Why has there not been another 9/11 or worse?

[Skye]

I think bin Laden would know about it already. I recall a report from a couple of years ago where he was saying to the Taliban that he was moving some fighters to Iraq, and I think he also mentioned that funds were tighter so he couldn't provide them with as much. If this program is having much of an effect you'd think they'd be aware of it in general terms.

[Jim]

I think bin Laden would know about it already. I recall a report from a couple of years ago where he was saying to the Taliban that he was moving some fighters to Iraq, and I think he also mentioned that funds were tighter so he couldn't provide them with as much. If this program is having much of an effect you'd think they'd be aware of it in general terms.

 

Levey's contention in the link I provided was that there had, in fact, been a decline in recent years in the value of this type of intelligence but that it had still been producing some highly important information. He was very fearful that now that the exact program is public knowledge the value will be markedly reduced.

 

As is revealed by recent events, the potential base of terrorists is diverse and ranges from home grown yokels to our worst fears. They will have varying levels of intelligence and sophistication. Not all of them are abreast of the latest and greatest NSA/CIA etc efforts and I suspect they get much of their information from public sources.

[Pangloss]

The event in Miami this week would seem to have relevance in this discussion. What did you guys think about that? Was it an example of the FBI doing a great job "preventing another 9/11" (i.e. the subject of this thread), or was it an example of the FBI setting up a small time operation to make itself look good?

 

Couple of links for those not familiar:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C25%5Cstory_25-6-2006_pg7_35

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13529483/site/newsweek/

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/23/State/Miami_terrorists_wish.shtml

[Jim]

The event in Miami this week would seem to have relevance in this discussion. What did you guys think about that? Was it an example of the FBI doing a great job "preventing another 9/11" (i.e. the subject of this thread)' date=' or was it an example of the FBI setting up a small time operation to make itself look good?

 

Couple of links for those not familiar:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C25%5Cstory_25-6-2006_pg7_35

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13529483/site/newsweek/

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/23/State/Miami_terrorists_wish.shtml[/quote']

 

If the allegations are true, I think it was an example of the FBI doing its job although this group may or may not have had the horsepower to do a 9/11. I've heard no evidence yet that this was a set up by the FBI although I wouldn't be surprised if entrapment is argued.

[Pangloss]

As I understand it, when these miscreants tried to contact Al Qaeda, what they got instead was an undercover FBI agent trained to pretend he was an AQ agent, and he strung them along to the point where they had a full understanding of what the group was trying to accomplish, then they moved in for the arrest. (My information may be faulty here, as it was based mostly on brief news reports I heard during my various air flights today.)

 

So I guess the suggestion there would be that the FBI set them up, and that they were actually harmless. That's certainly what the men's families are saying, but of course the obvious flaw in this reasoning is that they made the attempt to contact AQ, and if the FBI hadn't been there then they may well have accomplished that goal.

 

What do you all think?

[Jim]

As I understand it' date=' when these miscreants tried to contact Al Qaeda, what they got instead was an undercover FBI agent trained to pretend he was an AQ agent, and he strung them along to the point where they had a full understanding of what the group was trying to accomplish, then they moved in for the arrest. (My information may be faulty here, as it was based mostly on brief news reports I heard during my various air flights today.)

 

So I guess the suggestion there would be that the FBI set them up, and that they were actually harmless. That's certainly what the men's families are saying, but of course the obvious flaw in this reasoning is that they made the attempt to contact AQ, and if the FBI hadn't been there then they may well have accomplished that goal.

 

What do you all think?[/quote']

 

The defendants will be able to test this argument out on a jury which will no doubt be keenly interested in the recordings of the conversations. I'd have to see the transcripts to make a judgment.

 

I also think it is a dangerous time to be trying to call AQ unless you have some objective reason to be doing so, e.g. journalism or academic research.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I don't think they'll get a lot of sympathy even in South Florida. But I suppose it's possible they'll get support from their local community. These guys lived in Liberty City, which is a low-income, predominently African-American area, famous for the 1980 Liberty City riots, which happened after five white police officers were acquitted of the beating death of a black motorcyclist.

[scicop]

I'm not sure if it was added here on not, I didn't see it, but another contributing reason that there has not been another 9/11 is because of fine outstanding citizens like yourselves.

 

People today are watchful and they're "saying something, when the see something"

 

Here in NYC we have a special number, 1-888-NYC-SAFE. Its a terror hotline and they investigate EVERY call that is made to that number. It happens to be manned by not only CTF but also JTTF which includes members from our IC.

 

So citizens like yourselvles are to congratulate as well.

[KLB]

It seems to me a reason why big 9/11 attacks are not common has been over looked in this thread is that they are so hard to coordinate, plan and pull off. See: http://wired.com/news/columns/0,71152-0.html?tw=wn_politics_9

 

The following links are also referenced by the article I linked above:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html

http://www.schneier.com/essay-087.html

 

All links are interesting reading.

[Jim]

It seems to me a reason why big 9/11 attacks are not common has been over looked in this thread is that they are so hard to coordinate' date=' plan and pull off. See: http://wired.com/news/columns/0,71152-0.html?tw=wn_politics_9

 

The following links are also referenced by the article I linked above:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/announcing_movi.html

http://www.schneier.com/essay-087.html

 

All links are interesting reading.[/quote']

 

The difficulty in repeating a 9/11 has not been overlooked. It has been mentioned in various threads particularly in light of the post-9/11 mind set.

 

Schneier argues:

 

Both of these reactions make the same erroneous assumption: that terrorist attacks are easy, and all terrorists need are a few good ideas. But if there's one thing this contest demonstrates, it's that good terrorist ideas are a dime a dozen. Anyone can figure out how to cause terror. The hard part is execution.

 

I don't think anyone would say that a 9/11 type-attack would be "easy." What I have said in various threads is that a low-level attack (say 10 guys occupying a small rural court house or mid sized mid-America bank building) would be incredibly easy given the porosity of our borders. If you equip such terrorists with CBWs, it becomes all the easier to cause mass havoc.

 

I also think it is simplistic to say that good terrorist ideas are a dime-a-dozen. The truly horrific ideas will combine terror with ease of execution.

 

I also frankly think it was irresponsible for Scheier to run this contest.

[KLB]

The difficulty in repeating a 9/11 has not been overlooked.

I was refering to this thread specifically.

 

 

I don't think anyone would say that a 9/11 type-attack would be "easy." What I have said in various threads is that a low-level attack (say 10 guys occupying a small rural court house or mid sized mid-America bank building) would be incredibly easy given the porosity of our borders. If you equip such terrorists with CBWs, it becomes all the easier to cause mass havoc.

Even this isn't entirely easy as it requires a group of people who are willing to die for the cause working together, not getting caught during the planning phase and not botching the execution of the plan. The more people a plan requires, the more difficult it will become to execute.

 

I also frankly think it was irresponsible for Scheier to run this contest.

I don't know about that, determined terrorists can be very creative on their own as 9/11 showed. I seriously doubt it gave any serious terrorists any new ideas. If anything the exercise showed just how devious the human mind could be. Besides, based on the idea of not giving terrorists ideas, Hollywood should stop producing movies with such themes.

[Jim]

I was refering to this thread specifically.

 

Heh, actually, I was being lazy and didn't look back through the thread. However, see posts 10, 20 & 49.

 

 

 

Even this isn't entirely easy as it requires a group of people who are willing to die for the cause working together, not getting caught during the planning phase and not botching the execution of the plan. The more people a plan requires, the more difficult it will become to execute.

 

I wouldn't say it is entirely easy. However, five guys with automatic weapons could clean out the structures I'm talking about.

 

I don't know about that, determined terrorists can be very creative on their own as 9/11 showed. I seriously doubt it gave any serious terrorists any new ideas.

 

9/11 showed the power of imagination coupled with allowing terrorists to hide behind nation states boundaries and cook up plots. There are many factors that go into preventing another 9/11 such as denying monetary resources, taking the fight to their sanctuaries, disrupting or monitoring Internet communications, working with allies to secure the border, changes in mindsets so that our public is more vigilant, etc, etc etc. Most of these factors have been discussed and none are trivial. However, the beginning point of any good endeavor is a good idea and it is irresponsible for Scheier to canvas the net to encourage brainstorming about plots against this country.

 

Terrorists are not omniscient and I dont' see how you can say that this process could not give "any" serious terrorists "any" new ideas.

[KLB]

Heh, actually, I was being lazy and didn't look back through the thread. However, see posts 10, 20 & 49.

I tried reading the entire thread before posting, but guess I glazed over while reading. It can get really hard getting caught up on a thread and points do get missed unfortunately.

 

However, the beginning point of any good endeavor is a good idea and it is irresponsible for Scheier to canvas the net to encourage brainstorming about plots against this country.

It happens all the time with disaster/terrorist/action/thriller movies. Should we stop having "Friday the 13th" movies or movies like "Silence of the Lambs" because it might give somebody ideas? What Scheier did will not give terrorists (as a group, not as individuals) ideas that they didn't already have. If people are predisposed to commit a crime or terrorist act, they are going to come up with enough ways to do it on their own. I'm also quite certain the terrorists (as a whole, not as individuals) have come up with ideas much worse than anything posted on Scheier's contest. This I believe was Scheier's point in the exercise.

[Jim]

I tried reading the entire thread before posting, but guess I glazed over while reading. It can get really hard getting caught up on a thread and points do get missed unfortunately.

 

NP.

 

It happens all the time with disaster/terrorist/action/thriller movies. Should we stop having "Friday the 13th" movies or movies like "Silence of the Lambs" because it might give somebody ideas? What Scheier did will not give terrorists (as a group, not as individuals) ideas that they didn't already have. If people are predisposed to commit a crime or terrorist act, they are going to come up with enough ways to do it on their own. I'm also quite certain the terrorists (as a whole, not as individuals) have come up with ideas much worse than anything posted on Scheier's contest. This I believe was Scheier's point in the exercise.

 

There is a fundamental difference between brainstorming among a discreet number of people and tapping the potential of the internet.

 

My son and I were kidding around one day and came up with the idea for a web page called PETSA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Stuffed Animals).We went online and there already was a PETSA and a PNETSA. Moral of the story: A group of a few people brainstorming, even fairly bright people, is no match for the power of the net.

[KLB]

My son and I were kidding around one day and came up with the idea for a web page called PETSA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Stuffed Animals).We went online and there already was a PETSA and a PNETSA. Moral of the story: A group of a few people brainstorming, even fairly bright people, is no match for the power of the net.

This also shows that there very rarely truely original ideas. No matter what it is, it always seems that someone thought of it before. That's why I'm not worried by things like the contest we have been discussing.

[Jim]

This also shows that there very rarely truely original ideas. No matter what it is, it always seems that someone thought of it before. That's why I'm not worried by things like the contest we have been discussing.

 

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[bascule]

This month's Discover had a cool article: "The Future of Terrorism"

 

Regarding the question of the subject, it really seems to me like people are being much more pro-active about thinking about potential terrorist scenarios and how to avoid them.

 

One they mentioned, which hasn't been addressed, is a cyanide plant in Brooklyn (I was reading about this right as I was about 10 miles from the plant in question!) which, if bombed, could disperse enough cyanide to kill up to 100,000 people. Yikes!

[KLB]

Regarding the question of the subject, it really seems to me like people are being much more pro-active about thinking about potential terrorist scenarios and how to avoid them.

Exactly, there are some things that just would have never occured to us before.

 

One they mentioned, which hasn't been addressed, is a cyanide plant in Brooklyn (I was reading about this right as I was about 10 miles from the plant in question!) which, if bombed, could disperse enough cyanide to kill up to 100,000 people. Yikes!

For what will be obvious reasons, I won't say when or where, but I used to work with a company that handled vast quanitities of chemicals (I don't want to be more specific).

 

Our facility was essentially in an isolated location at the end of a long road and was only surrounded by a single chain link fence and padlocked gates that people sometimes forgot to lock. There was no 24 hour security on location. It would have been nothing for someone to break in and do whatever they wanted undisturbed.

 

At any point in time it was not uncommon for us to have in our facility around 1/2 million pounds of sodium cyanide (in 20' containers) and over 1/2 million pounds of ammonium nitrate (in 20' containers) along with around and upwards of two dozen rail car tankers full of chemicals like: glutaraldehyde, methanol, xylene, hexanol, hydrochloric acid, kerosene, diesel fuel, motor oils and some nasty proprietary trade secret blends that you would want to avoid. We were a terrorist's candy store and never thought about it or took the issue seriously.

 

I am no longer associated with that company, so I do not know what changes have been implemented (other then they no longer keep ammonium nitrate on site), but the fact was we never thought about "what if." That company was not unique. They simply followed standard industry practices. There are thousands of facilities around this country with the same risks following the same practices. Unless we really scare ourselves senseless by thinking about what terrorists could do, we (as individuals and companies) might never take it upon ourselves to harden these soft targets.

[KLB]

Here is an interesting article on Yahoo News directly related to my comments above: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060707/ts_csm/ahazmat

[Jim]

Another successful defensive play by the good guys.

[Sisyphus]

I just hope it was Al Qaeda and not more isolated British Muslim radicals.

[YT2095]

there nearly WAS another attack on an unprecedented scale today, it was foiled however.

[ecoli]

there nearly WAS another attack on an unprecedented scale today, it was foiled however.

 

The attack was foiled today, but I don't think it was going to be carried out today.

[YT2095]

it Was known about a while ago, Bush was informed about it on Sunday gone, today WAS the day!

[Pangloss]

Kudos to British police and intelligence. They really seem to have stepped up and done well.