Terrorism is Hard - Macleans.ca

Terrorism is Hard


From the wsj:

“While they [terrorists] have been demonstrating their conviction, they haven’t demonstrated a great deal of competence and therefore we have seen a lot of amateur plots,” Mr. Jenkins said. “The terrorists seem to be facing a quality control issue.”

Filed under:

Terrorism is Hard

  1. Maybe because all the good ones have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, or put away in Gitmo??

  2. If they're so good, how are they letting themselves be killed or captured? :)

  3. Because they're being forced to fight trained soldiers head-to-head on the battlefield instead of grandmothers riding the subway.

  4. Wow, I didn't think any literate people actually believed the BS propaganda being used to sell these wars.

  5. Then why can't you muster a literate response? lol. Next.

  6. Is the key to literate responses using lots of 'lol's?

  7. Terrorism is easy. It's just that terrorists are dumb pretty much by definition.

    I mean, if the terrorists even stopped and thought about what made them join up with their cause, either it's because they agreed with the beliefs or they were scared of some alternative, they'd realize their actions are futile as they're prompting no agreement and fear actively drives people elsewhere.

    Hell, down in Maryland they showed how to do terrorism properly a few years ago. All you need is a car with a couple of holes in the trunk, a good rifle, and a willingness to kill random people.

  8. “The terrorists seem to be facing a quality control issue.”

    Well, good. But I wouldn't break out the condescention and party hats yet, because:

    1. It only takes one functioning attack to scare the bajeebus out of the free world; and
    2. Don't taunt people who make bombs for a living. Catch them and prosecute them instead.

    • Lynn, I agree with your first point, but not your second.

      Don't worry about taunting or prosecuting. Just put a bullet in their heads.

  9. Well, the chosen tactics of Islamic Terror don't really allow for much experience to be built.

    There are no 'Veteran' suicide bombers to train the new ones.

  10. This is as much a psychological war as it is one of guns and bombs. I happy to see our enemies taunted, at least a little, when they fail.

  11. Well, you can pine for the clever terrorist all you want. As this thread suggests, they don't seem capable of much anymore. In the West, or in Israel. And I thank God for that.

  12. No, making points forcefully, and not having anyone respond back in kind. Like you. Next.

  13. I suspect that's a case of people not taking your bait. You're a bit of a troll.

  14. They're replying to me, genius. lol. Next.

  15. That's not necessarily true. Both in Afghanistan, and Palestine, deep terrorists networks were allowed to develop and fester for a while. 9/11 and other worldwide attacks occurred, as well as countless suicide raids in Israel. So, the forces of good in the world decided to fight back, kill the leadership of these groups, have them scrambling from the bottom up, so that they can't muster anything significant anymore. Knock on wood.

  16. I have to agree with Thwimm, above. Terrorists of the Islamic sort in particular seem to be quite lacking in common sense.

    Think about it: the U.S and other western nations are the most vulnerable societies on earth. If, on any given Saturday, the Islamists put three powerful explosive devices in three U.S. shopping malls in major urban centres, then the U.S economy would likely shut down until further notice as the highly-docile American population sits in front of their tv's watching the final bricks being put in place to complete their police state.

    Seriously, I don't understand why this hasn't happened already. The only plausible explanation for me is that the Islamists really have no idea what makes us tick, and how to screw us big time. Surely it's only a matter of time until they figure this out.

  17. You should get a job with Fox News or ESPN radio, their target audience would love your hard-hitting, no-nonsense punditry that completely ignores the root of any problem or issue. Next.

  18. It's also possible their ability to find people willing and able to conduct bombings on American soil is smaller than we think, and always has been. Not that it's impossible, obviously.

  19. do you think Mike T actually pines for terrorist Dennis F? I think you are aware that ad hominem bs isn't welcome here. If you disagree with his point counter based on fact or wit, not your name calling ability.

  20. They aren't forced to fight anyone they don't want to. One of the things that's become painfully clear over the last decade is how easy it is to hide from vastly superior foreign armies.

  21. Then why can't either of you post a decent rebuttal? Who's your target audience? The 5th grade? Left-wing hate sites? My God.

  22. I'm capable of writing posts, reading them, and replying to them specifically. You? Geez.

  23. Dennis, if you really believe that the US and all of the other countries that followed them to Iraq and Afghanistan are there to liberate or democratize them, or that the US, Canada et. al. have even a slim chance of reducing the net number of terrorists in the world, after almost 10 years of evidence to the contrary, no rebuttal by anyone here will change your mind.

    Also, just because I'm against a war (let's face it, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all just different theatres of the same war) that has been fought since day one on false pretenses, has seen the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, has enriched private contractors for producing third-rate results, and has served as the best recruitment tool that any anti-Western terrorist organization could hope for, how does than make me liberal exactly?

  24. So far, there's no evidence of a "plot" — requiring, by definition, two or more people. There's no evidence of any "foreign" terrorist involvement. Indeed, the one "person of interest" sought is apparently a "white male in his 40s" … and the NYPD says he may have had nothing to do with the vehicle in question.

    Before wildly speculating, you might recall that in the hours following the Oklahoma City federal building blast, media and "witnesses" described "arab looking" men running from the scene before the blast. It turned out to be the work of two white ex-army guys, pissed at their own government.

    Let's see where this one goes before pontificating about the skills of mujahideen/insurgents/foreign-fighters or the selling of foreign wars to the Western public by governments, media, industry etc. They may be valid discussions to have … but they also may prove to have had nothing to do with what happened in NYC.

  25. You're more than welcome to that opinion, however misguided I think it is. However, I'll note that it doesn't really address this thread, which is that terrorists are becoming less adept at mounting decent attacks. You also didn't even try until I called you out. But at least you eventually stopped the knee-jerk taunts, which I have found a staple among many leftists on here. Just saying.

  26. I think that what is really happening is the war on terror is actually working. The last few years bad guy leaders have been disappearing late at night or even sometimes right on CNN with live coverage of smart cruise missile number 3 never missing a target and the result is that the leadership has been decimated everywhere so what you end up with is a rag tag collection of incompetents. So quite frankly to sum it all up way to go Georgie!

  27. It's harder to rely on 'lol's on TV and Radio.

  28. Don't mistake typing skills for anything more.

  29. Funny, but I've never considered surrender to be a winning strategy. Maybe that's just me.

  30. The efforts of terrorists are not measured by how much physical damage they do, rather, but by how much fear they instill. Considering how little they have spent to make people as frightened as they are, modern terrorists have been wildly successful. 9/11 cost a few million dollars, and the decade-long response has cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars. The USA has fallen into the trap of assuming that their measure of success is a credible body count of terrorists. Only by ceasing their obscene expenditure on security, and learning to no longer be afraid, will they achieve victory.

  31. Dennis_F……..surrender always seems to work for France.

    As for terror attacks on US soil……..it does shock them for a moment, but then shortly afterwards they just get mad.

    As you and I both know……….that didn't work out too well for Japan.

  32. It's not just you, and that's the problem. Thanks for proving my point. The USA and its leadership has been suckered into thinking that this is a conventional war that can have outright victory achieved in tangible terms. You can now count yourself among their number. In this situation, we are not waging a war against a country, we are waging war against a fighting method. It's crazy.

  33. They don't see it as a conventional war, although having one that engages terrorists directly is a bonus, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    What do you suggest we do against the terrorists? Sing kumbayah?

  34. I think your argument is very sympathetic to the terrorists. It's a free country. I have the right to that opinion. The terrorists would take that right away from me, and you.

  35. Terrorism isn't hard – that's why terrorists have been able to kill many, many people in locations around the world throughout the 90's and 00's. What the most organized, motivated, and successful ones haven't been able to do is launch a successful attack on US soil since 2001. That says more about the US and the policies of those running it since 2001 then it does about the terrorists.

    And since the policies of those running the US are now changing, there is likely to be more success on the part of terrorists on US soil.

    • This reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons with the "Bear Patrol". There were no bears to be seen, so Homer assumed that it was the result of the Bear Patrol. Lisa then pointed out the fallacy of Homer's logic by claiming that the rock she was holding kept tigers away. Homer wanted to buy the rock. You, my friend, have purchased the rock. I suspect that there were very few actual attempts at terror in the United States by organizations like Al Queda, simply for the reason that they didn't need to. As I pointed out in my previous posts with Dennis_F, a lot of money has been spent, with no clear proof that said money is solely responsible for the lack of successful attacks. Once again, the terrorists are more successful based on the number of people the scare as opposed to the actual number of attacks they accomplish. As "Standing By" pointed out: "Think about it: the U.S and other western nations are the most vulnerable societies on earth. If, on any given Saturday, the Islamists put three powerful explosive devices in three U.S. shopping malls in major urban centres, then the U.S economy would likely shut down until further notice as the highly-docile American population sits in front of their tv's watching the final bricks being put in place to complete their police state." There is little that stops terrorists from cutting lose with guns in the same way that actual American's do when they snap at the local post office. The simple reason for not doing so? They don't have to. We're scared s—less already.

      • The only problem with your argument is that it contradicts known facts. It's known for a fact that Al Qaeda has attempted other attacks on US soil since 2001 (Padilla bomb, NYC subway, recent underwear bomber), but all have been foiled (although the last one, during the Obama Administration, was foiled at the last minute by astute passengers rather than by agents). Likewise it's known for a fact that that they have attempted other attacks in other countries since 2001, and only some have been foiled.

        Ergo, the US has had more success thwarting attacks than other countries.

        • I never disputed that the atttacks were foiled, I questioned if they were foiled from all of the new scrutiny or efforts.

          • Ok, ignoring what you seemed to be saying about Al Qaeda launching fewer attacks in the US since they "don't need to", let's just compare success before and after 9/11. Before 9/11 there was USS Cole and the prior WTC attack. Both successful. After 9/11 there was nothing successful. I consider that a marked success for policies enacted after 9/11. I suppose if you're determined not to recognize that, you could attribute it to coincidence.

  36. Let me get this straight. You want us to fall back, bury our heads in the san, and accept the deliberate murder of innocent civilians? This is your strategy against terrorism, is it? Wow! I was right. You DO want grandma targeted on the subway. My God. What kind of a worldview is this? Oh yeah, surrender! Do you resent the West or something?

  37. I think you are VERY sympathetic to the terrorists, and that most definitely scares me. Sorry.

    • Yep. That's what I thought.

      • lol, all of them. Heck, they probably love every word you're writing about them. We can't win against them. We have to let them succeed in their attacks. We're the bad guys. Enough for you? You should have quit while you thought you were ahead. Next.

  38. Ignore the "?" throughout my text. Formatting error.

  39. In other words, play defence – which is EXACTLY what THEY want. They don't want to fight soldiers on the battlefield. They want to fight grandma on the subway, and you're saying, "come and try."

  40. Let's see. Before 9/11, we weren't in Afghanistan and they mounted some of the most successful terrorist attacks in world history. After 9/11, we were in Afghanistan, and their capabilities have been significantly reduced, as well as the ranks of their leadership.

    Again, you can keep on feeling sympathy for them, I'm glad you're not in charge.

  41. YOu stop terrorism by ….wait for it, KILLING THOSE WHO conduct terrorist attacks……and beating the hell out of those who support them.

    That's a start. No mercy, no compassion, and no doubt about what you need to do to defeat them. Ignore the bleeding hearts, ignore the lawyers, ignore the Liberals.

    Be brutal…..be cruel…..but be effective.

    If you know Osama Bin Laden is sitting on the floor eating his supper surrounded by his wife and 19 kids….do everthing in your power to drop a 500 pound bomb right on his falafel.

    To hell with his wife….to hell with his kids. Just do it.

    and keep doing it until you either run out of bombs….or run out of terrorists. Simple math

    You can make a bomb in a few days…..making a terrorist takes longer. We'll win eventually.