Essay on terrorism...and it's true threat

[Mithrandir]

Just thought I'd start of my very own controversial thread...

Something I don't quite understand, and very much dislike, is all the hype around terrorism. The law in the US giving up some privacy to "protect the citizens" and other measures is one of the things I hate about it.

Ofcourse it's horrible that 3000 people died in the attack on the WTC, so don't get me wrong, I don't want to make it sound like it was nothing.(same for the 300 in madrid & # in london).

But how many people die each year in traffic? And what's the total percentage of people killed in terrorist attacks?Almost 0%.

The number of alcohol-related fatalities, 15,794, also dropped slightly in 1999 from 15,934 deaths in 1998, according to preliminary estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

(http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm)

around 16000 only from alcohol related accidents in the US.Instead of investing millions in some hunt for Bin Laden

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(with who's capture probably nothing is achieved except a slight dip in morale,after which more people will join Al Queda -but please don't debate this point,it's merely an example of money spent,it's not the point I want to make).

wouldn't it be better to invest in tighter traffic control if saving lives is the issue? Or to improve healthcare ?

Personally I would rather have a 0,5% chance of getting killed by a terrorist attack each day than having people listnen into my telephone calls and rather have the chance to be killed but knowing my taxmoney is spent to improve healthcare (the chance I end up in the hospital with a broken neck is much bigger than dying from a terrorist attack).

I dont know if someone has posted anything like this,sorry if it has.Just curious to hear different opinions...

[Fragony]

Apples and oranges, traffic deaths you control with traffic law and terrorism you control with information, just a matter of picking the right tool. And I think the real trouble with terrorism is not the occasional explosion but the domestic support within some groups, it's a war of ideoligy which is now in our backyards. And it should be dealt with, just like exorbitant alchohol consumption and other things that are not so good for your health.

[x-dANGEr]

Hmm.. Some very good points round their. I don't support US' invasion on Afghanistan, but I admit it was justified. How much money they spent on it isn't really the meter for the whole issue, US gained many things other than 'Limiting al-Qaída', for once, they now have 'planted' a loyal gov, or as some people like to call it, an ally..

[Duke John]

I think it has to do with acceptance. People accept that they have a 0.005% chance of dying in traffic, because they think the advantages of cars is worth the risk.
You could probably save alot of lives by limiting the top speed of all cars to 60 km/h. But people much rather drive faster and sacrifice a few lives instead.

The same counts for cigarettes, powerlines, gas stations and further away companies doing ecological and social damage for the greater good in the Western world.

The current benefits are more important than a possible consequence that is mostly invisible. However there is no advantage of having terrorism and thus people do not accept of having people being killed by it. Politicians make (ab)use that.

As a result I find citizens or soldiers being killed a reason to wage a war silly as in that sense you might just as well wage a war on car manufacturers. So a soldier got killed when pratrolling, so what? Yesterday a kid died when crossing a street.

[nokhor]

you can quantify the billions spent on improving traffic and see a direct correlation with lives saved. the numbers are more opaque with something like terrorism, where the input is coming from outside of your system.

example: say you spent 5 billion on traffic and you save 5000 lives from traffic accidents easy math. but if you spent 5 billion vs terrorism, it's much harder to quantify how many lives you saved because it's much more difficult to know because of plots you foiled, intelligence you gleaned, people you persuaded to your ideology with that money. so your anti terrorrism minister might say, "if you don't spend that 5 billion on terrorism then lives lost will be much greater than the traffic deaths" he can't prove it of course but as a politician, you can't afford to take the risk of ignoring it. how much more destructive would al qaeda be if the US hadn't started the 'war on terror?' no one really knows.

[rory_20_uk]

There is also the issue of not perhaps what everyone wants, but also what people don't want.

In the UK motorists have on several occasions attacked cameras designed to catch speeders. There argument is not that they are all breaking the law, but merely that they don't like this. Perhaps the unstated addition is that they view the increased possibility of death as acceptable as long as they can drive fast.

If the government were to (for example) legislate so that car manufacturers had to program their cars to never drive over the maximum speed limit this would probably save lives AND be very unpopular.

Guns that require either fingerprint ID to fire or some other security measure would again save lives. Again, unpopular.

Cracking down on alcohol can be done by reducing where it can be inbibed and the price. Again, unpopular.

The government doesn't so much want to save lives as remain elected. Looking at the "bigger picture" is not wanted by most when it means that what they want is affected.

Then there is the issue that to annoy one's sponsors is not a great idea either.

Terror allows the government to give military companies masses of money with the only result the population sees is that nothing happens! Reports of this complex destroyed and a 30% reduction in whatever can be trumpted with no evidence, as a cruise missile strike leaves little to sift over. And no attacks have occurred - that must be the massive increase in spending!

[Mithrandir]

Ok, forget my traffic example, use the healthcare or education instead..

[doc_bean]

Why do you hate freedom ?

It had to be said

[Banquo's Ghost]

Terrorism's purpose is to create terror. In this, it is ably assisted by politicians who know that a frightened people can become a controlled people.

We also occasionally have looney moments when the evils of unpasteurised cheese loom large in our lives, or elderly men are threatened with bacterial weapons in the form of birthday cake, and the government rides to our rescue with more laws.

Because most people are rubbish at risk assessment, these panics allow our leaders to manipulate our fears, and thus control our lives.

(This applies even to those who should know better - the recent nonsense in London about 'terrorists' making chemical bomb making being a good example. 'Intelligence' was received about a chemical bomb making factory in a suburban house - yet no-one used their intelligence to recognise it is virually impossible to create a chemical weapon in such circumstances, thus the over-reaction which found nothing was all about frightening us).

[spmetla]

The comparison is also flawed due to issues of total population. Out of the 50,000 or so people in the twin towers about 3000 died. This also happened in a matter of hours. Much higher than 15,000 people in the whole US in a year.

Also terrorism does more than just kill people. Think of the businesses that were affected by 9/11 the impact on the economy and what grounding all air traffic in the US did. Add that to the actual value of damaged targets plus airliners and then clean up/ repair costs.

There is also the issue of national prestige. Most people are somewhat proud of their country big or small but when their country is attacked they feel a need for some sort of pay back. It's the same with individuals that get in fights. Most people when punched in the face will punch back, especially if their peers are watching. No one wants to be walked over, very few ill just turn the other cheek.
A lot of my fellow soldiers wanted to go to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Most (that I asked) didn't really care for the war in the Iraq because quite a few joined up right after 9/11 and wanted to fight the people that attacked America. They did it out of pride of country.

I myself don't like wire tapping. I have nothing to hide but still dislike the possiblility of that power never being relinquished by the NSA and fear the possible splippery slope towards a Big Brother scenario.

As for fighting terrorism, I think many Americans just look at the situation in Israel/Palestine and fear a similiiar situation. While the idea that terror in the US could be carried out like it is in Israel is ridiculous the fact that terrorist were able to do what they did on 9/11 and all the acts before that (USS Cole, embassy bombings, and first Twin Tower bombing) makes people feel venerable and fear a slippery slope towards an Israel type situation.

Hope some of this makes sense, I'm tired it's late a night so my brain is a bit slow.

[rory_20_uk]

What about phosgene?

To make you need carbon monoxide, chlorine gas and UV light. All are easy to create from pretty basic things. The only fly in the ointment is preventing the phosgene created from killing the manufacturers. The origional greator died a few days after his discovery for this very reason.

So, it's a gas. Colourless and odourless. Given that the person who'se got it is going to die, distributing is not difficult. Stabbing a bag with an umbrella (as in the sarin attack) is crude but effective.

So, assuming we want to cool the gas, the run off from the UV chamber is cooled eith either solid carbon dioxide (a fire extinguisher) or if we want to go to more lengths get something cooler. Then decant into a thermos to keep it cool - put a bit of dry ice in as well to ensure a low temperature - and leave on the underground during rush hour.

I assume that at least some of the plotters will be killed due to leaks either during synthesis or release.

No explosives required.
All that is required is bleach for the chlorine, a source of carbon monoxide (either rig a fire to burn poorly for a small amount, or do some basic chemistry such as dehydrate formic acid) and a UV lamp.

[Brenus]

“Terrorism's purpose is to create terror”. It is a little bit more complicated than that. Terrorism in Russia in the 19th Century was to kill the Tsar. In the 2oth century terrorism in France, Germany and Italy by the Red Brigade, Red Army Fraction of the Red Brigades was to destabilize the Western Democracies. The GIA terrorism against France was carry out to “punish” France for her alleged support of the Algerian Government. Most of the time, terrorism has a political aim.

“Also terrorism does more than just kill people. Think of the businesses that were affected by 9/11 the impact on the economy and what grounding all air traffic in the US did. Add that to the actual value of damaged targets plus airliners and then clean up/ repair costs.” Well, that is true for all forms of conflict.
The specificity of terrorism is that it hit against people who believed they were out of reach. What the planes did against US is the equivalent of what the Cruise Missile did against Serbia. However, the Serbs knew they will be attacked, so, somewhere, were prepared for the shock.
Specialists were aware of a danger against US, but not the general population. The terrorist attack suddenly points out a weak point, a gap, for a country too sure of herself. The destruction of this confidence was the political aim.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What about phosgene?

To make you need carbon monoxide, chlorine gas and UV light. All are easy to create from pretty basic things. The only fly in the ointment is preventing the phosgene created from killing the manufacturers. The origional greator died a few days after his discovery for this very reason.

You answered your own question. The bad guys would need a airtight manufacturing room, along with a foolproof delivery mechanism. They'd kill themselves every time.

[rory_20_uk]

Airtight room isn't required if you're prepared for neighbours to die.
And yes, they'd die every time - but how long would it take for them to die given reasonable attempts to prevent leaks?

Get everything ready beforehand, then make it overnight ready for rushour. Spend the evening coughing up bloody lung tissue, along with a few thousand others (potentially).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Airtight room isn't required if you're prepared for neighbours to die.
And yes, they'd die every time - but how long would it take for them to die given reasonable attempts to prevent leaks?

Get everything ready beforehand, then make it overnight ready for rushour. Spend the evening coughing up bloody lung tissue, along with a few thousand others (potentially).

And where are they going to obtain the industrial quantities needed? Ebay? No, at worst, they might kill themselves and next door's cat, Tiddles.

Believe, if it was easy, some looney would have tried it.

[rory_20_uk]

The concentration to be fatal is as low as 2 parts per million Info. So assuming they release in an underground train network where air is recycled the absolute amount isn't that great. And it is fear that is more required than an absolute number of deaths. Even one carriage in one train in rushour is perhaps 100 people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The concentration to be fatal is as low as 2 parts per million Info. So assuming they release in an underground train network where air is recycled the absolute amount isn't that great. And it is fear that is more required than an absolute number of deaths. Even one carriage in one train in rushour is perhaps 100 people.

How are they going to get it to the underground? Last time we saw them they were coughing up blood after making it on their gas stove.

Really, if you want to be paranoid about chemical attacks, feel free. I'm lucky, I happen to have some experience of anti-terrorism intelligence, and thus worry a lot more about cowboy plumbers in white vans.

[Tachikaze]

Mithrandir's point about traffic deaths is valid. It shows that the public isn't interested in the real threats to their lives. The annual death toll from US traffic accidents is 35,000-36,000. The odds of being killed by a terrorist is practically nonexistent. There are many steps that could be taken to minimize traffic deaths, but they are ignored.

The government is redirecting our attentions (and federal funding) from daily issues like lack of healthcare, lack of education, poverty, infrastructure problems, public transportation, etc. toward vague threats from vague enemies. Not only are these threats far less dangerous to our society and individuals, but they can't be solved, at least in the manner that the government uses.

It cracks me up when a conservative writes, "why do you hate freedom?". It the US government that is attacking freedom.

[rotorgun]

Perhaps if the media would stop giving such a great amount of airtime to these maniacs who want to die and have 72 virgins, then the venom would be taken out of their sting. That's half the issue with these fools; they know that CNN will show up and help give them the attention they crave. Like a spoiled child, they should be completely ignored by the media. The sooner they realize that no one could give two farts about them and their so-called cause, the sooner the'll give up this insanity and go back to racing camels, or fornicating with donkeys.

[spmetla]

Bear in mind as well that with traffic accidents they aren't caused soley by an outside force. Driver error, alcohol, and bad vehicle maintanence all contribute and when someone gets in an accident it was one of the two parties faults or if it was a crash into something (telephone pole, wall, etc...) they it was solely the fault of the driver. Terrorism on the other hands is completely out of control of the victim. They could be safe drivers eat healthy and have a good life at home and work and one day bang their dead. This is of course unsettling to people, no one like to know they aren't in control of their life espcially when it comes to the end. Diseases usually give time to accept the end, accidents are unfortunate but their is usually someone to blame and the victim could always have done something to avoid it but terrorism just happens although rarely.

It is shameful how terrorism is used by politicians to spook the populace and make them accept things such as the patriot act. While I don't like the Patriot act or the NSA listening in on me I can accept such things for the short term but when Bush talks about making these things permanent it just makes me fume...what an outrage and attack on privacy and the limiting powers of the branches of goverment!