Printable View
In 2,000 I could have legitimately asked you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
We have more restrictions in place today in the UK than during the height of the IRA campaign, despite these jokers being far less lethal.
We take terrorism seriously, by not worrying too much about it.
"Not worrying too much about it." That's your strategy? So, suppose tomorrow (God forbid) 7/7 get repeated, only this time the body count is in the thousands, do you shrug it off and keep going as if nothing happened or do you take measures to prevent it from reoccurring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
9/11 and 7/7 were both the result of incompetence and complacency, what has stopped them being repeated is that the threat has been recognised.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Do you think it's happenstance that they haven't been repeated?
You seem to be evading my question. Suppose the security measures fail and 7/7 happens again. And again. Do you adjust your strategy or do you keep on keeping on? Explosives are cheap, mind you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If it happens again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That'll be another failure of the security services, twice in a decade is pretty good, and if people keep coming at you you'll never catch them all.
Strategically speaking, I wouldn't be bothered. I'd put it down to bad luck.
Here's the thing you don't get: as long as they hate us, they will keep trying to kill us. The nastier we get, the more they hate us, the harder they try.
So the bald answer, if it happened again I wouldn't do anything differently - if successful attacks were carried out on a large scale every year, I would begin to worry. My first question would be to ask where the recruits were coming from.
Suppose the successful attacks are carried out every 6 months. Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You find the cause, you don't keep restricting civil liberties or locking up anyone who might be a Muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Okay, I'll give you the cause. Suppose, the terrorist group is fighting to establish islamic caliphate across the globe. Their demand is simple: convert to islam, establish sharia or the bombings will continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Your response?
I still need to work out why all these young men are blowing themselves up. If the pattern holds, they'll be a majority from British Pakistani, so I'd look at what it is about the British communities in Pakistan that makes them want to kill the people they live next door to.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I know what you're doing, you're trying to get me to say there's a point at which I have to kill them all. There isn't, there are a few ideaological loons, but the majority of the footsoldiers will be disenfranchised young men. You enfranchise those young men and the support will dry up.
This is the same principle as Northern Ireland and South Africa.
"It's the economy, stupid."
Look at Libya and Egypt, you think people weren't angry before last year? Of course they were, but they had more to lose by fighting than not fighting. You need to offer people a better life than one they can get by violence if you want to have peace.
In the meantime, another bomb goes off...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
We've been there before, in Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Do you not know the history?
That's why you're not allowed to leave a bag unattended and you can't find any bins in central London.
gaelic already told you, they twice almost decapitated the British government - and we never caught half the blighters. The ones we did catch we eventually let out, the rest are now in government. We have something approaching peace in NI.
Even at the height of the troubles, with bombs going off every other week we didn't place anything like the restrictions we place on people today.
Of course, during all this time the IRA commanders were invited to Washington and spent St. Patrick's day with the CinC on your armed forces.
So, suppose bombings in London become as frequent as in Baghdad ca 2006. Security is working overtime, most bombers are intercepted, but not all of them. Eventually Scotland Yard learns of a plan for twin suicide bomb attack on two high rise apartment buildings. They do not know where or when the attack will take place, but they have captured one of the people directly involved in the attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What would be your next step?
Question him until a crack appears in his story, that's all you can do. If you keep questioning he'll eventually slip up. Treat him well and he'll start to develop Stockholm syndrome, all human beings want to talk and so will he; if you get really lucky he'll flip.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'm not going to torture him - it's pointless.
We've also been here before - we used to beat the Irish, the Africans, it just made them hate us more. The Troubles escalated because the British Soldiers deployed to protect Roman Catholics were too brutal, rather like the Americans in Iraq.
Kaboom. Too late. Now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then he hated us too much, and we didn't catch him soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If we'd tortured him, he probably would have fed us false information, we would have wasted resources on that. Kaboom.
Oh, and now he hates us even more.
Lose lose.
Resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Anyway, a month later, similar scenario, except this time you know that the attack will occur within the next 16 hours and it is a chemical weapon. The potential body count would be in the hundreds of thousands dead and over a million crippled. Your informant has pointed out one of the suspects and security managed to nab him. He utterly refuses to cooperate, wouldn't say a single word to any interrogator. You now have 14 hours. What would be your course of action?
I'm not going to torture him, he almost certainly won't crack in 14 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Why hasn't my informant found the weapon? How was this weapon allowed into the country across the moat? You're constructing a situation to try to elicit a response from me, you're not getting it.
The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
This is Britain you're talking about. They would not declare martial law, they would politely offer you a choice between behave and Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
OK - now explain how they did it, because causing those sorts of casualties in an urban area is quite a feat when you lack the means to deliver the munitions by air. I suggest for look up the actual effectiveness of chemical weapons before engaging in flights of fancy like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off. 9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...
capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.
There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.
Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.
Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I would be very careful about asserting that something cannot be done. It's easy to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that something like this can not happen.Quote:
Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off.
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.Quote:
9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...
It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...Quote:
capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.
There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.Quote:
There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.
I saw it on TV. I will look for a link. This is the best I can do for now.Quote:
Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.
Anything CAN be done, but you are pulling up totally unrealistic casualty figures to try to force a response from me. You need to think about why this has never happened - indeed, why nothing like this has happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.
Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.
Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.Quote:
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.
It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later. From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.Quote:
It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...
There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.
It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
Does the number of casualties really matter? Say it's mere hundreds instead of tens of thousands. That wouldn't subtract from the fact that a capital city is under siege.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.Quote:
You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.
You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.Quote:
Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.
They were planning to die.Quote:
Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?Quote:
It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later.
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.Quote:
From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?Quote:
It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
You REALLY need to look up the IRA bombing campaign in the mainland, and the casualty figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.Quote:
During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
Winning against terrorists is about more than numbers of lives saved, it's about not being terrorised. If they kill twenty people on a bus and you pass a law that you can only ride the bus naked they win.Quote:
You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.
I realise that, but the rest of the plan was ballsy rather than clever.Quote:
They were planning to die.
I'm not sacrificing my country's principles, our laws, our traditions and our collective soul for the sake of trying to acquire intel. The terrorists are the ones killing people, and torture is neither a viable tactical or strategic option. It produces unreliable intel, taints the prisoner, taints the Service, prevents him being properly prosecuted later - possibly leading to a post-disaster backlash because we have trouble convicting him.Quote:
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?
A successful terrorists attack is one that makes you scared, the IRA was able to scare people without killing anyone, or by killing a few hundred.Quote:
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.
I'm more afraid of you than Muslim terrorists - possibly afraid enough to consider killing you if you looked likely to gain any real political power.
Anything relating to due process, detention or confinement without trial, house arrest, use of tainted evidence, use of torture, use of military tribunals, anything relating to illegal rendition, anything relating to the summary execution of political targets.Quote:
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?
So, "lots."
All these scenarios make me feel like I am in a Bruce Willis movie
Do I get a cool catchphrase and a hot wife I can reconcile with at the end?
Certainly not to invade a secular nation whose leader is on the wannabe caliphates hit list. That would be an absolutely stupid move to attack my worst enemies enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Indeed, we still need him to rule the world. I agree with him mostly. Like in the mating game, being nice is a promise of faillure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So, we're back to "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response."Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The 7/7 victims weren't in a war zone, but they are still dead.Quote:
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.
Who is everyone?Quote:
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
If you do nothing, they also win.Quote:
Winning against terrorists is about more than numbers of lives saved, it's about not being terrorised. If they kill twenty people on a bus and you pass a law that you can only ride the bus naked they win.
You are putting the lives of the guilty above the lives of the innocent.Quote:
I'm not sacrificing my country's principles, our laws, our traditions and our collective soul for the sake of trying to acquire intel. The terrorists are the ones killing people, and torture is neither a viable tactical or strategic option. It produces unreliable intel, taints the prisoner, taints the Service, prevents him being properly prosecuted later - possibly leading to a post-disaster backlash because we have trouble convicting him.
And the more they kill, the scarier the result.Quote:
A successful terrorists attack is one that makes you scared, the IRA was able to scare people without killing anyone, or by killing a few hundred.
Nah, you'll be too worried about violating my rights. At worst, you will send me a strongly worded letter.Quote:
I'm more afraid of you than Muslim terrorists - possibly afraid enough to consider killing you if you looked likely to gain any real political power.
I'm not talking repealing American laws, that's beyond your reach. I'm talking about British laws.Quote:
Anything relating to due process, detention or confinement without trial, house arrest, use of tainted evidence, use of torture, use of military tribunals, anything relating to illegal rendition, anything relating to the summary execution of political targets. So, "lots."
You are quick to state what you won't do, but not so quick about what you would do. Another do-nothing approach, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No you'll get to shoot a Coca Cola vending machine at the barracks on the insistence of Philip who is out of cash and desperately needs to telephone a recall code for the planes send into the air by rvg. Something to do with precious bodily fluids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Seriously, though, rvg: we're not back at "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response". We are at a disagreement as to what a "proper" response is. It comes down to taking the right decision and this can be judged by a simple metric: what good will the TSA do for homeland security (hint: less than nothing), and does that outweigh their cost to the American people (increased airport theft, for one thing) to do it? There is something called "security theater" and the first thing to know about security is that absolute security is a figment of the imagination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGd_M_CpeDI
Doing the same thing means you win like in the Grand National in Aintree people all turned up to watch the mondayQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The ordinary Irish man did not like his horse racing being called off seeing as the best jockeys, trainers and horses are from Ireland it was a massive own goal.