Brussels Bombers Filmed Nuclear Researchers, Hoped To Build A "Dirty Bomb," Expert Says (nbcnews.com) 230
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The brothers behind this week's Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called "dirty bomb," an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats told NBC News on Thursday. Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher's house, according to Claude Moniquet, a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe's nuclear sector. This camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family. "The terrorist cell ... naively believed they could use him to penetrate a lab to obtain nuclear material to make a dirty bomb," Moniquet, CEO of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center privacy consultancy said. The researcher worked at a center which stored a "significant portion of the world's supply of radioisotopes," according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. These isotopes are used in hospitals and factories around the world but can also be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a device that could spread radioactive material across a wide area.
Naively? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.
Re:Naively? (Score:4, Insightful)
The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.
Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?
A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.
It's the news shows that have played up the "threat" of a "dirty bomb".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is where it is wrong.
It is the FICTIONAL accounts that are scary to the uneducated masses.
If you had enough radioactive material to make a "dirty bomb" there are, literally, HUNDREDS of ways to terrorize more people for longer periods of time with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.
Afraid and uncertain, if they were able to give a large number of people an increased cancer risk that could be a nagging fear for years. Not to mention leaving permanent scars, what do you think a warded off area with nuclear hazard signs will do, even if it won't harm anyone? And there's a reason the Geneva convention banned arms that are specifically designed to maim rather than kill, which terrorists obviously won't follow. It's about making it so messy and ugly as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that the area would be permanently warded off, rather than simply having the topsoil and rubble removed until a geiger counter shows an acceptable level of background radiation?
Oh no, someone covered a few blocks of a city with a material that is barely dangerous when it's spread out over a few blocks of a city. We'd better abandon that forever, or we could clean it up and laugh at how stupid a 'dirty bomb' really is.
There's a reason nobody has ever bothered with a 'dirty bomb' and it's
Reality demonstrated otherwise to movies (Score:2)
The cleanup showed that if anything was active enough to cause immediate problems it was very easy to detect.
Even "Readers Digest" had a very good story on the incident.
Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.
Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?
You're thinking like an engineer, not a terrorist. The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic, and in this case overreaction that ultimately leads to an invasion which they can claim is a holy war against Islam.
A bomb the press can call "nuclear" will get more press coverage and a LOT more concern and reaction than an IED. Not necessarily because of a worse effect, but because laypeople are afraid of and do not understand science. That's why MRI's are called MRI's today instead of nMRI's. That's why a movies and television shows can warn against reactors exploding, when nuclear reactors do NOT explode. A dirty bomb can scare people more, and that helps terrorists.
You've also got the possibility of a propaganda radiation murder like when Putin had that guy in the UK murdered with... I think soup? That gets a lot of coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest if terrorists started blowing up the luxury hidey holes of the rich and greedy along with those rich and greedy in attendance, things would change real fast. Where as blowing up the rest of us, just locks the status quo more firmly in place. Genuine terrorist would not target the 99%, genuine terrorists would zero in on the 1% as the decision makers. The more this bullshit drags on, the more blatantly, glaring suspicious it becomes. So somehow beyond all logic those really smart terrorists
Here is why that did not happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Bin Laden did not want to blow up the people in the middle east who made the decisions he disagreed with by inviting the west in, he wanted to kill some of us "worthless" westerners to scare us into actions that would force the people in the middle east to kick westerners ou
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically I use software from Haliburton (and it runs on linux) but that's another story.
Re:Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
One did. It may have been a steam explosion but bits did go everywhere at high speed. Going off like an atomic bomb is of course a different story.
Yeah the media is at fault (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic
What? Are you saying western governments are terrorists? They are doing their best to create fear and mass panic that the honest terrorists are thinking of letting them join the fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you misspell Libya on purpose or are you just not capable?
Re: (Score:2)
That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"
Armed attacks in Paris, Belgium, Indonesia, etc... already provide the casus belli to the extent NATO or the UN want to respond. You think a dirty bomb would really make a difference about whether invasion would be okay in the eyes of anyone on the world stage?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know how naive the terrorists are. So while a dirty bomb is unlikely it is not so unlikely that terrorists attempt to get materials for it. Keep in mind: they could use it completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is getting all in a tizzy about protecting our nuclear reactors. It's our hos
Re: (Score:2)
Get a clue. The damage of a dir
Re: (Score:2)
The article is unclear what material they were seeking, specifically. It hints at radioisotopes that are used in medical diagnostics. These are unsuitable for use in a dirty bomb, because they tend to b
Re: (Score:2)
The damage done by a dirty bomb is not counted in terms of death toll but in the measures that have to be taken in order to avoid fatalities. If you have to evacuate a part of a city for a long period, the cost of that can be huge.
Re: (Score:2)
And what does getting one man on their side achieve? It's not like researchers can just take home radioactive samples.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.
I could rephrase that question into something much less convincing, "Be an accessory to murder and we might let you and your family live long enough to get blown up by the bomb you helped us make, or we kill you, still kill many people, but you die without blood on your hands." Certainly they won't explain it as I just did but someone that cares about others just as much as themselves might not be so willing to help.
I'd think that if you want to be more convincing then you'd get your radioactive material a
Re: (Score:2)
There was two aspects to their naivete:
1) Thinking that someone could just walk out of the building with a sack of nuclear material, if only sufficient threats were made.
2) Thinking that someone being threatened with "help us [or] we'll kill your family" would not be able to figure out that he and his family will be dead anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could add a third,
3) [Naively] thinking that the small residue of radiation resulting from any kind of dirty-bomb dispersal would result in more fear than anger.
Imagine a world without irrational fear of radioactivity, where the word 'nuclear' would not ring a bell that makes the press salivate with anticipation. I'm afraid I'll have to toss in mdsolar too since 'e posts more nuke fud then solar crud these days. TEPCO has done a fine job gathering water and filtering worse contaminants to leave Tri [asahi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not forever a pipe dream (Score:2)
But, realistically, if relations between the West and the world's radicalized Muslim population stay the same, it is likely a given a major western city will reap a dirty bomb, or worse, far too near in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to set off a dirty bomb. The fear and paranoia that they might is more than enough for us to destroy ourselves.
Re:It's not forever a pipe dream (Score:5, Informative)
But they aren't. In the USofA, you are more likely to be killed while moving furniture than by a terrorist.
If someone kills you tomorrow, it will probably be someone you know (friend or family) or a traffic accident.
I used to work for an insurance company. You could get a "terrorism" rider on your policy at additional cost. That cost? $1. And it was pure profit for the company.
The problem is that our news agencies and politicians are SELLING the idea of a terrorism threat for their own benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
But they aren't.
You think the aim of a terrorist attack is to kill people, and to the extent that they do they're not terribly good at it (thankfully). The aim of a terrorist attack is to instill fear. The 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people - about 3 days worth of tobacco deaths in America - but it paved the way for unconstitutional laws that supposedly will help government keep that from happening again. It led us to spend a trillion dollars trying to clean up part of the middle east. Etc. These attacks tend to be quite
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thereby guaranteeing the enmity of every Muslim on the planet. Which is exactly what Daesh want. Thanks for letting us know who you're working for.
That's it for SMRs (Score:4, Interesting)
Not So Fast... (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear Material in/near Reactors Secure's Itself.
Dry fuel pellets are harmless.
Fuel rods are made by welding dry pellets into steel I-Beams or similar big, heavy, structures.
Used (wet) fuel pellets are _fantastically_ _dangerous_ to handle, so much so that they have to kept wet at all times to keep them from roasting everything while they cool.
Back in the seventies my father (nuclear engineer) said he'd love to stage, and televise, a "raid" on a nuclear power facility... The _months_ necessary to get the stuff off the premises (let alone ground up into nuclear dust) would have probably lost its audience. But the "Fast As Possible" "Smallest Crew" version of the raid that the anti-nuke people were putting in movies and scare politics would be thoroughly disproved.
Even if I installed a pebble-bed reactor in your garage (and one _would_ fit), any attempt to turn it into a "dirty bomb" would fatal to the person attempting it. Someone could blow up the pebble-bed itself, but that would move a few of the "pebbles", if any, a short distance. Someone with a radiation counter and a radiation suit could then just go pick them up with tongs.
So the terrorists "want{ed} to build a dirty bomb" is about as likely to lead to that end as my personal desire to own all of Google _and_ Tesla Motors outright as a pure proprietorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why kick the cat? It doesn't make the choices (Score:2)
Why kick the cat? As the Iraq war protests showed the protesters really have almost zero power. Economic and political donor factors (yet another downside of lettin
If their intent is to destroy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I, as an immigrant to the West, appreciate what I have gotten, and am still getting, and I do my best to contribute back to the society
On the other hand, I do know that there are other immigrants who not only do not appreciate what the West has offered them, they intend to disrupt, even to destroy the very society that gave them a helping hand when they need it
The one thing that I find about the Western people - mainly the Whites - are that they are being very kind, too kind some times
While that might be a good trait, it might also turn into a weakness
You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera
I dunno
I, as an immigrant to the West, is very very angry with those motherfuckers --- if it is up to me, those motherfuckers would be deported yesterday, every single fucking one of them
I mean, if those immigrants don't appreciate what the West has given them, they should move the fuck OUT
Stop using religion or whatever fucking excuse to carry out their despicable act
I don't care who they are, if I invite a guess into my house and that guess start to make trouble, he or she will either be thrown out, or a bullet in the head
But the, I am only an immigrant from China --- and my opinion, of course, can not represent that of the hosts - the White folks who have endless tolerance towards motherfuckers who create troubles
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't posted on Slashdot in years, but I recently posted something somewhere that I will repost here in reply to you.
It was initially a response to an article written by Roger Simon, titled "Are We Ready for Reality after the Brussels Terror Attacks?".
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofama... [pjmedia.com]
If you want to know how suicidal Western culture is at this point re. Islam, just watch how I get called out as a racist for daring to say these things.
Point is, I agree with everything you said, and I thank you for posting
Re: (Score:2)
What are you trying to say? (Score:2)
A non Japanese person who capitalizes the word "Japanese" ... is that so unusual?
A non Chinese person who capitalizes the word "Chinese" ... is that, again, so unusual?
Even when I talk about the Blacks, I do capitalize the "B" ...
So ... please tell us, what are you really trying to say?
Re: What are you trying to say? (Score:2, Informative)
That's actually a grammatical error. Typically, when referring to a group of people you should only capitalize the first letter if the group identifier is itself a proper noun, like France, Japan, Asia, etc. For example, the people who live in France are collectively 'the French' and the people in Japan are collectively 'the Japanese', but unless you're describing people with the same last name, you shouldn't refer to them as 'the Blacks'.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that it is completely wrong (grammatically) and something mostly done by far-right racists?
There are no thing that is a "white" people. If you mean Europeans, write that. But that covers a lot of different groups of people with varying skin color and other physical characteristics.
The same is true of "black" people. The genetic variation in Africans is incredible. There are people of a huge variety of skin colors etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Braintrust,
Not only they call me 'racist', they also tell me the following:
"Who the fuck you think you are? The Whites have decided to not do anything about it, and let me remind you --- you are only a chink"
Yes, that's the kind of 'reply' I got
Those folks are so gung-ho because of the non-action from the Whites
If you Whites can get your act together and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO COUNTER THEM they wouldn't be so fucking full of it
I have had it with those motherfuckers --- before they bombed the London subway, I read in a forum somewhere that they actually called London - Londonistan !!
No, I am not kiddin'
They have become so embolde
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey TC,
Thanks for the kind reply.
I read a paper about 15 years ago that I will try to summarize quickly here:
If you throw out all the myriad labels we use to divide ourselves into sub-groups within our different societies; left, right, liberal, conservative, all the various religions and organizing governmental doctrines we cling to, there are really only three overarching and competing philosophies in the world today.
1. Theocratic fascism.
This one is pretty self-explanatory. The lunatic fringe of those w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a serious mistake to label the threat 'Islam.'
The terrorists are an extreme branch of Islam. They embrace an antiquated literal interpretation of the Koran. Most Muslims are not like them.
There are a huge number of Muslims in the world, and if you 'draw the line' by grouping them with the human-garbage terrorists of ISIS and Al Quida, you're pushing a lot of people who can and will be our allies over to the other side. The problems in the Islamic world won't be solved by killing them all or forcing
Re: (Score:2)
It would be similar to Jews or Christians following the Pentateuch (Old Testament Law). I'm not Jewish, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Talmud, which they follow today, supercedes they Pentateuch.
Re: (Score:2)
You are exactly right.
Islam is to Islamic terrorism as Christianity is to the KKK and abortion clinic bombers. Any sufficiently large group of people sharing a belief will have extremes, and people should not paint that entire group with the color of the extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
"doing the reading" of the Book of Leviticus would have Christianity and Judaism calling homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), the Book of Exodus would have people selling their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and putting people to death for working on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2). And let's not forget about touching the skin of a dead pig making one unclean (Leviticus 11:7), which means hundreds of millions of people are fucked for just having that slice of bacon.
If a farmer plants different c
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have read what the bible actually says nor learned what people that claim to follow it thinks it allows or even forces them to do.
Religions and Abrahamic religions in particular are dangerous.
Re:If their intent is to destroy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Christians were in the same social and economic situation as the Muslims are right now they would behave exactly the same.
There are Christians living in the Middle East. A minority yes, but a few millions. Never heard of them becoming terrorists, maybe you can enlighten us?
Stop the excuses. Christians might react violently as well, yes. But claiming they would behave exactly the same is the exact reductionism you rail against. No, they would not. Maybe similar, maybe not, but definitely not exactly.
Islam is part of the problem. Maybe a small part, maybe a big part, that's an interesting discussion. But claiming its contribution is zero is delusional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hundreds of years of history says otherwise. Various troubles have been equivalent to Christian groups fighting each other but we tend to forget that because it's easier to see problems on the outside.
Here comes the apologist ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?
TODAY the bombers are not Christians
TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!
Get on with REALITY, folks !
Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!
Re: (Score:2)
Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse.
That just isn't the case. The religion comes first, then the violence.
You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you who just wants to be happy and live their lives. They're not. The muslims actually believe their religion. They're not like you.
This is not the end of history. We have not played the game of Civilization, reached the bottom of the ideology tech tree, unlocked "White Liberalism" and now we're just waiting for everybody else to catch up. The
Re: (Score:2)
Also trying on a different strawman for size ("You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you") is fucking offensive. The world is not binary.
Re: (Score:2)
The peaceful majority doesn't matter. The peaceful majority has never mattered.
99% of Nazis were peaceful. They never gassed a Jew. They just supported an ideology that allowed their leaders to gas Jews once they gained control of the political system.
99% of Muslims are peaceful. They never slaughtered an infidel. They just support an ideology that allows their leaders to slaughter infidels as they gain control of the political system.
Islam is the religion of peace. Society is very peaceful when anyone who
Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only Islam has kept to the murderous passages religiously. Christianity used to be just as evil, but if the pope called for another crusade today, people would check the calendar if it's the first of April, and if not, laugh and assume someone quoted a story from The Onion.
But if an Imam says "go and kill the heathens", some especially stupid losers actually do so.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we burn the Korans first, see if the violence stops, and if so we can save time and just ignore the others? Deal?
Re: (Score:3)
"Interpretation" is used to spin away the bad stuff and try and make it look good, you should never have to do an interpretation for "good". The demented sharia law supporters use their book literally
Re: (Score:2)
There really aren't "interpretations" of the Koran. It's not like the bible where Jesus taught in parables and metaphors. The Koran is just a bunch of literal commands about how to take over the world. If you're not being resisted, you do it stealthful like, "we are the religion of peace" Mecca mode. If you're being resisted you do it violent-like, "Aloha Snackbar" Medina mode.
This is why you will always get violence and civil war if you let Islam into your country. They'll start out peaceful, but once they
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have some kind of mental problem! You see things that aren't there (apologizing? where?). fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please drop the panic religious shit and realize terrorism accounts for less than 1% of murders that occur in these areas?
Seriously if you want to bold 'reality' you should actually look it up and give me a count of how many 'Christians' murdered some guy over some Heroin last week.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?
TODAY the bombers are not Christians
TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!
Get on with REALITY, folks !
Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!
Ok. Lets unpack this.
1) No one was apologizing for anyone, the least of which terrorists.
2) People have defended Muslims as a group, which is legit, it's a very small fraction of Muslims who are carrying out these attacks, the vast majority are horrified by them, most of the time their own families are horrified by them.
3) Of course it's Muslim extremists carrying out attacks today, but on the days when it was the IRA carrying out bombings, extremists killing abortion doctors, or Sovereign Citizens launchin
Re: (Score:2)
I'll also note that this conversation is occurring in English. Not German. Or Russian.
On behalf of my late grandfather, who flew 17 missions in a B-25 over Germany, you're welcome.
On behalf of my father, who served as a tank driver in the 1950s in Germany, you're we
Re: (Score:2)
What an unbelievably selfish, detached, and thoroughly post-modern thing to say.
You seem to think your position in history is an island unto itself.
Again,silly.
Further, the U.S. is still, by far, by far, the greatest force for good in this world. You can deny that reality all you want, doesn't make it any less true.
(Still not American.)
America has done all kinds of things wrong. Many stupid and wrong things. No question.
I would like to hear you find and name one positive thing they've done for humanity in
Re: If their intent is to destroy ... (Score:2)
Unfortunately for you, my friend, the countries of Europe have no will to fight. They are under attack by an enemy who wants to subjugate and convert or destroy them, and the best they can do is look at themselves and worry about what they did to deserve this, and what they can do to not offend the people trying to kill them. Europe had better get its act together or it will be destroyed by the people it thinks it is giving shelter to.
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum:
Further, just to point out the logical fallacy in your last statement, if you're choosing to deny the good the U.S has done in the past, then logically, you would have to deny all the bad they've done as well, no?
Or are you just selectively cherry-picking history to prop up an unsustainable argumentative position?
Your Fu is weak.
I won't respond further, because, let's face it, you're having your ass handed to you right now, but if you come up with something honest and worthy of response, I'm your h
Re: (Score:2)
I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.
It's horrid. I look at what Europe is doing, I look at my young son, and I know in a few decades he'll be parachuting into France to save them from the Islamic hordes. It could all be avoided if the Europeans weren't so blindly naive to the fact that not everyone in the world is nice like they are, and deep down wants the same peaceful existence they do.
Demographics are destiny.
Probably not. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You truly think like an American, congratulations on your naturalization. But every Muslim isn't the problem.
You win the irony-through-hypocrisy award for the day. You blast him for painting every muslim with the same brush, while simultaneously painting 330 million Americans with the same brush.
Can't imagine why you posted this as an anonymous coward. Oh, I know exactly why - because you're a fucking asshole, but don't want your true views of being an ignorant fuck to reflect on your actual pseudonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If their intent is to destroy ... (Score:3)
I keep thinking about saying this and I never do because I am not sure how to say it properly. There are a few political things we are a bit different about but that's okay. The gist of it is welcome to your country. It is not welcome to my country. Every time, you express your gratitude for your adopted country. Even when you are disappointed you are seemingly sincere in your appreciation.
So, it is not welcome to my country but, rather, it is welcome to your country. It is a bit late to say so but I prefe
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us, East Europeans that went to West Europe have similar sentiments.
During communism we [the Bulgarians] did not receive much of a propaganda against other ethnic groups with the exception of the Turkish people [for obvious historical reasons plus the fact that the Turkey was the closest NATO member to the communist countries with large and well equipped military]. In fact the communist propagated a sense of sympathy to groups that were oppressed historically [e.g. black people, which is why most of
Re: (Score:2)
I think that perhaps what you have not yet understood is that this kindness is part of what makes Western societies work so well.
The optimal solution is not more harshness, but to fix these people so they start contributing positively to society. I'm not a crime researcher, but I believe there's plenty of evidence that helping people fix their problems works much better long term than harsher punishments. I.e. it's cheaper, and it prevents more crimes.
And yes, people can change, and yes, we still need to ha
Re: (Score:2)
White guilt and marxism have mixed in our cultures to tranquilize us.
We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.
The danger is not that these people will destroy us... they aren't killing us fast enough. The danger is rather that there is tension building up between what we want to do and what we're told to do. This tension is a cable that is being
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with this thinking is there isn't some kind of test you can issue where you'll know who the 'bad immigrants' are, which means you have to do something like this completely indiscriminately.
The problem with this? You end up alienating even MORE of that population against you. You need the 'good ones' to trust you enough to feed you the intelligence you need to stop the 'bad ones'. Booting everybody out of the country who's an immigrant from the middle east isn't an effective long term strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera
Not really. We throw them in jail or deport them when we find them.
The problem is finding them, "Arab" or "Muslim" is a very poor predictor of terrorism, sure there's a bias but the vast majority of Muslim Arabs are completely peaceful, you can't really pick out the bad ones any more than you can pick out the criminals of any group.
No one is standing up for terrorists, but for the good peaceful people who happen to share an ethnicity or religion with terrorists? I'll stand up for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Western civilization won by being badass. We've still got the badass stuff, we just try to keep it unused. Lots of people have thought Western Civilization weak, and they tend to be found in the "losers" column if they tried to act on that. We can afford to be kind and forbearing. We can afford to be selective about who we condemn. People who see this as weakness will tend to act on that belief and lose. People who see it as kindness will tend to be absorbed by it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You say this because you guys do not mix with them, nor understand the tenet of their culture
I grew up in a poorer neighborhood that had several neighboring groups of different immigrants, and the cheap housing I found in university was in a mostly middle eastern neighborhood. You think I didn't mix enough with them, when instead it looks to me like your characterization seems like it is completely disconnected from the reality of immigrants who cared more about making money, getting good jobs and spouses, and raising their kids to do well in school than political and religious tenets. I'm not go
Re: If their intent is to destroy ... (Score:2)
That's stupid. After reading tc's pkstsim fairly certain he would do what he can to help the country that he has adopted, and that has adopted him. He wouldn't give shelter to a cyber attacker, and if he knew their identity he would report them.
The War on Terror [Re:How many more...] (Score:2)
...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?
We declared a "war on terror" fifteen years ago, and have not yet negotiated a peace treaty, so, yes: it's one more act of war in the ongoing war that we declared fifteen years ago.
But when it's not a country doing the attack, uh, who do you think we should retaliate against? We're already killing terrorists, or anybody we think might be terrorists or supporting terrorists or related to terrorists, with drone strikes as fast as we can.
The attackers want a disproportionate response. They're trying to pro
Re: (Score:2)
How many? Well, it depends where you live.
Well, in the US, it takes only a few nutters committing a bad crime for the country to decide it's war, because war is one of the few things that people in the United States think they understand.
Europe actually understands war, so it would require a hostile attack from a recognised country. If it helps, remember that the IRA caused more deaths and damage in Europe than ISIS could ever dream of, and the UK never really considered itself to be at war. The UK knows wh
Re: (Score:2)
I googled and only found about a hundred deaths from major IRA bombings.
If you're only going to count bombings, that sounds about right. The total death toll was around 3500, mostly soldiers (British Army, RUC, UDA, UDF etc).
ISIS is about even already.
So less than half of the number of people who died in the Lockerbie bombing alone? Again, that sounds about right.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, for those who hold Islam responsible for recent terrorism, who do you hold responsible for the IRA's terrorism?
Irish Catholicism?
All Catholicism?
All Christianity?
All religion?
All people?
Re:Doesn't add up.... (Score:4, Informative)
Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including the two lead planners, were on watch lists yet not only entered the U.S. under their own names, moved about the country at will. They were never stopped, including after their visas had expired and, as we know, flew on multiple flights out of Boston to test and gauge security and to plan their attack.
Sounds like Belgium and Turkey were following the lead of George Bush and ignoring the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Belgium and Turkey were following the lead of George Bush and ignoring the problem.
So your problem is that, a few months into office, Bush didn't change Clinton's policies fast enough?
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't do anything fast enough apart from putting on a tailored costume designed to look like the perfect fighter pilot's uniform and stand in front of a "mission accomplished" banner.
Not that I'm a fan of Clinton either (a man ruled by donations and libido), but Baby Bush managed to bring an ongoing disaster to a new level, or at least watched it happen from the
Re: (Score:2)
That's what people whined about President Obama when he came to office. That he didn't immediately resolve the financial crisis in his first few months at the helm.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them were whining about his not having resolved the financial crisis a month before his inauguration. It was amusing to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
So in addition to being a paid shill you're:
1. A climate change denialist since you don't support nuclear.
2. A fucking truther whackjob.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a lot of the problem was the sheer mass of intelligence involved. You hear about low-level officials that tried to sound the alarm, but the problem is that everyone passed their concerns to their boss, and every boss winnowed it down for presentation to their own boss, and as a result the signs of 9-11 that we now recognize by hindsight didn't make it to the top.
Not sure there's a solution for this. (See also the recent story on current NSA data overload.)
Re: (Score:2)
The failure to stop 9/11 had very little if anything to do with the sitting president at the time. It had a lot more to do with how promotions and pats on the back are distributed in the bureaucracy. The CIA was aware of and monitoring at least two of the hijackers. When the hijackers entered the USA the CIA agent in charge of watching them made a deliberate decision not to notify the FBI. That decision was made out of the fear that the FBI would get to bust them on something and hog all the glory. So inste