Wiggin's interesting challenge aside, I'm more interested in why you think bombers would not target a national rail network. It's not like it's never happened before.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Wiggin's interesting challenge aside, I'm more interested in why you think bombers would not target a national rail network. It's not like it's never happened before.
This:
Does not justify this:
Using this line of fear mongering, anyone who rents a Uhual, or buys fertilizer, belongs on the terrorist watch list. And lets not get into the evolution of mail terror.
Simply making something available to the masses doesn't mean its going to become the next big terrorist target. Otherwise we'd be getting groped by mail security by now.
Do you think there are no checks in place to prevent people from buying large quantities of certain types of fertilizer without a background check?
I'm not fear mongering. Transportation infrastructure is a common terrorist target. Madrid?
Why are we focusing on terrorists working alone? Or stupidly?
Wording is to broad again. Common compared to what? Using what metric? Attacks, public awareness, deaths?Transportation infrastructure is a common terrorist target.
even taking this line as truth (which in case you missed, is in doubt), this singles out new rail networks over old rail networks, highways, other forms of public and private transportation....how?
That transit infrastructure is a terror target is "in doubt"? Seriously, what's the beef?
You're implying that its a more common target than other aspects of public life. At least that appears to be what you are attempting with the rail statement. Thats the explanation I'm waiting on.
No, it's not because so few people in the US use rail transit except for certain corners of the country. In those corners of the country, it's a worthwhile target.
I mean seriously, are you arguing this?
I'm surprised your trying to argue for it. You make less and less sense the farther we go on. If anything you're making an argument, based on history, for why rail wouldn't be a target in our country; because thus far, where its used, it hasn't become one.
I'm still waiting for the original explanation to clear up what you were intending to claim.
What are you trying to argue? That rail transit isn't a fairly predictable terrorism target?
This is what Minx says when he said you like "berating dread for every single fucking thing he ever writes."
I'm saying that new rail wouldn't be a "fairly predictable terrorism target" anymore than any other aspect of public life. Hint: That makes its not so predictable. To single out new rail over everything else, with no evidence, ignoring history, thats fear mongering.
You should stop saying stupid baseless shit then, and ending half of your posts with some sort of insult or some sort off topic "seriously" by attacking me instead of the argument doesn't help anything.This is what Minx says when he said you like "berating dread for every single fucking thing he ever writes."
This has only gone on for so long because you've failed to provide any reason to suggest why rail would be the next big target to "gravitate" towards. I warned you ahead of time you wouldn't understand what you were doing wrong and it wouldn't be worth it to get into this. Ignorance is your bliss.
Christ THIS!
I don't know how many times I've been behind people who searched their pockets, put their wallet on the belt and walked through, thing bleeps, and they walk back and go "Oh, my keys!", walk through, bleep, "oh right, my phone!".
I always just empty the entire content of my pockets.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
OG, check your PMs please.
Fully capable of doing that without public announcement
Ha! The world will know that OG is a PM sloth!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I was driving to work, didn't get a fighting chance!
Well, the targets we've seen so far do suggest that, at least for hitting targets in the West. London and Madrid rail, two bombers on planes, and the 9/11 attacks started with three plane hijackings. Are there non-transport targets that I'm not aware of? To the best of my knowledge you have to go to Turkey and Israel or points further east, to find anything that might fit a different pattern.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Didn't McVeigh bomb an office building?
Then there's the Unabomber.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Both of which I already brought up, in an attempt to not have to play a game of who can recall the most non-transportation related terrorists attacks. That sort of tit for tat doesn't justify rail as a common target or a target to gravitate towards. Simply means rail is a viable target, one of many on a very long list.
Then we start getting into what counts as terrorism. Columbine? Virginia Tech? Omaha Mall?
Also, anthrax or white powder sent in mail. Sarin gas in Japan, but that was also in a subway station.
Different terrorist actors follow different patterns. They don't switch means and target types all that readily in practice. The primary terrorist threat over the last ten years has not been lone nuts or militia-related, it's been international Islamic-based, and it has shown a marked preference for transportation targets in the West.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well, let's give the Tea Partiers another year, I'm sure they'll start terror strikes at some point for their dear Sarah. And I'm not utterly convinced safety measures ought always be reactive.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
As well as the recent mailed toner bombs, and the fact that someone was taking pot shots at the Pentagon building last month.
Which is why I asked what terrorist definition Dread was using. If we're sticking with Terrorist = Al-Qaeda then fine, but such a limiter needs addressed from the beginning so it can be challenged appropriately. One reason I mentioned McVeigh was in attempt to narrow down where the original statement was headed, and instead of it being addressed as out of context, it was written off as handled
So it can be challenged appropriately? But you haven't issued any challenge on the matter. You both knew exactly what he was saying, but you decided to try and pick an argument about it anyway, since apparently you aren't interested in challenging the claim he was making. As Minx and I have both said, you're taking potshots because it's Dread writing the post.Which is why I asked what terrorist definition Dread was using. If we're sticking with Terrorist = Al-Qaeda then fine, but such a limiter needs addressed from the beginning so it can be challenged appropriately. One reason I mentioned McVeigh was in attempt to narrow down where the original statement was headed, and instead of it being addressed as out of context, it was written off as handled
I'm premier nitpicker around here, you know what separates my behavior from yours? I wouldn't be arguing, I'd have made an interjection pointing out that the claim holds for some specific areas of terrorism, but not necessarily for others. My point may be pedantic, posters may consider it unnecessary and they may even get annoyed about "being corrected",but it adds precision and depth to the discussion. You didn't do anything of the sort, you started with a line which amounted to "I object" and have since been baiting for further posts by Dread, apparently *judging by past posting history* in an attempt to draw him further and further along until you can get him to say something you can actually write a rant against.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 11-18-2010 at 07:55 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Every single exchange had me asking him to clearify or justify his statement. I considered the statement ridiculously overbroad and I wanted to know why it came to be that way. But thanks for expressing what I knew for everyone, even though it flies into the face of everything I've posted in this thread so far
I challenged for someone to provide why we should think terrorists would gravitate to a new rail system over our current rails, I asked why rails over all of our other transportation options. Why is transportation still a common target even though we've had plenty of more direct internal threats, and different external threats (toner bombs).
All I got in response, more than once, was "seriously."
So I wanted to try and whittle it down a step at a time. Thats why I mentioned mail bombs and Oklahoma City. Instead of getting a response like yours, which would be a great way to specific what was trying to be said, Oklahoma ended up being yet another tangent.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-18-2010 at 08:28 PM.
Off the cuff; I think you need bigger bombs to do serious damage to a train. To kill significant numbers of people you'd have to slug something around that would attract attention.
Congratulations America
Which is a bit surprising to be honest. You'd expect shopping malls in the US to be at least as attractive a target as any shopping mall in Turkey. Yet it is only in Turkey that everybody has to go through security before he can enter. Same with all government buildings, police stations and at one point even places like Burger King and McDonald's in central Istanbul would use those hand scanners.
Congratulations America
Only in Turkey?!
I eventually wanted to get into how direct american capitalism/consumerism is long overdo to become a terrorism target, but we didn't make it that far. Why wrap your junk in explosives when you can literally drive into the heart of a mall and make a much bigger mess. Then again, with Black Friday crowds that actually kill people, maybe we're doing the job for the terrorists.
That's pretty damn far.
Shopping malls were considered potential targets at least for a while here, and I remember a lot of malls went through some efforts to prepare, but we never went anywhere near as far as that AFAIK.
The traffic targets are attractive targets because of the high potential for both human and economic damage, and we've helped train the terrorists to expect that what with our shutting down large infrastructures whenever there's an attack or significant enough threat. Unless you're using really high powered explosives, the open space in malls seem to mean that it's harder to get a high death toll, and IMO economic damage is much more likely to be contained locally. The particular mall will be shut down for a while, and some people might go to malls less often, but it won't be that many and it won't last. Going after transportation you can potentially shut down pretty much the entire nation for at least a day, since everybody needs it.
Do you think continued attacks on the transportation infrastructure will continue to cause nationwide closures? I understand how flights can get messed up with major hubs getting attacked, but thats mainly a regional thing. If our security continues to fail, could this eventually be considered something that simply "happens"?
Take the expenses it took to pull off something like 9/11, now spread it out over the nation. A pickup ready to blow and a driver per mall. Simultaneous attacks in everyone's back yard. That will mess a population up in the head.
Some questions I've rolled around in my head, I'm throwing out but not expecting exhausting answers to...
How would Americans react to something like this? Something that challenges their way of spending and gratification. How far would they allow security to strip away rights like the TSA is doing before shopping centers become a bain instead of a pleasure?
EDIT:
and now I sound like GGT
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote