Bombing at Domodedovo

[Apophis]

Re: Moscow Bombing

It is terrible, however there's really nothing you can do. Unless we have guarded\armed checkpoints everywhere we go, there's nothing to stop someone from carrying this out. While an old lady has to go through a backscatter or pat down, the suicide bomber is in an unsecure area killing innocent people. It's a scary thought but I don't see how they could ever stop things like this from happening.

I know that there is nothing we can do, and that is the point. Too bad the TSA doesn't understand this.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Re: Moscow Bombing

It is terrible, however there's really nothing you can do. Unless we have guarded\armed checkpoints everywhere we go, there's nothing to stop someone from carrying this out.

Well, as the link I posted pointed out, we are not going to address the open weaknesses in security. We are going to address things that have already been done, since no politician wants to let something happen twice. So we will lock down the baggage carousel, not let anyone in without screening, spend lots of money. And then two years later, a terrorist will bomb the line with 800 people waiting for the screening checkpoint (so then we will make it a mile long to discourage that, but only once it has been exploited by a terrorist first).

 

[Pilotforhire587]

Good to know! It's a dangerous world out there. Glad that the people we know nearer harm's way walked away. You guys be careful out there.



Aye, crap. Mr. Schneier is absolutely correct. The 9/11 hijackings made control of the aircraft important because the aircraft themselves *were* the real weapons. If a terrorist wanted to shut down a major air terminal, disrupt things, etc, all they really need is a place where a fairly large number of people gather. A ticket check in area, etc, would be all they need to shut down the airport, create mass casualties, and wreak havoc on the public sense of calm.

These sort of tactics were common in Iraq in 2005. One car bomber detonated and took out an entire crowded marketplace. It was totally unguarded and 'strategically unimportant', but still tied up assets and left a clear impression of vulnerability.

HMMM>>>> or a TSA line

 

[drunkenbeagle]

HMMM>>>> or a TSA line

The TSA line is the least secure part of most airports, large concentration of people, carrying bags, squeezed together closer than they normally would be, and reconfiguring their clothing draws no suspicion. This has been pointed out before though.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Unfortunately, it is a preview of what's to come here. The heavy hand the Kremlin has used in the Caucasus has created a steady supply of terrorists willing to strike both Aircraft and "soft targets." Russia already is a police state (I've spent enough time there, I think I'm qualified to say so), yet the terrorists seem to act with impunity. We haven't been doing a great job making friends with groups that may have been on the fence with their feelings towards us up until now, right or wrong.

We are putting almost all of our security eggs into the aviation and non proliferation baskets. On the aviation front, that offers us good protection from whack jobs, and some protection from more organized bad guys. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that every additional dollar we spend is about 100X more effective if we spend it on intelligence work. Experience has shown over the last 10 years that the TSA has stopped zero terrorists attacks, while intelligence organizations (foreign and domestic) have stopped at least several, that we know about.

The more organized bad guys are increasingly going to turn to "soft targets," the only reason being that they can. Another JC member was walking through Times Square less than a year ago with me, and had the bomber been smarter - we might not be here today. What have we learned from that? That it is easy to get a bomb into a position where it will cause great loss of life. What else have we learned? The only challenge the terrorists have is making their martyrs more competent to assemble a bomb. I don't like those odds, and sadly, I think the bad guys learned far more from that than we have.

Here's Bruce's presentation, if you are curious. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Schne

All valid points. Unfortunately, this means that we're engaged in a war of attrition with an enemy that has no real fixed assets or fortifications and our world is almost entirely constructed of such things. As Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." We are as effectively under siege as a Bronze Age city-state with walls encompassing the perimeter of their township. We have no maneuverability in our assets.

In other words, to counteract this, we must undermine their will to fight. This is truly a war of ideologies, and until we learn to bridge that gap, many will suffer on all sides. Or we'll annihilate each other. While that's unlikely, I can't imagine that would stop some parties from trying.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

...As Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." We are as effectively under siege as a Bronze Age city-state with walls encompassing the perimeter of their township. We have no maneuverability in our assets.

In other words, to counteract this, we must undermine their will to fight. This is truly a war of ideologies, and until we learn to bridge that gap, many will suffer on all sides. Or we'll annihilate each other. While that's unlikely, I can't imagine that would stop some parties from trying.

I think that we have just failed to grasp the significance of asymmetrical warfare, or at least our foreign policy has up until now. There is an old saying "When your only tool is a hammer, you start seeing a lot of nails." We have had the capability to invade and hold smaller nation states, and the diplomatic ability to get support in doing so from other foreign powers. Given the experience we have in that realm, that is the tool we chose to use. Somewhat akin to invading Mexico to stop Mexican narcotics gangs though, it really doesn't address the problem.

For lack of a better term, the "insurgents" successfully baited us into fighting under their rules, on their field (by insurgents, I'm referring not only to Al Queda, but to other actors either sympathetic to or materially supporting them). We may kill more people and blow more things up, but who gains the most from that? We had a hammer, and that is what we used.

I think a more nuanced approach of using the carrot and stick with foreign intelligence services would probably stop more terrorism than PornoScanners will. Not saying we don't do that now, but we could do better. And even killing those that tacitly support the insurgents comes with a price. To paraphrase Bogey "Yesterday they were two underemployed Muslims, today they're the "Honored Dead."

Fighting terrorists has a lot in common with fighting narcotics gangs, that has been known for a while. A successful approach to either has yet to be found.

 

[MikeD]

Fighting terrorists has a lot in common with fighting narcotics gangs, that has been known for a while. A successful approach to either has yet to be found.

Ive put forth a successful method to fighting out problems we're currently involved in; but its not nice, and its not politically correct; so hence the US and it's politicians and citizenry who have no backbone, will never go for it.

 

[ChasenSFO]

I heard about this while playing COD...I thought it was made up until I checked online.

Horrible. Can't belive these people exist. As someone who works in an airport, this stuff really scares me. My thoughts are with them.

 

[Firebird2XC]

I think that we have just failed to grasp the significance of asymmetrical warfare, or at least our foreign policy has up until now. There is an old saying "When your only tool is a hammer, you start seeing a lot of nails." We have had the capability to invade and hold smaller nation states, and the diplomatic ability to get support in doing so from other foreign powers. Given the experience we have in that realm, that is the tool we chose to use. Somewhat akin to invading Mexico to stop Mexican narcotics gangs though, it really doesn't address the problem.

I think the only thing that'll really sway things would be a hearts and minds campaign. Until we change the hearts of our enemies, they'll always be our enemies. Perhaps doing so requires changing our own hearts first? Our unwillingness to abide those that would kill civilians without remorse is understandable.. those people may well be beyond any hope of reconciliation, no matter what method you used. But their friends... their families.. the peoples in their towns and communities- we might still have a shot at them.
Bonus: I added the bold to your text. I totally had a 'House' epiphany moment when I read that. Dude, you can totally be my Wilson any day. :beer:


(No homo.)

 

[Pépé le Pilot]

I live in Colombia, and trust me when I say that this war (narcotrafic) will never be won. It's a very common market law : there's a need for blow, marijuana etc. so it will be produced and sold. Approximately 500 tons of pure cocaine are produced every year in Colombia, but our neighbors are big producers too. The only way to eradicate this would be to legalize blow (imagine that) as MJ is being legalized slowly but surely.

 

[vikingair]

Horrible. Can't belive these people exist.

Assuming it was a Chechen suicide bomber as has been the case with previous terrorist attacks in Russia then it is hard to believe they exist. Chechnya paid a heavy price for trying to declare it's independence from Russian. This is Grozny in 1995. Today many of the buildings have been rebuilt but how do you win hearts and minds of the people after using the hammer on them. The terrible tragedy in Arizona saw our discourse devolve into idiotic arguments about the effect of crosshairs placed on maps. Being placed in the crosshairs of artillery shells and Hind gunships is an entirely different motivator however.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

Assuming it was a Chechen suicide bomber as has been the case with previous terrorist attacks in Russia then it is hard to believe they exist. Chechnya paid a heavy price for trying to declare it's independence from Russian. This is Grozny in 1995. Today many of the buildings have been rebuilt but how do you win hearts and minds of the people after using the hammer on them. The terrible tragedy in Arizona saw our discourse devolve into idiotic arguments about the effect of crosshairs placed on maps. Being placed in the crosshairs of artillery shells and Hind gunships is an entirely different motivator however.

Seeing pictures like that remind me of pictures of many german cities after WWII. It is sobering and brings on an entire realization when you learn that was from '95, and things like this still go on today.

 

[vikingair]

We are very blessed in this country to have mostly avoided this sort of destruction for 150 years. Look up Operation Lentil, Stalin's forced deportation of Chechnya during WW2. I have no love for suicide bombers engaging in terrorism but I can certainly understand some of the motivations no matter how warped they might seem.