I'm sure I have not delineated anything like a position.
>>You've said that the 3,000 dead would rather be alive and watched.
Dude, that's just a freakin' *given*....you don't want to debate this do you?
Its not a position, its a 24 carat fact.

I'm sure they would. The question is, is that the choice there was? If we have more surveillance, will the terrorists still be able to get through?

Well, first of all......its not zero.......its just very small. For it to be ZERO it has to be impossible. I think you know this and are just conveniently overlooking it. And it is a very small likelihood that the government will be watching you.

Well, we're getting somewhere, "just very small" is a good start. So, why are you advocating anyone (non-terrorist) give up any rights to "protect" you from something who's likelyhood of occuring is "just very small"?

There is also a very small chance you'll win the lottery.

Tell me why is there even a hint of justification to focus on the next 12 months?

Simple, given enough time, even a statistically "impossible" event can occure.

So, you're willing to start restricting rights based off of the knowledge that unlikely events will eventually occure?

Did I mention the Lottery yet? Do you think it would make a good retirement fund for you?

The reason your position is silly is that.......if its allowed to hold water we should actually be reducing the amount of government monitoring.

? How so?

After all the likelihood is EXTREMELY small so why worry right?

That is correct. There is no need for any decrease in individual rights to handle this situation. After all, our past security measures have been sufficient to handle just about everything up to now. How many other foreign terrorists have hit us within our borders?

This (if believed) means that we start shaving away at government powers and keep going for as long as the risk is extremely small right?

This is called a "straw man". You are assigning a position to me that I have not stated and are preparing to attack that instead of my stated position.

Problem is...nobody (not even you) has any idea what "extremely small" really means........

This is your fear talking. You're expounding upon attacks that haven't occured. Rather than guessing how many will occure (if we do not take measures that may not stop them anyway), how about we look at the past and see what DID occure?

I thought we had dealt with the question of whether "you" will be attacked is not relevant. Its whether *anyone* will be attacked. The question needs to be whether *anyone* will be attacked....

Okay, the net is still the same. The average person will not be killed by a terrorist. Statistically speaking. That is derived from a study of past statistics on death.

And finally, yes surveillance does have its successes.

Yep. Note the date on that incident. 1999. So, terrorists were being caught with the existing level of surveillance. Can you tell me that increasing the surveillance will catch more?

I say it will not. Just as our "increased" security at airports will stop anyone getting anything through.

I think it is self-evident and unnecessary of proof that more surveillance *could* have prevented 9/11.

Hmmm, weren't visas for the terrorists issued AFTER the attack? When their names were definately known? I don't think it could have prevented the attack. They used legally carried weapons. Tell me >HOW< surveillance could have stopped them.

Saying that it won't reduce your chances because they were already extremely low...........is academically disengenuous (ie. wrong because your chances were NOT zero).

That is the difference between academics and the real world. In academics, you can say that an extremely unlikely event can be even more extremely unlikely. In the real world, you have to factor in human failings and random events. Looking BACK, it is easy to see that someone only wanting to learn to fly and not land could be a threat. At the time, they didn't care.

And that's the key. The next attack WILL NOT BE from an airplane. It will come from another, unexpected direction. And no amount of surveillance will prevent it. Just as no amount of surveillance would have prevented them attacking the WTC.

Did you finish "History And Forgetting" - James Bacque yet?
What did you think of it?

Dull. What does that have to do with this discussion?

I said:

Looking BACK, it is easy to see that someone only wanting to learn to fly and not land could be a threat. At the time, they didn't care.

You said:

You are getting confused.
On August 13th, a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota, informed the FBI that a student named Zacarias Moussaoui had asked to take 747 flight simulator training, but that he only wanted to learn how to steer the aircraft \ufffd not take off or land. Moussaoui, who was in this country illegally, was arrested and held for deportation.

So, why weren't the OTHERS who were taking such training identified to the FBI? Why weren't they captured? And why the fuck are we deporting a terrorist?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. SOME will ALWAYS slip through. One was caught, but enough got through to fly two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and one that crashed.

So, the next attack takes longer to plan. The next attack requires that they become certified pilots. More effort on their part. A longer ramp up time. Similar effects. And that's just focusing on flying planes into buildings.

Wanting to learn to fly without learning to take off or land is weird.

But not illegal.

Nor was it illegal to carry box cutters on planes.

So, I will fill it in for you.

We have armed guards scanning everyone's baggage.

The terrorists go through the scan with their legally carried box cutters.

The attack proceeds as it did.

So, the easy way around that is to outlaw box cutters and any type of knife.

So, they need another weapon, piano wire garrots maybe? Still legal to transport those (and they're easily hidden).

The ONLY way to make sure no one gets a weapon on board is for EVERYONE to fly nude. No clothes. No luggage. Nothing.

And even THAT doesn't preclude advanced training in martial arts.

So, ONE person sees something reportable in someone wanting to only learn to steer an aircraft. Others do not (or they accept the reasons given by the terrorists). Now, if that guy had been in the country legally, would he still have been allowed to learn to steer the aircraft?

So, everyone flies nude with no carry-on luggage.

So, if you want to learn to steer the aircraft, you'll need to sign up for the whole course AND be in the country legally.

So, one of their people is in the country legally and learns to fly and then they get a Leer and pack it full of explosives and fly it into another building.

Back to the topic on hand........
THEY....CAUGHT.....ONE......OF......THE.....TERRORISTS
It wasn't with hindsight. It wasn't just because of his visa that he was held.
They found his activities troubling. They were going to deport him to France
and let him lead them to others and/or more info. Perhaps by monitoring him
more carefully? Oh no, wait I am forgetting......monitoring him more carefully
would not have achieved anything. You "proved" that. Right?

Again, one was caught and how many got through?

What would you have been monitoring that would have alerted you to the others?

Specifics.

Are you suggesting we monitor all the flight schools? Why would be have done this before the attack?

Are you suggesting that we should have spotted them because they were carrying box cutters? Why would anyone be suspicious of box cutters before the attack.

Increased monitoring would NOT have prevented the attack because >YOU< have not yet told me >WHAT< would be monitored.

Yet I have given you examples of what is now monitored because of the attack and how such monitoring can be circumvented.

If you advocate "monitoring", you have to "monitor" something.

In surveillance, what are you watching?

I can give concrete examples of what I do NOT want the government doing (GPS in my cell phone).

You have yet to give a concrete example of what monitoring what specific location, activity, whatever would have prevented the attack.

Or how such monitoring can prevent another attack.

And >THAT< is why I keep saying your "reasoning" is pure emotion.

You have a warm fuzzy feeling that "monitoring" will "protect" you. That you can "monitor" the bad guys.

Which is why I keep saying that your security is an illusion. Any system can be circumvented. I illustrated that in the examples I gave you. Even when everyone is required to fly nude with no carry on luggage, it is still possible for a terrorist to kill the crew and take over the plane.

So, that means you'll have to monitor every dojo in the world for anyone of arab descent, possibly linked to Osama, taking martial arts training.

And that is just ONE example of what you'd have to do.

Nevermind that the prerequisites for such extreme action on the terrorist's part will not come about (we will not be required to fly nude).

Which means that they will can still use any weapon that is not being searched for right now.

Which means that they can still use different avenues of attack.

Ummmm let me see.......all the things that are a concern for you.......must be a concern for them .......... right?

Me personally? Nope.

That is why one illegal was caught doing something odd but other ones got through.

Which is why, someone wanting to learn to steer an aircraft but not land or take off would be IMMEDIATELY reported now (after the attack), but only one was reported BEFORE the attack.

The same with people carrying box cutters onto airplanes. No reason to not let them through BEFORE the attack. But now they're a big problem.

Which is where "monitoring" breaks down.

It relies on people to do it.

People can follow a list of items, but that list is limited to things that people can think of. They can't get them all.

Or, people can look for "odd" activitiy. But this also gets back to people defining what is "odd". What is unusual to one person is normal to another.

"Monitoring" would NOT have prevented the attack.

Once they spotted a potential terrorist in flight school.
TADA.....more heavy monitoring of all the flight schools.

Which proves my point.

You're operating in hindsight.

You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the flight schools.

You see a "terrorist" in the supermarket. You increase monitoring in all the supermarkets.

You see a "terrorist" in the hardware store. You increase monitoring in all the hardware stores.

Not sure why it didn't happen........but to say that it could
not have possibly made a difference.......is not credible.

Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.

It is only AFTER an attack has taken place that you can understand that they took the flight training so they could pilot the planes AFTER they had killed the pilots with box cutters and then fly them into buildings.

The individual items are MEANINGLESS prior to the attack.

And now.........your waffling on about the human factor.
Oh god........
"Which is where "monitoring" breaks down."

Whatever you want to believe. You still don't realize that you're operating in hindsight. People who are much better versed than you in this (the FBI) were notified about that one guy in one flight school. They took NO action.

And the reason is that they are human and didn't see the connection between flight training and suicide attacks. They didn't see that connection. People who are trained to deal with these things DID NOT SEE THAT CONNECTION. Someone wanting to learn to steer a plane without landing/take off was odd, but NOT A THREAT. Well, it wasn't perceived as a threat TO THE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. Or, at least not an ORGANIZED threat.

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT MONITORING IS FOOLPROOF.
YOU ARE ARGUING THAT MONITORING CAN NOT RESULT IN A GAIN IN SECURITY.

No. I am pointing out that "monitoring" in these instances will not result in a gain in security.

And for the example to show my point, I asked you what you would have "monitored" and why that could have prevented the attack.

You said that you'd monitor the flight schools after that SINGLE incident.

You said you didn't understand why the FBI didn't do that.

And that is the root cause of your error.

The FBI has a limited number of people.
Those people are not omniscient.
They just can NOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.

And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security. I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from killing himself and victims. But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist.

So I'm not willing to give the government any more authority to spy on me than it had before.

>>Which proves my point
You keep saying this but you never demonstrate how <lol>

Actually, I did. Without the benefit of hindsight, you'd have to monitor the grocery stores and hardware stores and any other place each and every terrorist went.

Why? Because they used box cutters in the attack.

You want to focus on why they wanted to learn to steer, only. That is pure hindsight.

For proof, I used your reference of the FBI being informed about one illegal wanting to learn to steer and NOT doing anything about it.

Because, at the time, it didn't seem to be a threat.

You can only SEE the threat NOW because you KNOW what the plan was.

If you didn't KNOW what the plan was, you would HAVE to watch ALL the places they went.

There isn't enough MANPOWER to do that.

>>You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the >>flight schools.
Errrrmmmmmm..................yeah. You look for any body who may be associated with him. Are those people in training schools? Where have THEY been?
How the fuck is this hindsight if the WTC hasn't been attacked yet?
Oh wait I see....its hindsight because it happened in the past......right?

And you also see that the people associated with him have all been to the grocery store. So you start background checks on the people there. And you watch it too. It might be a message drop.

The same for the hardware store.

The same for EVERYPLACE they go.

You're only FOCUSING on the flight training because you ALREADY know what their plan was.

And to PROVE that, I will, once again, point out that the PROFESSIONALS in the field DID NOT SEE A PROBLEM.

But you're SMARTER than the PROFESSIONALS, aren't you?

No, you're only better INFORMED after-the-fact.

And you keep mistaking being-informed-after-the-fact with intelligence.

Why would you NOT have searched the grocery store?

Do you even KNOW that they ALL didn't use the same one when they were there?

Did they go to a local 7-11 staffed by arabs?

Why aren't you recommending that those places be monitored?

Because the information you're operating from has already been selected and verified for you.

But you can't SEE that.

You don't know where they stayed or if they all stayed at the same place or whether the place they stayed had any arabs on staff that might be sympathetic to their cause.

You don't know this because the information you have has been PRE-SELECTED.

You do NOT have to wade through daily reports of hundreds of individuals and attempt to cross-index their activities. This has ALREADY been done for you.

And the way it was done is by identifying the hijackers and then WORKING BACKWARDS to trace their activities and seeing what OTHER suspects had similar activities.

That is why "monitoring" will NOT work.

You can't see the difference between hindsight and extrapolation.

You think that, just because you have hindsight, you have foresight.

>>Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.
That is correct......you monitor those things which you think look like the most promising leads. This, is incidentally a well-established approach to catching people that you want to find. It works for spies, criminals and lost kittens.

Yet, in your example, you ALREADY knew WHO the people were and WHERE they were. Otherwise, your previous example WOULD NOT WORK.

You don't actually look EVERYWHERE because the world is actually quite a large place. Almost as big as a planet in fact.

Okay, we ARE concerned with the US, right? Can we keep the discussion focused on the US?

I put it to you that a pilot school who calls the FBI detailing how someone wants to only learn how to fly big jets excluding landing and taking off...is providing a promising lead.

And I put to you that the FBI was informed AND DID NOT THINK IT WAS THAT BIG OF A LEAD.

Now, in hindsight, you can see where they made a mistake.

But the EXPERTS at the FBI did not think it was a big deal.

So, you're smarter than the experts?

No, just better-informed-after-the-fact. But you can't tell the difference.

"We were busy doing other stuff" is not an acceptable explanation. Not least because they actually arrested him.

They arrested him for being an illegal. Not for being odd in flight school. Notice that others had taken similar training.

If you want a far more plausible explanation......they thought he was one of the smaller fish and were going to let him loose and have him lead them to the leaders.

I'm sure he'd be able to do that FROM HIS CELL! He was being DEPORTED. Do you know what "deported" means?

Might not be correct but its a fuck of a lot better than "Well we can't be expected to watch evryone you know".

Just because something doesn't fit your fantasy, doesn't mean it is wrong. The FBI (the experts trained in this kind of thing) did NOT see the same threat you see. Nor do they have the manpower to track everyone and everyone they meet with.

Also: >>You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.
You have at no time demonstrated why it is necessary to monitor everything
before you have ANY impact on security. My argument is that it IS possible to have an impact.

Actually, I have. Over and over and over and over again. But you can't tell the difference between information-after-the-fact and foresight so you don't understand what I'm saying. Tell me what OTHER places they had in common. Tell me why those were not under surveillance. Tell me why the OTHER people they met were not under surveillance.

Because you CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.

And >YOU< do NOT know what is IMPORTANT PRIOR TO THE ATTACK.

Once again, you have information-after-the-fact and THINK you understand the situation BEFORE it happened.

Which, once again, means that YOU think YOU are better trained to handle the job than the EXPERTS at the FBI.

Look...........you ask for WHAT possible things I could have monitored because you didn't think there were any.

WRONG!!! I know EXACTLY what COULD have been monitored. But I'm not dumb enough to think I'd look for those things BEFORE the attack.

I'm not asking you JUST what you'd monitor. I also want to know WHY you'd monitor THAT and NOT something else.

Yes, you NOW know WHAT you'd monitor.
-AND-
You know WHY you'd monitor that.
-BUT-
You haven't told me WHY you'd filter out ANYTHING else.

You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.

A decision HAS to be made as to WHAT is "monitored" and what is NOT "monitored".

The FIRST part of that is EASY given information-after-the-fact.

The SECOND part of that is the difficult part.

The SECOND part of that is the decision the FBI had to make back then.

I pointed out some things that *could* have been used and therefore how they *could* have been apprehended.

Yep. 100% based on your hindsight. Now, tell me why you would NOT have "monitored" the OTHER activities and personel and locations.

>>And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security.
Course yer not! LMAO. I refute it thus.
From: [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065]
>>No matter how hard you try. There is no 100% guarantee of safety.
(Your inability to keep track of your own ideas makes this just too easy
ya know)

Hmmm, so, I say I'm not talking about 100% security and you refute that statement with a link to me saying that I'm not talking about 100% security? You must be giggling yourself silly over that one.

>>I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from >>killing himself and victims.
But....errrrrrrrrrm...well............errrrmmmmmmmm...........this happens
all the time. Don't know what to tell you......
[link|http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/08/06/LatestNews/LatestNews.31959.html|http://www.jpost.co...s.31959.html]

Perhaps you should read your own article. The guy was on his way to pick up explosives from another guy and he was arrested. Ah, when I said "suicide", you took that in the broadest sense to include someone who does not yet have the explosives/equipment/whatever. In which case, you are correct.

Regarding you rather detailed usage of statistics. I'll accept your 1995 numbers as average for each year. Now, take that over 10 years. How many US citizens are killed, on average, each year (over the last 10) by terrorists as opposed to family members?

Therefore, you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist.

As to whether aggression exists or not, who cares? Are you trying to make a point? Does that point alter the statistics?

"But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist". What period of time did you have in mind.....a year? Clearly if you pick the year 2001......your numbers look a little shaky to say the least...3000 vs. ummmmmm something smaller.

No. Let's say, 24 hours. I get to pick the 24 hour period. Please, try NOT to play statistical games. They are ONLY relevent OVER TIME.

You want to pick the year with the single largest terrorist attack in US history? No. Average the data over 10 years. That will show the risk.

Otherwise, figuring average deaths/day you can have approximately:

5 killed by family
vs
3000 killed by terrorists

-or-

5 killed by family
vs
ZERO killed by terrorists.

No. I'm not going to play that. Take the data FOR EACH YEAR AND AVERAGE IT OVER 10 YEARS.

If you don't see WHY I'm doing this, then you don't understand statistics.

But one problem is that the larger you make your window the less meaningful is the observation. In 20 years time, the insight that its more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist might be met with "ya we know...they're all dead" or............it might be met with ....."does that include the 15,000 who died from smallpox in 2012?"

Hmmm, I'm talking about the statistical likelyhood of being killed by a family member vs being killed by a terrorist.
-and-
For some reason you're going off on a tangent about smallpox in 2012.

Okay......... was the smallpox due to a terrorist attack?

Why are you attempting to factor in deaths that have not yet happened and may never happen?

Whatever.

So it seems that the insight is just plain wrong if you take the short-term view or it is not very valuable or useful in the long-term view.

I'm talking deaths over time. There is ONE time range where more people were killed by terrorists than by family members. But that time range REQUIRES that it include the attack on 11 Sept. 2001.

Now, I will explain the fallacy behind your "logic".

Take that same time frame and move it OFF of 11 Sept 2001 and you will see a COMPLETELY different picture.

In fact, keep moving it in 24 hour periods back in time and you will see the SAME fact that I've been saying all along.

So, you want to use statistics, but only if they include a certain date and have a certain range?

You really don't know ANYTHING about statistics, do you?

That's why you're afraid and the statistical evidence doesn't make you less afraid.

Either way its crap.
What it all boils down to is how afraid you want to let yourself be.

No, it is not "crap". But you're right on the second part. You can be as afraid as you want to be. That is your choice.

And the statistics won't mean anything because you're operating off of your fear.