Ben Laden wants all of the US out of all of the Islamic nations. In other words, he wants "Yankee go home." which we have done before right after Viet Nam and which we were in the process of doing in Europe, the Philippines, and other locations since the end of the cold war. By just giving him what he wants, he does not attack us, dispensing with the need to higher millions of security guards to check citizen ID cards at road intersections (Visions of "your papers, Please!! as uttered by a trench-coated Nazi in old WW2 movies). We don't have to get undressed to board airplanes (which happened to me at Corpus Christi recently--the TSA guard made me take my pants off in public). We avoid the need to kick off a second American Revolution to regain our constitutional rights which this administration seems to want to take away from us in the name of the war on terror. By giving Ben Laden what he wants, we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves: a. We stop pouring $2 billion per month in the Iraq rat hole and do not need to continually borrow it from the Chinese, putting our future generations in hock to China. b. We have our troops home again where they won't be killed by having their helicopters shot down, getting IED'ed, or headshot by Juba the Bagdad sniper. c. Because we won't get any Arab oil any more, we kick the oil addiction once and for all - and when we can do it, the rest of the world will do it, thereby cutting off financing for the Islamic oil producers and helping them reach their goal which is .... d. The Islamic world can go back to the 14th century which is where Ben Laden came from - any we don't have to care one bit about it. They don't want our culture, our music, or our ideas on democratic government. They want it like it always was before us, which was the 14th century. e. There won't be any terrorists attacks on the west because the terror leaders will naturally turn against each other and fight it out with each other---something they did before and which they will do again. There is nothing more fragile than an empire under the control of one man when everybody else has an AK-47, suicide bombers, good IEDs and a willingness to use them on their fellow man. You really do not need a science fiction writer to make the point. They just have to read a bit if history to know that the American empire is fated to go the way of all other

Re:Here's a good idea

[spockbert]

But where do we draw the line? How far do we bend over backwards to give in to the terrorist demands? I don't believe for a minute that if terrorist groups see us give in to their demands, they'll stop and say "Thanks so much for doing what we asked. We'll leave you alone for good now." What will probably happen is Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group will see us meet their demands and realize all they have to do is figure out how to kill a few thousand, or maybe even only a few hundred, American citizens, issue a set of demands, and sit back and wait for us to fall all over ourselves trying to meet them. Then another terrorist group, or perhaps the same one again, begins to see a pattern in our behavior and begins planning another attack. And I also disagree with your point e. Terrorist groups aren't out to eliminate all other terrorist groups, especially those inspired by a religion or ideology. I've never met the man, but I doubt Bin Laden wants to be Supreme Terrorist Overlord of the World. Many of these terrorist groups would make natural allies with their hatred of a certain religion or religious sect, form of government, specific country, etc. In fact, some of the only times I can think of terrorists competing with each other is when they try and claim responsibility for something. You might see 3 or 4 groups all saying they blew the same thing up. That's about it.

Re:Here's a good idea

[Teancum]

What makes you think they will stop once the USA leaves Iraq?

The stated goal of these terrorists is not to kick America out of Iraq. Their goal is to kill every last man, woman, and child in America. And that has been stated on numerous occasions. If Al-Queida is in Iraq, it is only because of the ease of entry into that country and the ability to blend in with and recruit from the population in that country.

But if they want to kill me and my children, I don't have a problem of taking the war to their turf and killing them first. And I would gladly put on a uniform of the U.S. Army to do that. Or see my sons join the Army. Even if I end up losing a child as an unfortunate casualty of war. At least they have a chance to defend themselves in uniform as opposed to being an "innocent" bystander when a bomb goes off in America.

Locks would not have helped

[geekoid]

"Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door."

Pure ignorance. Even with locks, you can practical push the door down.
It's like a step up from a curtian. The wholes section needs to be redesigned, and it should be.

Re:Locks would not have helped

[Catbeller]

Sigh. The tactic used on 9-11-01 will never be useful again. No group of passengers will ever cooperate again, no pilot will let anyone take the wheel again. Will we please give up on this. Locks aren't necessary, tactics aren't necessary. The hijackers tried to take 12 planes but only had the manpower for 4. They had to strike simultaneously, and one time only, because it would never work again -- and indeed did not, even on that very day, as the passengers listened to the news from their cell phones and took down their own plane. Or maybe were shot down at the same time, as that plane was splattered over miles.

Al Queda is not in the business of killing people at any cost. They are in the business of ridding themselves of our presence in Saudi Arabia -- and we left the bases and established new ones in Iraq to replace them. bin Laden got what he wanted, which Americans would know had they ever been able to actually listen to what he was saying. Instead we are told that he is everywhere and trying to destroy our freedoms and kill us all at any cost. Why do you think they haven't struck again in over five years? They had what they wanted, as we left the holy land.

Re:Locks would not have helped

[Anonymous Coward]

For it is the doom of men that they forget.

This will work again. People will "forget" about 911.

"It can't happen again".

Look at VT, a single gunman is able to slaughter (yes, as in slaughtering farm animals who complacently line up) almost an entire classroom, his victims figurative lambs, willing to sacrifice their classmates in the vain hope that they themselves would not be harmed.

Re:Locks would not have helped

[Teancum]

I like to point out what the "policy" of airlines and the U.S. government was regarding hijackers on September 10th, 2001:

If somebody tries to hijack the airplane, give them nearly everything they want and follow the S.O.P. for hostage takers. If you are in flight, take the hijacker to damn near any place they want to get to.... provided you have fuel to get there.

In fact, this policy was so old and pervasive that I saw a reference to it on an "I Love Lucy" re-run where Ricky Ricardo was on a plane that was hijacked and went to Cuba. The whole incident was portrayed on the episode as a sort of involuntary "vacation" to visit exotic locales for a few days while the hijacker quietly disappeared doing whatever it is that he was doing.

There is also the presumption in hostage negotiations that the hostage taker values his/her life in such a way that they don't want to die with the victim. The usual threat to the "criminal" in this case is that the police/military/security can lose their life if they screw up and kill the hostage. A good police negotiator usually tries to convince this person that they are better off staying alive even if they end up going to jail for a few years, and that they will feel guilt if they kill their hostages.

The difference with 9/11 was that the hijackers didn't care about their life. And it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the passengers and crew would lose their own lives anyway, as would the hijackers because they didn't care. So in that sort of situation, I certainly would take my chances in trying to kill the hijackers with damn near anything and everything I had at my disposal. And it would be in the best interest of the pilots to keep the door of the cockpit locked up and secure during the flight. As is now required by the FAA. I remember pre-9/11 flights where the cockpit door was left open for the entire flight. It was neat to see the pilots at work (kinda like a kid watching their parents drive a car), but it is a huge security risk.

For this reason and many more, I don't buy the "increased security" at airports as anything but a ruse and "closing the barndoors after the cows left". There will never be another massive 9/11 scale attack again on the USA, because most people won't permit it to ever happen again. Oh, there may be another attempt or two, and perhaps even a lone plane succeeding in hitting its intended target due to a bunch of cowards on board the aircraft, but the large scale coordinated attack simply will not happen, at least not without the expectation that many or most of the planes won't make it to their intended targets.

One other reason why 9/11 didn't seem to have more than the four planes is that it seems as though Al-Queida forgot something far too important in their planning: The USA has multiple time zones. Apparently there were supposed to be a dozen or so airplanes to be hijacked, but the cells in the other time zones didn't get a chance to carry out the plans due to the grounding of the U.S. civilian air fleet after the first attacks happened. Los Angeles and Seattle were supposed to both be targets, as was the Sears Tower in Chicago. I don't know if that would have changed much of anything post 9/11 had they been smart enough to book flights that all took off at the same time (the L.A. cell didn't even make it into the airport before it was closed) but it does give some pause to think about the possibilities. 9/11 could have been and should have been much worse.

The lack of follow-through by Al-Queida is certainly something that shows the lack of additional planning as well, where they could have started a real terror campaign by blowing up highway bridges and passenger ships. I don't know what a sustained effort to take out the Interstate Highway System would have done to the morale of the ordinary citizens of the USA, but it certainly would have had a much more profound impact on the U.S. economy than destroying the World Trade Center.

Pffftttt....

[Anonymous Coward]

[COMMENT TO BE DELETED OR SCORED -1 BY SLASHDOT]

What a bunch of tools. I don't see Philip K. Dick or Robert Anton Wilson participating in this nonsense even if they were alive.

How to prevent 9/11? How about go after the people who did it? (see guliani, silverstein, bush, cheney, kristol, et al.) How about having a population of people who are not completely retarded? The only reason 9/11 worked was because people in this country were stupid enough to think that 3 steel skyscrapers could be brought down from fires. You would think that people working in IT would have enough of an education to understand 8th grade physics, but apparently not.

Is everyone on slashdot a complete idiot?

Wake up you fucking morons.

An MBA would answer

[athloi]

Hire Al-Qaida as security consultants, give them a bonus and promotion, and then put them on every flight as paid self-defense instructions.

"deviant thinkers"?

[Hoi Polloi]

"a group of self-described "deviant" thinkers"

Aren't they running the country already?

Schneier's going to love this...

[SCHecklerX]

See subject.

Stairs > Daleks == Truth(y)

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the few things less original than the Daleks/stairs joke is the humourless response about how No True Scotsman thinks that's a problem since one got all up in Sylvester McCoy's fries years ago.

Seriously, let it go. If someone cracks a Superman/Kryptonite joke would you want people responding "That wouldn't work unless it was the right colour, or possibly the infamous Weasel Kryptonite that featured in one brief storyline back in the Silver Age"?

MOD CORRECTION NEEDED

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this flamebait? Flagrant mod abuse. Slashdot muslims with mod points today? Mod parent up please.

Russian Style Security, the best

[Anonymous Coward]

put a good lock to the door, and a camera for the pilots to view the cabin. in case of
emergency, push the INVISIBLE GAS button to sleep the passage.

half your passengers get killed but hey... job done!!!

Wish I had some mod points for you...

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

..because I think you make some good points.

Terror vs Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

As Terror means fear, a war on Terror would mean thet we are trying to stop fear.
Often it seams like a "War to create Terror", as the color codes are moved for political reasons.

A "War on Terrorism" is a war against a tactic. While this makes more sense than fighting against fear, it still means very little. This is a bottomless war with no specific enemy, and no real goals.

Instead of fiction writes, they should look to create a "Homeland Security for Dummys" book that explains how to read the color code system to determine whether you should be afaid or not.

Why not? Al Queda used Tom Clancy

[davecb]

In the Tom Clancy novel Debt of Honor, written seven years before 9/11, "an embittered Japanese airline pilot crashing his Boeing 747 into the U.S. Capitol building during a joint session of Congress with the President attending. He does this to avenge the deaths of his brother and son during the war. This paves the way for Ryan, who has just been appointed Vice President, to become President in the next book, Executive Orders." [source: Wikipedia article referenced above]

Just look through the popular press for suitable man-made disasters that they already know how to implement, and you have El Queda's to-do list.

--dave

That's great, oppression works!

[jack_n_jill]

If we look at their legitimate grievances;

* Supporting corrupt dictators and monarchies.

* Supporting a country, Israel, that denies people equal rights because they are Arabs and Moslems.

* Opposing any liberation movements that arise.

If we start there, we will make a lot of progress toward peace. We can worry about illegitimate grievances later.

Re:That's great, oppression works!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we look at their legitimate grievances;

* Supporting corrupt dictators and monarchies.
Like the ones in the Middle East? But if we de-support them, aren't we just helping Israel? Oh, but that's bad. Ut-oh.

* Supporting a country, Israel, that denies people equal rights because they are Arabs and Moslems.
And of course, Israelis have such equal rights in Arab/Islamic countries. Every terrorist attack builds support for Israel. They "wrote the book" on responding to terrorism.

* Opposing any liberation movements that arise.
Such as Cuba perhaps? Oh, wait. Never mind.

If we start there, we will make a lot of progress toward peace. We can worry about illegitimate grievances later. Unless, of course, addressing the so-called "legitmate grievances" creates a new set of victims, who respond the same way. Ooops.

writer's block

[friesandgravy]

get the feeling that fox is calling in a favour and trying to drum story ideas for the next few seasons of 24?

Potential for Abuse

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Replace bomb sniffing dogs with jedi knights. Explanation not required.

You WILL help me reach my terrorist quota.

your last point won't work

[1800maxim]

I personally can think of merits of equipping flight attendants with tasers, sticky foam, pepper spray (or even stun grenades)

You are essentially providing weapons for the terrorist(s) to be carried onboard legally and by someone else (flight attendants).

File under "Ideas that won't work."

Re:your last point won't work

[bolek_b]

I am aware of the demerits. But will this kind of weapons (temporary incapacitants of individuals) be effective in the hands of terrorists? How will it help them?

Choose the form of your destruction!

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to think of the most harmless thing .... and then the DHS turned into the StayPuft Marshmellow Man.

Didn't Bruce Schniere do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

In his Cryptogram news letter like a year ago, maybe more, he had a contest of sorts for people to come up with the best terrorist threats and write them in to him and he select a winner or two. I vaguely remember stinger missiles blowing up some damn in Washington state and some how taking out the west coast power grid in the process. Spooky, I sure hope the army can keep our stingers protected...

My office mate at the time and I thought the whole thing was bullshit. Terrorists are poor, the ways they attack us are low tech, cheap abuses of the system, they don't do the crap that is on 24. Living in the south west, the thing we came up with was radically cheaper, you probably wouldn't lose anybody and most wouldn't even get caught. The thinking was get 50 or 60 terrorist boys, hook them up with some camping gear, rental cars, and what have you in late July, spread them out fairly equally in your choice of states and at roughly the same time (maybe like 2am) have them all get forest fires blazing and then just take off. You could probably get like all of Utah on fire, move on to Colorado and do it again. With not that many people, not that much money and the right weather I think you could get the better part of 3 or 4 western states crippled under massive massive forest fires. If you were really intent on wreaking havoc, go hit up like Arizona first, then wait a week so all of the elite fire fighters from all over the nation were in Arizona, then go hit Montana. It's not 4 plane crashes or anthrax in the mail but the logistics are simple, nature will do most of the work, if you pick some good starting spots and get a little lucky you could very legitimately burn down most of entire states. Why do you need Sci-fi shit? I know, I know, they could like invent a time machine and then go back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and like prevent it from being signed!

It seems like our agriculture businesses are all fairly relaxed, there isn't a lot of "security" around crops and cattle ranches. Cattle is a huge industry too, huuuuuuuge, hundreds of billions of dollars and it impacts other huge industries. You could easily, if you were so inclined, jump over a single fence and mingle with the cattle that are supposed to feed people in the middle of the night and nobody would be the wiser. If you could come up with some schemes to inject them with prions or something like that, a small group of just a couple people could hit 3 or 4 ranches, all separate from each other, inject some BSE (if you can even do that, I really don't know) in to a few dozen cattle in the middle of the night. If you're particularly unlucky you might have to run away from a cattle dog but I doubt that would be a problem. Rinse, repeat a few times, and then sit back and wait. Again, nobody probably is caught, nobody dies from the operation itself unless you hit John Wayne's ranch and he happens to be awake and waiting for you. The end game? Assuming that the cattle ranchers are fairly honest and there is a lot of pressure for them to possibly not be, when these groups of cattle start showing signs of mad-cow or are taken to market and BSE is discovered, what do you think happens? They destroy the cattle, they freak the whole nation and all the nations that buy beef from us out, they then start investigating all the ranches that did business with these ranches, looking for a source, looking for a cow from canada or UK or something. I bet if you hit like 12 ranches, good sized ones all spread out randomly, you could possibly shut down the US beef industry and all that it powers and fuels. At the least, you could get the Asians to stop importing our beef. Chances are strong that a "cause" would be found because it's such a rich and powerful industry but, it could be really cheap and if you happen to run in to some really honest folks it'd be a grand slam. I can't think of any ways to really easily hit corn and soy crops yet. It's not sexy

It only makes sense...

[steveaustin1971]

It looks like they just need some help with the task of writing fiction to keep everyone afraid, and who better than science fiction writers? Now maybe at least they can come up with some fairly plausible terror scenario's, since Sci-Fi writers (at least some of them) TRY to cover the holes in their stories before they release them.

Money Money Money

[Khammurabi]

They went to war because they thought they could win easily, and it would be a good idea. They were wrong, on a number of levels, but that doesn't mean they're happy about or moreover intended the current situation over there, and to imply anything else, like I said, is pretty ridiculous.

They did win easily. Saddam was toppled in a matter of minutes. But it's becoming blatantly apparent that they were more interested in a prolonged conflict, so they can deluge money on all the defense contractors and other direct supporters of the current administration. Once the money reaches Iraq, there is no legal accountability for anything. If you receive money to build a school, and don't, there's nothing illegal about it as long as you put up a half-assed attempt at trying to build one. (Meaning if you rented a bulldozer and claimed the security for it bankrupted you, you're off the hook.) Heck, 360 tons of cash went missing and the public did nothing about it.

After reading up on how the Department of Homeland Security was basically turned into the equivalent of a government contractor eBay, it seemed to confirm it. I've been told that the standing orders from the people who work there are that the department is not allowed to do anything themselves, they must contract everything out. So again the main focus seems to be funneling money to the contractors.

Contrary to the national media image (which by the way is controlled by their supporters) this administration is not dumb. This administration is quite adept at funneling money from the taxpayers to the contractors. All the rest of what they're doing just seems to support and protect this goal of theirs. As for Gitmo and "getting tough" on terrorists, they just know what show their base wants to see.

Re:Money Money Money

[sgt_doom]

Very thoughtful, knowledgeable and inciteful comments, Good Citizen Khammurabi (Sadly, those posts immediately following yours don't fall into the same category).

To most humbly and possibly add to your outstanding comments:

A most prolonged conflict - principally and chiefly for (1) money laundering purposes - as after all that is the primary reason d'etre for the invasion/occupation of Iraq, secondarily controlling oil and oil revenues (2) the complete subversion of the US Government along with the transfer and further super-concentration of wealth (FEMA, after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, alone generated 4,000 single-source, no-bid contracts to private contractors - ensuring mortal delays to the victims of that hurricane, and ensuring any reconstruction would seldom occur, (3) and sadly, Gitmo probably has more foreign reporters jailed there among the many innocents there than we will ever know......

[On the Media: From the Monica Goodling testimony we learned: the AG and Assistat AG perjured themselves, a massive election fraud took place ("caging"); federal prosecuting attorneys were replaced to avoid prosecution for past - and future - election fraud --- 30 years ago this would have been front page news for months on end!!!]

Here's an idea.

[UncleRage]

Gene Roddenberry: Strive for equality among humanity, do away with the pursuit of personal wealth as a career choice, dedicate our resources to knowledge and greater understanding instead of developing petty differences into financially successful military endeavors.

Just a thought.

"9-11 could have been prevented with locks"

[consumer]

How quickly we forget the details. There were locks. I recall hearing that on at least one plane the pilots locked the door, but they eventually gave in and opened up after the terrorists stabbed one of the flight crew and threatened to hurt the rest.

Message from the Real World

[Catbeller]

First, it's SF, or science fiction, not sci-fi. "Sci-fi" was coined by movie reviewers in the '50's to sound cool. No one in science fiction used the term.

Now. I used the term "real world" from Asimov and Greenberg's "Best of [fill in year]" SF short story collections. Asimov's opening essay would sum up what was happening in the world, that Mel Brooks was Melvin Kaminski still. Then he would list what was happening in the Real World of science fiction that year.

We, the children of Asimov, the Real World of SF, respondeth:

In 2007, fearmongers were still pumping the handle on the "terrorist" shibboleth. No one had attacked the US in over six years, yet the citizenry was still being told that an attack was imminent, could come from anywhere (yet still somehow was related to planes), and that the enemy was Islam, though that meme was heavily cloaked in buzz words. Homeland Security, named seemingly by George Orwell himself, was rolling up the country's police and intelligence forces into one incoherent and unmanageable mess. The rightist militias, one member of which had actually blown up a federal building in Oklahoma City, were still marching and conducting drills to take down the government, yet were curiously untouched by the new American police force. We were still attempting to occupy a country that we had been assured was about to attack us at any moment, and we were losing.

Mel Brooks was Mel Brooks.

In the real world, the collected writers of science fiction, addressed as "sci-fi" writers, were asked to come up with ideas to block the immiment attacks against our helpless country. Jerry Pournelle probably leapt to the the defense, while the others in more or less said: There are no terrorists, and there is no such enemy as terrorism. If you are trying to find a way to fend off attacks, first, you cannot. The preeminent architects of the future, we scruffy bunch, will tell you there is no way to prevent an intelligent attacker from finding a way to hurt you, if he or she is willing to die to strike a blow. We spend our lives imagining ways to do the impossible. Yes, in five minutes we can give you a dozen ways around any security protocol you can come up with. If you block those, we will find another dozen. The same attacks can be achieved in any place that is not a military prison. If you wish perfect safety, make your nation into such. And you still will be afraid, for it is not a matter of security, but of perception of security. You grow fear in your people like mold, and you devour that mold as your sustenance. You are making yourselves an army of George Hearsts through selling fear and the antidote for the fear, so assuaging the fear is increasingly out of the question, is it not?

Try instead not to manufacture enemies. You created bin Laden to strike at the Soviets in Afghanistan in the seventies, who claimed they were there to stem the rise of militant Islam. They were right and you were wrong. You invaded Afghanistan to strike at al Queda, even though they left long before you bombed the country. You annihilated Iraq, then turned it into a occupied prison state. You are now surrounding Iran with two carrier groups and tried to add a third, but the Navy refused to cooperate. If you bomb them, 90 million people will take up arms against you, and yes, all the attacks you tell your people to fear will then become very real. Mission Accompished, indeed.

We can't help you. You are your own enemy, and you will never defeat yourself. Try shattering the mirror.

Reset button

[abb3w]

Hello! We are not in a movie or a video game. We live in The Real World. People realy die, people realy suffer. We can't just rewind the movie or restart the game.

Well, we can. A full scale global nuclear exchange should have things pretty much reset to about the end of the Proterozoic within three or four Pu-239 half-lives. However, I'd prefer a less drastic solution, myself.

Good thing Bush's HLS team is securing the ports!

[FatSean]

Oh wait...that's right...six years out and the vast majority of goods shipped to the USA do not get checked!

Maybe if our shitty economy turned arround and we started exporting more than we import...this task would get done?

oh stop with the alarmism

[misanthrope101]

Please stop acting as if I'm saying we should do absolutely nothing about terrorism. Stop acting like I'm President Bush and it's the first nine months of my term. I'm saying we should have perspective. That doesn't mean "do nothing."

We've had bioweapon attacks within the USA, and I don't see much being done about it. White supremacist groups have been caught with bio and chemical weapons and caches of conventional weapons, and I don't see much being done about it. Just a few days ago someone brought chemical weapons to Falwell's funeral, and I don't see much being done about it.

The hysteria is very selective, and I don't like being played for a chump. When the hysteria benefits a particular preexisting political agenda, it's run into the ground, and when it doesn't, it isn't. So this isn't really about saving lives. It's about being manipulated by a cynical government (aren't they all) into supporting an open-ended occupation of an oil-rich nation and pushing the entire PNAC agenda all the way down the line.

Yes, you should investigate terror cells. You should also heed the widely given and widely ignored insight that our actions in the middle east are fomenting and exacerbating the terrorism we're ostensibly trying to defeat. There is no evidence at all that any terrorist network has nuclear weapons, and I'm not going to support totalitarianism just because of a far-flung hypothetical. And if Clinton/whoever wins the next Presidential election, not one Republican will either. All of this "But OMG what if they kill MILLIONS!!!! We have to support the President, unless you love terrorists!" crap will sail right out the damned window, and you know it.

This whole "we follow the President because we're at war!" crap will end as soon as a Democrat is elected, and you damned well know it. Fox News will be trumpeting that dissent is the true expression of patriotism in about 12 seconds, and instead of Franklin's liberty/safety/deserve neither quote, Slashdot will be inundated with Jefferson's tree of liberty/blood of patriots quote ad nauseum. This is politics masquerading as concern for our safety.

Re:oh stop with the alarmism

[thesandtiger]

Point out where I said "OMG What if they kill MILLIONS!!!" please.

Point out where I said "We have to support the President, unless you love terrorists!" please.

You can't and you won't be able to because I never said them.

I made a reasonable statement in a reasonable tone that it is reasonable to believe in the future that individuals with limited funds but a grudge might be able to create and deploy weapons that could kill quite a few people. I also made a reasonable statement in a reasonable tone that spending some small amount of resources thinking of such things and coming up with plans to deal with them is a good idea.

The only person injecting hysterics and drama into this exchange is you. Think about that for a moment - you claim to be sick of hype and fear mongering and rabble-rousing to make political hay, and yet you just did it in the guise of accusing someone who did nothing of the sort of being that sort of person.

If you want to throw a hissy-fit and get dramatic that is certainly your right, but I'm not going to let you pretend like I'm the one doing it. If you really don't want people thinking you're saying to stop ALL investigaton of terror cells, then perhaps you might try amping down your rhetoric by using more qualified statements than "I'm sick of it taking up every waking moment of our intellectual lives." It doesn't. Don't be a drama-queen, or, if you can't handle that, at least attempt to stop assuming everyone else is.

Sample suggestions:

[untaken_name]

1. Vaporize the terrorists with beam weapons
2. Seduce the beautiful but deadly female terrorist leader and turn her to your cause
3. Send the beautiful but tough female noncom to blow them all up without needing one of those stupid 'men' to help (but she does get the sensitive, understanding, but also handsome guy she wants, of course, she just doesn't NEED him)
4. Upload a virus into the terrorists' mothership and bring it down
5. Expose the terrorists to simple bacteria, which their alien metabolisms can't handle
6. Ask for the Big Gun instead of the Good Package

Re:stop being a racist coward

[serialdogma]

I think you misunderstood the spirit of those two statements, it was (I presume) very much tongue-in-cheek.

locks on door....

[Danathar]

NO..locks on the doors would NOT have prevented it.

My brother is an Airline Pilot. So I have some knowledge of this area. Anybody can walk in to the lavatory on either side of the doors and fire a gun through killing the pilots if need be. Also, the doors are not like they have in Israel where the door AND the bulkhead are bulletproof.

NO! You got it ALL WRONG!

[Spy der Mann]

The key is to put Jack Bauer in the plane, DUH!

my bad

[circletimessquare]

i meant schwarzeneggar

shoulda run a spell check on my post too, even the title has a mispelled word

Re:my bad

[lordmage]

Its easier to spell Stallone than Arnold's last name anyways.

Btw, True Lies was a good movie to me. Entertainment.

Last Action hero was entertaining.

Ewe Boll is not.

Who writes scripts anymore? Don't they just have a database like Family Guy and pull out random events and have a title maker?

Heh

Re:How about

[Duhavid]

Great idea.

I doubt it will happen. Why? It will mean fewer rows
for passengers and therefore less revenue per flight.

It's a popular and romantic notion inspired by the

[vorlich]

terrorist themselves that the more you attack them the stronger they get.
This is patently not true and any examination of the history of various 'terrorist' movements will demonstrate this. The error arises from the elementary failure to observe that regimes do not 'win' power - the old regime loses power and is replaced.
The distinction between terrorists and revolutionaries is the the revolutionary "swims like a fish" in the ocean of the population, to quote Mao (who probably pinched that from Sun Tzu),and is a populist engaged in activity that receives support from the population. The terrorist never has moral legitimacy and reflects only a set of values that belong to a specific group. The IRA, despite a revolutionary history and support from the nationalist community recognised this and eventually sued for peace in an unwinnable war. The Red Army Faction simply became extinct and The Angry Brigade vanished into the dustbin of history.
Terrorist activities have never been succesful against oppressive regimes - both the Third Reich, The Soviet Union in the past and Robert Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe in the present (just to lump them altogether) were not and are not fearful of them.
The military whether you like it or not, have underpinned every civilisation since the year dot. It is the oldest organisational type and it has a natural longevity. The Red Army of the People's Republic of China is one of the main players in the present neo-capitalism of China. The British Empire and present day British society is a complex merger of families with connections on all of the principal elements of the legislature, the executive and the military. This connectivity is reflecting in most of the West.
The Roman Army managed to survive for some time after the ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire. No society existed for more than ten minutes in the absence of a military.

If They Really Wanted Answers...

[Nom du Keyboard]

If they really wanted answers from deviant thinkers, they should have come to Slashdot!

I don't see what's so hard to figure out...

[MS-06FZ]

I mean, you just recalibrate the main deflector to emit inverse polarized tachyon pulses at the resonant frequencies of known weapons - the resonating tachyon pulses will show up on the main sensor grid, so you tie that data into the transporter system, and transport the terrorists into the brig. There will, of course, be a .001 second delay between the termination of the transporter beam and the activation of the brig's force field, but it's really unlikely that anyone could escape in that short a time.

jet fuel doesn't heat high enough to melt steel

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Re:jet fuel doesn't heat high enough to melt steel

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It doesn't have to melt it, it only needs to weaken it to further contribute to structural failure.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.ht m

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

"The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building--paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained" http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Re:jet fuel doesn't heat high enough to melt steel

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe it's the first steel structure ever to collapse due to fire. fire coverage on concrete and steel structures are significantly low in price due to it's inability to destroy;{only interiors need be replaced in a fire in a fire of such type construction}. I've watched alot of documentaries on 9/11 and they say that there was an explosion followed by a serious of explosions. I have a hard time buying the weakened steel theory.

Re:jet fuel doesn't heat high enough to melt steel

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.h tm
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Re:Good thing Bush's HLS team is securing the port

[Kymermosst]

Maybe if our shitty economy turned arround and we started exporting more than we import...this task would get done?

It has nothing to do with the economy. It has to do with economics. Since unions and politicians have made sure we can't compete with foreign outfits that have cheaper labor and less regulations on manufacturing, we are never going to export more than we import ever again. Yeah, we could jack up tariffs, but that would make the economy a factor - and it wouldn't be pretty.

No one expects the saudi jihadists!

[Scrameustache]

The ONLY weapons which caused 911 were surprise and bad assumptions. And fear...

Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as surprise, assumptions, fear, and an almost fanatical loyalty to the ayatollah...

Re:No one expects the saudi jihadists!

[Lovesquid]

And nice red uniforms.... OH! I'll come in again.

just a PR stunt

[Other Karen]

Newspaper columnists have invented (seemingly) plausible scenarios and corresponding suggestions on how to fix them for years. Chemical plants, trucks carrying toxic gases, etc. What has been done in response to these suggestions? Zip. Nada. This whole thing is just more Homeland Security razzle dazzle.

I wrote a whole book on this. Literally.

[Odinson]

Fear overwhelming all. Not a good combination with any nanotechnology. A few things come to mind..

• Encourage people toward independence from the grid. Especially stockpiling day to day goods.
• Encourage collaborative biological science. Make IP law less aggressive to those perusing science for the common good, so more people are ramped up. We are one engineered virus from the apocalypse.
• Enforce immigration law, or change the law so it can be enforced. People don't attack cultures they are part off.
• Fix the trade gap. Increase American manufacturing. The numbers of goods flowing into the country are uncheckable. It's fiscally impossible. Too many containers.

locks on cockpit door would not have stopped 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door."

Read the 9/11 commission report. Pilots testified they would have unlocked the cockpit doors if the hijackers threatened to kill flight attendants.

London vs California

[Nymz]

Well said, I am from London, And I simply see Americans as just normal people, with a little bit different culture, and a slight accent.. other than that... just normal.

Well, I am from California, and I couldn't disagree with you more vehemently. It is you that has the slight accent. :-)

Getting Ideas is good policy; but 9/11 and locks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting ideas is a good policy. You do need a little wisdom to filter out the good ideas from bad ones, but the policy of getting lots of ideas, from different, even "crazy" sources, isn't bad.

However the article summary goes and says that locks would have stopped 9/11, which is simply wrong. 9/11 worked because standing orders were to Give In to hijackers, since for hijackers that would generally avoid violence. So even if they had 100 locks on the doors, they would have OPENED them up for the "hijackers".

Locks could stop a NEW 9/11, but so could a hundred other things. The difference is that people no longer expect that you should give in to hijackers.

Absolutely.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that a cultural change to one of resistance, one that venerates the 'one who stood first' would be a good thing, in many ways.

Absolutely. There is one simple reason why airplanes are so much easier for terrorists to take over than, say, restaurants:

In restaurants, everybody gets a steak knife.

On the airplanes, we've spent billions upon billions taking everything that could be used as a weapon away from everyone who boards the airplane, creating a tangible power vacuum. If instead we simply handed everyone a steak knife as they got on the airplane, no terrorists with box cutters would last more than a second or two. In fact, no terrorist could be any more effective on an airplane than walking down the street.

There was an incident a couple years ago, where a man walked into a McDonalds and started shooting people, much like Virginia Tech. That is until a guy eating a burger pulled out a handgun and shot the man. The man with the handgun in his coat was not a dangerous man, and his handgun was no threat to anyone. He was in fact a source of stability.

Virginia Tech has a large military contingent, and thus plenty of people who should be qualified to use firearms responsibly. However, it's illegal to have a firearm on the campus of Virginia Tech. So when the guy started shooting dozens of students, he was the only one who had one. If one other student or teacher in that building had been allowed to be armed, dozens of lives could have been saved in an instant. Try explaining to those families why it's safer to have a power vacuum on college campuses.

A culture of resistance is far far more stable than a power vacuum.

And in conclusion, allow me to quote a conversation between Dogbert and Dilbert:

"I've been thinking about how wonderful it would be if all people renounced violence forever."
"That's a beautiful thought, Dogbert."
"If nobody else was violent, I could conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter knife."

Re:2 orders of magnitude? still far too much

[khallow]

On top of all this, I don't even agree with your 2 orders of magnitude standard--why is the life of one who died from diabetes worth 100 times less research money than the person who got a plane flown into them by a Saudi with a boxcutter?

Because the former causes don't grow when you ignore the problem. If we say "Oh well, cancer research not worth the bother", then it'll continue to kill about the number of people it currently does. Even influenza deaths don't really change that much and that's an infectious disease. If we do the same for terrorist attacks, then it'll encourage the people who benefit from terrorist attacks to mount more. And terrorist attacks are intended to cause lots of damage.

Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that the response to the terrorist attack caused more damage economically than the original attack did. Even though I think it's a good idea to expend considerably more resources to prevent homicides, the scale of the current effort far exceeded the danger. As you say, cancer research should be getting somewhere around half a trillion or more USD each year, if we were funding it to the level that the 9/11 response was funded.

Dont bother...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had a 9/11 every single day of the week, it would take over 280 years to kill all of us. Thats without counting all the thousands born every day.... When did americans become such pussies? knock down one little building & we're all quaking in our boots.

Power of pride my ass, pride makes you weak.

The government's motive ...

[constantnormal]

... is NOT to devise a better policy. They already have a policy that involves a ginormous bureaucracy, a multitude of ineffective measures, and billions of tax dollars being spent. They have no intention whatsoever of changing this.

They're merely looking for ideas they haven't previously considered in order to bang the drum for more money.

If the assembled writers were to advise them to replace scanning shoes and slow checkpoints with random searches and speedier scanning technology, odds are that it would be received and immediately shelved, as it would reduce the number os TSA personnel currently employed to muck up air travel, which would lower personnel budgets and improve air travel. THAT's not the sort of goal our government is seeking.

Remember that the shoe-bomber was stopped by a flight attendant, UA flight 93's attack on Washington was halted by the passengers -- AFTER the terrorists had control of the aircraft, the plot against Fort Dix was foiled by the video store clerk who reported them to the Feds. As others have noted, there is no longer ANY threat of airlines being hijacked, due to cockpit doors being secured on all airlines.

For all the billions upon billions spent by Homeland Defense, they have precious little to show for it.

Score 5: Liberal Defeatists

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every "the US is such a bully" and "don't shoot the terrorists" post gets a score 5 Insightful or Informative? If the rest of the world wasn't busy getting kickbacks from Sadam's illegal bribery from oil-for-food Bush would have looked like the greatest American hero...

Instead everybody's on the take except the US and we wind up the bad guys. Score 5: True!

Redundancy...

[SvnLyrBrto]

If you've just stepped off one aircraft (an international flight, no less) is it not a reasonable assumption that you were screened for security before you got on *THAT* flight, and a second screening is a redundant waste of everyone's time?

> Fortunately for me, customs waved me through without so much as wanding me.
> Unfortunately, that isn't what customs is supposed to do.

And for that matter, the customs types aren't there to make sure you don't smuggle a gun or a bomb onto a plane at all, are they? Maybe something's changed since the last time *I* left the country (pre-9/11, granted), but from what I recall, customs are a bunch of wastes of flesh and oxygen who are there mainly to have a stick up their asses about making sure you've paid any tariff or duty on any souvenirs or shopping you've done while you were overseas.

cya,
john

Neo-fascism, fascism with a happy face

[Chris Burke]

Would we see death camps and Stalinesque tactics? No, I don't think so. Michael Moore and Rosie wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned, much less shot, Ann Coulter's book sales notwithstanding. But a "unitary Executive" or whatever his lawyers are calling him this week, in charge of the entire federal government, exempted (de facto, if not de jure) from oversight or checks/balances by the legislative and judicial branches, who can suspend elections at will--what else do you really need? As long as there wasn't any slaughter or mass imprisonment, which there wouldn't be, would people really take to the streets for democracy? I wonder.

Michael and Rosie won't be rounded up because they are necessary aspects of the new fascism. Old fascism was very overtly oppressive. Saying anything bad about the fascists was going to land you in serious trouble. Basically by trying to prevent people from saying that they were fascists it caused everyone to be made well aware that they were fascists.

Whereas that kind of overt fascism would be too much for America, where we at least value freedom of speech (or the illusion thereof) enough to get pissed if someone explicitly takes it away. So, someone has a brilliant idea: fascism + freedom of speech. You can say that they are fascists, you can complain about every abuse of power, every corrupt act, every illegal act, on and on as much as you want. Their response will be two things: "That's a crazy conspiracy theory" followed by "But the beautiful thing about this nation is that you are free to say that, God Bless America", and then they'll go about doing what they were doing all along.

And because of the slow ratchet you describe, most people will just nod their heads. After all, the opposition did get to say their peace, didn't they? How could they possibly be right and free to say so at the same time? If the government were really fascist then Michael Moore would be locked up, right? Of course it didn't stop the warrantless detentions, domestic spying, or any of the other things that are actually fascist. Free speech is just a release valve for the anger that these behaviors cause.

So no, nobody is going to rise up to fight for democracy because they won't even realize they've lost it thanks to the new PR friendly face of fascism.

simple solution

[Lislea]

JarJar Binks next to those places you need protected, when defending doesn't work just annoy them to death.

Ah, the "overrated" mod

[Flying pig]

Because you don't get metamoderated so you don't lose Karma - brave little fellow aren't you? So what did you object to? The suggestion that the US and Israel keep trying approaches that don't work terribly well? Or the suggestion that Larry Niven's sociology is two dimensional?

I guess the former. Because in fact the "overrated" mod is exactly what I complain of in the current US neocon thinking. It isn't engagement - e.g. responding with your thought out objections - but aiming an anonymous projectile from a hidden location.

So I guess you are a socially dysfunctional gun nut anonymous coward. Now you can bravely use another mod point to mod this "overrated".

Yes, go on.

[Loundry]

blah...blah...port security...blah..blah...mid-east oil...blah...blah...

Should I go on?

Yes, you should, becuase you left out the singlemost important manner to combat "terror"; one that we should have started long, long before 9/11 ever happened and one that we have yet to take and continue to ignore at our own peril.

We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.

Re:Yes, go on.

[FauxPasIII]

> We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.

Quite agree. How do you propose we do that? Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?

Re:Yes, go on.

[Loundry]

Quite agree. How do you propose we do that?

That is a good question. I'm afraid that the harder part is not answering that question, but first convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.

My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates. Let Iran's neighbors know which one will be next until they agree that political Islam must go. The question is not whether or not we have the means to do this, but whether or not we have the will.

At the same time, there needs to be a concerted effort from "moderate" Muslims to destroy the Jihad ideology from within. So far, there is almost no such effort which raises the question at how "moderate" these Muslims really are. Instead, we get the "soft jihad" from front groups like CAIR to whom far too much credence is given by this moronic administration.

Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?

It advances that goal in no way at all. We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated. The idiotic nation-building and futile, politically-correct effort to "win hearts and minds" is destined to fail. It is appeasement and the continued bloody resistance which drains American blood and treasure is the fruits of said appeasement.

Re:Yes, go on.

[FauxPasIII]

> convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.

I disagree. I am a progressive liberal as are most of my friends, and I am quite sure that none of us would disagree with that statement. This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right (but I repeat myself). We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.

> My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates.

And this is where we disagree: on the methods. For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam. To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.

More pressingly, scorched earth isn't even going to work, and the reason why is right their in your statement "until Iran capitulates". Take a closer look at the political Islam that we're fighting. Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up! All you're going to do by taking out mostly moderate cities is stir up people who wouldn't have otherwise been a problem, and suddenly you have 50 times as many terrorists to deal with. That, incidentally, is exactly why we're having the problems in Iraq that we are.

> We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated.

Same objections as above, with the additional proviso that Iraq DID capitulate. All Saddam ever wanted was to keep his little despotic regime intact, and he would have done (and did do) anything we told him to. He had no WMDs. There were inspectors crawling all over Iraq that had to be pulled out before the bombing began.

Re:Yes, go on.

[Loundry]

This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right

I do not think it is an invention at all. While the legacy media and far right may very well be saying that the left "doesn't want to stop violent fundamentalists", it is the left itself that is allied with the mujahedin in many cases. While that may not apply to you (and I take you at your word that you oppose the mujahedin), it does apply to those leftists who wear kaffyehs, wave "palestinian" flags, and show sympathy for Hezbollah. There seems to be a rift in the left as to whether or not sympathy should be shown toward "oppressed" muslims. Hyper-"progresssive" Ken Livingstone, disgraceful mayor of London, stands as a shining example. George Galloway, another "progressive", outshines Livingstone in his support for mujahedin. So I don't see it as a false dichotomy at all. Rather, I see it as a problem that "progressives" must face, particularly in that mujahedin hate gays, oppress women, deny freedom of conscience, support slavery, perpetrate female genital mutilation, and foment imperialism -- all of which are positions that "progressives" have traditionally stood against.

Now, it seems that the "progressive" stand against those evils is weakening as more and more "progressives" ally themselves with the stated enemy of the United States.

We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.

The "_all_" may refer to you and your "progressive" friends, but it does NOT refer to "all progressives". Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, et al are opposed to your position. They regard the USA, not jihad, as the real threat. That is why these useful idiots forge bonds with the mujahedin and act as their apologists.

For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam.

That position of yours makes the usage of "human shields" into an effective tactic. We need to be less concerned about civilian casualities if we want to defeat the mujahedin, because they have proven again and again, through words and deeds, that our love of life and mercy is something that they are fulling willing to exploit in the pursuit of our destruction.

To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.

Their mujahedin can strap a bomb onto a six-year-old child and blow up our Rangers and Seals and score big points with our own "anti-war" groups at home by doing so. Our enemies know this. Why don't you? They are not afraid to kill themselves and their own children to destroy us, and if killing their children makes us look bad, then they regard that as victory. The mujahedin do not love life like we do. Take a look at this to read the mujahedin in their own words.

Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up!

That statement comes from your failure to understand Arabic Muslim culture. The reason they are blowing themselves up is because those type of attacks are proving to be very effective at their stated goal: getting US soldiers out of "muslim land". Their suicide attacks receive effusive reporting from gutless legacy media in the USA who would love to have the Iraq war fail in order to score political points at their hated enemy (W). Do you think that sucide attacks would continue if we immediately killed Muqtada Al-Sadr and every human within 10 miles of him, and then *systematically* laid waste to Fallujah with promises of which cities would be next unless the attacks stopped? (Do you regard our enemy as unbreak

Re:Yes, go on.

[FauxPasIII]

Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point. I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us. I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.

Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.

In any event, I think this is a good place to leave this thread. Thanks for a civil discussion. =)

Re:Yes, go on.

[Loundry]

Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point.

You're absolutely correct. My goal with you is to find some common ground between our differences so that we can see each other as allies rather than as enemies. The main points of contention between you and me, the ones that I hope one day you can bend, is that I believe that it is worth becoming more ruthless than our enemy in order to save our lives and our Western culture, whereas you would prefer to bow to values such as compassion, compliance, and cooperation whatever the cost. I believe that our enemy will make a monster out of me if I have to be in order to save our own lives whereas you believe that being a monster means life isn't worth living. I may have pegged you wrong, but it's what I run into quite often in many failed discussions with "progressives". They simply don't want to believe that sometimes ruthless and limitless violence is both necessary and right.

I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us.

(Pre-argument 1: I don't understand that differences between "kill the infidel at any cost" and "radicalized" -- doesn't the desire to kill the 'other' denote a pretty radical person?)

(Pre-argument 2: The jihad position is not "kill the infidel at any cost". The jihad position is that we kafir have three choices: submit to Islam, become a dhimmi, or fight -- Sura 9:29. Notice that "dialogue" and "diplomacy" are not among the choices that the mujahedin offer us.)

In any case, you are making two different flawed arguments:

1) The "bad Muslims" are only a "tiny minority of extremists".

How tiny? 10%? 10% of 1.5 billion Muslims is 150 million people who are willing to strap bombs to children to kill us. 5%? That would be "only" 75 million people. 1%? Again, "only" 15 million. In any case, your admission that you cannot prove that there's only a "tiny minority" of bad guys is an admission to wishful thinking, an admission to pure hope. What if that hope turns out to be wrong?

2) "Bad Muslims" are bad because they are poor.

There have been so many cases of mujahedin acting out in jihad who are NOT poor and who openly state their ideological motivations to murder that I can't believe there are still people who push the "If we pay them off, they'll stop attacking us" trope. Most liberals have backed off that line by now.

I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.

Your suspicion is entirely correct, and I'm not surprised that you figured I would think that way because you admit that your position is based on wishful thinking and is easily disproved. My guess is that you are afraid to face the reality that there are millions of Muslims who give us those three chocies I mentioned above -- a world where those millions of Muslims grow stronger every day and those of us who stand up for liberty are facing a crisis in self-confidence -- a world where beloved Europe is disintegrating right before our very eyes. It must be difficult for "progressives" who are so used to having the right solutions to "social problems" and then finding that their solutions are completely inapplicable and, in fact, suicidal when faced with the reality of jihad.

Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.

The poster you referenced did a very good job of describing the ideological divide and, like you, was honest about their feelings

Re:Yes, go on.

[DavidTC]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Iran is Shia. We have no problem with 'political Shi'ite Islam' as you would call it. They haven't done anything to us.

We were attacked by Sunni fanatics, supported by that 'political Sunni Islam' entity, Saudi Arabia. Our good and dear friend Saudi Arabia. (I've been watching too much B5, apparently.)

Sunni Islamic nations shelter al qaeada. Sunni Islamic nations support it with money. Sunni Islamic nations are, apparently, also our friends, and we're supposed to be at war, now, with Iran, the one regional power that isn't Sunni.

Is everyone on the right as stupid as this? Your rant is like complaining about 'Christian politics' because the IRA attacked you, and then saying we should be going after England because they are officially Church of England.

If the problem is 'political Islam', why don't we deal with the political aspects of the part of Islam that actually attacked us first, and worry about the rest later?

Re:Yes, go on.

[DavidTC]

Saddam was certainly our enemy, but Iran has been a much bigger enemy than Iraq ever was since 1979.

I know, it's so sad when respectable Presidents commit treason. The impeachment trial of President Reagan for providing material aid to our enemies was gutwrenching. I've always said he should have merely been imprisoned instead of executed.

Incidentally, if Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq, and Saddam was supporting the mujahedin, which was an Iranian resistance group fighting the Iran government, than that would imply that Saddam was actually helping us, wouldn't it? The enemy of our enemy and all that?

The logic of right-wingnuts is so hard to follow sometimes. Reagan=Iran-helping traitor, Saddam=Iran-fighting hero?

Let's all just talk about it

[Loundry]

the Brits spoke to the IRA, even after the IRA were terrorists, and now the IRA isn't blowing up trucks full of explosives in London. It's not as if terrorists don't have stated goals - Al Qaida have said a million times what's pissing them off, and yet we don't do a damned thing about it.

(Sarcasm on.)

Yes, this is obviously an awesome idea because the Catholic Irish and the Muslim Arabs are culturally identical. This is why if talking works with one, then talking will clearly work with the other. It's the only way!

(Sarcasm off.)

The only way to stop this is to not be a target.

That reminds me of a song. We're all geeks here, so everyone join in:

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die,
O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen-

dave420: That's... that's... er... enough music for now lads.
Looks like there's dirty work afoot.

Step one...

[ivanmarsh]

Step one: Read the terror alerts and watch lists you already have.

Step two: Do more than NOTHING about them.

Correction

[Loundry]

After all, post 9/11, Richard Reid the infamous shoe bomber got on with explosives that might well have downed the plane. He was stopped by alert passengers, not by the bureaucracy.

Dude*, I think you meant to write that he was stopped by "Islamophobic, Zionist vigilantes who probably voted for George W. Bush". You better get some nuance before I call you a racist.

Gore / Gravel '08!!!!!!!!!!!!

(* I wouldn't actually start a post with the juvenile "dude". I'm just working on earning some "progressive" street cred. Let me know if I sound insufficiently edgy.)

Re:stop being a racist coward

[WilliamSChips]

You also invented Doctor Who.

Is fear the enemy?

[Loundry]

Your response is indicative of the classic "progressive" rhetorical response to concerns about the jihad ideology. To wit: "If you are concerned about jihad, then you are completely engrossed with fear, and that means you are a willing victim to the scare mongering of the REAL enemy, which is George W. Bush and the right-wing."

In short, I regard it as militant stupidity.

We've forgotten our own home-grown terrors, like Timothy McVegh and Ted Kazinski because they look like us and they talk like us.

I have forgotten Timothy McVeigh because he is dead and Ted Kaczynski because he is safely in prison. Thus, they are no longer credible threats. Compare that to the jihad threat, which may be only a "tiny minority" of 1.5 billion people. Say, 10% of 1.5 billion people, meaning, 150 million people who are NOT dead and NOT in jail. But you weren't aiming for a fair comparison of different threats; instead, you were aiming for the rhetorical victory by means of moral equivalence with a little bit of accusation of xenophobia (read: racism) thrown in.

Instead of teaching people about islam

Interesting that you bring that up because I completely agree with you that people should learn more about Islam. But, somehow, I suspect that when you mention "learning about Islam", you are actually promoting compliantly accepting the taqiyya of the proponents of soft jihad, such as CAIR. But I could be wrong, so let's test your knowledge because I think that will reveal where your bias lies:

1. What is the Sunnah?

2. What are Bukhari and Muslim examples of?

3. What is Jizyah?

4. How are the Suras arranged?

5. What is a hudna?

6. How many offensive battles did the Muslim prophet Muhammad lead?

7. What is a dhimmi?

Then we will have a much smaller problem to deal with when it actually happens instead of a ghost enemy that is primarily our own fear that we're fighting to our own ruin.

With your head planted firmly in the sand, you don't have to look Hezbollah squarely in the eye and face the fact that "Death to America!" has been their motto for decades. They might as well be a "ghost enemy" when you choose not to see them.

Re:Is fear the enemy?

[bkr1_2k]

I am neither militant nor stupid about this subject. I'm not denying that there is a valid threat in terrorists, or that Hezbollah is a militant group that has espoused hate for a long time. I'm just saying that not everything is a terrorist threat. I'm also saying there are far more terrorists out there than the currently popular muslim extremists and it's not all "jihad" as some people are claiming. We haven't been hearing about any of those threats lately, though. Should we be concerned about terrorists? Yes. Should we consider all terrorists jihadists? No. Should we consider all muslims jihadists? No. That is the only bias I have.

To answer your questions with my admittedly limited knowlege of the Koran and Islam:

1) The sunnah is a traditional way of life according to the teachings of Muhammed.
2) As I understand it from conversations I've had, Bukhari and Muslim were people who had a certain interpretation of the texts that describe the sunnah. I'm not sure if I'm correct that they were specific people, but I do know that Bukhari is "short for" al-bukhari, which means "from Bukhar" or something like that, implying that it was indeed a specific person.
3) Jizyah, is more or less a religious tax on non-Muslims.
4) I have no idea how the suras are arranged.
5) A hudna, is some sort of truce, I believe. Looked that one up on google though.
6) Again, I don't know anything about offensive battles Mohammed led. I would imagine it's a particularly important number though, so I'll go with whatever number of virgins martyrs get when they die. How many has the Pope led, (personally or just on paper) I wonder?
7) Again, a dhimmi is a non-muslim citizen of a muslim state who has lower privelege than a muslim citizen. I would guess these are the people who pay the jizyah.

I'm not a scholar of the Koran, I just don't think people should be ignorant of it either. Obviously you have some belief that Islam teaches people to be terrorists, or sets a heirarchy of rights based on religious preferences. I ask you to define one of the major religions (excluding perhaps Buddhism) that doesn't do that. Especially in ancient texts without the benefit of modern translation and interpretation. Most of the world understands that the people who espouse those things are doing so for means other than religion and are interpreting the words incorrectly or "too literally".

I personally don't give a damn how many battles Mohammed led to spread Islam any more than I actually care about the specifics of the first, second or third crusades. None of those wars were actually about religion so much as power and that was also part of my original point.

What you claim I'm speaking as a "classic progressive rhetorical response to concerns about jihad ideology" is nothing more than my belief that people should investigate and weigh both sides of an argument before making a decision. You seem to think that taking direct quotes from 2000 year old documents as gospel is somehow the modern belief structure of most religions, and I disagree.

What I will agree on is that people who are extreme fundamentalists of any kind are scary. They don't understand progress, they don't want progress, and they certainly don't want people educated to think for themselves. It seems to have worked on many people, but calling me names and saying I'm stupid because I happen to harbor a different belief system than you just makes you look like one of those people.

Re:Is fear the enemy?

[maxume]

Let's assume that 20% of Muslims are jihadist. Do we want the other 80% as enemies or allies?

And then there is the debate about whether economic or military tools are the better weapon.

Re:Is fear the enemy?

[ocbwilg]

Let's assume that 20% of Muslims are jihadist. Do we want the other 80% as enemies or allies?

While we're at it, let's assume that 20% of Christians are Klansmen. Those are both seriously ridiculous assumptions.

Re:Is fear the enemy?

[maxume]

Hi ocbwilg, I'd like you to meet my friend context. See, in context, I was intentionally making a ridiculous assumption, because my point holds for any percentage of jihadist Muslims lower than 20%. See, if 0.01% of Muslims are jihadist, we really don't want the 99.9% that aren't as enemies, so if you accept the point for 20%...

Or did you mean that it is ridiculous to assume that only 20% of Muslims are jihadist?

Re:Is fear the enemy?

[DavidTC]

I have forgotten Timothy McVeigh because he is dead and Ted Kaczynski because he is safely in prison. Thus, they are no longer credible threats. Compare that to the jihad threat, which may be only a "tiny minority" of 1.5 billion people.

Charles Ray Polk
Sons of Gestapo
Willie Ray Lampley, Cecilia Lampley, and John Dare Baird
Joseph Martin Bailie
Peter Kevin Langan
Ray Hamblin
Larry Wayne Shoemake
Robert Edward Starr III, William James McCranie Jr, and Troy Allen Kayser
Gary Curds Baer and the Viper Team
Eric Robert Rudolph
John Pitner
Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merrell
Floyd "Ray" Looker and the Mountaineer Militia
Eric Robert Rudolph again
Marine Ricky Salyers
Brendon Blasz
Carl Jay Waskom Jr., Shawn and Catherine Adams, and Edward Taylor Jr
Todd Vanbiber
William Robert Goehler
James Cleaver, Jack Dowell, Ronald Sherman, and Thomas Shafer
Playford Glover
Chevie Kehoe, Daniel Lee and Faron Lovelace
Eric Robert Rudolph yet again
Dennis McGiffen and The New Order
Ken Carter and the North American Militia of Southwestern Michigan
Alan Monty Pilon, Robert Mason and Jason McVean
Jack Abbot Grebe, Jr., and Johnnie Wise
Paul T. Chastain
James Charles Kopp
Chris Scott Gilliam
Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams
Benjamin Nathaniel Smith
Buford Furrow
James Kenneth Gluck
Donald Rudolph, Kevin Ray Patterson, and Charles Dennis Kiles
Donald Beauregard and James Troy Diver
Mark Wayne McCool
Richard Baumhammers
Leo Felton and Erica Chase
Steve Anderson
Clayton Lee Wagner
Irving David Rubin
Michael Edward Smith
David Burgert
Charles Robert Barefoot Jr.
Robert J. Goldstein
Larry Raugust
Matt Hale
James D. Brailey
David Wayne Hull
David Roland Hinkson
William Krar
John Noster
Norman Somerville
Sean Gillespie
Ivan Duane Braden
Demetrius "Van" Crocker
Craig Orler

All right-wing terrorists arrested between 1995-2005. All of them planned to kill, or did kill, multiple people, usually by explosives or military-style assault. Some neo-nazis, some traditional KKK, some religious fanatics, some anti-'new world order' loons. Each grouping is a separate plan.

Also, 150 million Muslim terrorists would essentially be half of all Muslim men between ages 20 and 30. I don't know what sort of crazy math you're operating under, but 10% of the entire Muslim population of the world, which includes women, children, old people, is not any sort of logic. And, incidentally, 150 million people could trivially invade and destroy this entire country.

Unpatriotism

[SlowEmotionReplay]

I wish we could at least go back to the days of merely being called "unpatriotic" for holding an opposing view. Today the word "traitor" is thrown around quite a bit (unless of course you happen to be involved in disclosing the identity of a covert agent and you're a highly placed member of the current administration).

Just no vampires...

[briancnorton]

Another prerequisite for this panel ought to be never having used a vampire as a character in any work. I was sick to my stomach when Stargate "jumped the vampire" but then I realized it had been a Sci-fi crutch for decades. All too many sci-fi writers suffer from the same lack of imagination as the politicians.

I'm tired of terrorism.

[br0d]

I'm the customer. I'm a taxpayer. I want my security delivered seamlessly, in black box fashion, with perhaps a power point once a year to show me how I'm more safe than I was last year. In no other client/agent scenario does one pay a full one third of his salary in order to not only receive a service, but to also have the infinite and minute details of that service regularly crammed down his throat against his will, with a side helping of FUD. It's not enough that we haven't been hit since 2001. For this government to be good at securing America, they should also be able to protect me from the details. Vigilance? What is vigilance? Was it my job to be vigilant before 2001? Hoodies won't even snitch on criminals breaking into their neighbor's house, and I'm supposed to spot international spies? If I have to care more in 2007 than I did in 2000, then yes, the terrorists did win. I want a full restoration of the apathy which was mine in 2000, because my taxes didn't endanger us, intelligence failures did. I was paying the same taxes in 2000 as I am now, and I want the same hands-off government service.

Locks on people would NOT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The only problem with the subject of terrorism and the middle east coming up on slashdot, is that the roots go back before anyone here was even born and the simplistic commentary here reflects that fact. Terrorism is a hard problem to solve because people are a hard problem to solve. And the present situation benefits too many people on all sides to change.

Israel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always figured that they'd nuke or threaten to nuke Israel if anyone. It's not like they seem to mind killing themselves in the process.

Indeed

[DrYak]

People with a fundamentalist religious belief that all non-believers must be converted, subjugated or killed will stop hating you if you have complex diplomacy and a well thought out foreign policy?

How many are the country who are either laic or have a different official religion ? A lot.
How many of them are the target of large scale terrorist attempts ? And are touted to be the root of all evil and the embodiement on earth of satan/chtulhu/whatever other evil deity ? Not that much.

As said by other /.ers, a country must try not to be a too easy target and provide too much arguments to be easily made as a scape goat by terrorist recruiters. The USA's foreign policy may contribute (among other stuff) to make it the best hate-target among extremists in middle east. Russia's handling of the tchetchene question may also have attracted much hate from that group. Meanwhile there are a lot of laic wealthy occidental country in europe that don't get such bad attention.

I've never said it would be easy. I just say that this method - trying to be less hateable by helping rebuilding or developing culture instead of sending the war-machine at the slightest doubt - usually brings much more success than trying to put a wall in the middle of an airplane, which will only move the problem to another place.

If terrorist are desperate enough, they will always try to find a way. Instead of trying to block some possible way (and in the process, diminish even more people's freedom), try to have them less desperate.

Re:Indeed

[rohan972]

I recommend you to become familiar with the terms "dar al-harb" and "dar al-islam"

From wikipedia:
Dar al-Harb (Arabic: "house of war") is a term used to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. The term traditionally refers to those lands administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice. The inhabitants of the Dar al-Harb are called harbi, as opposed to dhimmi. A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live.

Dhimmi is another word to understand. Here's a good article about "dar al-harb" and "dar al-islam" http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicextremism/a/dar alharb.htm

I note that it seems "dar al-harb" and "dar al-islam" are traditional teachings, not the product of a fanatical minority group. The fanatical minority groups just take them more seriously and implement them. The idea that there can be lasting peace between Muslims and non-muslims is a dangerous fantasy. No action of self ruled non-muslims can make them not be dar al-harb. Diplomacy and "trying to be less hated" will never be sufficient.

But what about 9/11

[Maltheus]

9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

9/11.

Watch the shiny 9/11 go back and forth, back and forth. That is all.

p.s. 9/11

when terrorist attack the plane ...

[porky_pig_jr]

start hyperdrive and plunge to a nearby black hole.

Re:stop being a racist coward

[dwarfsoft]

/me removes tounge from cheek

That it was. Cricket has at least evolved into a variety of games that can be far more palatable, such as Indoor Cricket (my favourite) and 20/20 Cricket. I would be less worried about inflicting Cricket on the world than I would be at inflicting (another boring sport) on the world ;)

I think perhaps the apparent seriousness of my second statement might have been what confused matters.

Back on topic though, couldn't Sci-Fi writers come up with a solution for terrorism by demolishing all governments and religion and replacing them with one leadership? That might solve the problem, but its still not going to happen.

You need Frederik Pohl for that

[fritsd]

Hmm.. he seems to be still alive according to Wikipedia; maybe he could sit on that panel. I liked his book "the cool war" from 1981 and can HIGHLY recommend it, especially now, 26 years later.

Imagine sort of a Foucault's pendulum, but then for terrorism :-).

Might not be the kind of storyline this U.S. administration is looking for though... hm. never mind..

Re:You need Frederik Pohl for that

[Firethorn]

Hmmm... That novel was written a bit before I was up to reading it. Makes me wish there was an ebook version of itunes. Of course, that'd probably drive me broke very quickly.

Still, by your description I'm not sure it'd be that valuable. I'm very much a believer in KISS. Of course, I also believe that great complexities tend to come from simple principles, much like fractals.

So, from a combination of human fallibles, random chance, various things dependant upon the flapping of a butterfly's wings a continent away and a year ago you get a series of events that might seem like the plotting of a demented mastermind.

Don't forget religion

[Snaller]

If you say its ok to blieve in something which is essentially you something you make up, you sanction the notion that "Its ok to choose to believe someone based on how you feel" - which leads to people denying global warming, evolution etc etc.

Save the world - loose religion.

Bruce Schneier

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know anything about security, read or listen to Bruce Schneier. He is brilliant and the basis of his responses are K.I.S.S. - keep it simple.

If the govt was serious about anti-terrorism, they would make Bruce Schneier the anti-terror czar and head of the CIA/FBI and give him full control. If he took the job, the world would be a safer place.

Islam

[Loundry]

Thank you for your response. I think that your answer, this time, is much more intelligent that your last one was. Clearly you are a deep thinker and aren't just parroting the multicultural talking points, which is what I thought you were doing before. This bodes well because I think we can have a good dialogue and that you will be open to what I have to say to you.

I, also, am not a scholar of the Koran, but that is immaterial. To claim that I'm not a scholar is a usual line of defense when I point out what the Koran and Hadith say -- "You're not a scholar, so your observation is invalid." That is an attempt to discredit what I say where I am merely pointing out how violent, imperialist Muslims use the Koran and Hadith as justification for murder, invasion, torture, and kidnapping. Jihad, in other words.

I do not like the term "terrorism" because it is a tactic. I do not like the term "terrorist" because it is subjective. I try very hard not to use those terms when I am discussing jihad. Instead, I use the terms "jihad" and "mujahid" because those are the terms that the mujahedin use. They are descriptive and accurate. That's why I wouldn't say that "all muslims are terrorists". I wouldn't even say "all Muslims are mujahedin". Obviously there are some secular Muslims who would have no problem being my friend even though it is haram to take a kafir as a friend, as many more devout Muslims have pointed out. It is true that 100% of mujahedin are Muslims, and I think every single mujahid should die. I make no apolgies about being harsh and violent toward those who wish to kill me or subjugate me because I don't agree with their religion. Any religion which teaches that deserves to be reformed or destroyed. No exceptions.

Your answers about Islam are mostly very good, and I am impressed by your response (given that I was not very impressed by what you wrote previously). To fill in your missing answers, Mohammed led 75 battles, 74 of which were offensive. Bukhari and Muslim are examples of Hadith, which are writings on the sayings of Mohammed. Without Hadith, there are some suras in the Koran which are too ambiguous to understand. The Suras are arranged longest to shortest. This is important because it obscures the fact that Sura 9, which is either the last or next to last chronologically, is near the beginning of the Koran. Sura 9 is the Sura which abrogates all treaties with the kafir and lays out the "conversion, subjugation, or death" that the Muslim prophet Mohammed commanded on all his people (and abrogates the "no compulsion in religion" Meccan sura that Muslim apologists like to employ as a defense). There is no contradiction in the Koran because of abrogation (nashk): later verses wipe out earlier ones. A hudna is a truce that Muslims make with kafir to stop fighting so that the Muslims can gain strength to attack again. There can be no treaties with kafir because Muslims submit to Allah alone. I see your question about the pope as a non-sequitur because the proper comparison would be to Jesus Christ, who explicitly commanded his followers to love their enemies (compared to Allah who told his followers to kill the kafir) and who led zero battles (compared to Mohammed who led 74 predatory attacks). Keep in mind that I am an Ex-Christian and am not trying to portray Christianity as a good and noble religion. It has a lot of warts. I should know: I am a gay man. But to claim that it is "just as bad" as Islam is retarded.

The reason why it is important to recongnize that the Muslim prophet Mohammed was a vicious, predatory brigand is because he is also recognized as a "perfect model of conduct". That is to say that everything the Muslim prophet Mohammed did is regarded as halal. The Muslim prophet Mohammed screwed a nine-year-old little girl (Aisha). This is why the Ayatollah lowered the age of consent to nine in Iran when he took control of that Islamic shithole. The prophet Mohammed had slaves. This is why slavery is still practiced in Islamic shitholes al

Footfall

[wowen]

In the novel "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, the government hires a bunch of science fiction writers to assess possible threats from a newly-discovered alien race that may attack the earth. They are called the Threat Team. So now we have a real threat team...

No Tom Clancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this group not include the guy who, seven years before 9/11, predicted the use of airliners as missiles?

Also, this groups sounds like the Dreamer Fithp from "Footfall".

Mod Parent Down - Facts are Very Incorrect

[littlewink]

Heck, 360 tons of cash went missing and the public did nothing about it.

As the referenced link clearly states, that was weight of $9 billion U.S. cash shipped into the Civilian Provisional Authority in 2003-2004.

Of the $9 billion, as of 2006 $3.6 billion was unaccounted for. Not that $3.6 billion isn't a hunka change, but the OP is obviously prone to exaggeration. His argument can hardly be worthy of a 5 rating, given his errors and his exaggerations.

Re:Mod Parent Down - Facts are Very Incorrect

[Khammurabi]

Of the $9 billion, as of 2006 $3.6 billion was unaccounted for. Not that $3.6 billion isn't a hunka change, but the OP is obviously prone to exaggeration. His argument can hardly be worthy of a 5 rating, given his errors and his exaggerations.

So it was closer to 144 tons of cash, which is still quite a hefty sum. (More than I or anyone I'll ever know will have seen in his or her lifetime.) I'd have to wager that the poor of a couple major metropolitan areas could have been housed and boarded for a year with that sum.

And it was one fact that was accidentally misquoted, not a whole slew of facts being misrepresented. In addition, it wasn't even a key supporting issue to the argument I was making. It was a statement that claimed that the public is apathetic to the amount of cash exchanging hands. Whether it was 360 or 144 doesn't make much difference, the public still didn't care about it.

Re:Good Idea, wrong group.

[Gnostic Ronin]

I think the idea of having a group think up scenarios is a good idea. The thing is, we've chosen the wrong group. Sci-Fi writers, by and large are athiest, and have fairly strong technophilia. Add to that the fact that the scifi guys in question are Western and most likely American in culture, and you can see the problem. The ideal "Sigma-style" thinktank should be composed of muslims, perferably Middle Eastern muslims. They share more traits with the group whose minds we're trying to emulate. In fact they probably share most traits with Al-qaida (hopefully other than the terrorism-is-good meme). So they'll be more likely to be thinking along the same lines as Al-Qaida. Westerners, for the most part aren't thinking of suicide attacks as a way to heaven (even less so for an athiest). We aren't thinking in terms of such a thing bringing glory to God (even the IRA wasn't attacking in the name of Catholicism), but more likely thinking in terms of political or economic ideas. We can't predict what they'll do because we don't think like them. I can't figure out why the WTC was a target in the first place. It wasn't millitary, and it wasn't government. It wasn't symbolic of anything (like say the statue of liberty or a monument). Wall Street might even have made more sense (to my Western Educated mind), as it's the heart of the American economy. We can't predict the next attack based on what Westerners come up with, even if they are physicists with an imagination. They'll pick targets that appeal to the Western culture, not the Islamic culture. And culture makes a huge difference in how people see the world.

The only solution: propaganda

[fonzee]

You fight them, they'll become more resolved and fight back. You ignore them, they'll want to grab attention 9/11 style. You woud'nt want to lift their living standards by investing trillions into their countries. Hell No. The only way to go is to strike them where it hurts the most. What they are most afraid of. Culture. If you bombard their media with images from the 'good ol western life' it'd eat their fanaticism alive. The young being most vulnurable. "Hell, the country where blonds run on beaches, were you can have food two times a day, own a house, car, telephone must be heaven on earth! and here they'r all dressed in black and I dont have squat" ->> I love america! This would entail stiff resistance from the older lot who's mindset cannot change, but ultimately economics and vision of a better life would prevail and gradually attitudes would change.

Re:The only solution: propaganda

[untaken_name]

Or, we could just air-drop a ton of copies of 'Dianetics' on them. That way, whenever they have any questions, one can turn to the other and say, "It's in the book!"