Actually, I don't believe that the next time will be an attack on one of those. And, yes, it will top 9/11 -- perhaps not in the number of deaths but in emotional impact.

Unlike Palestinian terrorist groups which make repeated attacks against single targets (a restaurant, a bar, a school, etc) Al Qaeda doesn't mind going one or more years without attacking but when it does it likes to hit multiple targets. This is what it did with the embassies in Africa, the Madrid bombings, and, of course, on 9/11.

The 9/11 attacks were on New York and Washington and while they infuriated Americans everywhere did not really hit home to small town USA. My gut feeling is that the next set will do exactly that. Perhaps it will be four schools in towns in Iowa, Kansas, Alabama and Ohio. Or else it might be four shopping malls in the suburbs. Possibly it will be a combination of types of targets: A theme park, a college basketball game, a church social and a Nevada casino.

The message will be that Americans are not safe anywhere.

Israelis already know we can be attacked at any time and at any place: Israelis have been murdered in their homes, in restaurants, in schools, on buses, at a casino in Egypt, at a hotel in Kenya, and an attempt was even made to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet with a SAM missile.

While Israel takes all reasonable steps to protect itself, we realize that as horrible as a terrorist murder is it actually has no strategic value unless we give it that value. Hence, the day after an attack here life goes back to normal.

It has been over three years since 9/11 but the financial damage from it is still being inflicted. Every time an airport terminal is evacuated without real cause; security costs are increased by adding another harmless item (like cigarette lighters) to the forbidden list; or a screener decides that this week he will delay passenger by making everyone take off his shoes, the financial total of 9/11 goes up.

Yes, America has got to take reasonable precautions but it also has to realize two things:

1. Another attack is inevitable and unavoidable.
2. The terrorists will determine the extent of the immediate damage; America will determine the extent of the long-term damage.

IMO, this spot-on statement deserves to be repeated.

I agree with your statements. However, I don't fully agree with #2 in your conclusion. I partially agree that the real effects of terrorism are short term, and I partially agree that the long term effects are determined how Americans react. The only caveat I would add is how long it will be before Americans really and truly understand terrorism and decide to take a tougher stance against it. By tougher stance, I don't mean passing more laws. I mean taking the same attitude as Israelis do: accepting terrorism for what it is, mourning the losses of those victimized by it and then continuing on with life. Terrorism remains effective only as long as those victimized by it continue to react to it with concern and worry. In this, I think you and I strongly agree.

I accept your criticisms of airport security. I, too, want to see more common sense applied to security screening. The more I read about this ridiculous ban on lighters, the more I'm convinced that it's not so much about banning butane fuel as a potential flame accelerant as it is another anti-smoking measure. I don't see it as a grand conspiracy as I joked about in another post, but I do see it as probably something that was considered as it was written into legislation. Either way, I agree with you that the ban itself epitomizes as one wise philosopher once put it, "stupid is as stupid does."

Oh yes I can ;) . If the lines exist simply because the TSA takes an unnecessarily long time to screen passengers (shoes, jackets, W.H.Y.), or because only half the WTMDs are manned, or any other TSA-dictated policy then it will be the TSA's fault if some deranged jihadi (if that's not tautology) decides to spray the lines with a Glock. :mad:

[QUOTE=eyecue]Also you cant fault the TSA for those lines outside the sterile area, that area is under control of the local authority.[QUOTE]

If Denver Police can charge a woman, such as Lisl Auman, for the murder of Officer Bruce Vanderjagt, after she was cuffed and put into the car by Vanderjagt, then he was shot without premeditation by a totally different person, then yes, I could make a case for the TSA to be partially responsible.

In DEN's case, all I would have to do is cite the unneccessary longer lines the TSA causes through things such as the shoe carnival, mostly caused through contradictions of the TSA's own SOP, then subpoena the surveillance cameras littered throughout the terminal. That would be enough for my prima facie case.

Sounds like a
 

Strawman defense to me. The lines are present, TSA is not responsible for the security of those persons that are standing in that line. They are under the protection of the local jurisdiction. I wont argue with you about the fact that they are a potential target. But I take exception to the fact that any culpability lies with TSA. The term uneccessary is operative here. What is acceptable to you, What is not? IF you could get through security in 30 seconds flat and there was no line ever, would that make less of a target? What if you are struck at the ticket counter when the line goes halfway out the door? You are just too quick to voice your hatred and discontent over anything REMOTELY related to TSA.

Hi eyecue,

What about the terrorist target directly created by the TSA whenever TSA orders the dumping of an entire passenger terminal after a minor screening lapse? Do you think the TSA is culpable in that situation? It sounds like a perfect plan to me: have bad guy #1 run in through the out door, causing TSA to evacuate the terminal, and then have bad guy #2 kill a thousand or more people after TSA plays right into the plan by congregating the masses in one vulnerable little spot. Why doesn't TSA paint a big red and white target on our backs while the agency's at it?

It's not that I'm personally worried about this happening, but it seems rather counterproductive for TSA to be creating vulnerabilities where there previously were none. There were never lines of people standing on the sidewalks outside LAX before the TSA. There weren't frequent evacuations of a terminal full of passengers before the TSA. How is the average Jane supposed to believe the TSA's blather about protecting us when its presence has made us so visibly less safe?

First, let me say that the possibility of something like this is extemely, extremely remote.

However, keeping in the context of the discussion, I firmly believe that there would be some culpibility on the TSA's part when it comes to DEN. If you want to view it as hatred of the TSA, then so be it. As you adore to say that's your "opinion."

I am speaking (or typing) from a pure legal standpoint. The main legal target would be whoever conducted the criminal act, no question. But the fact of the matter is, I could make a reasonable case that, depending on the facts and where everything panned out, I could cite circumstances that exist in every day TSA practices, especially in DEN, that I might not have been at that exact spot when whatever incident occurred. I can testify to my own personal experiences of mandatory shoe removal at DEN, plus we can grab a stopwatch and look at the surveillance video and see how much of the rebellious policy at DEN costed me in time.

If I were to be injured and the people in front of me were not, I could argue that the DEN TSA mandate of shoe removal for everyone slowed the line down, leaving me in harm's way. This would likely not fly in a criminal case, because the TSA didn't execute the original crime. But in civil court, I could go after the TSA, the local FSD (who goes against official policy) and the individual screeners for executing the policy which goes against DC's guidelines. Additionally, the burden of proof is much lighter in civil versus criminal court.

No amount of pre-written text by the people in DC excludes negligence. And as I said before, the negligence in the DEN TSA's case here is not following its agency's own mandate set forth by DC.

Again, this is an extremely remote, highly unlikely possibilty. I only write this in a legal sense.

Er... yes @:-)

This is exactly a tactic developed by several external terrorist groups and other internal criminals. The most recent I remember was the people who were bombing abortion clinics here in the US.

It was simple -- they would use two bombs. The first one was a little one designed to evacuate the clinic and to draw attention. When everyone was congregated in a central, usually confined area, the second bomb -- the killer -- would detonate. This isn't rocket science.

"But, Mr. President, despite the fact that 500 people got killed outside Terminal 2 after we dumped the terminal, we made sure that missing pocket knife didn't make it on an airliner!"

It's "beautiful" in its simplicity - and that's where DHS seems to be missing the point, apparently looking at complicated scenarios and missing what's right in front of their nose.

Actually, that's true about the 9/11 attack -- the simplicity was exploiting the vulnerability in SOP of aircrews cooperating with hijackers and opening cockpit doors. The airlines and passengers mitigated these vulnerabilities all by themselves, without any help desired from or needed by the TSA or any other USG agency.

Speaking from a purely military point of view, cold as it may come across, the deaths of people inside of a terminal don't compare to the potential for an even larger number of deaths from an aircraft being used as a flying bomb to kill both the people on the plane and the people on the ground.

The challenge is knowing where to draw the line. I'm not saying that TSA has figured that out. However, all this whining and what-iffing about crowded terminals and the ridiculous hyperbole about preventing a pocket knife from being smuggled in at the cost of the evacuating crowd being victimized by a bomb or shooting is pretty silly argument from people who claim to have a more realistic perspective on things.

I noticed how no one addressed the issue of the long lines created by the airlines at the ticket counters, or at curbside, or at baggage claim, or at the taxi stand, or at the shuttle bus stop, or at the road entrance to the airport, or parking lots. Lots of eagerness to point fingers at TSA and somehow connect it to what is popularly referred to as the shoe carnival.

I've been in countries where people were lucky to have a roof over their heads and food on the table and were grateful that the civil wars that shredded their dreams were finally put to an end. I guess this is why I can't see the Constitutional crisis in having to remove a pair of shoes in order to clear security. Well, if it makes you happy, go ahead and continue with your banter, whining and complaining. Just pointing out how boring it is to read in here.

^ ^ ^

You're not kidding. They just keep drinking the Kool-Aid, don't they. :mad: