[IP] more on What's in that bottle : could be stuff toproduceNitro,sohow to wonder ?
Begin forwarded message:
From: pat hache <tercasa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 17, 2006 1:08:27 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, alberti@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on What's in that bottle : could be stuff
toproduceNitro,sohow to wonder ?
Dave,
I was reading reactions to the nitro post, and was just wondering
more about terror , as follows... post it if you consider it
interesting. You have a lot more of knowledge about the thème here I
suppose.
Pat
Before "terrorists" offered their own lives trying to kill their -
generally civilian - "enemies" in the last decades, there are
relatively few examples of suicidal attempts to fight an enemy
requiring the sacrifice of the civilian (?) author of the "attentat"
or the "blow up".
What's the difference between a civilian (or quite so) guy going to
his own announced or videotaped death in Palestine or Mosoul, and the
first rows of multicolored regiments fighting at Auzterlitz marching
"au son des fifres et des tambours" to their very probable death
under the leaded mitraille of their contrincants ?
But then a strict discipline forced those to become "suicidal", and
the same in the WW1 war at Verdun when hordes of allied or german
fantassins were drunked to receive their enemy's machinegunnery, but
those really suicidal attacks were legitimized using the uniform, or
the pseudo cause of the conflict as thought by their leaders. Their
suicide was a disciplinary attitude. Enforced by military law. And
the terror was suffered basically by military people, drafted or
professionals.
Now "terrorists" require also a disciplinary attitude, inforced not
only by the hierarchy of their social or political organisation but
also their religious ideology. Just a slight change of minds. But a
total change of targets.
I remember "anarchist" attempts against one .Us president, another in
Sarajevo , or even some cases of Vietcong "terrorists" or "freedom
fighters" in the vietnam war against the .Us presence, when a decided
person took a decision including fatal risks for his own life. But
those were attacks directed against military or officials in charge.
Submarines torpedoes caused during the WW1 some kind of terrific
attacks (sunking the Lusitania f.i.) because the attack on a steam
paquebot with civilians aboard had become "normal" for some military.
Dresden is another example of desastrous attack mostly on civilians
apparently justified in those days...
But for those two examples the captain of the U-boot or the commander
of the Mitchell bombers were relatively safe and away from the
effects they produced. They were not exactly suicidal, meaby just the
top most adventurers, adrenalin driven. But Tippets suffered some
effects of his atomic bombing, eventually, but certainly was
psychologically affected - at least.
The terror they delivered was used as a "normal way" of warfare by
the military or states, already including WMD like atomic bombs in
"those days".
How to compare terrific ( terrorific )WW2 with "modern terrorist"
actions ?
When Napoléon , MacArthur or Washington send their troops to a
probable death , for a noble cause eventually, they acted in reaction
to a necessity.
Too many Irakian civilians die now with their killer, for a
"necessity" they had nothing to understand about, just as so many
others in Lebanon or Palestine or in Israel where the modern idea of
suicidal attack took form and was extended to use airplanes when 9/11
happened. Those attacks are not made using WMD, but those SAD bombs,
when someone activates his own destruction hoping for the death of
others around him. Self applied destruction. Unhappiness. Nope ?
About liquids or substances on airtravel, the way we humans travel is
the reflect of our organization , our commercial needs and the
evolution of our methods of communication.
Then about airplane security, the higher you travel from the ground,
the more sofisticated your way of travel has become makes it easier
for a disciplined (or trained) civilian or partisan to have it
grounded using simple methods including many possible instrumental
procedure. Trains and tube also became a target. But airplane
security now is much higher compared to tube , railroads or even
tunnel security.
(btw, not much was said here recently about the success obtained in
security alert including the possible flooding of NY tunnels :
preemption well applied, probably)
Therefore all details carried aboard an airplane should be secured.
Onboard flying machines any details matters more than on a ferryboat
or even a Eurostar crossing the Channel. The necessity of security
is not the same . Of course trains could explode just as happened in
India. But there is NO WAY to avoid such attacks if the numbers of
passengers are outnumbering the efforts. Airplaine passengers are
less than those using Amtrak. Imagine security level on trains or Bus
transport (London ?) at the same level as air transport ?
The only way to restore some security from SAD bombing would be
educating the candidates to suicide to think more before their
performance, and to understand - just as some mutineers in the WW1
trenches did - that their effort is worthless the way they perform it
when perforating themselves (And learning or remembering what the
french anarchist and singer Georges Brassens wrote : " Mourir pour
des idées , d 'accord ! , mais de mort lente.. !!! " )
Recent terrorism using suicide is an act of desesperation against a
superior force with which there seem to be no way to win the cause.
Possibly the presence of unilateral force or his imposition
generates such terror in a kind of legitimate reaction and
eventually such terror later becomes justified, legal or is
recognized if the political force succeeds later and gain control of
the whole system. Such imposition always happened in history of
social "warfare".
So did Ben Gourion fighting Brits in Palestine/Israel just after ww2,
after all.
Now Hamas or Hezbollah does quite the same using the suicidal
touch... When will Palestinian fight be recognized as legitimate the
same way let's say Israel was 50 years ago , after using relatively
similar methods ? Didn"t some Jewish or Sionist militant blow
himself with a grenade to kill some Britannic troopers in Jerusalem
in the 40s ? what would be the difference now except some videotaped
record ?
Just some thoughts. No offense I hope for nobody.
Patrice Herbiet S.
52-55 - 17.100.160
fax 17.36.90.90
Mexico City
On 17 juil. 06, at 08:24, Robert Alberti wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 07:38 -0400, pat hache <tercasa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
happens to carry in another - marked or not - container, but just
enough - when mixed - for a terrorist to implose f.i. some door of a
high altitude flying aircraft, killing all aboard?
Confiscating unmarked bottles does nothing to reduce the risk of
terrorists brewing deadly cocktails in the restrooms. All the
terrorists have to do is replace the contents of labeled bottles.
therefore no liquids allowed on a plane seems a good precaution ,
except eye drops in small bottles, and even some powders for face
makeup or babie's care should'nt ...
If baby bottles are not prohibited you can bet that's what the
terrorists will use to transport their cocktails. Or the liquids will be
in the hollowed heels of their shoes. Or they may bring the liquids
aboard inside their own bodies. Defending against what Bruce Schneier
refers to has "movie terrorism" does little to reduce risk, but rapidly
erodes our civil liberties.
The only way to make the flight perfectly safe would be to prohibit
having people on board. In the meantime we will all soon be boarding
airplanes wearing only the paper gowns issued at the security
checkpoint...
Robert Alberti, CISSP, ISSMP
President, Sanction, Inc.
http://sanction.net
(612) 486-5000 x211
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/