
Why Aren't There More Terrorist Attacks? - billpg
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/why_arent_there.html
======
tokenadult
The best way for people in civilized societies to defeat terrorism is not to
live in fear, and to keep on advancing rationality and freedom.

~~~
drunkpotato
In order to "keep on" advancing rationality and freedom we would first have to
_start_ advancing rationality and freedom. Both are in short supply.

~~~
DrSprout
You could start by making a rational argument instead of appealing to a
cynical belief that everyone is irrational and intent on restricting freedom.
The essence of the irrationality that pervades American political discourse is
exactly that sort of "everyone is crazy" mentality. There are plenty of people
advancing rationality and freedom. You aren't one of them.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_appealing to a cynical belief that everyone is irrational and intent on
restricting freedom_

I don't see that in the GP. It looks to me that he's working from the
observation that personal liberty is decreasing, presumably revealing that the
decisions being made are not rational. In particular, there's no reason to
read into this anything about scope ("everyone"), nor their intent (to
restrict freedom).

Clearly it would be incorrect to impute this to _everyone_ when the restricted
liberty can only be caused by the few in power.

Also, it may not be their intent to restrict freedom. Indeed, their _intent_
may be to save our freedom, but due to the observed lack of rationality, their
efforts carry the (assumedly unintended) side effect of restricting freedom.

~~~
drunkpotato
Thank you, that was a very clear and succinct rebuttal.

I would add to it, that "advancing freedom" is one of those phrases that is,
when you examine it, quite poorly defined. Freedom is more a set of
associations than a strict definition, though I'm sure one can find
philosophers who have attempted to strictly define it, so you get "freedom sub
Professor X". Freedom is much easier to talk about in the abstract than to
define, and lends itself to pithy (or, less charitably, glib) phrases that can
be twisted to whatever one's own definition of freedom is.

My original post was flippant and lacking in nuance, to be sure (still not
warranting the personal attack; I do, in fact, attempt to point out logical
fallacies and bring about reasonable discourse). I am not immune to making the
odd sound-bite myself, though calling my post cynical and then making a
strawman attack also does not advance the cause of rationality.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_"advancing freedom" is one of those phrases that is, when you examine it,
quite poorly defined_

I agree, which is why I instead used the term "liberty" in some places. While
the term "freedom" has in modern times become clouded particularly with the
notion of "positive" freedoms, I believe that the term "liberty" tends to be
more strongly associated with the more traditional notions of "negative"
liberty.

But I must concede that even this difference is at the grossest level, and
there remain much more nuanced differences in definition beyond the
negative/positive distinction.

------
ja30278
I've been increasingly wondering about this, and I'm not sure I agree with the
article.

Schneier asserts that "It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S.", which is
hard to swallow given the essentially unchecked flow of immigrants coming
across the Mexican border every day. Why would a terrorist fly into a major US
airport, when he could just as easily fly into Mexico and then walk across the
border (carrying as much cargo as he liked). Think of the vast drug shipments
that cross this border, and then tell me that sneaking across a small suitcase
of biological agents would be difficult.

I also disagree that "small attacks aren't enough". If you and 9 of your
friends coordinate to roll grenades into 10 elementary schools in 10 different
cities, I can assure you that you'd make headlines, and bring daily life to a
standstill as parents refused to send their children to school.

It's also increasingly bizarre to me that terrorists would target airports or
airplanes at all. Airports are the one place where security is most
concentrated. Practically speaking, blowing up a plane is probably the most
difficult option you could choose if you wanted to kill 300 people. Why not
pick one of the other myriad unguarded 'soft' targets where people gather?

Either terrorists are incredibly stupid, vanishingly small in number, or both.

~~~
DrSprout
What you're missing is that nothing occurs in a vacuum. People don't like
being associated with terrorists, especially not people helping immigrants
across the border. If you go to Latin America, they're often even more bigoted
than Americans are - and I'm not talking about gringos. The level of hatred
for blacks is positively revolting from a North American perspective.

So Mexico really isn't a great entry point for a dark-skinned Arab, unless he
speaks Spanish with a flawless accent (though given the variety of Spanish
accents, that's not necessarily that hard.)

>I also disagree that "small attacks aren't enough". If you and 9 of your
friends coordinate to roll grenades into 10 elementary schools in 10 different
cities, I can assure you that you'd make headlines, and bring daily life to a
standstill as parents refused to send their children to school.

If you've managed to coordinate 10 different homicidal suicidal maniacs in 10
different cities to kill a bunch of people on the exact same day (and somehow
managed to find 10 who won't tell anyone anything that suggests they're doing
something suspicious,) aside from the fact that that is very hard, you've
definitely evolved to a large-scale attack.

~~~
ja30278
> If you've managed to coordinate 10 different homicidal suicidal maniacs in
> 10 different cities to kill a bunch of people on the exact same day (and
> somehow managed to find 10 who won't tell anyone anything that suggests
> they're doing something suspicious,) aside from the fact that that is very
> hard, you've definitely evolved to a large-scale attack.

I'll counter by saying that if no terror group exists that is capable of
obtaining:

    
    
       * 10 people willing to kill for their beliefs
       * 10 hand grenades
       * 10 cell phones
    

Then we have been vastly oversold on the dangers presented by terrorism.

Forget the hand grenades. Just 10 suicidal guys with semi-automatic rifles.
This seems stupidly simple to pull off and impossible to defend against.

~~~
mattmanser
What you're describing are essentially the same as what happened in mumbai 2
years ago: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2008_Mumbai_attacks>

In the article the Indians claimed that up to 37 people were involved in
organising it. That's a pretty massive operation.

You can't just have 10 guys who not only have convinced themselves or other to
kill themselves but also people to do a variety of tasks, like: coordinate the
movements plan, recruit the other 9, get them to the right places with minimal
chance of intercept, make sure none bottle out at the last minute, house them
until attack, buy the grenades, etc. etc.

And that's just a list off the top of my head and more pop into it all the
time. Like they also need the right clothes to not look odd, make sure they
attack schools which are easy to get into, have maps to find the school. I'm
sure there's much much more to plan in such an attack.

It's like saying that a special forces attack isn't backed up by a massive
logistical operation. If it wasn't they'd be nothing special about them as
they'd all be dead.

~~~
ja30278
Think of the drug trade, which manages to organize far larger groups in
disparate cities who actually have to transport large shipments of physical
goods, and have to do it _repeatedly_.

There are backwoods meth labs that display at least as much coordination as
would be required for the type of attack I'm describing.

You're asserting that no terrorist organization has the resources to
coordinate a group of 10 people to act in concert.

The alleged U.K. 'liquid explosives' plot resulted in 25 arrests:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot)

My core question is: why would terrorists choose such a complicated, risky,
hard to execute method of terror when easier avenues are available?

~~~
kgermino
Because as the article described they need to appeal to their sponsors as
well. I completely agree with you that if the terrorist simply wanted to
terrorize Americans the best way to do it is to attack suburban schools and
small towns. However these types of attacks still require resources.

I think that the best comparison would be to American Universities: The best
way to teach students is obviously to have the teachers focus on teaching.
However many of the largest schools professors focus their efforts on complex
new research and ideas that are difficult and expensive to pursue but that get
the donors' attention, bringing the school prestige and money.

Attacking a school would probably be the easiest, most effective way to
terrorize Americans, however simply because ti would be relatively easy (or at
least seems like it would be) there would be no political or economic rewards
for going that route.

------
vaksel
actually I think the smaller terrorist attacks would be much more effective at
instilling terror.

remember the dc sniper? After the first couple of people were killed, everyone
started running in zig zags everywhere they went.

blow up a bus or a train once a week, and you'll shut down most cities. It
doesn't even have to be a huge bomb. A few fire crackers that kill/wound 1-2
people and the media will do it's job in making people think it's the end of
the world.

and if they can't get bombs/firecrackers, they can always buy a few automatic
weapons at any gun store, and open up on a few trains/buses/malls. Same effect
without the boom.

Terrorism is just overhyped, since media has nothing better to do.

Take 2009..let's list all the terrorist attacks in the United States:

2/4/2009 - Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board wounded in a car
bomb.(probably abortion related)

5/25/2009 - someone blows up a starbucks bench(0 casualties)

6/1/2009 - a muslim shoots up a recruiting station(1 dead, 1 wounded)

12/25/2009 - the underwear bomber(0 casualties)

So a total of 4 attacks, 1 dead, 2 wounded. And none of them were organized,
terrorists aren't the evil geniuses that the media paints them as. In fact
most terrorists. are basically just wannabees who've watched the news and want
to be part of the "war".

You have a bigger chance of getting killed by a falling tree or getting hit by
lighting, than you do of getting hurt in a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is just hype, it's a small criminal matter, that's not worth the
trillions the United States is spending to fight it. It's all just security
theater....make people think something is being done, when in reality nothing
they can do can stop any further attacks. But the "terrorists are coming to
kill you!" sure does work in getting the public to agree to anything you want.

~~~
anamax
> they can always buy a few automatic weapons at any gun store

Actually, you can't, at least not in the US, and that's been true for decades.

Thinking that you can is like thinking that you can buy a race car at the
local dealer because you see similar looking cars with the same name on TV.

> Take 2009..let's list all the terrorist attacks in the United States:

The Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13 should be on that list. So much for
"all".

~~~
jfager
For the purpose of shooting up your local mall, the difference between a
fully-automatic and semi-automatic AR-15 is not that great (it's not like
you're going to be laying down suppressing fire), and you certainly can buy
the latter without any real difficulty.

~~~
shawndumas
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to
shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle
Times)

~~~
jfager
I guess I don't understand how that quote relates back to what I said. Are you
saying that terrorists _should_ be prepared to lay down suppressing fire, and
thus shouldn't settle for the semi-auto weapons they can easily purchase at
most fine sporting goods stores?

~~~
shawndumas
lol: No I was just thinking of someone trying to '[shoot] up [my] local mall'
and as a licensed concealed carrier I remembered what the Dalai Lama said.

Sorry.

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale

~~~
fnid2
I wonder about the tragedy that can be caused with easy access to deadly
force. If/When the proverbial shit hits the fan, if many people around you
have guns, a single irrational one could cause a firestorm that kills you in
the crossfire.

If everyone isn't walking around with guns and a fight breaks out, you can run
away. But you can't outrun bullets.

This is why I am concerned about open carry laws or even concealed gun laws.

~~~
shawndumas
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than
to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." — Charles
A. Beard

~~~
mturmon
Why these quotes? Is anything Thomas Jefferson, Walter Mondale, or the Dalai
Lama said automatically true?

~~~
jrockway
Because they were famous and their quotes were pithy.

My question is, how come nobody ever gets shot in Japan? Guns are banned,
there are criminals, but most murders are stabbings (or arson, etc.) If you
listen to Jefferson, Japan would be a haven for dangerous gun-toting criminals
shooting up anything and everything just to get some pocket change. But that
is apparently not the case.

~~~
shawndumas
Shootings in Japan [1]

.

[1] <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Shootings+in+Japan>

~~~
jrockway
And the first result says, "The number of shootings in Japan fell to a record
low of 53 in 2006." From the wikipedia page "Gun Violence in the United
States", "In 2005 [there were] 10,100 homicides committed using firearms".

The US is bigger than Japan, but not 190x bigger. So if you are trying to
disprove my argument, you did a bad job.

~~~
kgermino
Wow compare that to Chicago alone which had 382[1] firearm homicides in 2006.

[1] 467 Homicides [2] * 81.8% involved firearms [3]

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago>

[3] [http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-
Examiner~y2...](http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-
Examiner~y2009m9d30-Chicago-gun-control-and-racism)

~~~
shawndumas
Yeah, and Chicago has really strict gun control laws.

------
jacquesm
Because they wouldn't be 'sexy', a good terrorist attack plays the media as
much as any other factor (number of people wounded/killed, timing and so on).

Killing people, especially in batches of 50 or so (sorry, that's not meant
rude, just being analytical) is easy.

Doing it in a spectacular way ready for media consumption is very hard.

Terrorists have a real problem here. If they decided to simply butcher their
way through humanity we'd have a much bigger problem.

See Algeria for what that world could look like.

~~~
jfager
I have a hard time believing that the same country that spent an entire day
watching a tin-foil balloon float around because it thought a boy was inside
wouldn't have a total media freak out over a 'terrist'-linked mall shooting.

~~~
flatline
Same here, the media in this country is nuts. CNN droned on for hours about
the truck in Times Square - with no new information! Isn't it supposed to be
news? Wouldn't a scrolling update or a blurb at the top of each hour suffice?
It actually makes it hard to find out if the situation has changed when the
reporting never does. All the major news broadcasts are primarily there for
the purpose of entertainment.

~~~
jacquesm
When you really think about it, _nothing_ happened. There was a failed
attempt, case closed.

A stickup of a convenience store 500 yards away killing two would have never
gotten that kind of coverage.

------
dkarl
One thing I wonder about, but have no basis for knowing, is whether it was
easier ten years ago for Al Qaeda to convince the 9/11 attackers that they
would have the adulation and gratitude of the Muslim community at large. At
that time, terrorism in the Muslim public's mind was mostly associated with
Palestinians fighting Israeli occupation, and the 9/11 attack was framed as a
blow against U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula. I'm sure many potential
terrorists have since heard their friends, family, and neighbors comment
unfavorably on the 9/11 attacks and their consequences for Muslims and for the
image of Islam. That might hurt recruiting among people who are smart and
social enough to be part of a large-scale attack.

------
EliAndrewC
Last year, Slate published an in-depth series of articles summarizing the
various theories about why we haven't seen more terrorist attacks, e.g. the
"Terrorists are Dumb" theory, the "Near Enemy" theory, the "Bush kept us safe"
theory, etc.

The series was very interested and well-cited and echoes many of the points
that Schneier makes in the OP and may be found here:
<http://www.slate.com/id/2208971/>

------
raquo
I don't know about the US, but here in Moscow/Russia terrorism seems much more
organized. We don't have amateur school shootings, we mainly get
train/subway/plane bombings. In the past we used to have whole buildings
demolished by bombs.

Apart from funding justification, it often seems like "Don't push on us here
in Caucasus, or else we bring terror closer to you" message from terrorists to
the government.

------
raganwald
For the three (maybe four) hackers who haven't already seen it, please watch
Terry Gilliam's brilliant dark satire _Brazil_.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/>

------
radioactive21
The part where he mentions Muslims in America do not support it is a good
point to note. I have Muslim friends, and they have told me that even amongst
the hardcore Muslims in the US, there are lots of talk about disagreement of
US policy but no one ever talks or jokes about terrorist attacks. Even in
private or just friendly talks.

On a side note another thing that I did find interesting that my friend told
me was that the FBI visits Mosques frequently. Just to have friendly talk or
to keep in touch. US intelligence works with local Muslim activist and Mosques
more than people think.

------
mcantelon
Terrorism in America is a much lower threat than mundane factors such as
traffic safety.

Terrorism, however, justifies the creation of counter-insurgence
infrastructure (and supporting industry) which will be useful to the
establishment as America de-industrializes. America will, at some point, face
internal conflict as it implements the austerity measures necessary to
continue to finance military campaigns, service debt (directly or via currency
inflation), and continue to adapt to trade imbalances.

------
jefarmstrong
One factor that I think the post gets wrong is that it's hard to make a bomb.
The NYC "bomb" that just fizzled is a good example. From the limited
descriptions it sounds like that thing would never have blown up. Catch fire
and burn, maybe. You can't just throw some propane tanks, a couple of
fireworks and gas together and expect it to blow up. The Oklahoma bomb was a
huge undertaking. Also, the more time and effort you put into building a real
bomb, the more likely you are to get caught - buying lots of (the right kind
of) fertilizer is a telltale sign.

~~~
ErrantX
I suspect there is a missing qualifier there. i.e; "Bombs are easy to make _if
you have some common sense_ ".

Bombs can come in all shapes and forms; I'm willing to bet the vast majority
of people here (for example) could overcome the problem of a) building it and
b) not using obvious "tell tale" materials. Off hand I recall Meth can be
created out of "household" products and the reactions involved can be very
volatile/explosive - that seems like the possible makings of an effective bomb
right there.

(also; tracking fertilizer sales is probably not going to help you ID
terrorists :) I bet the numbers are just crazy - also, any sensible terrorist
will be nicking small quantities from farms etc.)

On the other hand terrorist converts acting alone are, I suggest, less likely
to be able to do the correct research and construction.

~~~
danudey
Somehow I think setting up a meth lab in a parkade near a building's support
structures would be noticed by security.

~~~
ErrantX
You don't have to set up a lab; the bomb is produced by unstable chemicals. At
the very least you could drive up a van and mix those chemicals together.

------
elblanco
Because they need to keep doing more terrorist attacks, not perpetuate open
warfare. If they turn the heat up _too_ much, it turns into open warfare and
the U.S. invades Afghanistan. If it stays infrequent and random, the U.S. only
does a missile strike.

Put another way, if somebody tries to break into your network (even if they
fail) every single day, you'll do something to stop it. If they try only every
so often, 2 or 3 times a year, you might notice it and be alarmed a bit, but
probably wouldn't do anything to stop it. Most likely because 2 or 3 data
points isn't enough pattern to figure out an abatement strategy.

In Iraq the modus operandi was IEDs, dozens a day, so the U.S. poured enormous
resources into defeating IEDs (billions and billions of dollars), that
resulted in everything from signal jammers to the popularization of geospatial
intelligence and social network analysis.

If the method had been infrequent, we would have just been on a heightened
sense of alert all the time, but not sure where to resource defeat efforts.

------
meelash
There aren't more terrorist attacks, because the classification as "terrorist"
is a false classification. In reality the same mindset, motives, situation,
that allegedly drive "terrorists" drive the people who are committing murders
of their friends/family/coworkers/random-people every day. When an act of
violence is carried out by a Muslim-named individual with an ostensibly
political motive, you classify that as terrorism, whereas the underlying
psychosis that leads to the crime is the same as _most_ other acts of
violence. The manifestation of that psychosis has circumstances and external
justification that are irrational, random, and individual to each person.

So this question is like asking, "Why aren't there more 5'7", 11 shoe size,
blue sweater-ed murderers?" The fact that there are not more "terrorist
attacks" is proof that the classification of "terrorist attacks" is an
unnaturally narrow one, based on arbitrary features of the perpetrators.

~~~
smallblacksun
The word "terrorism" is not only applied to Muslims. McVeigh is called a
terrorist. The IRA were called terrorists.

~~~
meelash
It was an example of one situation that is described as terrorism, not
intended to define the entire class.

That said, I don't think my comments necessarily apply to the IRA, but Timothy
McVeigh probably fits the bill.

------
metamemetics
> _Note that this is very different than terrorism by an occupied population:
> the IRA in Northern Ireland, Iraqis in Iraq, Palestinians in Israel. Setting
> aside the actual politics, all of these terrorists believe they are
> repelling foreign invaders. That's not the situation here in the U.S._

Not so sure about that point, Osama's stated reason was US military bases in
Saudi Arabia (viewing it as a foreign invasion) and support for Israel
(viewing it as a foreign invasion).

~~~
roc
I think that those situations _are_ different from Al Qaeda striking the west,
though I agree that Schneier's imprecise on the distinction.

The big difference is that those acts _are_ local rebellion.

The actions by locals, against an "other" (or its agents/totems) within the
locality, have little to fear from other civilians who might happen upon them
plotting, training, preparing or delivering terror against the "other". And
for the attack to be successful, it merely has to be "news" within the
locality. You don't need to inspire/impress a command/support structure half-
a-world-away. You just need to keep the support of others in the locality.

An "other" operating within a foreign country, however, risks exposure at
every turn. Particularly within a country "alert" to the risk and when the
"other" is trivially identifiable as such. And his attacks must be more about
style, as he needs to inspire/impress people with no local context for a
precise or less spectacular attack.

------
axod
What does "Terrorism" even mean?

Was columbine a terrorist attack?

The media is completely messed up beyond belief though. In the UK there was a
little girl went missing whilst on holiday, and whilst sad, she's had a
massively disproportionate amount of reporting. Still stories in the papers
about it now years later.

~~~
hugh3
No. Terrorism is the deliberate murder of civilians (or threats thereto), in
order to advance a political objective.

It's not actually all that hard to define, some people just try to
deliberately muddy the waters.

\- The Columbine shootings were not terrorism since they had no political
motive.

\- The assassination of JFK was not terrorism since the President is not, for
the purposes of this discussion, a "civilian" (I might need to work on the
definition of "civillian")

\- If a warplane drops a bomb aimed at a tank and it hits an orphanage by
accident, that's not terrorism since the civilians weren't the actual target.
(Note: that doesn't necessarily mean it was excusable).

\- The Fort Hood massacre and the many attacks by Al Qaeda against US troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan are not, strictly speaking, terrorism, since the
targets are military rather than civilian (again this just a semantic
distinction I'm making here, not a moral one).

Any other border cases we'd like to discuss? Note that by this definition
terrorist attacks were commonly used by both sides in World War 2.

~~~
axod
But why does the motive matter? I don't think it's useful. Especially when
reporting in the media.

Perhaps we should call them "random unprovoked killings of civilians".

~~~
branden
A crime's motive determines in part how you understand it and how you prevent
it. Terrorism isn't random; it is focused on a particular goal and planned in
advance. Unhinged mall shooters won't be stopped by coordinated intelligence
gathering, and they can't be investigated for links to other such shooters.
Any similarity between such acts and terrorism is superficial at best and
requires that you ignore the crime's context. A media that doesn't distinguish
the two will either trivialize terrorism or needlessly sensationalize random
violent acts.

------
fredBuddemeyer
yes most of these actions are the work of a lone nut but the problem is the
increasing impact that nut has thanks to evolving technology.

the ability to cause mass destruction is following a law similar to mr.
moore's (albeit we are on the early, flat part of this curve). a century ago
it was impossible to wipe out a huge population; 50 years ago the largest
nations could do it. today the nuclear and biological options have added an
order of magnitude to the club and there is no reason to believe this will
stop.

rather than a vested political group that would themselves be subject to
revenge it's the irrational individual that will inevitably prove most
destructive.

------
askar_yu
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/weekinreview/04shane.html>

------
sabat
I appreciate Bruce's attempts, but as usual, I'm skeptical about his presumed
knowledge about every area of security merely because he's an accomplished
cryptographer.

Security is a mish-mash of scattered fields related only by the concern that
someone is going to do something undesirable. I have strong doubts that being
a cryptographer qualifies you, automatically, as an expert in physical
security.

We need to face the fact the reason there aren't more terrorist attacks is
simply because there are not that many people in the world are genuinely
willing to commit suicide while taking other lives. Schneier's not entirely
wrong, but I think his reasons are peripheral.

~~~
timcederman
Not to be too condescending, but it's pretty obvious you haven't studied
information security at all (let alone read Schneier's work?). Saying someone
is "only" an "accomplished cryptographer" really diminishes what is required
to have the mindset that makes you a good cryptographer, amongst other things.

~~~
sabat
Actually I have 10+ years in the field, am a CISSP, and was a CISO in the
financial services industry for 6 years.

 _Saying someone is "only" an "accomplished cryptographer" really diminishes
what is required to have the mindset that makes you a good cryptographer_

That's precisely the point of view I'm refuting. The kind of mindset you need
to be a good cryptographer has little or nothing to do with being good at
physical security, network security, or any other field of security. The
reason: informations security is composed of disparate fields, related only by
the need to maintain C., I., and A.

~~~
timcederman
But cryptography is only one part of information security - not sure why
you're focusing on that.

~~~
sabat
Because that's what Bruce's background and experience is in. He has never
worked in most of the other areas -- he's never held a position doing physical
security work. I've got reservations about "security" being all the same
thing, and about Bruce being a presumed expert in every area of it. It'd be
like a veterinarian doing surgery on a human. Related? Loosely.

------
goldbug
Terrorism is a tool of government to implement police state:

10 steps necessary for a Fascistic group (or government) to destroy the
democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political
liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

1\. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.

2\. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.

3\. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens. 4\.
Set up an internal surveillance system.

5\. Harass citizens' groups.

6\. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.

7\. Target key individuals.

8\. Control the press.

9\. Treat all political dissidents as traitors.

10\. Suspend the rule of law.

This pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and any country on
the road to totalitarianism.

Btw. For military industrial complex who gain from this 40% of US budget this
never ending war with ghost enemies. These people are living by killing
humans. For them there is no problem to stage such events. 1,3 million Iraqis
dead based on total lie about WMD.

Of course if you say that Putin could use this type of methods during Moscow
terrorist attack everyone would consider that this is totally possible but in
USA such things could never happen. Yeaaah right! You are on the path to
POLICE STATE and you afraid to face the truth.

------
c00p3r
The terrorist attacks tend to happen when the governments need to shift a
public attention from their deep troubles. And this tendency is not limited to
the third world like Russia.

So, it's just not an appropriate time.

~~~
goldbug
You are totally right.

------
budu
Because of Jack Bauer!!!

------
911miss
This is why: <http://imgur.com/fwP2Z?tags>

~~~
jbrennan
Wait, what?

