10 ms·

actually I think the smaller terrorist attacks would be much more effective at instilling terror. remember the dc sniper? After the first couple of people were

by vaksel 17y ago

actually I think the smaller terrorist attacks would be much more effective at instilling terror. remember the dc sniper? After the first couple of people were killed, everyone started running in zig zags everywhere they went. blow up a bus or a train once a week, and you'll shut down most cities. It doesn't even have to be a huge bomb. A few fire crackers that kill/wound 1-2 people and the media will do it's job in making people think it's the end of the world. and if they can't get bombs/firecrackers, they can always buy a few automatic weapons at any gun store, and open up on a few trains/buses/malls. Same effect without the boom. Terrorism is just overhyped, since media has nothing better to do. Take 2009..let's list all the terrorist attacks in the United States: 2/4/2009 - Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board wounded in a car bomb.(probably abortion related) 5/25/2009 - someone blows up a starbucks bench(0 casualties) 6/1/2009 - a muslim shoots up a recruiting station(1 dead, 1 wounded) 12/25/2009 - the underwear bomber(0 casualties) So a total of 4 attacks, 1 dead, 2 wounded. And none of them were organized, terrorists aren't the evil geniuses that the media paints them as. In fact most terrorists. are basically just wannabees who've watched the news and want to be part of the "war". You have a bigger chance of getting killed by a falling tree or getting hit by lighting, than you do of getting hurt in a terrorist attack. Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the trillions the United States is spending to fight it. It's all just security theater....make people think something is being done, when in reality nothing they can do can stop any further attacks. But the "terrorists are coming to kill you!" sure does work in getting the public to agree to anything you want.

jacquesm 17y ago
> Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the trillions the United States is spending to fight it Yes, but think about the money that is being made by keeping the hype alive.
zaidf 17y ago
Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the trillions the United States Counter argument to that is that it is because of the billions in spending that actual terrorism is such a rare occurance.
- vaksel 17y ago
  counter argument to that would be, if actual terrorism was being stopped, we'd hear all about it on the news. Terrorism is such a hot topic, that anything related to it, gets non-stop coverage for a week.
  - pwhelan 17y ago
    Counter argument to this would be that we (US) try to avoid broadcasting when we catch people involved in relatively clandestine networks so we can try to continue doing so.
  - edanm 17y ago
    Intelligence agencies don't report on their successes. So how would we know how much terrorism is being stopped by intelligence?
- chadgeidel 17y ago
  You may be playing "devil's advocate" here (and I thought of the same thing), but what about the complete lack of terrorist activity BEFORE 9/11 when we presumably weren't spending as much money?
  - hga 17y ago
    What about the earlier bombing of the WTC? If you go beyond the CONUS, the string of al-Qaeda successes around the world prior to 9/11 convinced Osama bin Laden and company that the US was a "weak horse" ... and boy were they surprised by our ferocious response to 9/11. If we'd not made such a vigorous response at all levels, don't you think al-Qaeda's successes would have encouraged even more attempts?
    - nfg 17y ago
      No. The vigorous response is the best recruiting tool they could possibly get.
    - MichaelSalib 17y ago
imp 17y ago
I think the DC sniper is a bad example. Once they were caught, people stopped running around in zig zags, and only people in DC were worried at all. If a small terrorist attack needs to be running at all times, or at least once a week, then the terrorists will quickly run out of people. I don't think they're that effective.
- vaksel 17y ago
  not really the DC snipers were idiots. 1. they set a pattern where they were killing a person a day + they were using the same car. 2. he constantly taunted the police, made calls, left them notes, left them cards. Shouldn't be that hard to use forensics to find out who it was. 3. he was actually connected to one of the victims. a truly random no-connections sniper would have been much harder to catch. And yes people stopped running after he was caught...but that's because they knew the guy was caught. If it's a "terrorist organization", getting a few terrorists wouldn't solve anything, since you'd never know if there were more lurking waiting a few days till the next killing.
  - imp 17y ago
    Yeah, that's a good point. I guess I forgot how dumb they were.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    You know how serial killers usually follow a set pattern, and that's considered evidence--so if they arrest someone and another killing occurs according to that pattern they assume they didn't catch the guy? I wonder if you can get a hit man on retainer to randomly pull off a "signature killing" in case you get arrested. More to the point, a terrorist cell should totally be able to cover for a single sniper or sniper team[1] that got caught. Imagine if they caught Malvo and Muhammed and all of a sudden someone else at a DC gas station got shot? Now instead of a couple nuts you have a shadowy and mysterious terrorist organization and as soon as you catch one another one pops up and shoots people in the face. [1] Interesting fact: even in the military, snipers don't work alone usually. They typically work in teams of two. Also, they don't necessarily shoot people anymore, they might just observe or call in airstrikes. The term is "scout-sniper".
anamax 17y ago
> they can always buy a few automatic weapons at any gun store Actually, you can't, at least not in the US, and that's been true for decades. Thinking that you can is like thinking that you can buy a race car at the local dealer because you see similar looking cars with the same name on TV. > Take 2009..let's list all the terrorist attacks in the United States: The Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13 should be on that list. So much for "all".
- jfager 17y ago
  For the purpose of shooting up your local mall, the difference between a fully-automatic and semi-automatic AR-15 is not that great (it's not like you're going to be laying down suppressing fire), and you certainly can buy the latter without any real difficulty.
  - shawndumas 17y ago
    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
    - jfager 17y ago
      I guess I don't understand how that quote relates back to what I said. Are you saying that terrorists should be prepared to lay down suppressing fire, and thus shouldn't settle for the semi-auto weapons they can easily purchase at most fine sporting goods stores?
      - shawndumas 17y ago
        lol: No I was just thinking of someone trying to '[shoot] up [my] local mall' and as a licensed concealed carrier I remembered what the Dalai Lama said. Sorry. "Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale
        17y ago
pwhelan 17y ago
He doesn't argue that small attacks don't instill terror -- it doesn't serve the dual purposes of "inspiring" allies and donors while instilling fear in the target city/nation. Also, you must recall that you actually need people to blow up the bus, train, etc -- which is difficult to get in the US at least and they have to be able to continually do it. I agree that terrorism is often over-hyped by the media, but that doesn't mean the threat is something to be ignored. The 4 pathetic attacks you bring up do show the current state of impotence, however we have to be vigilant. The opinions presented by many today would be quite different had Time Square been painted with blood.
- roc 17y ago
  A successful string of smaller terror attacks would absolutely inspire fear and impress donors. The trick is that it would have to be a string. And carrying out many small strikes is a huge practical challenge as an "other" operating in a foreign country. After, say, the third pipe bomb in a middle-American mall/starbucks/bar, every single American in public would be watching anyone vaguely different-looking at all times. So the campaign is far, far more likely to be snuffed out before it got far enough underway to be considered a 'success' to allies and donors. So I wouldn't expect to see anything like that from Al Qaeda unless/until they figure out how to deliver their device via a mechanism that: 1. isn't immediately obvious as a terror device 2. doesn't expose the 'secret' of the method after the first few attacks. e.g. Malvo's run was only as long as it was because no-one was looking for a sniper firing from a vehicle and there was no evidence left with the victim indicating the camouflage.
  - pwhelan 17y ago
    I just plain disagree that it would impress donors. Much like how simple things like bed nets or drinking water wells don't seem to get press or inspire donors for aid to Africa -- despite their proven impact -- many dollars flow towards sexier causes like AIDS. An attack method doesn't have to be super secret. It could be something as simple as pipe bombs in a backpack if they want to nickel and dime us to terror.
fnid2 17y ago
Did you neglect the November 5, 2009 shooting at Ft. Hood that killed 13 people out of convenience to support your point or because you don't consider it a terrorist attack? Even so, there's something insincere in a post that would mention a starbucks bench bomb, but not an incident that was perpetrated by a terrorist sympathizer that killed or wounded over 40 people.
- vaksel 17y ago
  posted about this below, wikipedia does not consider Ft. Hood event a terrorist attack, since the government isn't calling it one.
yread 17y ago
You don't even have to kill anybody. Or have any gun or bomb for that matter. Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Qo-EwVJQM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Qo-EwVJQM and http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/05/dozens_injured_in_remembrance.php http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/05/dozens_injured... Just a guy shouting in a crowd and everybody scared like hell
dgallagher 17y ago
I just wanted to note that Israel is a state which dealt with constant terror issues in the 1990's/early 2000's. There were times where a week hadn't even gone by between terrorist attacks (blowing up cars, buses, night clubs, shopping centers, etc...). Source: "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (Sept 1993)" - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Pales... I'm by no means an expert with Israel. But they're an excellent example of a society dealing with constant terrorist attacks, and surviving as a nation. Can anyone on HN shed any light on how this affected Israeli society? Ideally before, during, and after terrorism? If possible, could you compare it to how the U.S. deals with terrorism today? What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong?
- danudey 17y ago
  In July/August 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks) I visited some friends in Israel for a vacation. I was pretty broke so I didn't get to do a lot of sightseeing, but we toured around Jerusalem for a bit, visited the old city, and went to the Dead Sea. Very relaxing trip. Israel has a very practical and realistic approach to terrorism, at least in my mind, because it's dealing with an entirely different type of terrorism than the US is; for that matter, the UK's issues with the IRA are more similar than the US's. Everywhere we went, we had bag checks. They were always quick and painless, and everyone just took them for granted. At the entrance to a large store or mall would be a security guard; you'd show them the inside of your bag, and off you went. Likewise, there were soldiers hanging around in various spots; just like you'd see girls in skirts or guys in shorts, you'd see both in uniform, holding assault rifles. Most of the time they looked bored, and I'm sure they were. It wasn't like every street corner had a special ops team on it, but I saw them enough to get used to seeing them around. Most telling, I think, is Israel's approach to airport security. There was a fascinating article in the Toronto Star about security at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, vs. Toronto's Pearson International airport, detailing why Israel has had no major terrorist attacks originating in its airports, which I strongly suggest anyone interested in anti-terrorism or airport security read through: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426 http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426

by vaksel 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

> Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the trillions the United States is spending to fight it Yes, but think about the money that is being made by keeping the hype alive.

zaidf 17y ago

Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the trillions the United States Counter argument to that is that it is because of the billions in spending that actual terrorism is such a rare occurance.

vaksel 17y ago
counter argument to that would be, if actual terrorism was being stopped, we'd hear all about it on the news. Terrorism is such a hot topic, that anything related to it, gets non-stop coverage for a week.
- pwhelan 17y ago
  Counter argument to this would be that we (US) try to avoid broadcasting when we catch people involved in relatively clandestine networks so we can try to continue doing so.
- edanm 17y ago
  Intelligence agencies don't report on their successes. So how would we know how much terrorism is being stopped by intelligence?
chadgeidel 17y ago
You may be playing "devil's advocate" here (and I thought of the same thing), but what about the complete lack of terrorist activity BEFORE 9/11 when we presumably weren't spending as much money?
- hga 17y ago
  What about the earlier bombing of the WTC? If you go beyond the CONUS, the string of al-Qaeda successes around the world prior to 9/11 convinced Osama bin Laden and company that the US was a "weak horse" ... and boy were they surprised by our ferocious response to 9/11. If we'd not made such a vigorous response at all levels, don't you think al-Qaeda's successes would have encouraged even more attempts?
  - nfg 17y ago
    No. The vigorous response is the best recruiting tool they could possibly get.
  - MichaelSalib 17y ago

imp 17y ago

I think the DC sniper is a bad example. Once they were caught, people stopped running around in zig zags, and only people in DC were worried at all. If a small terrorist attack needs to be running at all times, or at least once a week, then the terrorists will quickly run out of people. I don't think they're that effective.

vaksel 17y ago
not really the DC snipers were idiots. 1. they set a pattern where they were killing a person a day + they were using the same car. 2. he constantly taunted the police, made calls, left them notes, left them cards. Shouldn't be that hard to use forensics to find out who it was. 3. he was actually connected to one of the victims. a truly random no-connections sniper would have been much harder to catch. And yes people stopped running after he was caught...but that's because they knew the guy was caught. If it's a "terrorist organization", getting a few terrorists wouldn't solve anything, since you'd never know if there were more lurking waiting a few days till the next killing.
- imp 17y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point. I guess I forgot how dumb they were.
- philwelch 17y ago
  You know how serial killers usually follow a set pattern, and that's considered evidence--so if they arrest someone and another killing occurs according to that pattern they assume they didn't catch the guy? I wonder if you can get a hit man on retainer to randomly pull off a "signature killing" in case you get arrested. More to the point, a terrorist cell should totally be able to cover for a single sniper or sniper team[1] that got caught. Imagine if they caught Malvo and Muhammed and all of a sudden someone else at a DC gas station got shot? Now instead of a couple nuts you have a shadowy and mysterious terrorist organization and as soon as you catch one another one pops up and shoots people in the face. [1] Interesting fact: even in the military, snipers don't work alone usually. They typically work in teams of two. Also, they don't necessarily shoot people anymore, they might just observe or call in airstrikes. The term is "scout-sniper".

anamax 17y ago

> they can always buy a few automatic weapons at any gun store Actually, you can't, at least not in the US, and that's been true for decades. Thinking that you can is like thinking that you can buy a race car at the local dealer because you see similar looking cars with the same name on TV. > Take 2009..let's list all the terrorist attacks in the United States: The Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13 should be on that list. So much for "all".

jfager 17y ago
For the purpose of shooting up your local mall, the difference between a fully-automatic and semi-automatic AR-15 is not that great (it's not like you're going to be laying down suppressing fire), and you certainly can buy the latter without any real difficulty.
- shawndumas 17y ago
  "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
  - jfager 17y ago
    I guess I don't understand how that quote relates back to what I said. Are you saying that terrorists should be prepared to lay down suppressing fire, and thus shouldn't settle for the semi-auto weapons they can easily purchase at most fine sporting goods stores?
    - shawndumas 17y ago
      lol: No I was just thinking of someone trying to '[shoot] up [my] local mall' and as a licensed concealed carrier I remembered what the Dalai Lama said. Sorry. "Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale
      - 17y ago

pwhelan 17y ago

He doesn't argue that small attacks don't instill terror -- it doesn't serve the dual purposes of "inspiring" allies and donors while instilling fear in the target city/nation. Also, you must recall that you actually need people to blow up the bus, train, etc -- which is difficult to get in the US at least and they have to be able to continually do it. I agree that terrorism is often over-hyped by the media, but that doesn't mean the threat is something to be ignored. The 4 pathetic attacks you bring up do show the current state of impotence, however we have to be vigilant. The opinions presented by many today would be quite different had Time Square been painted with blood.

roc 17y ago
A successful string of smaller terror attacks would absolutely inspire fear and impress donors. The trick is that it would have to be a string. And carrying out many small strikes is a huge practical challenge as an "other" operating in a foreign country. After, say, the third pipe bomb in a middle-American mall/starbucks/bar, every single American in public would be watching anyone vaguely different-looking at all times. So the campaign is far, far more likely to be snuffed out before it got far enough underway to be considered a 'success' to allies and donors. So I wouldn't expect to see anything like that from Al Qaeda unless/until they figure out how to deliver their device via a mechanism that: 1. isn't immediately obvious as a terror device 2. doesn't expose the 'secret' of the method after the first few attacks. e.g. Malvo's run was only as long as it was because no-one was looking for a sniper firing from a vehicle and there was no evidence left with the victim indicating the camouflage.
- pwhelan 17y ago
  I just plain disagree that it would impress donors. Much like how simple things like bed nets or drinking water wells don't seem to get press or inspire donors for aid to Africa -- despite their proven impact -- many dollars flow towards sexier causes like AIDS. An attack method doesn't have to be super secret. It could be something as simple as pipe bombs in a backpack if they want to nickel and dime us to terror.

fnid2 17y ago

Did you neglect the November 5, 2009 shooting at Ft. Hood that killed 13 people out of convenience to support your point or because you don't consider it a terrorist attack? Even so, there's something insincere in a post that would mention a starbucks bench bomb, but not an incident that was perpetrated by a terrorist sympathizer that killed or wounded over 40 people.

vaksel 17y ago
posted about this below, wikipedia does not consider Ft. Hood event a terrorist attack, since the government isn't calling it one.

yread 17y ago

You don't even have to kill anybody. Or have any gun or bomb for that matter. Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Qo-EwVJQM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Qo-EwVJQM and http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/05/dozens_injured_in_remembrance.php http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/05/dozens_injured... Just a guy shouting in a crowd and everybody scared like hell

dgallagher 17y ago

I just wanted to note that Israel is a state which dealt with constant terror issues in the 1990's/early 2000's. There were times where a week hadn't even gone by between terrorist attacks (blowing up cars, buses, night clubs, shopping centers, etc...). Source: "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (Sept 1993)" - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Pales... I'm by no means an expert with Israel. But they're an excellent example of a society dealing with constant terrorist attacks, and surviving as a nation. Can anyone on HN shed any light on how this affected Israeli society? Ideally before, during, and after terrorism? If possible, could you compare it to how the U.S. deals with terrorism today? What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong?

danudey 17y ago
In July/August 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks) I visited some friends in Israel for a vacation. I was pretty broke so I didn't get to do a lot of sightseeing, but we toured around Jerusalem for a bit, visited the old city, and went to the Dead Sea. Very relaxing trip. Israel has a very practical and realistic approach to terrorism, at least in my mind, because it's dealing with an entirely different type of terrorism than the US is; for that matter, the UK's issues with the IRA are more similar than the US's. Everywhere we went, we had bag checks. They were always quick and painless, and everyone just took them for granted. At the entrance to a large store or mall would be a security guard; you'd show them the inside of your bag, and off you went. Likewise, there were soldiers hanging around in various spots; just like you'd see girls in skirts or guys in shorts, you'd see both in uniform, holding assault rifles. Most of the time they looked bored, and I'm sure they were. It wasn't like every street corner had a special ops team on it, but I saw them enough to get used to seeing them around. Most telling, I think, is Israel's approach to airport security. There was a fascinating article in the Toronto Star about security at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, vs. Toronto's Pearson International airport, detailing why Israel has had no major terrorist attacks originating in its airports, which I strongly suggest anyone interested in anti-terrorism or airport security read through: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426 http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426