3 Years and 77,000 bodies later

pete

pat kenny wrote:

To be honest can anyone find an article detailing the last major terrorist attack on the US mainland before the trade center attacks.(Not counting homegrown terrorist ie.Timmothy McVeigy) I'd say you have to go back pretty far.

Most attacks on US targets are in foriegn countries.

Correct.

Recent terrorism attacks targeting the United States
The United States has been the target of several terrorist attacks in recent years.

October 12, 2000: A suicide bomber attack on the USS Cole in Yemen's Aden harbor kills 17 American sailors and wounds 39 others.

August 7, 1998: Twin bombings at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, kill 224 people and wound thousands of others.

June 1996: A bomb at U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, kills 19 Americans and injures 500 people.

November 13, 1995: A bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five U.S. service personnel.

April 19, 1995: A truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, kills 168 and wounds more than 500 others.

February 26, 1993: Terrorist bombers strike the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000 others.

December 21, 1988: The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, kills 270, mostly Americans.

September 5, 1986: Hijackers take over a Pan Am jet at Karachi Airport. Twenty people are killed when security forces storm the plane.

June 14, 1985: Shiite Muslim gunmen hijack a TWA jet carrying 153 passengers and crew, mostly Americans, shortly after takeoff from Athens, Greece. A U.S. serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, 23, was killed and his body was thrown on the tarmac at the airport in Beirut, Lebanon. Thirty nine others were held hostage for 17 days before being released.

September 20, 1984: A bombing at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 16 and injures the ambassador.

October 23, 1983: The bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 241.

April 18, 1983: A car bomb at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, kills 17.

From: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/timeline.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Rock Climber

pat kenny wrote:

There were no mojor attacks on the US mainland in the 3 years prior to the trade center attacks either,and thats with the lesser security messures in place.

True but was there less reason or more reason than there is now?
Bush has píssed off a fair few fanatical groups, far more so than any of his predecessors.
Would the previous lighter security measures keep them from causing damage in the mainland U.S? I doubt it.
Aswell as the usual alarm and door lock
I could put shutters on all windows in my house if I thought there was going to be a sustained attempt to break in while I'm away.
Actually thats what most shops do, don't they to prevent a higher likelyhood of a break in because they know that a window can be smashed and the goods can be grabbed.
Once you get into the states as a tourist or as a citizen, things are as normal as they ever were really aren't they? and surely in the light of what Bush has been up to, that speaks for itself in terms of security and it's sucess.

Victor

Rock Climber wrote:

Is their homeland not more secure,I mean 3 years now since the last incident?

Anthrax? WMD in Texas? 1,150+ dead soldiers. Uncounted dead contractors, security personnel and CIA paramilitaries. Why bomb America when you can bomb Americans in Baghdad?

Hobbes

The Anthrax attacks were US based. Not AQ.

In fact you could account more US terrorist attacks to White Christans then Arab Muslims on US soil. Yet you don't see any serious changes made.

Rock Climber

Victor wrote:

Anthrax? WMD in Texas? 1,150+ dead soldiers. Uncounted dead contractors, security personnel and CIA paramilitaries. Why bomb America when you can bomb Americans in Baghdad?

The first two are minor incidents.
The rest are abroad.
I'm talking here about their homeland security and the strenght of that.
Given the increased threat after Bush Píssing off so many fanatical groups,I'd count no strike in the U.S homeland as a pretty good record for their homeland security?
It's not just luck is it?

dahamsta

Rock Climber wrote:

Thats just plain silly logic.

My point precisely. See how you can spot it when you really try?

Why have they not suceeded?

Where's your proof they've been trying please?

Can't you even see that I'm using your own logic against you? By your logic, I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

adam

sovtek

Alot of "new" security measures were instituted in Europe after the Lockerbie bombing.
The Lockerbie famillies funded a security study and took the recommendations to the relevant government and corporations in America and Europe.
Europe used them...America didn't.
The last I heard the airlines want to go back to private security employees, instead of government controlled security at airports.
This forgets that had the FBI and Immigration followed their own rules and their respective heads hadn't delayed requested warrants in Al Qaeda investigations...at least two of the hijackers wouldn't have been there and 9/11 might have been averted (that ignores what the White House knew before hand).
So all this leads me to the conclusion, that most of it is either window dressing or enables the present regime to root out political enemies.

Rock Climber

dahamsta wrote:

My point precisely. See how you can spot it when you really try?

Where's your proof they've been trying please?



adam

Oh Please Dahmasta,is that the best you can do here? you are trying to tell me here that AlQueda have not been trying to attack the mainland U.S and maintain by extention of your post that they haven't unless I can provide proof which of course short of me being involved with them you know is impossible.

But then to carry on with such an assumtion would be like prefering to watch the little house on the prairie as opposed to the texas chainsaw massacre...

The fact you can't see that I'm using your own logic against you. By your logic, I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

Oh please again... people are prepared and suceeded to fly airplanes into buildings in the U.S killing thousands...
Similar people plant bombs on spannish trains killing hundreds and you expect me to take your posts on this issue seriously when you talk about crusty under pants in the same breath as suggesting that these guys would neither have the know how or the inclination to be currently trying to attack their number one enemy.
You disappoint me.

sovtek

dahamsta wrote:

I can say that we haven't been invaded by aliens for the past seven years because of my magic crusty underpants. You want proof? Where are the aliens?

adam

I want to buy your underpants!

Hobbes

Rock Climber wrote:

Given the increased threat after Bush Píssing off so many fanatical groups,I'd count no strike in the U.S homeland as a pretty good record for their homeland security?
It's not just luck is it?

Homeland security is a joke. A large number of the States have yet to recieve any funding towards homeland security. Those that have, the money has gone to something which won't help homeland security.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4975158.html (use bugmenot.com to read).
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9639790.htm?1c

Mr Moore also points this out in his movie where the two cops are given the job of protecting a whole stretch of Oregon coastline from evil terrorists, and have to close their offices at set times because they can't afford to keep it open.

Ironically, Bushes cabinet tried to outsource homeland security.

On another note, it is believed that OBL took over 4 years planning the 9/11 attacks and probably had sleepers in the US for most of that. These are people who appear to take thier time. But anyway Bush is fuking up the country so much the terrorists are probably laughing.

keu

The US have since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and estimated figures put the current death toll for both areas at 75,000 collectively.

any links for these est figures?

dahamsta

Bruce Schneier says that much/most of the security measures implemented in the U.S. since the 11th of September 2001 are "security theater" and "window dressing", "an enormous waste of money" that "wouldn't make [them] safer". Those quotes are taken slightly out of context, but Schneier has taken nearly every major measure that I'm aware of and dismantled and destroyed it in his newsletters, interviews and Op/Ed (Opinion/Editorial) pieces, which amounts to the same thing. Bruce is a well-known and well-respected security consultant. He's not a fanatic and if anyone can find a partisan line in his writings, I'd be very surprised.

So, there's one reason for my believing that these measures have been done for political reasons, for the look of the thing. Another reason is that for the most of these, you don't need someone like Schneier to tell you -- it's bloody obvious that no-one is going to take over an airplane with a small nail-clippers, for example, and highly unlikely they're going to do it with a nail file. Assumptions yes, but minor assumptions, backed up by a respected figure in security. So now it's your turn I'll ask again: Where's your proof they've been trying please?

Assumptions don't cut it around here as far as I can see. I could assume that I'm the most gorgeous man in Ireland, but unfortunately that may not be true. (It is btw.) Oh, and obviously I mean foreign fanatical groups now, not the domestic ones we can prove have been trying.

adam

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

it's bloody obvious that no-one is going to take over an airplane with a small nail-clippers, for example, and highly unlikely they're going to do it with a nail file.
adam

I see so you are allowed to say that something is obvious and rock climber isn't?
He's saying it's obvious that AlQueda want to attack on U.S soil for what I can see are reasonable reasons and you are saying it's obvious that these guys won't try it on a plane again for reasonable reasons.
So you are allowed to make a simple assumption based on whats going on out there and another poster isn't based on the same idea?
Marvelous.
Does it occur to you that hidden in what you have said there is that they would if they could.

As regards Schneier, whats his agenda only to highlight failings and that can only be a good thing, I'd rather he highlighted them than some Alqueda operative in a bloody way.

Incidently from the end of october as you know all entering the US( only those outside the visa waiver countries have had to do it up to now ) will be photographed and fingerprinted- a good idea in my view if you want to keep tabs on who exactly is coming and going.
I don't have an issue with it,I saw it being done and it's not intrusional and takes seconds.
As well as that I was in the states about 6 weeks ago and was frisked right left and centre, both flying internally and externally and I'm best described as a white anglo saxon type, not arabic looking in any way.
I also had to take my shoes off and put them through the luggage x-ray, everybody had to do that.
I'll be going back next month and feel totally safe doing so.
( mind you I've always believed if it's time to go , it's time to go but I don't expect that to happen )
I fully expect you to come back Dahmasta and state all is not well, but then if I recall correctly from previous conversations I had with you here on this forum, you have a principled position against all these security intrusions aswell don't you? eg the credit card details being given over etc.
I've no problem with any of the security measures, indeed if they could be tighter, I'd have no problems.
Theres only so tight they can go though, and theres only so much tollerance for them too, but that would be no justification for backtracking on those already in place.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

dahamsta

Earthman wrote:

I see so you are allowed to say that something is obvious and rock climber isn't?

Read the next sentence in my post. I'd say "again", but...

So you are allowed to make a simple assumption based on whats going on out there and another poster isn't based on the same idea?

Slight difference in the scale of those assumptions.

had to take my shoes off and put them through the luggage x-ray, everybody had to do that. I'll be going back next month and feel totally safe doing so.

Taking your shoes off makes you feel safe? Fair dues.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

I didn't say anything about Moore, that was Hobbes.

adam

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

Slight difference in the scale of those assumptions.
adam

Ah Dahmasta,thats not fair,if they could get on a plane or thought it was possible, they could do damage, theres not much less in that scale.

Taking your shoes off makes you feel safe? Fair dues.

Along with an air marshall or two and other security measures - relatively yes
I'm not paranoid or anything,I know someone could go wild up there,no need to be afraid.

I didn't say anything about Moore, that was Hobbes.

Oh I know, my apoligies.
Oh and Dahmasta, you're not the most Georgeous man in Ireland I am

therecklessone

ShortAmerican wrote:

who knows better about going to war, top military strategist with all the FBI,cia,and nsa information or a man from ireland whos only infromation source is Sky news, very indoctrinated liberal news, and the internet which is not to be trusted.

Would that be the same CIA slammed for its intelligence failings by the Senate Intelligence Committee in a report released in July of this year?

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked, probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade," Roberts said during the press conference. "Well, today we know these assessments were wrong."

"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war," Rockefeller said. "And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes — if we knew what we know now."

I take it you trust that bastion of patriotism Fox News, so you can read their report at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html

Memnoch

If a country cant trust its own leaders to use their intelligence correctly than the entire democratic system is a fallacy. we have people voting for a leader we can trust to do our will yet when the day is over you cant trust them, i think your thoughts have little backbone becuz u i N I BOTH NEED to know one thing to really answer this question, what does the president know which we dont? can u prove that al qaeda isnt offering the worlds cure to aids if bush will tarnish the us' image, no u cant, we dont know wats going on behind closed doors, this is hard for an irish man to releizze becuz your government is so small and lacks a true miltary. with power comes knowledge, with knowledge comes power, if the us gives away these secrets we only empower our enemies to be stronger.

ah but the US democratic system IS a fallacy, G. W. is a prime example of that. Take a look at the run up to the iraq war, so many times the american's talking about having "credible" evidence, that iraq still had masses of WMDs, but they never showed the world this credible evidence. Off course most were skeptical, and I personally was confident that they were lying, and now no WMDs have been found.

At the end of the day it still comes down to that assumption of your's that I talked about. And so far through his actions Bush and co have shown that they cannot be trusted. So i'm still waiting for you to provide a reason why you're assumption should be upheld? What has Bush done to make us trust him? The evidence shows that he has acted as I mentioned before out of personal greed for wealth and power, which the american tax payer has suffered for.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

Incidently from the end of october as you know all entering the US( only those outside the visa waiver countries have had to do it up to now ) will be photographed and fingerprinted- a good idea in my view if you want to keep tabs on who exactly is coming and going.
I don't have an issue with it,I saw it being done and it's not intrusional and takes seconds.

Except that you are kept on file for 25 years, along with any other data. For example, bank transactions in the US, Visa card, etc. You don't think that is a problem?

How about having a similar sounding name that suddenly gets you flagged in that database. For example the famous Senator Kennedy who was flagged, and took three weeks of personally phoning the head of homeland security to be allowed fly again.

Likewise with Senator John Lewis, who took months but couldn't get off the list. Want to know how he did? He added "Rep." to the front of his name when booking the ticket. Hey presto no harrassment by airport security.

Ok how about the news story of an arab who had a similar name of OBL (common name btw) and was refused to fly. Turned out an investigation that showed two others with the same last name were also boarding the flight which is why they removed him. What they failed to mention was that it was his wife and child.

But it isn't just them. It appears people with certain political beliefs are being stopped (due to being on the list). You can read a list here..

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16240&c=206

Lastly if you think it is ok for a government to obtain information on you without your knowledge or access to that information, then I suggest you go read up one J Edgar Hoover.

Michael Moore? Good film maker, but also someone who takes a lot of poetic licence in his spin.

And ignoring the spin, point out what is false in what he said in the movie (which is what poetic license is).

dahamsta

Earthman wrote:

Ah Dahmasta,thats not fair,if they could get on a plane or thought it was possible, they could do damage, theres not much less in that scale.

Getting on a plane is trivial, false ID can be picked up for next to nothing in the US. Getting weapons onto a plane has also proved pretty easy. If they wanted to, they could; which means that not only are you pulling an assumption out of thin air, it could easily be assumed that you're wrong...

Along with an air marshall or two and other security measures

These would be the instantly recognisable air marshals, who would be the first people you'd take out when you want to take over the plane?

As to other security measures, how about the reinforced cockpit doors? The ones that pilots need to open to go for a pee that is...

adam

AngelofFire

ShortAmerican wrote:

heres the true answer. i live in the us, we are a safer place, we didnt go to war to defeat the terrorists or to find osama. we went to war to keep the war away from us. with all focus on terrorists cell overseas (for me) alqaeda is more worried about staying afloat. is this a valid reason for war. i thinks so, keep the damn guerillas away from us. .

The best way to "keep the dam guerilla`s away" is not to support them in the first place. who gave support to bin laden in the 1980s? America. Who backed guerillas to perform a coup against a democraticly elected government in venezuala 2 years ago so that his buddies in texas could get their hands on the oil? George Bush. Who gave Sadaam hussain the WMDs during the 1980s so they could blow up the commies in Iran? America.

Ajnag

DadaKopf wrote:

there is no Al Q'aeda organization, there is no cohesive global terrorist network, there are dozens upon dozens of separate organizations and groups all over the place killing people for all kinds of reasons connected with Islam.

That actually makes things much scarier. It also means the methods employed by the US and its allies will do nothing to stop the cycle of violence. Staying home and promoting global development might, though.

There is an al-quida, but its not heirarchical but open source(Beware the linux Jihadist's ).As you say there are all these individual groups with their own intrests and views of islam.But al-quida is there as an unbrella organisation and with the net and modern communications is well able to network.Individual orgs can approach aq for funding but aq is probably able to tender for missions as well.If you want proof of aq, then look at the beslan massacre, and the hostage takers statement of intent: To start a war in the causus's.

Thats more then just some regional gripe, It was a full blown statigic move to destablise an entire region that is crucial to the world economy for oil.Al-quida is very real.

And the starter of this topic is correct in that statigic and business intrests have overtake justice for the victims of 9/11.

Just look at the numbers, 25'000 troops used in the invasion of Afghanistan,
250'000 deployed in Iraq.


This book is a great referance for recent history in the region, as well as cataloging the intrests present and the u.s involvment and motivations.

http://www.newgreatgame.com/

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

And back on topic, I ask again, What security measures would you guys like the US to take?

No amount of security is going to make people safer. Nothing short of rounding people up into camps and electronically tagging. might make it safer in the US but good luck trying to leave the country to see the rest of the world.

For example. AQ's orginal demands were the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the US to stop supporting terrorist actions of Israel.

It is better to look at the causes of what caused the terrorist group and combat the human rights issues for those who would be inclined to join/help them. For example the IRA never really had support around WWII, only when civil rights abuses happened in NI did they start gettting members. Likewise with November17, they would not of existed if the US did not support the overthrow of the greek government by military generals.

Villain

DadaKopf wrote:

I know these comments are both late in the thread and a little trite but it's worth repeating: Osama bin Laden has probably been dead for some time as he was seriously ill at the time of 9/11 (can you live without your liver in Bora Bora?) and there is no Al Q'aeda organization, there is no cohesive global terrorist network, there are dozens upon dozens of separate organizations and groups all over the place killing people for all kinds of reasons connected with Islam.

Well I was led to believe Osama was most likely still alive, several tapes have been verified by US Officials to be his voice and these tapes spoke of events long after the twin towers.

Hobbes

On the other hand most of the videos being shown these days are from his second in command. Maybe he is dead, or maybe he is being held for the october surprise.

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

Getting on a plane is trivial, false ID can be picked up for next to nothing in the US. Getting weapons onto a plane has also proved pretty easy. If they wanted to, they could; which means that not only are you pulling an assumption out of thin air, it could easily be assumed that you're wrong...

I travel based on my assessment of the risk Dahmasta,if it's so easy to over run air marshals and take over planes now in the States since 9-11 , why hasn't it been done?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Except that you are kept on file for 25 years, along with any other data. For example, bank transactions in the US, Visa card, etc. You don't think that is a problem?

No to be honest,My bank holds a lot of information about me, to which a lot of local people have access unfortunately,I take that as a fact of life.
The fact that by virtue of me travelling to the U.S, their authorities have some information on me doesn't bother or impact on me adversely at all.
If by some fluke, there happens to be a wrong transaction on my credit card , well I'll challenge it in the usual way.
If it's a problem for you, well then thats your own preogative,I prefer to concentrate on the fact that scrutiny of me, means theres scrutiny of those that may have malace a forethought.

And ignoring the spin, point out what is false in what he said in the movie (which is what poetic license is).

Michael Moore- Lots of re-buttals here
par example:

The film also notes investments in United Defense, a military contractor, by the Carlyle Group, a firm that Bush and his father have been involved with which counts members of the Bin Laden family among its investors. He states:September 11 guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just six weeks after 9/11, Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December, made a one-day profit of $237 million. But sadly, with so much attention focused on the Bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the Bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw.
Moore's phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I prefer to concentrate on the fact that scrutiny of me, means theres scrutiny of those that may have malace a forethought.

Yes, but to what end?

Do you think that someone's bank account number will link to a billed item of "plane blower-upper : 10,000" which will be seen and identified prior to flying?

As for all of the biometrics stuff....all of the hijackers had valid, legal passports. They could have validly, legally had their prints taken, retinal scan recorded, and all of the rest, and they'd still have beeb allowed on those planes.

AS mentioned by someone else above - Schneier (amongst others) has pointed out how little real effect on security most of the steps taken actually have. They make people feel more secure, sure. But they don't make them actually more secure.

Some argue this is also important. I agree - when it is done in collaboration with moves which improve security and not just the perception of it. Most/All of those were shot down for being too expensive to the airline industry, however, leaving the "improved perception of security" stuff more or less on its own.

Personally, it makes me more nervous to know that so many people are fooled into thinking they're more secure....because they'll be more inclined to just go back to complacently trusting the system - which is the real danger.

jc

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

No to be honest,My bank holds a lot of information about me, to which a lot of local people have access unfortunately,I take that as a fact of life.

Thats credit history. Big difference. Also under Irish law you are entitled to see what information they have about you.

The only place in Ireland that I am aware of that doesn't fall under the data protection act is the revenue commisioners and department of education.

there happens to be a wrong transaction on my credit card , well I'll challenge it in the usual way.

It has nothing to do with that. Lets say a terrorist robs/steals your credit card. You will be flagged. If they have a similar sounding name to you, you will be flagged. If you just happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you will be flagged.

And as I already pointed out, having a political opinion can also get you flagged.

Michael Moore- Lots of re-buttals here
par example:

A lot of which has been debunked either here or on MM warroom site. For example the point you made, the Bin Ladens did in fact profit from the group. They didn't leave until October 27th, when it was reported a month previously that they had in fact made a profit from the attacks (WSJ 27/9/01). It is also unknown how much they invested or took out (only 2 million is public). They only left because it was made public.