Why do they think this is surprising?

[quade 4]

Why does the paper think this is surprising? Why do they assume it's "unexpected"? Isn't Osama Bin Laden the son of a wealthy Saudi? Don't the wealthy is Saudi Arabia support terrorism?

I don't get it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wealthy-quiet-unassuming-the-christmas-day-bomb-suspect-1851090.html

Are we in the west supposed to think that only the poorest of Muslims can be terrorists? Why would we think that? That's not how it works even in our own country.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why does the paper think this is surprising? Why do they assume it's "unexpected"? Isn't Osama Bin Laden the son of a wealthy Saudi? Don't the wealthy is Saudi Arabia support terrorism?

I don't get it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wealthy-quiet-unassuming-the-christmas-day-bomb-suspect-1851090.html

Are we in the west supposed to think that only the poorest of Muslims can be terrorists? Why would we think that? That's not how it works even in our own country.

Oh come on Quade.... the real reason is this guys emails to americans have gone unanswered... he was not getting as rich as his old man off those banking scams.... and no money.. no virgins... so he went for the AQ Promises of all those virgins...its just more little head thinking.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Because if the headline read "Another spoiled, rich kid does something stupid" it wouldn't be news.

Think about it. Carlos the Jackal, 3 of the 4 founders of Baader-Meinhoff and a lot of other "revolutionaries" that I can't think of right now.

All privlidged kids who turned into terrorists.

You're in the writing biz. They write it in a way that stupid people who pay no attention to the world around them prefer. In a way that doesn't make people feel guilty for not realizing that these kinds of terrorists are running around in their backyard.

I remember in 2001 some unnamed idiot being quoted on radio as being surprised that the attackers would hate America. Absolutely no clue that Al-Queda had attacked American interests previously.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 2]

Che Guevara was a child prodigy chess-master and a physician.
George Habash (founder of the PFLP) was a physician.
Yassir Arafat was a civil engineer.
Menachem Begin led the Irgun during its terrorist attacks against British colonial rule in Palestine. He was a lawyer.
Fidel Castro was born into a wealthy family and acquired a law degree.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Che Guevara was a child prodigy chess-master and a physician.
George Habash (founder of the PFLP) was a physician.
Yassir Arafat was a civil engineer.
Menachem Begin led the Irgun during its terrorist attacks against British colonial rule in Palestine. He was a lawyer.
Fidel Castro was born into a wealthy family and acquired a law degree.

Thomas Jefferson was a pretty smart, well educated, wealthy fellow too, as was Ben Franklin. Marx and Lenin were lawyers. Engels was a factory owner.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I remember in 2001 some unnamed idiot being quoted on radio as being surprised that the attackers would hate America. Absolutely no clue that Al-Queda had attacked American interests previously.

So what do you take from Friday’s incident as a lesson to be learned w/r/t where we should be looking?

I have a couple of my own thoughts but am curious to hear yours.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Che Guevara was a child prodigy chess-master and a physician.
George Habash (founder of the PFLP) was a physician.
Yassir Arafat was a civil engineer.
Menachem Begin led the Irgun during its terrorist attacks against British colonial rule in Palestine. He was a lawyer.
Fidel Castro was born into a wealthy family and acquired a law degree.

Thomas Jefferson was a pretty smart, well educated, wealthy fellow too, as was Ben Franklin. Marx and Lenin were lawyers. Engels was a factory owner.

Sounds like most of these revolutionaries/terrorists were lawyers.

...as I always suspected.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

I remember in 2001 some unnamed idiot being quoted on radio as being surprised that the attackers would hate America. Absolutely no clue that Al-Queda had attacked American interests previously.

So what do you take from Friday’s incident as a lesson to be learned w/r/t where we should be looking?

I have a couple of my own thoughts but am curious to hear yours.

/Marg

At the risk of antagonizing certain segments of the population:

Young, male, Islamic.

On the watch list.

Too many people scream "Profiling is WRONG", but the vast majority of the perpetrators of terrorist acts recently are young, male Islamics (Islamists?). Generally from the Middle East, but also from Africa.

I'm certainly not suggesting barring them from international travel, but I am suggesting looking at them more closely.

The comedian Carlos Mencia had a show on Comedy Central a couple years ago called Mind of Mencia. I can't find the one I'm looking for to link it, but it was something along the lines of:

"Why are they making women take off their shoes before they get on a plane? There isn't a woman in the world that would blow up shoes!"

"Put up the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers at the security checkpoint. Any passengers that look like them get searched. Some guy says "This is profiling and it's wrong". Security says "You look like that guy and that guy. You get searched twice"

It is a bit over the top (hey, it's comedy) but I agree with the general idea.

My understanding of Israeli (El Al) security is that they make a point of having trained security talk to passengers. Look them in the eye and asses their body language. In addition to X-ray. metal detector and explosive sniffers.

And they haven't been hit in a long time.

Realistically, having security give those who fit the profile a quick interview by trained security officers; asking the basic cop questions.

Where do you live, where are you going , who are you seeing, how do you know them, where have you been to.
The same questions the US cops ask at a traffic stop on a "high drug traffic" corridor.

It's amazing how many get tripped up by those simple questions.
If this dude had been asked where (specifically, as in street address) he was going in Detriot, would he have had an answer?
If he didn't, would he have had a name or phone number for the people he was going to see?

If not, then that would be a strong indicator that he need a really close look.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Realistically, having security give those who fit the profile a quick interview by trained security officers; asking the basic cop questions.

Where do you live, where are you going , who are you seeing, how do you know them, where have you been to.
The same questions the US cops ask at a traffic stop on a "high drug traffic" corridor.

It's amazing how many get tripped up by those simple questions.
If this dude had been asked where (specifically, as in street address) he was going in Detriot, would he have had an answer?
If he didn't, would he have had a name or phone number for the people he was going to see?

If not, then that would be a strong indicator that he need a really close look.

Concur strongly w/your suggestions that suggest training and competency of screeners (who perhaps should be thought of as investigators?) is crucial.

The last international flight I took back to the US (November), was from Schiphol (Amsterdam). Each passenger was questioned individually before proceeding to the gate area (along with X-ray screening). Honestly I don’t particularly recall the questions asked other than the standard “did you pack your own bags.” Nothing stood out as unusual. Regardless, those were Delta gate/ticket agents asking.

Quote

At the risk of antagonizing certain segments of the population:

Young, male, Islamic.

On the watch list.

Too many people scream "Profiling is WRONG", but the vast majority of the perpetrators of terrorist acts recently are young, male Islamics (Islamists?). Generally from the Middle East, but also from Africa.

Doesn’t antagonize me. To a great extent, we already do that, whether folks like it or not or want to acknowledge it or not.

What happens when one starts to emphasize (or worse, restrict, which is not the same as profiling) to that profile?

Palestinian terrorists responded to Israel’s profiling by recruiting young women as suicide bombers.

Domestically, profiling would also likely have missed (or did miss) Bryant Neal Vincent (white, from NY, convert from Catholicism, who trained w/AQ in Pakistan to be a suicide bomber), David Headley (Chicago businessman, linked to LeT Mumbai bombing, altho’ the Indian press thinks he’s CIA agent gone ‘rogue’), Carlos Leon Bledsoe (black, convert from Protestantism, attacked Army recruiting station in Little Rock), Kevin Lamar James (black, convert from Protestantism, plotted to attack military recruiting station and synagogue in LA), and Daniel Boyd (white, convert from Christianity, plotted to attack Quantico Marine Base). Even Nidal Hassan is 39, at the far end of “young.”

Setting aside the normative issues for the moment. That tend to be the source of antagonism, imo ... or if the profile targets you or your group. Whether profiling creates vulnerabilities is a policy issue, imo. Perhaps, more importantly, it’s also a short-term (feel-good? cuz we can identify a 'them'?) solution at the ‘pointy end.’ Terrorists innovate. A terrorist who’s on his or her way to board a plane indicates a long chain of activities that were not interrupted. Of course, stopping at the last chance is preferable to not stopping at all.


Along with finding the choice of explosive (PETN) curious, the reported al Qa’eda in Yemen connection as opposed to al Qa’eda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is interesting to me. [Background: wrote a lil’ about AQY here in Sept 2008 and noted AQIM here in May 2008, to further your mention of hindsight recognition of threat origins in your earlier post.] Nigeria is not part of the historical Maghreb and usually considered to be outside/bordering the AQIM territory, which follows old Tuareg (nomadic Berbers) trans-Saharan and -Sahel trade routes that don’t extend into Nigeria. [I.e., it’s not some artificially imposed barrier/line in the sand, altho sand may literally be the substance in this case.] There are connections reported between Nigerian insurgents and AQIM (training, recruiting (from 2005 in that case), outreach, etc), however.

Is this another sign of the westward shift of al Qa’eda as a decentralized, cellular organization lacking a centralized hierarchy?

Folks in certain circles, wonkish or otherwise, have recognized Yemen as a candidate for Islamist terrorist safe haven … doesn’t mean there’s domestic political traction to think about Yemen or the Maghreb.

We can’t go back and change past foreign & military policy choices. What should the lessons be for current and future foreign & military policy choices on the terrorism prevention side and intervention before someone is or has boarded a plane?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Sounds like most of these revolutionaries/terrorists were lawyers.

40%.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

My understanding of Israeli (El Al) security is that they make a point of having trained security talk to passengers. Look them in the eye and asses.

Asses? Are they looking for butt bombers?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

My understanding of Israeli (El Al) security is that they make a point of having trained security talk to passengers. Look them in the eye and asses.

Asses? Are they looking for butt bombers?

That's just to see if the guy is talking out his ass.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Profiling will never be 100% accurate. There will always be those "bad guys" who don't fit the profile (Tim McVeigh is another).
You can't completely ignore those outside the targeted profile, but you also can't ignore the fact that most of the attackers fit a pretty narrow profile.

Yes, the bad guys will adapt and alter the profile to attempt to get through security.

IIRC there was a woman who blew up a plane with a "bra bomb" in Russia (?). Finding that rather innovative device would requre fairly intrusive security measures.

There was a suggestion that this most recent attack failed because of inadequate training, and that there wasn't more thorough training because that would have attracted unwanted attention.
Paying closer attention to the guys who get terrorist training seems to work

And I meant assess. I fixed a bunch of typos before I finally posted that, but missed one. Sue me

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[nerdgirl 0]

Apparently I’m failing to communicate. The part that we can’t seem to get past in this conversation (or in the other thread) is that if one is at the point of having to intervene using profiling (behavioral or otherwise) that means there’s some level of failure w/r/t counterterrorism: an adversary has made a decision to pursue harm and is acting on it.

If one or a nation relies on a strategy emphasizing (or almost entirely relying on) decreasing vulnerability through increased security at airports – whether it be through racial profiling, behavioral profiling, particulate & VOC monitors, terahertz body scans, full-body cavity searches, or security theater – the threat will never be reduced to zero unless one isolates oneself or the nation entirely from the outer world/eliminates all commercial air travel. The latter is one option, but it is not a likely one and a very poor one in a globalized economy from a capitalist perspective. (It may fit into a severe protectionist agenda, however.) Decreasing vulnerability is what all of those approaches are about. To be explicit: decreasing vulnerability where it is actually effective is important; it’s not a panacea and it may create liabilities (without even going to issues of privacy, civil liberties, or anything normative), however …. unless one proposes to shut down all commercial air travel, domestic chemical industry, etc.

And this is where the connection to AQY & AQIM is relevant, imo. If resources and attention are focused on one area (either on decreasing vulnerability or on a geographical area) because of policy decisions, then one misses what’s going on in what is perhaps an area of greater threat to US interests.

/Marg

ps The overwhelming majority of my edits are typos or subject-verb agreement corrections - like the one I fixed above. I make 'em all the time. Don't bother me in other folks posts.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

I'm not sure I'm following you. (that isn't surprising, you are often way over my head).

Stopping the bad guys at the airport is a last resort, but there are always going to be people who don't like us. Currently those people are from the middle east (last 50 years or so).

Some of them have a legitimate complaint - from our unilateral invasion of Iraq based on bad data all the way back to the installation of the Shah in Iran back in the 50's.
Some are at least somewhat legit. Our support of Israel makes a lot of enemies.
Others are simply going on the premise that their God is better than ours, and we need to die (and of course that train of thought has been getting people dead for a very long time).

How do we stop or at least reduce (or contain) the current AQ(IM) threat?

Short of making the world a better place, I got nothing.

AQ seems to be spreading to Africa. Yemen, Somalia, ect. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, ect are probably next. They are places where radical, religious extremism grows well. Poor, undeveloped, little or no opportunities, government that is repressive and non-participatory.

Improving the living conditions in those counties is a laudable goal, but I don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus.

Our last foray in nation-building in Somalia ended in disaster (we got our nose bloodied and quit) and greatly encouraged the bad guys. Our weak reaction to AQ's other attacks in Africa (USS Cole and embassy bombings) probably gave them the imepetus to attack New York and DC.

I have wondered what AQ expected as a reaction from the US. Did our limited reactions to the previous attacks (launching a few Tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan) make them think we would do the same after 9/11?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My understanding of Israeli (El Al) security is that they make a point of having trained security talk to passengers. Look them in the eye and asses.

Asses? Are they looking for butt bombers?

That's just to see if the guy is talking out his ass.

Or maybe an ass-assin

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

I have wondered what AQ expected as a reaction from the US. Did our limited reactions to the previous attacks (launching a few Tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan) make them think we would do the same after 9/11?

There's a theory that AQ not only expected us to invade Afghanistan, they wanted us to. That was the overarching goal behind the attacks. Because, as OBL saw in the Soviet-Afghan wars, a foreign nation invading Islamic territory is pretty much the best recruitment tool he can ask for. It also disproportionately sucks cash from our side. In that vein, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was OBL's wet dream.