| Dec 26, 2008 @ 12:37 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,174
|
Thu Dec 25
WASHINGTON – The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy, says a new intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press.
Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks are considered the most dangerous threats that could be carried out against the U.S. But those threats are also the most unlikely because it is so difficult for al-Qaida and similar groups to acquire the materials needed to carry out such plots, according to the internal Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-2013.
The al-Qaida terrorist network continues to focus on U.S. attack targets vulnerable to massive economic losses, casualties and political "turmoil," the assessment said.
Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction remains "the highest priority at the federal level." Speaking to reporters on Dec. 3, Chertoff explained that more people, such as terrorists, will learn how to make dirty bombs, biological and chemical weapons. "The other side is going to continue to learn more about doing things," he said.
Marked "for official use only," the report does not specify its audience, but the assessments typically go to law enforcement, intelligence officials and the private sector. When determining threats, intelligence officials consider loss of life, economic and psychological consequences.
Intelligence officials also predict that in the next five years, terrorists will try to conduct a destructive biological attack. Officials are concerned about the possibility of infections to thousands of U.S. citizens, overwhelming regional health care systems.
There could also be dire economic impacts caused by workers' illnesses and deaths. Officials are most concerned about biological agents stolen from labs or other storage facilities, such as anthrax.
"The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated," Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18. "This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."
These high-consequence threats are not the only kind of challenges that will confront the U.S. over the next five years.
Terrorists will continue to try to evade U.S. border security measures and place operatives inside the mainland to carry out attacks, the 38-page assessment said. It also said that they may pose as refugees or asylum seekers or try to exploit foreign travel channels such as the visa waiver program, which allows citizens of 34 countries to enter the U.S. without visas.
Long waits for immigration and more restrictive European refugee and asylum programs will cause more foreigners to try to enter the U.S. illegally. Increasing numbers of Iraqis are expected to migrate to the U.S. in the next five years; and refugees from Somalia and Sudan could increase because of conflicts in those countries, the assessment said.
Because there is a proposed cap of 12,000 refugees from Africa, officials expect more will try to enter the U.S. illegally as well. Officials predict the same scenario for refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Intelligence officials predict the pool of radical Islamists within the U.S. will increase over the next five years due partly to the ease of online recruiting means. Officials foresee "a wave of young, self-identified Muslim 'terrorist wannabes' who aspire to carry out violent acts."
The U.S. has already seen some examples of these homegrown terrorists. Recently five Muslim immigrants were convicted of plotting to massacre U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in a case the government said demonstrated its post-Sept. 11 determination to stop terrorist attacks in the planning stages.
The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah does not have a known history of fomenting attacks inside the U.S., but that could change if there is some kind of "triggering" event, the Homeland assessment cautions.
A 2008 Interagency Intelligence Committee on Terrorism assessment said that Hezbollah members based in the U.S. do local fundraising through charity projects and criminal activity, like money laundering, smuggling, drug trafficking, fraud and extortion, according to the homeland security assessment.
In addition, the cyber terror threat is expected to increase over the next five years, as hacking tools become more sophisticated and available. "Youthful, Internet-savvy extremists might apply their online acumen to conduct cyber attacks rather than offer themselves up as operatives to conduct physical attacks," according to the assessment.
Currently, Islamic terrorists, including al-Qaida, would like to conduct cyber attacks, but they lack the capability to do so, the assessment said. The large-scale attacks that are on al-Qaida's wishlist — such as disrupting a major city's water or power systems — require sophisticated cyber capabilities that the terrorist group does not possess. more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/homeland_threat_forecast
I'd say watch closely on new neighbors that move in.
|
|
  |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 1:29 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,161
|
There's nothing like creating job security...
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 1:43 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,495
|
Chertoff explained that more people, such as terrorists, will learn how to make dirty bombs, biological and chemical weapons. Gotta love the nomenclature of the uninformed, don't you?
"How to make a 'dirty bomb'"
1. Buy or steal or dig up a quantity of radioactive material.
2. Pack in a container with a common explosive device.
3. Detonate device.
Everything from there is refinement in effcacy.
If they would stop acting like only sophisticated people with advanced technology are capable of carrying out attacks and concentrate on truly defending our security, I'd feel a hell of a lot safter.
Incidentally, since all explosive compounds I know of involve chemical reactions to force sudden expansions of gas to create a concussive wave, by definition all explosives are "chemical weapons." Something as simple as a Molotov cocktail can be described as "a chemical weapon." The reliance on provocative connotations and implications reveals this for the fear-mongering it actually is.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 2:11 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
NO Gotta love the nomenclature of the uninformed, don't you?
"How to make a 'dirty bomb'"
1. Buy or steal or dig up a quantity of radioactive material.
2. Pack in a container with a common explosive device.
3. Detonate device.
Everything from there is refinement in effcacy.
Of course you are correct. Anybody can make a bomb but, the problem lies in tying all the ends together to make a bomb effective and, to go off at the desired point and place.
For example, radioactive material to quietly build an effective weapon is not in Manhattan at the moment thus must be brought in to meet with with the device (which has yet to be built by operatives who have yet to arrive, find a safe house and avoid detection), the explosives have to be found, trnsported, avoid detection as they pass through various danger poiints for detection, the proper safe guards must be in place to avoid infecting the people building the weapon and those who will transport it thus, it is not a simple task of putting 'A' 'B' and 'C' together. Each step has logistical problems which are complicated and, if one of the supporting items draws the least suspicion then the entire operation which may have taken years to mount may become compromised.
So yes, everything from there is a refinement in efficacy.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 2:41 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,495
|
For example, radioactive material to quietly build an effective weapon is not in Manhattan at the moment thus must be brought in [wrong; any hospital radiation oncology department has a sufficient quantity of radioactive material to make a dirty bomb that will actually have serious health effects on the populace in a wide area; radioactive is radioactive] to meet with with the device (which has yet to be built by operatives who have yet to arrive, find a safe house and avoid detection) [sheer supposition on your part, and all avoidable by recruiting "home-grown" terrorists who are already angry at the Imperialistic government of the United States], the explosives have to be found [any high school chemistry graduate will tell you that components for explosives are everywhere, including your local grocery store or WalMart] transported, avoid detection as they pass through various danger poiints for detection [there are no detection points for cotton and nitric acid between my house and WalMart, I'm pretty sure; and before you make any unsupportable claims, nitric acid is VERY easy to obtain. Nitric acid ], the proper safe guards must be in place to avoid infecting the people building the weapon and those who will transport it thus, it is not a simple task of putting 'A' 'B' and 'C' together. [Bullshit. You're talking about people willing to be suicide bombers. They don't care if they begin to develop radiation poisoning, as long as they live long enough to complete their mission. If they wait to steal the radioactive material until the last step, all they have to do is carry it home, put it in the container with their homemade guncotton {look it up} and be on their way; they won't even have time to get sick before they detonate the bomb] Each step has logistical problems which are complicated and, if one of the supporting items draws the least suspicion then the entire operation which may have taken years to mount may become compromised.
Again, it's ludicrous for these people to even claim they can "protect" us from these things. As I said about shrub's ill-advised remarks on other countries "learning how to make nuclear weapons," he obviously wasn't listening in school, as any first-year nuclear physics student should be able to draw up plans for a rudimentary nuclear weapon and certainly knows how much of what radioactive materials are needed for critical mass. And the funny thing is, without even being GOOD at it, they can overcompensate. They may not be able to figure out exactly how LITTLE is required, but they can certainly figure how much is definitely more than enough and simply arrange to make sure they have that much.
I will say what I have said before, which is that as long as an individual can drive a truck from Mexico to Chicago without the cargo being inspected, all their blather about "homeland security" is just whistling Dixie and doesn't mean a damned thing.
[Edited on 12/26/2008 2:47 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 5:54 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
[wrong; any hospital radiation oncology department has a sufficient quantity of radioactive material to make a dirty bomb that will actually have serious health effects on the populace in a wide area; radioactive is radioactive]
Wrong. It has to be inhalable, be powerful enough and not past it's prime and, be in sufficient quantity to effect death beyond the initial blast area. So, what type of material do you speak of and, will it be expended material which is lacking in power or, newer material which will be noticed missing immediately and thus, require another tier to your security and logistics apparatus in order to construct and transport this to the assembly area?
And, is the size are the particles of this material is too big, you have to make them smaller. How you going to do that undetected and how are you going to move this stuff and store it during the phases of making it into optimum bomb material?
sheer supposition on your part, and all avoidable by recruiting "home-grown" terrorists who are already angry at the Imperialistic government of the United States,
Well of course. So now, you have 'home grown' terrorists trying to get enough of the correct material to make a bomb and move it stolen or otherwise in quantities to a site unnoticed providing of course it is the proper material and need not be worked on more (in which case it needs to be transported yet again without detection) . The more deadly and effective the material, the more likely that it will have to be stolen and transported piecemeal which increases movement and traffic. It also means you have a more extended period of time from start to finish that your supply has to be controlled increasing exposure to discovery.
[any high school chemistry graduate will tell you that components for explosives are everywhere, including your local grocery store or WalMart]
And any high school chemistry graduate will tell you the stuff is not the most stable material to work with unless conditions are optimum and, leaves tell tale traces on clothing and flesh so, unless you are properly set up with safety equipment in place, all materials ready so you don't need to run back to that hospital to pick up another few cups of radium or cesium you won't be walking around looking like you normally do.
Now, if you spent a considerable amount of time, money and energy along with a few friends to amass small amounts of volatile radioactive material to make a great bomb, are you going to second rate it with crappy homemade explosives or, go first class with something that is going to spread that americium-241 for blocks? Of course if you went first class with the material, you're going to go first rate with the explosives. Otherwise, why not just blow up an Xray machine in the back of a van with a ton of fertilizer.
[there are no detection points for cotton and nitric acid between my house and WalMart, I'm pretty sure; and before you make any unsupportable claims, nitric acid is VERY easy to obtain. ]
Sure it is and, difficult to work with in order to get a uniform predictable explosion.
[Bullshit. You're talking about people willing to be suicide bombers. They don't care if they begin to develop radiation poisoning, as long as they live long enough to complete their mission. If they wait to steal the radioactive material until the last step, all they have to do is carry it home, put it in the container with their homemade guncotton {look it up} and be on their way; they won't even have time to get sick before they detonate the bomb]
Now you're just being silly. A suicidal terrorist doesn't really care for sure however, displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning prior to the construction of the device is a definite no no as it not only makes him less effective as an operative and hampers his ability to carry out tasks while blending in with society because of the flesh dropping off his face while he goes out for Chinese might cast undue suspicion onto what he and his buddies are doing in the garage.
And we see from your very post that you have given in to the propaganda that this has to be some sophisticated operation that takes years to accomplish. ONE person with a job in housekeeping in a hospital could do this all in a day's time, though it may take as much as a week or two to acquire, make and assemble the necessary components. (I need a refresher course on how long it takes to make nitrocellulose; it does take some time, but not long, but I don't recall exactly.)
Well run us all through it would you. Show me how you would get this material and, what it is exactly that would not be noticed missing. Then, explain how you would put this together and how you won't be noticed missing from work on the same day that the material went missing. And show us how you would build the shield which separates the explosive from the material and all the while nobody is wondering what has happened to that radioactive material that is missing at the hospital.
Again, it's ludicrous for these people to even claim they can "protect" us from these things.
I agree. Just as it is ludicrous to claim you can make an effective dirty bomb unnoticed with material stolen from a hospital without raising suspicion, mix it up with homemade explosives, transport it to a site and effect anything more tha
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 6:45 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,495
|
Nova, your entire argument boils down to "It's not the BEST way to make a dirty bomb." As long as you consistently underestimate what lengths terrorists would go to to inflict SOME damage, but GREAT emotional distress (terror), you demontrate that you utterly fail to grasp their mindset. Pre 9-11 you would have been arguing terrorists couldn't take over a plane without months of planning and training and sophisticated equipment, while you now blithely accept that they took over 4 passenger aircraft in US airspace with nothing more than box cutters and threats. And three of those groups apparently succeeded in their missions.
As long as people ignore the REAL possibilites that exist and focus solely on means that are furthest from their actual capability, you will eventually be caught by surprise. Which is why those clowns at HomeSec are a joke.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 7:49 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,681
|
Something as simple as a Molotov cocktail can be described as "a chemical weapon." The reliance on provocative connotations and implications reveals this for the fear-mongering it actually is.
You sir have a real problem. You know darn well that the chemical weapons that are being discussed are items like nerve gas or mustard gas etc. How ridiculous of you to dismiss the threat as fear mongering. Your assessment is a chapter in the liberal play book. In fact you may well have written it.
Something as simple as a Molotov cocktail can be described as "a chemical weapon." The reliance on provocative connotations and implications reveals this for the fear-mongering it actually is.
The person in denial is you and of course your liberal cohorts.
S
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 7:56 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
NO Nova, your entire argument boils down to "It's not the BEST way to make a dirty bomb."
Not exactly. Your argument is that if they go out and make a crappy one and kill one person they have succeeded. To suggest that a guy who works as a janitor in a hospital can suddenly, unnoticed, accumulate a couple of kilograms of radium and then put it all together in his moms garage, transport it to his target and subsequently kill a hundred people in the initial blast and a thousand in the next few weeks due to radiation is plain fear mongering. Isn't that what you are accusing the government of doing?
My argument is that while it is possible to make something that can be called a 'dirty bomb' with a high school chemistry and engineering expertise, to make one that does real damage requires logistical support in the form of transport, security, money transfers, procurement people and so on and forth. This takes time, planning and increases the risk of discovery. If people who have been in country for six months with an elaborate support set up like the 911 operatives have to wait for a part, material or person who specializes in something and that something stands a one in five chance of being discovered by a random check by a dopey Homeland Security guard at a port then that is unacceptable in any operation. Imagine - "we're going to take elaborate means to avoid discovery and funnel a quarter million dollars via five hundred dollar transfers but even in the end, we stand a 20% chance that the whole op gets blown in a random check with everybody going to Gitmo without even stepping on an Infidel ant."
NO Pre 9-11 you would have been arguing terrorists couldn't take over a plane without months of planning and training and sophisticated equipment, while you now blithely accept that they took over 4 passenger aircraft in US airspace with nothing more than box cutters and threats. And three of those groups apparently succeeded in their missions.
Niteowl, it took over a year and a half of planning, training, preparing safe houses, a support network of over a hundred people and the movement of a quarter of a million dollars moved halfway across the planet using hundreds of transfers of less than a thousand dollars to avoid detection to place those guys in the planes with nothing more than box cutters. All while providing them to get home for time off, having spiritual leaders visit, avoiding detection, and setting off alarm bells despite the fact that they were under surveillance some of the time. That was sophistication. You are proving my point for the second time.
NOAs long as people ignore the REAL possibilites that exist and focus solely on means that are furthest from their actual capability, you will eventually be caught by surprise. Which is why those clowns at HomeSec are a joke.
So other than listening to traffic on phone lines of suspected operatives here and abroad, monitoring Jihadist internet sites and working with the intelligence agencies of over a hundred countries around the globe and funneling all information into one agency for coloration into usable intelligence what else should they be doing?
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 8:15 AM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,495
|
I'm in denial? I'm worried about what someone with ill intent can do today, with what they can readily put their hands on. Not on what they need some sophisticated laboratory and years of training to develop. You and Nova and Homeland Security are the ones ignoring what COULD happen in favor of pet theories about what Dept HomeSec wants to get a huge budget to defend against while curtailling OUR freedoms at home because they're too stupid to secure the borders.
They talk about "chemical and biological weapons" to try to scare you into thinking that those who would harm us need some vast network of labs and scientists and weapons specialists, and hope you don't see that they CAN'T defend against everything and aren't even trying to defend against the simplest attacks that can be made.
How many low-tech, cheap dirty bombs would it take to terrorize this nation, even if they weren't very effective ones? Three? Two? Just one? How much training and how many guns and what sophisticated network did it take John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo to terrorize the DC area? What plans do you have in place to protect us against that happening again?
Newsflash, I am not now, nor have I been, in denial. I can see a lot of ignorant sheep who think Homeland Security is somehow protecting them that are, though. All for the bigger government, the larger intrusion into our lives that the conservatives keep telling us is a BAD thing. And the ones falling for it are the conservatives. That's what happens when they don't stop to think for themselves, but just follow along, absolutely mindlessly waving the flag and chanting about how great they are. The majority of people are so easily manipulated I'm amazed the powers that be go to the lengths they do to try to convince you to go along. They're actually working a lot harder at it than they probably have to.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 12:36 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,161
|
When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.
~ Harry S. Truman
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 2:32 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
You have posted about two separate threats NO. One threat is crime such as the beltway sniper and the other is about terrorism from Qutbist elements whether homegrown or external.
NOI'm in denial? I'm worried about what someone with ill intent can do today, with what they can readily put their hands on. Not on what they need some sophisticated laboratory and years of training to develop. You and Nova and Homeland Security are the ones ignoring what COULD happen in favor of pet theories about what Dept HomeSec wants to get a huge budget to defend against while curtailling OUR freedoms at home because they're too stupid to secure the borders.
Nightowl, what freedoms have you lost that are so great?
NOThey talk about "chemical and biological weapons" to try to scare you into thinking that those who would harm us need some vast network of labs and scientists and weapons specialists, and hope you don't see that they CAN'T defend against everything and aren't even trying to defend against the simplest attacks that can be made.
You want a simple attack that will cripple the US and it’s economy? Have a hundred low tech Jihadis with belt fed bipod mounted machine guns wait outside a hundred schools and wait for the buses to roll up in the morning. Guaranteed that nobody will allow their children to go outside the home despite what President Obama or Bush assures them. Parents will be staying home and security guards will be everywhere. The economy will tank further than any expert could forecast.
They don’t do that though, even though the terror factor, aftermath and body count would be way more effective than 911. Know why?
The recipient of the act is not often the actual entity the message is geared towards. 911 was designed to be spectacular in order to accomplish a few goals;
- display the power of Al Qaeda to the Muslim people as they hurt the Great Satan.
- provoke the Great Satan into attacking Saudi Arabia and making Al Qaeda the defender of Islam.
- provoke the Great Satan into attacking Afghanistan with ground troops and whipping them in the hills like they did the Soviets.
If they had simply killed a few thousand children at a bus stop it would not have gotten half the kudos they received. They needed fire, brimstone, wonderment and awe at their cleverness. You don’t get that from a fizzled dirty bomb that kills less than ten people here and there while cell after cell is decimated in the process.
NOHow many low-tech, cheap dirty bombs would it take to terrorize this nation, even if they weren't very effective ones? Three? Two? Just one? How much training and how many guns and what sophisticated network did it take John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo to terrorize the DC area?
Seems you have answered your own question. I drove that section of the country during that time and yes, it was concerning and scary but, so did millions of others so, we were not that terrified. And, the two freaks were about as effective as a ‘low tech cheap dirty bomb’ so, is a ‘low tech cheap dirty bomb’ worth the effort? Depends on what you are trying to do. If you are tryig to keep yourself on the front page as a group that can’t build an effective bomb then sure, but, if you want to look like a powerful organization with Global reach that others would support and even want to join you had better make it a doozy.
NOWhat plans do you have in place to protect us against that happening again?
Seven years and counting. Even with every Qutbist on the planet wanting a piece of your homeland to blow up and none carrying out a successful attack. Seems the plans are fairly good but as all things, can be improved.
NONewsflash, I am not now, nor have I been, in denial. I can see a lot of ignorant sheep who think Homeland Security is somehow protecting them that are, though.
Seven years. (7)
NOAll for the bigger government, the larger intrusion into our lives that the conservatives keep telling us is a BAD thing. And the ones falling for it are the conservatives.
Seven years.
NOThat's what happens when they don't stop to think for themselves, but just follow along, absolutely mindlessly waving the flag and chanting about how great they are. The majority of people are so easily manipulated I'm amazed the powers that be go to the lengths they do to try to convince you to go along. They're actually working a lot harder at it than they probably have to.
Seven years.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 4:42 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,895
|
Same forecast as five years ago Angel.
The bright side is...our security in place gave us another five. 
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 9:48 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,490
|
Not so bright side: Bush hasn't acted on any of it. Feel-good "security" measures are no source of safety.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:14 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
SNG Not so bright side: Bush hasn't acted on any of it. Feel-good "security" measures are no source of safety.
!1 attacks during Clinton's Administration. 1 during Bush's. Seems that the 'feel good' measures work considering that many believe Bush has made things worse with more people wanting to attack the US yet, no attacks have occurred since the Patriot Act and Homeland Security has been in place.
Hah! Just luck they say. 
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:29 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,895
|
Its hard for people that seem to lead such a negative life to understand the reasoning behind the positive Nova.
The negative chip that sits on the shoulder of blame only lessens its significance in placing it.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:33 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,490
|
Many of the items in the report: how many of them were on the 9/11 Commission's report back in Bush's first term?
Bury your head in the sand if you want. We on the "reality-based" world have been saying for a long time, "feel-good security" doesn't replace REAL security.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:40 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,495
|
Niteowl, it took over a year and a half of planning, training, preparing safe houses, a support network of over a hundred people and the movement of a quarter of a million dollars moved halfway across the planet using hundreds of transfers of less than a thousand dollars to avoid detection to place those guys in the planes with nothing more than box cutters. How's that Kool-Aid taste? I'm always amused at those who believe the government's self-reported version of this conspiracy theory and what all it took to sidestep detection.
Let's see... what was actually needed to carry this out (accepting the "official version")?
Minimum 20 people (the "20" intended to be on board the aircraft), at least 8 of whom knew enough to keep an airliner airborne and headed in the right direction to reach their targets (the hardest part of the "plot;" one primary pilot and one backup in case the primary was injured in the takeover of the plane, and that's assuming they thought that might happen and didn't decide just 4 rudimentary pilots was enough). 40 plane tickets. (20 tickets to the U.S., 20 tickets to transcontinental destinations. Call it $400 for each ticket, unless they used their frequent flier miles.) 20 box cutters ($1.89 x 20). An hour on a computer to analyze airline schedules in order to make this all happen at a relatively coordinated time. That's it. The basic requirements. Everything else was superfluous. Avoid detection? These people could all have arrived from out of country on the same day, with arrangements to connect to the flights they boarded to carry out the "attacks." It didn't require "a year and a half" and "safe houses" and all that crap. All to carry out a masterplot of "I know! Lets hijack some planes and crash them into important buildings!" What did they have to avoid being detected doing? Buying a box cutter? Buying a ticket? Sweating nervously?
And you call ME a conspiracy theorist?
Again and again, you parrot the government contention that "These attacks" (9/11 or any of the other "terror threats") require sophistication and much advance planning and technological expertise. It's just plain not true, just as it is not true that Homeland Security, no matter how large that department gets, can protect us from every threat and every attack.
ANY curtailment of my liberty out of fear, whether it is a liberty I enjoy daily or may never have occasion to make use of (such as being presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or my right to privacy in my papers without a duly authorized warrant) is too great a price to pay. Whether or not I am directly afffected daily or ever by any of the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act is immaterial.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:40 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
SNG Bury your head in the sand if you want. We on the "reality-based" world have been saying for a long time, "feel-good security" doesn't replace REAL security.
Well I'm open minded and have always said that security can be better. What do you propose to enhance security so we on the right can tear your ideas apart.
Please, we are all ears.
[Edited on 12/26/2008 10:42 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2008 @ 10:41 PM |
Homeland Security Forecasts 5-year Terror Threats |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,174
|
19 Thwarted Terrorist Attacks Since 9/11:
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
|
| |
|
|
|
|