Smaller-Scale Terrorism Plots Pose New and Worrisome Threats

[snopes]

After disrupting two recent terrorism plots, American intelligence officials are increasingly concerned that extremist groups in Pakistan linked to Al Qaeda are planning smaller operations in the United States that are harder to detect but more likely to succeed than the spectacular attacks they once emphasized, senior counterterrorism officials say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01terror.html

[Malruhn]

Like has been said on here before...

Those of us that defend the nation from terrorist attacks have to be successful 100% of the time, while those that plan and execute the attacks only have to be successful once.

[Troberg]

Well, there is another way. Focus on violent crime, terrorism or not. That will save more lives in the long run, and will reduce the symbolic value of terrorism to that of any violent crime performed by some random nutter. Don't forget, killings is not the prime goal of the terrorist, it's just a means to get noticed and feared. If they are treated like any other common criminal, they will not get noticed and feared, and terrorism will cease to be effective, and thus cease to be an attractive method.

Accept that some acts of terror get through the safety net, and focus on maximizing an overall reduction of violent crime instead.

[Malruhn]

Are you kidding, Troberg? Americans would NEVER stand by and "accept" that terrorism can just HAPPEN on US soil!! Terrorism is something that happens in OTHER countries!

And the first politico that stood up in public and announced that there was ANY flavor of "acceptance" of some acts would be signing his/her political death warrant.

And our very culture breeds the acceptance of terror-like attacks, with the passage of laws that make some crimes worse than others based upon the intentions of the criminal... we just set ourselves up for the "That crime was just a murder - but THAT one over there was a TERROR ATTACK!"

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, there is another way. Focus on violent crime, terrorism or not. That will save more lives in the long run, and will reduce the symbolic value of terrorism to that of any violent crime performed by some random nutter. Don't forget, killings is not the prime goal of the terrorist, it's just a means to get noticed and feared. If they are treated like any other common criminal, they will not get noticed and feared, and terrorism will cease to be effective, and thus cease to be an attractive method.

Accept that some acts of terror get through the safety net, and focus on maximizing an overall reduction of violent crime instead.

I feel like terrorism and most other violent crime are really distinct issues, even if they are similar in their goals. I think the strategies used to reduce general violent crime and those used to reduce terrorism would be markedly different.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Are you kidding, Troberg? Americans would NEVER stand by and "accept" that terrorism can just HAPPEN on US soil!! Terrorism is something that happens in OTHER countries!

And the first politico that stood up in public and announced that there was ANY flavor of "acceptance" of some acts would be signing his/her political death warrant.

I don't say that the acts should be accepted, just that they should be treated as any other violent crime. It's a double standard to go on an all out jihad against terrorism, while, say, domestic violence gets shoved into the "to check later" bin. Treat it like any other crime of a similar magnitude. That will make it possible to use resources more efficiently and help more people. Also, it will make a clear statement of "So, you think you are something with your political hijackings? Well, around here, you are just a common criminal." which would remove much of the symbolic value of terrorism.

Frankly, I believe that USA through its excessive response has increased the fear component of terrorism, thus empowering the terrorists rather than weakening them. I think a statement in the news by an older gentleman who survived the London bombings sums up the proper response quite nicely: "I lived through the Blitz, I've been bombed by a better class of bastards than this.". It's like encountering a wild animal, don't show fear.

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I feel like terrorism and most other violent crime are really distinct issues, even if they are similar in their goals. I think the strategies used to reduce general violent crime and those used to reduce terrorism would be markedly different.

I agree, they require somewhat different tactics, specifically, I believe terrorism requires more international cooperation, but both tactics feed from the same pool of resources. If one gets more, the other is likely to get less, and this needs to be balanced, especially in a nation with such a high rate of violent crime as USA.

[snopes]

It's a double standard to go on an all out jihad against terrorism, while, say, domestic violence gets shoved into the "to check later" bin.

Umm, no. It's a different standard, not a "double standard."

[Friends of Alfred]

"I lived through the Blitz, I've been bombed by a better class of bastards than this.".

I remember reading that quote, and raised a glass to that gent.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by snopes

Umm, no. It's a different standard, not a "double standard."

I might miss some subtle language nuance here, but to me, violent crime is violent crime. Treating some of it different is a double standard.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

I might miss some subtle language nuance here

Indeed you do. "Double standard" isn't the same thing as "different standard"; the former carries a very specific meaning that doesn't apply in this case.

violent crime is violent crime. Treating some of it different is a double standard.

Nonsense. That's like saying traffic violations are traffic violations, so treating drunk driving differently than not signalling a turn is a "double standard" [sic].