Has Terrorism been overstated?

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:47 pm

Interesting read.

IMO, the "Al-Queda" threat thing has been way over-pimped. Bin Laden himself even said he didnt expect the planes to destroy the WTC. Not that he was displeased with the result, but come on, OBL did his token attacks on America every few years just to push wealthy Arabs to give him money. To state he had the intent, much less the means, to 'destroy America', is just absurd. It's like saying Ken Lay was trying to rule the world.

I especially like the part in the article where the nonsense regarding the 'dirty bomb' is discussed. I could imagine the snickering of the 'terrorists'- "Oh wow, I just put 1000 of those pig-dog Americans into a higher risk group for cancer! I AM TEH SO COOL 11!!!"

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:14 pm

Interesting read for sure. It would be nice if it is true. Unfortunatley im not sure.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:26 pm

I heard the same thing about dirty bombs on Nova.
Regardless, I don't want cancer.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:54 pm

1. AQ is not the target as much as state sponsored terrorism is.

2. A terrorist attack killed 3000 Americans on our soil. It would be foolish to assume that it could not happen again. Possible targets: schools, sporting events, festivals, certain rush hour situations. All of these are good targets for terrorists.

3. Possibly more dangerous is the affect that successful attacks on our shores would have on our economy.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:13 pm

Poleaxe wrote:1. AQ is not the target as much as state sponsored terrorism is.

2. A terrorist attack killed 3000 Americans on our soil. It would be foolish to assume that it could not happen again. Possible targets: schools, sporting events, festivals, certain rush hour situations. All of these are good targets for terrorists.

3. Possibly more dangerous is the affect that successful attacks on our shores would have on our economy.

My thoughts:

1. 9/11 was not state-sponsored. AQ should be the primary target -- they've been the most effective because as fanatics they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. We have done a decent job of containing state-sponsored terror because it's easier to infiltrate and spot.

2. All of those are also possible targets for any deranged mass murderer or normal person suffering from "road rage." So why aren't we doing more about reinstating the ban on assualt weapons? We're all vulnerable in modern society -- all it takes is one crazy person to kill hundreds or thousands.

3. What is an even bigger hit on the economy is all of the productivity losses as a result of our overprotectiveness, mass psychosis and insecurity about another terrorist attack. Most of the NTSA won't stop a determined terrorist attack -- they just serve as a psychological reassurance. Sure, scanning each person and the bags makes sense as a reasonable precaution. But scanning every cargo hold? All of the "security" that wander about an airport just to provide a visibility? It's government waste, just with a more palatable excuse.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:42 pm

Let's assume they're right about the non-lethality of a dirty bomb - which I don't think they are but let's allow them this for arguments sake. They're forgetting a number of things though. It would non-lethal because the area would have to be evacuated - and then cleaned up. Could you imagine what would happen if a bomb went off in lower Manhatten? All the buildings that would have to be evacuated, all the displaced residents and businesses, and the extremely expensive clean up process? All of this could total billions in costs and take months.

Grifman

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Unbreakable wrote:IMO, the "Al-Queda" threat thing has been way over-pimped.

I have exactly the opposite opinion. My problem is that Al Qaeda, the organization that actually did declare war on America (long before 9/11, but that's beside the point) has been submerged beneath a ton of rhetorical deadweight in the form of other aspects of "terrorism".

Terrorism, first and most fundamentally, is not defeatable. It is a concept and a technique, and short of Enterprise-style time travel to kill the guy who first thought of the tactic, it will never go away, and will continue to be employed by those who fight (for any cause, good or ill) without sufficient conventional weapons to wage a "moral" war.

A "war on terrorism" is, consequently, strategically suicidal - and, frankly, is irrelevant. It's like declaring war on any people who fly planes because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour with them.

Terrorism did not declare war on America, and does not deserve its ire. Terrorism is the hammer, and no one punishes the hammer for what its wielder does. Al Qaeda was that wielder, and logically should be the focus of any retaliation.

To state [OBL] had the intent, much less the means, to 'destroy America', is just absurd.

As for his intent, anyone who's listened to the man and the theocratic political philosophy he spouts knows that destroying America is exactly what he intends. As for the means, anyone with a smidgeon's understanding of how terrorism works (including OBL) knows that he doesn't. 9/11 was designed to provoke a Huntingdon-esque Clash of Civilizations in which the Islamic world would rise up alongside Al Qaeda to defeat America and the rest of the "infidels". "Al Qaeda" itself means "The Base": it is not meant to be the army which will overthrow the West, merely the first building blocks of that force.

Poleaxe:
1. See my response to the first quote from Unbreakable.

2. Zarathud nailed that one.

3. First, it's "effect", not "affect", in that sentence. Second, think about the literal meaning of the word "terrorism". What is most dangerous is responding to one terrorist attack by becoming afraid of another. That fear, and the action or inaction induced by it, is, plainly and simply, the entire goal of the attack.

- Ash

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:21 pm

Grifman wrote:Let's assume they're right about the non-lethality of a dirty bomb - which I don't think they are but let's allow them this for arguments sake. They're forgetting a number of things though. It would non-lethal because the area would have to be evacuated - and then cleaned up. Could you imagine what would happen if a bomb went off in lower Manhatten? All the buildings that would have to be evacuated, all the displaced residents and businesses, and the extremely expensive clean up process? All of this could total billions in costs and take months.

Grifman

They don't need a dirty bomb. They don't need WMDs of any kind, or even something on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing. Three or four suicide bombings in the Hamas / Islamic Jihad mold on American soil would do the trick. Easy to do, minimal cost, and the impact would be unimaginable. Yet it hasn't happened. No pipe bombs thrown into police stations, no buses blown up - not a damn thing. That's a pretty telling commentary on the so-called "war on terror". It's a charade, used to justify an agenda that can only be promoted through fear of an Enemy.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:47 pm

Great post, Ash. Where've you been all my life?

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:07 am

Frankly i'm surprised that AQ hasn't pertedtuated another strike on America. The 9/11 attacks were a lucky break for them ( damn them all to hell though ) which succeeded mostly because of antiquated doctrine used on airlines. We now know that any pilot or passanger would fight back if another terrorist group tried to hijack an American plane. Unfortunetly only one of the planes on 9/11 was able to fight back.

I don't know if Bin Laden is dedicated to launching another large strike, more likely he is either dead or the communication links between the largely self-sufficient cells have been destroyed (more likely IMHO). However I am surprised that none of these sleeper cells have launched a smaller attack like an attack upon a school or simply gotten some guns and started firing randomly in a shopping mall or something.

I'm quite shocked it hasn't happened yet and i'm sure its not the result of increased security. You can look at Israel, probably the most well protected area in the world for terrorism, and they still occasional have those kinds of terrorist attacks. Yet we in North America have nowhere the amount of protect they exhibit and with an even laxer security apperatus.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:42 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:
Grifman wrote:Let's assume they're right about the non-lethality of a dirty bomb - which I don't think they are but let's allow them this for arguments sake. They're forgetting a number of things though. It would non-lethal because the area would have to be evacuated - and then cleaned up. Could you imagine what would happen if a bomb went off in lower Manhatten? All the buildings that would have to be evacuated, all the displaced residents and businesses, and the extremely expensive clean up process? All of this could total billions in costs and take months.

Grifman
They don't need a dirty bomb.

I don't understand your post. They need a dirty bomb to do what I described.

They don't need WMDs of any kind, or even something on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing. Three or four suicide bombings in the Hamas / Islamic Jihad mold on American soil would do the trick. Easy to do, minimal cost, and the impact would be unimaginable.

No, a few suicide bombings would not result in what I described - large sections of a US city would not be rendered uninhabitable and require evacuation. A few suicide bombings might cause a temporary panic. But I think you underestimate American society. Constant suicide/terror attacks have not had the impact on Israel you say they would have on the US. The Israeli's have survived, even adapted - so would the US if necessary.

Yet it hasn't happened. No pipe bombs thrown into police stations, no buses blown up - not a damn thing. That's a pretty telling commentary on the so-called "war on terror".

There all sort of reasons it hasn't happened. Since Al Quade has publicly indicated their desire to strike at the US, the only conclusions are:

1) Either we have been effective in disrupting their network or

2) They are planning something spectacular again and waiting to pick their moment

Do you seriously doubt that they constitute and threat and that the admin is making this up? Funny, the Democrats also seem concerned about terrorism.

It's a charade, used to justify an agenda that can only be promoted through fear of an Enemy.

Oh, yeah, you're right - the attack on the Cole, the Embassy bombing's in Africa, the nightclub bombing in Bali, and of course, 9/11 were all figments of our imagination. It's all a charade, right . . .

Grifman

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:11 am

sorry grif, but you didnt read the article...

"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.

when you disperse radioactive material, it becomes less dangerous, not more dangerous. When you actually go and widely disperse it, like with an explosion, it just becomes even less dangerous, because it will go into the air, get caught by the wind, etc, and get spread out even further from the blast area.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:03 am

Grifman wrote: Oh, yeah, you're right - the attack on the Cole, the Embassy bombing's in Africa, the nightclub bombing in Bali, and of course, 9/11 were all figments of our imagination. It's all a charade, right . . .

Grifman

I had a response to this, but it was eaten as I struggled to adjust the quoting here. I think it's best served by another thread on terrorism anyway. This one is specifically related to the "spectacular attack" idea, rather than a general theme.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:49 am

Terrorism is a real threat that needs to be taken seriously. That is a new mindset for Americans. However, popular reaction to this threat is completely overblown. When did we become such a nation of frightened paranoid pansies? There are more important things than safety at any cost. Our government plays expertly on our collective fear to expand its powers and curtail our rights. We deserve the coming fascism.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:22 pm

Unbreakable wrote:sorry grif, but you didnt read the article...
"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.
when you disperse radioactive material, it becomes less dangerous, not more dangerous. When you actually go and widely disperse it, like with an explosion, it just becomes even less dangerous, because it will go into the air, get caught by the wind, etc, and get spread out even further from the blast area.

Actually, sorry, I DID read the article. And I have read others that disagree with the assessment you quote. But even then you have to deal with the clean up, a point that is being ignored. Even if people don't die, no one is going to go back to work in a contaminated area until it is cleaned up. And removing every bit of radioactive material dispersed by a dirty bomb is going to be extremely expensive from all that I have read.

Grifman

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:05 pm

Since the risks of a yearlong exposure to a dirty bomb, assuming you dont leave ground zero, are so minor, I cant see how difficult a real blast cleanup would be.

Anyone know what the half-life of the nuclear crap they would use in a dirty bomb is? I cant see that cleanup would be any more problematic than the cleanup of a conventional blast.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:58 pm

Unbreakable wrote:Since the risks of a yearlong exposure to a dirty bomb, assuming you dont leave ground zero, are so minor, I cant see how difficult a real blast cleanup would be.

Anyone know what the half-life of the nuclear crap they would use in a dirty bomb is? I cant see that cleanup would be any more problematic than the cleanup of a conventional blast.

Here's a fairly balanced article giving the two different schools of thought on this:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty-bomb3.htm

As noted in the article, radioactive material binds rather well with modern contruction materials, which means you probably have to take down most contaminated structures. Think clean up is easy now? Sure, we can just bulldoze the Capitol, or downtown Manhatten, that's easy enough!

It seems like you have just been reading one side of the debate. There are others who see a much higher risk than the sources in the article originally cited. Here are the three scenarios worked up by the FAS:

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm

While a dirty bomb wouldn't kill thousands, it could render large areas unfit for habitation by EPA standards of allowed radiation exposure. People seem to focusing on the lack of an immediate threat and ignoring the long term implications of such a bomb.

Grifman

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:09 pm

Unbreakable, I am from the school of thinking that any extra radiation people are exposed to is unneccesary. I think something like 3 in 4 or 1 in 4 people in the US gets cancer at some point in their lives. That is an astronomical rate! With the proliferation of cell phones and wireless networking, there are more and more radio waves in our cities, and as these have not been around too long, their effects are not yet known. Speculation about cell-phones giving cancer have yet to be disproven, and it is common knowledge that cell-phone towers do have horrible health effects for those living near them.
So to say that the risk of a dirty bomb being negligable is a bit misleading, in my opinion. No matter how dispersed the radioactive material becomes, I'm sure we would see a raise in lukemia rates in that part of the country.

I did a report on uranium and its effects on the indigenous population of the south-west US, and it was amazing how many places around the country are extremely radioactive. Ask Chris Grenard about his town. Look at lukemia rates in Grand Junction or Gunnison. Try to find a comprehensive number on how many people died from the Chernobyl disaster. The fallout from that explosion went around the world and the radioactivity gave thousands of people cancer. In 2002, a study was completed showing how many people died of cancer due to each nuclear test. The numbers ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand per bomb. http://www.socialistalternative.org/justice29/4.html
Again, the effects of a dirty bomb do seem exaggerated, but not negligable.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:04 pm

Eduardo X wrote:Speculation about cell-phones giving cancer have yet to be disproven

I stopped reading with the illogic of that statement. Do I really need to explain to you the fundamental impossibility of disproving speculation/proving a negative (i.e. that cell phones do NOT cause cancer)?

Logic 101: a negative cannot be proven, and the burden of proof always lies with the person making the assertion. If you want any rational/logical person to accept anything that is not already common knowledge - in this case, that cell phones cause cancer - you do it by proving your own point, not by saying "they do, unless you prove they don't".

And don't even get me started on the rationality of believing the worst of an unproven situation. To finish with a cliche, that's called living in fear, and it's what the terrorists want.

- Ash

PS> rrmorton: TY.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:58 pm

Cell phones causing cancer:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cel ... r_link.htm
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... tearea=PED
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone- ... Q/toc.html

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:54 pm

Eduardo X wrote:Cell phones causing cancer:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cel ... r_link.htm

Let's stop with the headline on this one: "Test Find Possible Link [Between] Cell Phones & Brain Cancer". I read the article just to be sure, but the headline pretty much sums up the problem here. There's no proof in that article, just evidence that we might possibly find proof if we do more looking. Once the more looking is done, we might also find that the primary causal factor is not cell phones, but frequent masturbation to Swedish porn.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... tearea=PED

Now, this one's really underwhelming. Two quotes: from the beginning, "Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation, the type that damages DNA and is known to have the ability to cause cancer", and from the conclusion, "if there is a risk from these products - and at this point we do not know that there is - it is probably very small". You're submitting that as proof that cell phones cause cancer?

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone- ... Q/toc.html

That one's massively long, so I didn't read it, but given that 2 of your 3 articles fail conclusively to prove your point - and one of those two actually argues against it - I see little need to deconstruct this article as well.

- Ash

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:25 pm

You asked me to be conclusive, I was conclusive: I think there hasn't been enough time to do long-term research into whether or not cell phones cause cancer, and thus do not trust them.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:37 pm

I'm with Eduardo on this one. Which may be a first. I am not exactly a health maniac, but I don't put radiation emitters next to my brain.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:48 am

Frankly, I think there can be much more damage from non-WMDs than these "dirty" bombs. Since the terrorists aren't going to be biochemcial/radiological experts, chances are that they'll infect themselves before setting off any bomb. Plus, trying to find the biochemcial/radiological components is much more difficult than picking up the materials for your standard fertilizer/chemical bomb. Terrorists fruitlessly focused on the exotics keeps the danger level lower, IMO.

Besides, aren't all of the preservatives and sugar replacement chemicals in our food really what's going to kill us with cancer anyway? Not that I want to give up my fresh, carcinogenic tasty goodness....

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:31 am

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02 pm

Eduardo X wrote:You asked me to be conclusive

I asked no such thing. I asked you to be rational, and explain how it is rational to distrust cell phones because a baseless scare-story hasn't been disproven. You responded by giving me links purportedly showing "cell phones causing cancer", which failed miserably to prove your point.

I think there hasn't been enough time to do long-term research into whether or not cell phones cause cancer, and thus do not trust them.

So again we're back to my original question: how is it rational to distrust cell phones because we have yet to disprove a fear that their is no factual basis to be afraid of anyway?

- Ash

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:26 am

The unknown is the greatest source of fear. And until it has been proven adequately (note I didnt say conclusively) that cell phones could never cause cancer, people will continue to have doubts.

Walk through a graveyard at night and let me know how much comfort the the fact that the existence of ghosts or the undead has never been scientifically proven is to you.

For my own two cents, Im not entirely confortable with sticking a powerful radio transmitter next to my head, either.

Octopus Overlords

Has Terrorism been overstated?

Has Terrorism been overstated?

Re: Has Terrorism been overstated?