More about those “inept” terrorists
I recently read two diametrically opposed pieces about the dangerousness—or lack thereof—of the recent terrorist bombing attempts in Britain.
The first, by Steve Schippert at National Review Online, criticizes the reasoning of those who would buy into what I’ve called the Keystone cops view of terrorists. The second, by Matthew Parris in the TimesOnline, subscribes to that very view: the terrorist doctors weren’t evil, just sad and inept crackpots (and you can find my own post on the controversy here).
Schippert analyzes the known data on the bombs—realizing that some details of the information may also have been kept secret by authorities—and concludes that there’s no indication of anything especially inept about these bombers, who apparently made only one small mistake:
[The error in the design of the trigger] is a minor issue technically. Important, but minor. And it will be overcome by an intelligent and adaptive enemy.
And here, in a slightly longer version of the same article, Schippert also points out that ABC’s publication of this particular detail managed to inform the terrorists what the problem was so that they can work on fixing it for next time. How kind.
Parris, of course, is not concerned. Nor does he appear to be interested in evaluating whether the bombs actually were a serious effort or not before he dismisses them as worthless. No, Parris gives up on the question after quoting an amateur’s letter on the subject, and why? Because he doesn’t have an editor to help him out:
When it comes to the War on Terror, by which we usually mean explosions, we defer to political editors. They know no more chemistry than you or me. I can talk up a storm on the folly of George W. Bush or the evil that is Osama bin Laden, but I don’t actually know if that shoe bomber was in with a chance of bringing down an aeroplane; or whether blowing up an airport terminal in Scotland was ever a goer from the alleged terrorists’ point of view.
I don’t know either. But if I were a journalist writing for a major newspaper and discounting the seriousness of this terrorism attempt, and with access to all the resources (time, money, contacts, credentials) available to such a reporter, I would at least try to interview some bomb experts to get some hard information on the subject. But it seems to be beyond Parris’s powers—or maybe it just doesn’t interest him.
What does? This:
…something is changing in the public mood, and I think it’s this: terrorism is beginning to look a bit stupid. Those pictures of that idiotic and slightly overweight fellow with his clothes burnt off looked pathetic, undignified. It has occurred to even the meanest of intellects that concrete doesn’t burn.
And it isn’t just the technical competence of alleged British terrorists that people are beginning to doubt: it’s the whole jihadist idea. What world are they aiming for? Most British Muslims, just like most British everyone-else, think it’s all pie in the sky: all rather silly.
Yes, silly. Not “evil” as the red tops would have it. Take care, neocon editors, prime-ministerial speechwriters and opposition spokesmen, with that word “evil”….We’re not talking anything as clever as Evil here: we’re talking Weird, we’re talking Crackpot, we’re talking Sad.
Well, I could apply that same last sentence to Parrish himself, I suppose, if I were in a certain mood. And his choice of words to characterize the photos of the seriously burned terrorist are “weird,” as well—what do the man’s lack of dignity or his extra weight have to do with anything?
But far more importantly, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by lack of respect for an enemy that would—and has—successfully committed multiple mass murder. And, in fact, despite what Parris seems to think, there’s nothing new about considering the terrorists inept—it’s exactly what was thought here prior to 9/11.
Back then, even though there was plenty of evidence that much of the time terrorists were all too successful and “clever,” at least those who believed they were not had the excuse that the largest and most successful attack of all time—9/11—had not yet occurred. What’s Parris’s excuse?
For anyone who is in doubt after reading the linked articles: Fuel-air explosives are not incendiaries. They are very real explosives, with the ability to create tremendous overpressures, level buildings, and deprive surrounding areas of oxygen. The Russians call them “thermobaric” and in my expectation the first serious use of large ones against cities will see the left call them weapons of mass destruction. (See the Wikipedia entry.)
But they are also said to be very tricky beasts to make work. The publicly available info on some of the US designs requires two high explosive charges, one to disperse the fuel and one to trigger the main explosion.
The device in question apparently used a different mechanism, but the same principle.
The big problem that anyone has in designing one of these is the chance to test it. There are few places in the UK where one could set them off to make them work and to refine the design. There are a lot of places in the Arab world (including parts of Africa). If the barbarians weren’t working on it before you can bet they are working on it now. All it takes is for one person or team to survive a successful design and publish it. (The longer it takes them to make it work, the more likely that what they publish will include all the necessary details. If they get lucky and it works on the first try, they may not have the experience to survive it.)
YouTube removed Yuri Bezmenov’s interview videos from their site. But I found a another version (although shorter in aggregate), so if anyone didn’t get a chance to see it the first time around or wanted to but couldn’t due to YouTube, here it is in my name link up above.
Take care, neocon editors, prime-ministerial speechwriters and opposition spokesmen, with that word “evil”….We’re not talking anything as clever as Evil here: we’re talking Weird, we’re talking Crackpot, we’re talking Sad.
We’re talking about useful idiots like you that if I had my way, would be disappeared because you’re getting in our way.
Typical for the allies of Jihad to blame the people that have slowed down the spread of Jihad for fighting the Jihad.
Anyone wanting to know more about useful idiots, click on my name-link. Get it while it lasts I suppose, before it gets “edited”.
What’s Parris’s excuse?
his best excuse is that he was brainwashed and is therefore not responsible for his views and actions.
FAE devices are rather complex. Which is why the Jihadist’s “suicide martyr” system of experience gathering is so slow. I told people before that having your operators blow themselves up is not a good idea in the long run, as it erases practical and applicable experience from the pool. This is why people see terrorist mistakes, it is not because the terrorists are dumb or without resources (al though resources like training camps would affect training).
“..useful idiots like you that if I had my way, would be disappeared…”
Really, Ymar?
The idea that America and her allies massively over-reacted to 9/11 is only bolstered by lines like that.
Alpo,
So tell us your “calm, reasoned, measured” response to such an event as 9/11.
Negotiation? Appeasement? Tribute?
I’m sure Alpo here would have given them representation in Congress. Oh, wait. They already do have representation in Congress: the Democratic party, CAIR, and ACLU.
Well, Lee,
I certainly wouldn’t have turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment and training center.
Nor would I have gently herded al Qaeda into the mountains of Pakistan.
I would have focused all our efforts on getting Osama and pals.
Ah, the old platitudes versus details argument. Now, perhaps Alpo could tell us how he would have “focused all our efforts on getting Osama and pals”.
And according to Zawahiri, it is Al Qaeda having a hard time recruiting:
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/01/zawahiris_messa.html#more
Lee,
Labeling the most obvious course of action a “platitude” or a “talking point” doesn’t make it any less correct.
Perhaps, but offering said “platitude” without specific “details of operation” is just that, a “platitude”.
Geez, Lee,
At the time we invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. Army was divided into ten divisions.
Two were Airborne, one was Mountain.
How could we have engaged Al Qaeda, while at the same time, cutting off their glaringly obvious route of retreat through the mountains?
More “dodging”, Alpo?
I didn’t ask you “where we screwed up in the past”, I asked you how you would “focus all our efforts on getting Osama and pals” today. You are saying we should be doing this now. How?
Oh, and by the way, “just send the Airborne and Mountain divisions after him” is just another platitude. Detasils, mr. military expert.
“detasils”?
alfie says,”…the U.S. Army was divided into ten divisions”.
Jeez, one doesn’t know where to start in dealing with such profound ignorance. It’s like using the first sentence in Caesars Gaullic Wars”; Gallia Est Omnis Divisa in Partes Tres . as an answer to a question regarding Roman war fighting organization.
As Bugs says, “What a maroon.”, but a hell of a dancer, as the exchange above once again indicates.
Lee, it’s an absolute given that when you ask someone what they would have done instead and the start with “Well, I wouldn’t have done what you guys did that the conversation is over. The person may have some good things to say and be worth reading, but there is no point in discussing anything with him, as he has not the ability. I foolishly give people extra chances, myself, but I always regret it.
I have similar rule about the motive fallacy
It’s always touching to see people who think its hard to master knowlege that’s written so someone with an I.Q. of 80 can master it in a few weeks.
We went cheap and easy in Afghanistan and we’re still paying for it almost six years later.
Alphie, stop insulting the Special Forces by calling them “cheap”, Okay? They’re not easy to train or blood.
“cheap and easy”
We didn’t ask about your mother, Alpo.
We’re still waiting for your detailed plan for getting Osama and pals.
The idea that America and her allies massively over-reacted to 9/11 is only bolstered by lines like that.
Massively over-react? You haven’t seen massive, let alone an over-reaction yet, Alphie.
Haha, Lee,
My mama?
I’d say we’ve bottomed out this thread.
I’d say Alpo has no answer to our question, and now runs like a little baby. See ya ’round, loser.
Haha,
Now weve bottomed out this thread.
If only childish insults translated into real-world victories.
If only Alpo could answer a question, instead of reverting to childish insults. Hey, Alpo, you get what you give. When you’re ready to act like an adult, I’ll stop coming down to your level.
Lee,
You guys are the ones trying to continue a policy against the wishes of a large majority of Americans.
It may take a little time, but in the end, the majority gets their way.
If you really believe in your cause, perhaps you should try some reasonable arguments that have a chance of changing minds for a change instead of simply confirming the worst opinions of your political opponents with every post you make.
As opposed to what….
Dodging, dancing, childish remarks?
You were asked a direct question: “What’s your plan for getting Osama and his pals?”
Since then, you’ve acted like a child. Are you going to answer it, or are you going to continue playing brat?
I don’t mind. You’re as inept in the “dozens game” as you are in “intellectual debate”.
“Now weve bottomed out this thread.”
No, alph, that occurs the instant you post.
Unsuccessful terrorists are “inept”…successful terrorists are “martyrs” or “insurgents”.
Never are they “murderers” in the minds of the press and people like alph.
Iraq is not training ground for amature terrorists, it is the place where the trained ones (in some other places, like Iran) are exterminated like cockroaches, by dozens on daily basis. This the real cause why there were no successful attack on American soil since 9/11, and most plots in Britain failed.
I always thought that the American approach to terrorism using the “Roach Motel” gambit was very well thought out. What better way to gather large numbers of terrorists in one place? They come in, but they do not come out, except as dead terrorist. Left to their own devices they alienate everyone enough that their natural constituency wants to help the Americans get rid of them.
Hey Alphie, can I call you Alpo too? Or is that just insulting — but so much fun. Mostly you deserve it for:
a) “The idea that America and her allies massively over-reacted to 9/11 is only bolstered by lines like that.”
combined with
b) “We went cheap and easy in Afghanistan and we’re still paying for it almost six years later.”
“Too much!” AND “Too cheap, not enough!” — two thoughts only a useful idiot could propose on the same thread … or, consistently, on the same blog.
In other words, whichever criticism the ‘listener’ leans towards against Bush/ America/ the Free World, you agree with it.
You’re a joke, a “tiny brained wiper of other people’s bottoms”, in “an outrageous French accent.”
However, you’re not Evil, like the terrorists. And neither are most of the MSM, who should be laughed at. The best way to describe them?
“We’re not talking anything as clever as Evil here: we’re talking Weird, we’re talking Crackpot, we’re talking Sad.”
Yep. You and MSM both.
I knocked our strategy in Afghanistan, Tom.
Iraq was the massive over-reaction.
I think that the Afghanistan war is a far more justified war than the Iraq war, but it’s also a far more futile war.
At least with Iraq, we had a chance to win at the start.
Yeah, Alpo,
Because that Taliban “surge” this spring sure showed us, didn’t it? Oh, wait. It NEVER HAPPENED, did it? Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? Dweeb.
Lee,
Coalition casualties have increased every year for the past four years in Afghanistan, and this year is on pace to be another record:
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Alpo,
And , other than Withdrawal, your solution is…?
Oh, yeah. Crying, and whining, and acting like a baby. Taliban casualty figures are what for the same period? Oh, that’s right. You don’t bean count those because they don’t support your hand-wringing anti-American agenda, do they?
You (ie Neo) are right to take issue with Parris for not doing his homework re explosives. However, I think he has put his finger on a very important point, at least from a British perspective.
To oversimplify a little (but this is the mental picture people have): 9/11 was the big one, followed by 7/7, followed by a variety of other unsuccessful attempts, some of which did have ludicrous aspects. Since we have some home-grown jihadis, this is important. It means that such acts may begin to lose some of their glamour. We have been through this before with the IRA, who were successfully marginalised over time.
None of this is to deny the seriousness of these attempts as criminal acts. But Parris is right to point out that there is something inherently ridiculous both about Islamism as an ideology and the people who try to foist it upon the world.