Redstate

to pass up any chance to rail on the democrats, but I have to agree with Harry Reid on this one (at least from an outside-of-DHS perspective).  If I had to sit down and list the cities that would be probable terrorist targets, Las Vegas would be well up on that list.  When you combine the number of visitors to the city with demographics of those that visit the city (i.e. from all over the country) with the fact that most of what goes on in the city has to be, at some level, anathema to the Islamo-Fascists, it would seem to be a pretty target rich environment.

You might convince me with more information about what the money that is being cut was being used for by Las Vegas, but your argument falls a bit flat on this one based on the facts as you've presented them.

you didn't have to come up with the list. DHS did.

Do you think the Pentagon was hit because of its number of employees or the number of tourists involved? Or the WTC?

40 million annual visitors, in colloquial terms, would come to less than 800,000 visitors per week. When added to Clark County's permanent population, which includes Las Vegas, of 1.4+ million that gives you 2.2 million or so persons spread over 8,000 square miles.

I can easily think of a dozen cities that should be in the cue ahead of Las Vegas, including some that were bumped off the list like San Diego.

And did I give you the mistaken impression somewhere that I was trying to convince you of something? If so, I do apologize.

Do you think the Pentagon was hit because of its number of employees or the number of tourists involved? Or the WTC?

No, they were hit because of their symbolic importance.  The WTC because it is the symbol of our financial system and the Pentagon because it is the symbol of our military might.  Do you seriously contend that Las Vegas has no symbolic import as a terrorist target?

40 million annual visitors, in colloquial terms, would come to less than 800,000 visitors per week. When added to Clark County's permanent population, which includes Las Vegas, of 1.4+ million that gives you 2.2 million or so persons spread over 8,000 square miles.

So 800,000 visitors per week.  If you were a terrorist who got a hold of say, weaponized smallpox, and were looking for some place to release the agent that would ensure maximum exposure and spread of the disease, wouldn't a target with that many visitors from areas all over the country/world make a pretty inviting target?

I can easily think of a dozen cities that should be in the cue ahead of Las Vegas, including some that were bumped off the list like San Diego.

I'm not saying that there aren't cities that should be ahead of LV.  NYC, DC, SF, LA, SD, Miami and others come to mind.  I'd like to see the reasoning behind removing funding for any of those cities.  Where are you getting this info from?  I'd be interested in reading what you're reading.

And did I give you the mistaken impression somewhere that I was trying to convince you of something? If so, I do apologize.

Well, I guess I generally figure that people posting here are trying to be persuasive or informative about what they're writing about.  If you're admitting that you're just shooting your mouth off for the heck of it, you've already convinced me of that, so no need to apologize.

but links are in a story for a reason. It would be easier to not provide links but I do so on the rather arcane theory that people who take the time to comment will follow the links and read them.

I provided a link to the list of cities who will continue to receive funds/lose funds. DHS has an exhaustive list of the funds awarded. Of course, all of that would have required you to actually put out a little effort. Your unwillingness to do devote any effort before "shooting your mouth off for the heck of it" is your problem, not mine.

And 800K visitors in a week is not a big throughput. Lots of cities have 800K visitors in a week. Lots of cities have over 800K workers who make daily commutes.

I doubt Harry Reid has an inkling of an idea of Radical Islamist SMSA targeting criteria and attack priorities; nor do you or I, or others here.

Maybe Homeland Security really, really does have a better appreciation of those things than, say . . . the mayor of Las Vegas.

Also, forgive me for noting that regardless of terrorists criteria on targetting, I personally doubt they would committ any act of savagry upon the constituents that elect and reeelct one of their most valuable assets in the US Senate.

wasn't paying attention after reading the original post.

And 800K visitors in a week is not a big throughput. Lots of cities have 800K visitors in a week. Lots of cities have over 800K workers who make daily commutes.

Sure, but I'd wager that behind the big metro areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a city that would work as well as Vegas if you were looking for a spot to spread an infectious bio agent.  The unique feature of Vegas in my mind is the fact that it has a large throughput of people who travel from all over the country, stay for short periods of time and are generally concentrated in fairly small area.    

I hope that I'm wrong and you're right, though.  It'd be a real bit** to cut funding and then have the terrorists target Vegas.

Vegas is a far more likely target than many other more populous cities (Columbus, Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc.).  Such a large percentage of the economy of the state/region (like Manhattan, DC, etc.) is crammed into a very small area.  Couple that with the fact that Vegas' economy is considered by many unnecssary for the broader functioning of the country(its not like the NYSE is there) and even a minor operation in Vegas would essentially shut down the entire economy of the State.  If HR weren't piping mad over this, he simply wouldn't be doing his job.        

I love it, so we don't have any inkling on their targetting priorities, but you do have any inkling on their priorities for our domestic politics.  

You can't protect every place against every threat every day. Even if we get hit somewhere that is getting oodles of money there will still be hell to pay.

Every city with a pro-football team is a higher risk for weaponized smallpox than Vegas. In Vegas you don't have the critical mass in one place, rather those visitors are spread out over a multitude of casinos... and topless bars if they are terrorists... and a lot of that visitor count are day or overnight visitors from Los Angeles/San Bernardino Counties. Vegas is also a crappy physical environment for any bio agent, too hot and too dry.

The major simulations the government has conducted have concluded that a football stadium is the ideal venue because you have about 70,000 attendees, many who routinely drive several hundred miles to get to a game, congregated and they disperse immediately following the game.

On the whole, I think if DHS pulled Vegas and San Diego off the list I 1) give them credit for guts and 2) am real sure they have a good methodology before picking a political brawl like that.

he's trying to keep the cash flowing to NV doesn't mean we either have to take him seriously or respect what he's doing.

Let's face it. If all of NV was shut down there would be much less economic impact that the NYSE, NASDAQ, or CBOT/CME.

Besides playing nakedly partisan political games, Reid and other pols on both sides have utterly missed the point.

http://skymusings.blogspot.com/2005/09/theyre-watching.html

If some terrorist group really wants to hit the US hard, it won't be by blowing up a few hundred or thousand people on the Strip, or at the Super Bowl, etc.  It it not about mass death.  It is about creating uncertainty in the mind of average Americans.

The average modern American is fairly easily spooked and not particularly self-sufficient.  Atlanta in the winter is a perfect example -- forecast 1/2" of snow or a small ice storm and the stores are emptied of bread and milk due to panic.  We made national headlines during Katrina with our $5.87/gallon gas due to people panicking and "topping off."

Quick raise of hands -- how many have an emergency kit and plan?

Shut off any of the following: email/internet, phone, electricity, gas supply, roads, food/water supply.  Keep shutting any or all of them off at random times.  Stand back and watch how quickly people recreate the "Maple Street" episode of Twilight Zone.

argh....here's the correct link:

http://skymusings.blogspot.com/2005/08/societal-breakdown.html

It's depressing that the state of our politics (on both the Left and the Right) has got to a point where attacking a leader from one party takes priority over applying common sense.

Unlike many Americans, I HATE Las Vegas. I think it's hell on earth. I get the shakes every time I'm in that city.

BUT, any fair minded level of common sense would tell you that Las Vegas is certainly a higher priority target than the vast majority of American cities.

And certainly several cities on that list that are placed ahead of it by the DHS.

The simple, obvious, common sensical reason for this is that Vegas (for better or for worse) stands as a prime symbolic site for American culture, commerce, and the ever nefarious gambling.

Moreover, there is a densely packed, critical mass of people that are packed into a relatively small area - a series of casinos and high rise hotels.

There is arguably no city in America (along NYC and San Francisco, presumably) that runs more counter to the so-called values of the Islamic Terrorists. Vegas, in their minds, stands for everything that is wrong with America and Western Culture.

So of course, common sense dictates that Vegas would be on a short-list of desirable sites for any terrorist to hit (if they could).

Columbus, Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix? Does any reasonable person honestly believe that terrorists would place a higher priority on attacking any of those cities?

Honestly.

Shut off any of the following: email/internet, phone, electricity, gas supply, roads, food/water supply.  Keep shutting any or all of them off at random times.  Stand back and watch how quickly people recreate the "Maple Street" episode of Twilight Zone.

Very good points.  I've thought for years now that if the terrorists wanted to cause chaos and panic in a major city, they'd target the transportation infrastructure, for example.  NYC may be guarding its subway, but other cities like LA and Atlanta are much more heavily dependent on their freeway infrastructure.  A half-dozen bombs, placed on key bridges/overpasses in Atlanta, for example, set to go off early Monday morning not long before the start of rush hour, would cripple the city.  One bomb on the flyover ramp of a major freeway intersection (I like to call them pinball ramps) would take out the entire interchange and cause unbelievable headaches.

of the relative risks (as opposed to their informed view) will be given every due consideration by the DHS.

about Islamofascist values v. Las Vegas. But the tricky thing is (and I remember seeing a couple of articles about this in the aftermath of 9/11, but none since), you have to get into game theory with terrorists hypothetical attack targets.

Say what you want, but 9/11 wasn't pulled off by morons, it was pulled off by fairly intelligent people who astutely studied our air travel security system and exploited its weaknesses.

We were suprised, but now we are on guard for them, and they know we are on guard for them, and they, if they act as intelligently as they did in plotting 9/11, should be able to comprehend that we are going to be guarding our percieved "higher value" targets- DC, Manhattan, San Fran-G.G. Bridge, the Super Bowl, etc- most heavily, and therefore they should now assume a lower likelihood of success against such targets. Therefore, places like Columbus and Jacksonville should now be the more attractive targets to the terrorists, based on perceived defenses and likelihood of success.

Now where I lose myself in the game theory is that they know that we know that they know that we know......all of this. But a John Nash type should be able to figure out an optimal defensive configuration for us, taking all of this into consideration. And therefore, it maybe that in this equilibrium (which hopefully DHS has determined) L.V. doesn't need all the funding they are currently getting.

I'm fine with that and don't have much choice but to trust DHS on that point. But what does seem dumb to me, and maybe it was unaviodable and maybe it is partially Harry Reid's fault, is to go out of the way to point out that DHS funding is being reduced and therefore to risk the "perception" that L.V. is now an easier target than it previously was.

I think his point is valid.

Set aside the snarky comment you made for a moment.  Can't Balfour make a critical statement based on personal observation?  When you are critical of a decision made by a government agency do you automaticaly assume you must be uninformed and wrong, or do you have a valid opinion that should be met with opposing opinions and not a patronizing slap?  

Your inability to meet his reasoning (other than the fallacy of "appeal to authority") is shallow.  You reason that a government agency is a govenrnment agency, thus it is right (also a "non-sequitor" while we're at it).  The remarks are also ad hominen.  Sounds like either a liberal argument (government knows best) or a highly flawed logical lack of logic argument.

Enlighten us.

just joking.

There is arguably no city in America (along NYC and San Francisco, presumably) that runs more counter to the so-called values of the Islamic Terrorists. Vegas, in their minds, stands for everything that is wrong with America and Western Culture.

But they haven't attacked it. They did attack NYC twice. They also didn't attack Bourbon Street, which I'd contend is much more counter to American values than the rather Velveeta casinos of Vegas.

Columbus, Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix? Does any reasonable person honestly believe that terrorists would place a higher priority on attacking any of those cities?

Jacksonville, yes. Major US Naval presence there. The rest are obviously political payoffs of the same type that Reid is wailing about losing.

they'd have learned their lesson from Con Air.

I'll try to explain just this once.

I said I doubted Harry Reid had an inkling of an idea.  I didn't say 'We' (Whatever might be your definition of that word in this context).  In the event it escaped you, the inference is that perhaps the Homeland Security professionals might be a little better informed on terrorist targeting that the mayor of Las Vegas - and Harry Reid.

Further.  I made no comment about 'our' perceptions on 'their' priorities for our 'domestic politics'. Perhaps my comments were too nuanced for you.  

Let's try this:  Why would terrorists create havoc in the place and amongst the people who continue to return Harry Reid - one of their singular political assets -  to the Senate? Doing so might make it politically dangerous for Harry, anger and frighten him, and cause him to rethink his position on the US presence in Iraq? - and all to the terrorists' detriment.

Of course, you might be amongst those who genuinely do not agree that Reid's words and conduct, along with several of his fellow leftists in congress, provide aid and encouragement to radical Islamists. If so, that would be an altogether different issue.

But, for now, try not using license with my words and deliberately or not misconstruing my message. It is neither a cute nor quirky tactic and leaves a residue of suspicion that the topic might be overcomplex for you.  That tactic is, also, too transparent and a taste unbecoming.

Some of us do.  I currently do consulting work for the transportation industry based on my military background.  Streiff (Whom I rarely disagree with, but do on this issue) stikes me (based on previous diaries and comments in particular) as someone with much more than a layman's view.

At Redstate you will find people that work in many varied fields, including government service.  Some have access to insider scoops (ie Erik who gets great inside on Scotus news).

So instead of being critical of what we think people bring to the table in terms of expertise, let's try to make sound arguments based on the facts.  

Again, I'll point to Streiff.  While I believe the Islamic mind hates Las Vegas and sees it as a blow against everything western, Streiff uses sound argumentation and documents his supports to come to a different conclusion.

You should know (unless you are just "borrowing" the De Opresso Liber signature) that we win hearts and minds through instruction.  Let's save battle for the lefties who troll the site.

All of that said I agree with you on the mayor of Las Vegas and Reid.  While I think Vegas is a high (not highest) priority, I'm getting a kick out of Reid crying like the girly man that he is.

The major simulations the government has conducted have concluded that a football stadium is the ideal venue because you have about 70,000 attendees, many who routinely drive several hundred miles to get to a game, congregated and they disperse immediately following the game.

A large Casino on Vegas can get pretty packed although nowhere near 70,000.  Terrorists are not stupid, at least not the leaders that sit in the back point the suckers at the target.  Just guessing, but I would not expect terrorist leaders to pick a stadium to hit (successfully) because they know that we know this is the 'ideal venue' and that we'll be focused on protecting them.

that we all have uninformed opinions about matters of national security. Some have put forward the notion that the recent public release of Top Secret NSA intelligence collection efforts is not damaging, because "the terrorists already know this stuff anyway".

He's entitled to his Monday morning quarterbacking, as I am to mine, and you to yours, but I'm not going to agree to substitute his or your offhand judgment for that of the professionals we pay to set those priorities (no matter how lightly regarded they may be by you or by him or by Harry Reid).

The implied snark was mild and good-natured in intent (if you'll look at Balfour's body of posts, you'll see this is his preferred genre, and I'm simply responding in kind). I'm sorry you chose to be offended by comments not directed at you. Your snark was a nice one, though. I congratulate you for it.

Anyway, you'll have to decide for yourself whether or not response this will contribute to your enlightenment. I hope so.

isn't there a theory that the Pentagon was hit because it was easier for the pilot to find than the White House?

......Reid has popped your Senate leader with far fewer votes on a regular basis. Somehow the expression "girly man" doesn't really come to mine when I think of him. Or he may be, but that makes Frist something much milquetoastier.

getting 70K into a casino. You could if you did it at gunpoint or if there was a free Barry Manilow concert.

Stadiums are almost impossible to defend and the domes are particularly friendly to bio agents. Their big advantage is that the crowd disperses while the bio agent is still in its incubation period.

Regardless, DHS evaluated the list and it pulled some cities off that have members of Congress with major clout representing them. I just can't assume they did this without a really defensible risk analysis model.

I don't like the game theory idea that he mentioned either.

The reasoning seems to go that:

1. They know what we are guarding is high priority,

thus,

2. We should guard against what we think they think we think they think we know is really not an important target.

Get it?

Neither do I.

All that being said, I do think Vegas is a target (dense population, sin perception by Islam, etc).  We can differ (and I buy the validity of your points).  But let us agree on something (perhaps).

Would you agree that funding for security of particular cities should be classified?  For example, might Vegas become a more tempting target because we've told the enemy that we are no longer funding it?  There should be oversight, sure.  And if a self important senator wants to make the issue public when his bowl of cherries gets defunded the counter-attack is to say, "Great job Reid, now the enemy knows!"

Frankly, I don't think the feds should be in the business of funding the states/cities at all.  It seems like a lot of pork barrel in many cases.  The locals should defend themselves, and the feds should be out there doing what Ann Coulter advocates:

Kill their leaders and convert them.

on all points. Reid may not be a girly man but only for lack of testosterone. Frist has a long term promotional agreement for Milquetoast, Inc.

(Sorry streiff, but I think this is related)

I think the Al Qaeda leadership circa 2001 was pretty sharp bunch of fellows.  Hopefully, we've killed enough of them in the last four years by CIA hit squads, that their strategic capability is way down.  But if not....

I actually think the next target, or set of targets, is more likely to be a suburb or exurb than a city -- even a smaller/medium sized city like Columbus.  That makes Harry Reid's weeping even more ridiculous.

Consider: the reason why the terrorists hit the WTC was to disrupt our economy.  They believed that Americans care more about money than anything else; they believed that hitting our economy was the surest way to get to us.  They're not entirely wrong.  Reagan's buildup eventually took down the Soviet Union because we imposed costs on them that they couldn't handle.

Hit a city and things don't change that much; we're already spending billions on protecting the so-called high value targets anyhow.  Any city is a pretty high value target.

But, hit a mall out in the suburbs somewhere and see what that does.  Do a driveby on some suburban office park.  You don't even need to kill thousands of people; just kill a few.  Machinegun a dozen or so employees of some midsize corporation in the outskirts of Chicago.  My company is in such a corporate park; our security people don't carry guns -- they carry radios.  By the time the cops get there, a decent team of 3-4 with basic handguns, shotguns, and such could probably off a few dozen people.  Pull a Beslan and go kill a school full of kids somewhere in the middle of Pennsylvania.  How many security guards, or even local police, would a small town like that have anyhow?  Nothing four trained commandos with automatic weapons can't deal with.

The costs to protect these out-of-the-way places, these suburbs and exurbs that lack the protective infrastructure of cities would be astronomical.  The outcry from the public to protect these vulnerable places would be simply extraordinary.

Think of the panic and disruption that the two DC shooters caused.  Now think what a few small sleeper cells here could do, not with weaponized smallpox, or nuclear weapons, or any such fancy thing, but just with handguns, shotguns, a couple of AK-47's, and a nondescript car.  Sure they'd be caught eventually, but the country would be in a very different mindset.

Scary scenario, but that's one big reason why I think we have to be on offense in this war on terror, not sit back on defense and try to cover everything.

-TS

strip and head here.

Realizing that armchair quarterbacking is what anyone here does when they are critical of government agencies or individuals.  It doesn't subtract from the substance of the argument or the point being made.

I guess that's what I want to see.  A response in kind, versus "I don't argue with monday morning quarterbacks".  THAT would be enlightenment.

I used to do some high school football coaching (defensive coordinator).  Hardly a drop in the bucket next to the real deals in the NFL.  Sometimes after a good Denver game I am critical of a coaching call.  While I accept that I am "nothing" next to the talent of the coaches in the NFL I often voice my opinions, and enjoy the opinions I hear back on from other armchair quarterbacks.  (I also get to phone in and talk to Sirius sattelite NFL radio where I've talked to quite a few coaches and players).  It is customary for people to agree or disagree and give a reason.  But I never hear, "Well you aren't an NFL coach, so you must be wrong".

That's all I'm trying to say.

You can also shut down air travel to contain an outbreak in Vegas. It's not in a very populated part of the country. This makes it way less than ideal. With a sporting event everyone hops in their cars and leaves afterwards... much harder to contain.

And casinos have unbelievable security. They have their eyes on you everywhere in the casino at all times... especially if you look suspicious. Which if you aren't a 65 years old woman chain smoking and carrying a plastic cup full of quarters around you already have a good start on.

There is a "scale of girly man" out there.  Just because Sigfreid and Roy and Frist are near the top doesn't detract from the many dems who seem to be moaning about something or other on a daily basis.

A better term for that is "Nancy-boy".

them focus on targets like that.

Unless they have something with a yield in kilotons-- and they are able to detonate it underwater in the reservoir above the dam, the --Hoover Dam/Grand Coulee, etc, are bulletproof.

I used to love watch eyeballs bug out when you had students do the demolition calcualtions for targets they had reconned.

But I would say "your input must be worthless." The DHS has to set priorities. Everything can't be priority 1. I have to assume they know what they are doing until evidence is presented that contraidicts that. I'm not going to tell them what the priorities are. I'm not qualified. I don't get terrorist intel.

easier to find than the White House.

If you fly into DC using the River Visual Approach, try to find the White House. It isn't easy.

Then imagine trying to do it on your first flight of a real airplane knowing you are minutes from your own death.

of that except that implies classifying the procurement records of the cities receiving the money as well... and then we have to get security clearances... and store the documents... and then there is the vendor issue. Can Acme Geiger Counters tell shareholders it just sold a bunch to Cincinnati?

Other than poking at Reid, my gut feeling is that federal money to cities from DHS may have already passed the point of diminishing returns and the only reason we keep shelling the bucks out is fear of electoral wrath if we stop and something happens.

the powerplant at the base of the dam is significantly less protected.  Power for 1.3 million people in NV AZ and CA, possibly all of Vegas?

I have no idea how to do it, how much explosives would be needed, and obviously it wouldn't be easy, but they could certainly cause a spectacular PITA if they knocked out power generation at the dam in the middle of July.

Killing us in large numbers is not only difficult, it has exactly the wrong effect the islamists are looking for.  9/11 was shocking but we pulled together if only for a little while.

Great point re the DC snipers and suburbia.  We can't be on guard everywhere, and if we even come close then the terrorists have won.

Go even further into the hinterlands and start blowing up grain elevators or freight rail systems.  Once the food and gas become difficult to transport, Americans will fold and turn on each other.  And the media would be insane with multiple reports coming from Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, etc...small towns disrupted are small news by themselves but huge in the larger aggregation.

Immigration and border control, along with some common sense regarding PC nonsense, will go a long way toward preventing the smaller (but more effective) attacks.

Sorry to support the threadjack, but you're right on the money, Sophist.....

I would suggest that a hit on The Strip in Vegas would do more lasting damage economically than a hit on, say, downtown Chicago. There the damage would be limited to Chicago itself and I rather doubt tourism to the city would permanently suffer much long-term diminishment. By contrast a LV hit would reduice tourism to the city for a long, long time perhaps collapsing its economy.

As for "weaponized smallpox" no such thing exists, and even regular smallpox virus would be extremely hard to get hold of. The most likely bio agent (at least for airborne infection) for any terrorist to use would be weaponized anthrax, which exists in some quantities, followed by pneumonic plague.

Re: You can also shut down air travel to contain an outbreak in Vegas.

Um, I-15? And that leads right to LA, just a few hours away.

much less Vegas, given him and his parties obcession with terrorists' rights best expressed by his joy in temporarily killing the Patriot Act. Last time I checked Vegas is in AMERICA and thier civil right to dance nude next to a church is fully protected.

I'm sure if we PAID Vegas everytime we tortured a terrorist by allowing women to speak to them, paid Vegas a fee for every wiretap placed on al qaida consorts phones in America, paid Vegas everytime we killed an al qaida terrorist in Iraq and Paid Vegas everytime a gitmo terrorist doesnt get a lawyer,

that harry would be cool with fighting the war BEFORE we have to test our preparedness for an attack.

Absent that, harry and Co care more about how quick FEMA arrives to scoop up dead bodies than in preventing the need for same.

Re: Why would terrorists create havoc in the place and amongst the people who continue to return Harry Reid - one of their singular political assets -  to the Senate?

I don't think the terrorsist give a rotten fig for the minutiae of US domestic politics. Back on 9-11-2001 they attacked two of the most solidly Democrat cities in the nation.

Since September 11th I have been surprised every day when there isn't a suicide bomber in a mall somewhere in Middle America, after all the definition is :

Terrorism n: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

It's all about fear and while flying planes into buildings brought on a wave of fear for some people it also woke a giant that had been asleep for the past 8 years. I see that more as an act of war than the definition of terrorism.

Now imagine if there were suicide bombings throughout the country for the past few years, I would venture to guess that people would be apt to barricade themselves in there homes.  Even one or two a year would be devastating.

We have watched this country fall back into a mindset of pre 9/11 and when someone brings it up the left says we are overreacting (well unless funding for there state is cut) and to just go back to life as normal.  

We have been lucky that we have not had to endure another attack on US soil in the past 4+ years, we are far from vigilant enough and far too willing to trade our safety to be sure we do not offend anyone.  People will point at POTUS and say he overstepped his bounds, I believe what President Bush has done to combat terror is both legal and honorable and am thankful everyday that he is the man in the White House.

People need to go look in the mirror and realize that while they may not agree or even like GWB they are lucky to have him and should spend more time fighting battles on there political issues than turning our countries battles into political issues.

The observation you make about Vegas security is correct.  Anything that moves (and anything that doesn't) gets recorded.  Of course it's too late once the attack occurs, and not as significant for finding attackers when they perish in the attack.  Never the less your point is excellent.

However I very much disagree with your assesment on an outbreak scenario.  The danger of a bio attack in Vegas would be immune (pun intended) to the airline shutdown response you stated.  Here's why.  By the time the nation finds out that a bio attack has happened (let's say originating in Vegas) it's too late to shut down the airport.

Consider that the guests in Vegas are exposed to a bio agent.  Those carriers now board planes and head home (many have connecting flights at other airports, multiplies the situation's gravity).  By the time a disease becomes symptomatic in two to three days (for most of the bios we have concerns about) it's too late to close the airport of origin.

While I still hold that Vegas might be a reasonable target for some kind of attack, I don't think it would be a good candidate for a bio attack.  There are many airports with more travellers who average more connects AND more connects with other major cities.  Also, an attack on Vegas would be symbolic as it is everything Islam hates about our culture, but a bio attack wouldn't draw public attention to Vegas like a "spectacular" attack that our enemy seems to prefer.

rE: Think of the panic and disruption that the two DC shooters caused.

Yes, they caused some uproar. But think of all the murders and the like that go on all the time in suburbs and exurbs. A few year ago there were also freeway shootings on the Columbus OH beltway. A few years before that such shootings were common in suburban LA and Detroit. How much panic and disruption did those events cause? Not much. Most people were a bit worried, but by and large they went on with their lives.

Say the NE corridor for example... it is an island. If LA is their real target they might as well skip Vegas and do it in LA.

But the problem is the small stuff is never officially connected to terrorism by the feds. So it loses it's impact there. Even the anthrax attacks were never connected. Or take the Muslim who went to LAX and shot up the El Al counter. Just another random act of violence there.

The point that I was responding to in Balfour's defense was that Balfour was making a defense (reasonable whether you buy into it or not), and that the person attacking his point seemed to imply that no point is valid in being critical of those who must know better.

Do you have to get intell to have an opinion?  For that matter, do you have to have intell to counter that opinion (Balfour's)?  It works unfairly both ways.  So let's discuss the issue with the facts and reasoning we DO have, instead of dismissing someone because he is just some taxpayer with no right to second guess how the government spends his money.

I'll say it again.  I see strong cases being made both ways (Streiff's diary being the most compelling in terms of clarity, length, and supporting links even though I somewhat disagree with the conclusion).  His counters to those opposing him (even when biting) are sound arguments.  Those who support his diary with reasoned arguments (and those who differ) add to the forum that Redstate should be.  Those that are dismissive of others because they don't happen to sit in the halls of DHS are just insulting.

Doesn't seem like an outragous take on things to me.  

You might not want to be so quick to dismiss it. As I conceded in my post, I get somewhat lost in it as well. But seeing as how nobel prizes (which do have validity in science and economics, if not in "peace") have been awarded for the study of it, you may want to consider that it has some credibility.

The underlying concept IIRC, is actually not that complicated, and is simply that you have to consider the situation and potential outcomes not just from your own perspective but also from your opponent's. In the context of this discussion, you can't say in absolute terms that NY, DC and SF are attractive targets but Columbus, Memphis and Santa Fe aren't, and need to base the homeland defense of each on an analysis of how attractive  the terrorists would view the target vs. how easy it appears to them to achieve success.

I expect this is exactly what DHS does, I don't know what other analysis would be rational.

You say it's not about mass deaths and I think you may be on to something.

I'm not too scared in Indiana.  What DOES scare me is a Russian school shooting type issue.

Disruptive would be attacks on grade schools across the country at the same time.  It would be easy and fairly innexpensive.

The cost to guard every school after such an attack would be unGodly.

The pschological impact of seeing children murded en masse around the country (very young children in particular) would be incalcuable.  Children would be kept at home, parents may not show to work, teachers leave the profession, etc.

(By the way, I'm not giving them any ideas.  They did it already on a smaller scale in Russia, and I can think of two novels where the tactic is used).

Of course there are many other ways to strike at "flyover" America.  But I agree with your premise.  It's not the numbers or the places so much as terror for each American citizen.  Of course, we can't ignore the big targets either can we, and now we are back to square one.

The best defense is still a good offense.  We need to hunt down and kill (or torture for intell) every one of these monsters.  We need to elect people that are more concerned with how to win a war on terror rather on how to be civil to a terrorist.

We disagree.  In about every aspect. Except our opinions of Streiff's competency to address these issues.

No, I did not borrow the De Opresso Liber signature.  I know what it is, what it means, its origins and for whom it is a motto.  I did not come by this information in an encyclopedia.

I know from personal experience something about winning hearts and minds, and of the difference between theory and practice in that regard.  So, to address your point on that subject:  I am not attempting in my posting to win anyone's heart or mind.  I am attempting to win a point.

You comment on my being critical towards what 'people bring to the table'.  Where did that come from? I am critical of the poster's argumentation and provocative comments. I have no idea (nor do I care) what he 'brings to the table'.

You seem to feel that my posting would benefit from a statement of facts - rather than merely opinions.  I would not disagree with you if I thought 'facts' were publicly available on the topics of terrorist targeting and priorities.

I would also add that your comments towards my post might benefit from adherence to your own advice; rather than a tutorial on the conduct of RedState exchanges.

If you are a RedState editor, you are certainly within your right to correct me or any other in our conduct on this site, if correction is required.  If you are not a RedState editor, then you are simply offering me your own opinion, and that from a presumptive elevation of superior knowlege, experience and insight.

Which is it?

I'm certain your consulting work for the transportation industry (based upon your military experience) reduces my own consultancy to other government agencies and 27 years active regular military (and intelligence) service and field operations to the level of a laymanship; therefore providing more credence (in the absence of 'facts') to your opinions than my own.

So be it.

BTW. I am aware of how RedState functions; and of many of the contributors.  I've posted here myself from time to time. I see it working this way.  

• If a poster state a fact.  Prove it by citing it.  
• If a poster offers an opinion. Be prepared to defend it.
• If a poster wishes to be a little combative and smarmy - keep it relative to the string; play by the rules, and;
• bring your intellectual artillery, your fact-toting infantry, your shin, rib, elbow pads and ego protective cage. They win hearts and minds around here sometimes with a little sandpaper.  However, I do appreciate your tutorial on the site.
  

You're underestimating the effect of someone taking responsibility for the deaths.

We're talking about smart Al Qaeda types, after all.

Rather than a suicide bomb, which is a one-shot deal, just have 3 guys pile into a Ford Escape with some Glocks and shotguns, drive across I-80 killing people.  At every scene, leave a photocopy:

"This murder brought to you by Al Qaeda.  Until you infidels pull out of Iraq, we will keep killing your people."

For good measure, follow up with a phone call to local TV station:

"Hi, this is Ahmed; just wanted to let you know that we just shot up your elementary school."

That's a very different thing, with very different media coverage, and very different consequences for us.

-TS

All it takes is Al Qaeda taking responsibility.

The point of terrorism isn't to kill people; it's to spread fear, panic, and impose security costs on the society being attacked.

Sure, the Feds won't connect the small stuff.  But that's where the smart Al Qaeda types will do the connecting for people.

Don't just randomly shoot a Jew in Manhattan; randomly shoot a Jew in suburban Northern Virginia, then call the Washington Post:

"The mujahideen of the Al Qaeda in America has just executed a Zionist Jew at 25 Elm Street in Fairfax.  We will continue killing Zionist Jews until America ends its illegal occupation of Iraq."  Click.

Two weeks later, do it in some suburb of Atlanta.  Drive there.  Make the police setup roadblocks on every road and highway.

What do you think that would do to costs of policing in those suburban neighborhoods and towns?  American Muslims already complain about racial profiling.  What do you think would happen after about the ninth killing in some random neighborhood?

The key is to make sure that Americans understand that these are not random acts of violence.  Heck, if I could puzzle that out, smart terrorist types are thinking the same thing... or would be, if they weren't so busy thinking about how to place the next IED in Fallujah....

-TS

And I'm not talking about the punk band.  It is overated too.

Anthrax is common (it can be found on most farms) but is not much good for mass attacks.  I don't believe it is considered a major threat other than by a crazed individual unable to get something more effective.  It can be weaponized, but its spread from person to person and the (relatively) low lethality places it near the bottom of bio threats.

I agree that smallpox isn't a threat either.  I'm not aware (as you are) that it can't be weaponized, so I'll take your word for it.  I also agree that it is "near" impossible to get a hold of.

I would imagine that flu like plauges top the list.  There is also worse than that out there.  The question is how much governmental support do the terrorist groups get from some Islamic countries that can supply the stuff?  

Another feather in Bush's cap for hitting Iraq who has used chemical agents and experimented with bios (whether we recovered them or not).  Who knows what Libya gave up when they went weak kneed.

the economic output of Nevada and the city of Chicago and rethink this statement.

In the past 4 years we have run two national simulations based on weaponized smallpox, not anthrax. Anthrax is not communicable. So while it does kill it isn't viewed in the same class as the threat posed by smallpox.

And yes, there is weaponized smallpox and there has been for a while. But don't take my word for it, see what first responders are told.

The USSR had 20 tons of weaponized smallpox that was allegedly destroyed but not documented.

Smallpox does worry me only because of the potential it has to inflict damage on a population that has never been exposed to it. Sure it is hard to get, but it is possible... if I remember correctly samples of the virus are unaccounted for. Maybe they were destroyed but who really knows? And who knows what the former USSR had at their disposal that they haven't told us about.

Weaponized Anthrax doesn't particularly impress me... for one thing because it has already been tried without much success.

No offense taken, and no hard feelings.

I don't think your post made much sense, but your snarkiness is well within bounds and relatively funny.

Now with that said, I must chuckle a bit at the notion that the DHS (or any government agency) is immune to skepticism, errors, and politics.

As Streiff has rightly pointed out, DHS has been as guilty of doling out pork as the next government agency. So let's not just take for granted that every decision DHS has made with regards to allocating funding is driven purely by policy and analytical analysis.

That would be tremendously naive.

And certainly DHS' performance in Katrina (and this is not meant to veer off into a blame game over New Orleans) was not without its notable shortcomings.

So I think it's more than reasonable to question DHS' decision making plan.

I'm not suggesting for one second that I or you or Streiff or any of us sitting-behind-a-computer-screen bloggers have any real insight or data, but it's not unreasonable to raise a common sense response.

More than likely, again as Streiff alluded to, the decision to allocate more funds to "curious" cities like Columbus and Jacksonville and Phoenix ahead of Las Vegas was motivated in part by politics and pork.

That's just the sad reality of the federal government - whether it's run by Republicans or Democrats.

And Harry Reid, in standing up for his state's main city and one of the principle entertainment hubs of America, is doing what any elected official should be doing for his constituents - representing their interests as well as those of the United States.

use some form of a decision matrix weighting telcom facilities, financial instituions, importance to travel, population, etc.

I'd be surprised if a guy like Chertoff went to war with Harry Reid over a game theory exercise. Though I think game theory would probably give you a better result than a decision matrix.

be shocked (nyuk, nyuk) and how well the plant is protected (isolation is one of its biggest protections, btw, you can't pull a Murrah Building operation there) and how much explosives it would take to make any impact.

I'm not sure I follow you when you say that 9/11 had exactly the wrong effect the Islamists were looking for.

I've heard two theories on what they want to accomplish- 1)to make us look weak and them look strong so that worldwide muslims would be more inclined to cast their lot with them rather than us. and/or 2) to draw us into a military engagement in the Arab/Muslim world (presumably Afghanistan) in which we would further alienate muslims  with our actions and they would deliver us a humiliating defeat as they did with with the Soviets.

It seems to me that they did make us look weak and drew us into a military engagement in the Middle East, and in that sense I'd imagine they regard 9/11 as a great success.

You paint an interesting scenario for how to disrupt our infrastructure and our society, but, while I'm sure they'd be happy to see that happen, I'm not sure that's  there top goal at this point. IMO a "spectacular" attack on a high value/highly symbolic location is their more desirable target because it makes them look strong and draws moslems in the M.E. and to a growing degree in Europe, to move under the Al Qaeda banner, and those are the frontlines they are currently interested in fighting on, not the American heartland.

Re: Anthrax is common (it can be found on most farms) but is not much good for mass attacks.  

Then why in the world did both the US and the Soviets invest so much in producing weaponized anthrax?

Re: I agree that smallpox isn't a threat either.  I'm not aware (as you are) that it can't be weaponized, so I'll take your word for it.  

I'm not saying that it can't be in any absolute sense, only that there is very little smallpox virus out there, and what little was preserved is under lock and key. It would be all but impossible to get hold of it. By contrast, anthrax, plague and some other agents not only exist in nature, but there are plenty of research facilities that deal in these germs, so it would be much easier to get hold of them.

My experience with redstate is that most posters absolutely love (or would love) a place like Vegas.  Apparently it's not a fun place, but rather a den of iniquity.  Oh well, more for me.

Doesnt the obcession with "preparing for an attack" remind you of the nuclear bomb drills in schools when children crawled under their desks?

BTW, I enjoyed yur pat robertson diary and thought the criticism you got was bit overdone. But I am just a conservative that enjoys debate, esp with higher species of liberals, as i used to be!, and think that once one allows libs in the door its hard to draw a line. But I'm no blog-troll-moby expert. Still dont really know what a troll is! But i kind of like bait and switch! smile

but I digress

I just really see the obcession with being prepared for an attack as a bit defeatist and pretentious. Its akin to the way so many libs saw 911 as a tragedy and obcessed on mourning to the exclusion of working up some righteous anger against the enemy that did it. Katrina was a tragedy. 911 was an act of war.

The utility of preventing attacks so no one is killed so outweighs the maximum number of saved lives from preparation for post attack action EVEN IF WE SPENT 10 TIMES WHAT WE NOW SPEND IN EVERY CITY, that it is penny-wise and pound foolish and simply ridiculous to suggest that a few million here or there will matter one whit

post attack!

The common sense that informs that VEGAS should be ranked ahead of other cities in priority as the other cities $$ are taken from them and sent to VEGAS

should also inform that we should

not allow captured terrorists to have lawyers and be freed to attack Vegas due to the lack of a FISA warrent

allow degrading treatement of selected al qaida types to get intell to save VEGAS

etc

you see my point

One of the things that most stuck out about Katrina was the expectation of immediate suffering releif from DC rather than from NOLA and LA and that one doesnt need relief if one evacuates!

I dont think Lincoln "prepared" Gettysburg for an attack.

are 30 year old samples of the virus? Also, many people still living were vaccinated against smallpox earlier in life and those who claim these vaccinations are totally worthless are simply wrong. In 19th epidemics people who had been vaccinated as children were far less likely to contract the disease, fell ill with only mild cases when they did, and were almost never contagious. As long as some major fraction of the population has resistance to the disease you aren't going to get the sort of wildfire pandemic that the doomsayers love to fret about.

about smallpox are inaccurate. Leave it at that.

And in a way non-communicable anthrax is a better bio weapon (which is why I suspect the US and Soviets made so much of it) since the infection stops with the initial exposures-- possibly thousands of people. This you can do a lot of damage (most of which would ensue from panic) with any danger of blowback-- that is, your own forces and populations would be completely safe from the weapon assuming none were in the area infected to start with.

Re: Go even further into the hinterlands and start blowing up grain elevators or freight rail systems.  Once the food and gas become difficult to transport

How much grain and freight would you have to destroy before food and fuel really became scarce? I think the scale of such an effort (which we know would have be a few orders of magnitude even beyond the damage done by Katrina and Rita)  would be way beyond what Al Qaida could do. At the very least you'd need a barrage of nuclear-tipped missiles for that chore.

It would depend on how they have been stored. Who says they need to be 30 years old? Who knows what the Soviets were cooking up?

As for immunity, nobody under the age of 35 has any immunity at all (except for those who do just by chance). As for people who were vaccinated 50 years ago, a single vaccination provides 3-5 years of high level immunity. That can be increased by giving multiple doses. It is completely unclear how much immunity they have now, if any. There isn't a good way to test that.

But apparently random killings are more terrifying than attributed ones. And I'm not claiming that people would be blasé about such things. Study any community under threat from a serial killer. Are people fearful and stressed? Yes indeed. Does life grind to a halt? No it doesn't, because people simply have no choice but to go on with their lives even under lethal threat. Bills have to paid and children fed, after all. Panic is a short term response. Long term panic is impossible. How do you think the Londoners managed to go on with their lives under the Blitz?  Moreover the end result of such a murder jaunt would almost certainly be dead (or at least apprehended) perps which would itself be cathartic. If we were as cowardly as you assume, no one would dare drive on the freeways anyway since the death and maiming toll from accidents far exceeds anything that terrorists could do without nukes.

You are simply bs-ing here to cover a pretty silly statement. Your assessment is just totally, 180-degrees wrong. Quite honestly, you just simply don't have any clue as to what you are talking about which puts you at a distinct disadvantage here.

Unclassified overview of the exercise.

If you Google the exercise name you'll find a lot more on it.

And there is still more bs here. Your position is that an enemy who sends its fighters out to fly into buildings cares about "blowback." Why?

Why in a terror attack is a limited number of casualties in a localized bit of geography a better tool than a large number of causalties, caused by a fairly communicable disease, spread over a large area?

Re: Disruptive would be attacks on grade schools across the country at the same time.  It would be easy and fairly inexpensive.

A single attack, maybe. But multiple ones? All evidence suggests that there aren't enough Al Qaida operatives left to pull that off. Recall that on 9-11 they could only put together a team of 20 guys. After four years of taking it on the ropes I doubt they have enough resources left for even one high profile multi-person attack*. Also recall that the Muslim world recoiled with horror from the Breslan attack. The terrorists need to play to their base and (as they are learning also in Iraq) actions which make them look like butchers not martyrs to their own people are not profitable to their cause.

* Of course they may have enough resources for single-person attacks, or those involving high explosives.

"Why in a terror attack is a limited number of casualties in a localized bit of geography a better tool than a large number of causalties, caused by a fairly communicable disease, spread over a large area?"

Because they aren't trying to eradicate us, they are trying to get us out of the Islamic world.

Spectacular attacks that invite a spectacular response, by us, make better press for them and sway more of "their people" to their side.

they are just as virulent today as they day they became part of the sample.

By age 45 virtually the effectiveness of nearly all of your childhood vaccines, of all types, are on the verge of lapsing.

Even if you are immune, you can still carry it a la Typhoid Mary, and give it to your spouse, childred, friends, neighbors who may not be vaccinated.

We stopped vaccinating for smallpox in 1972. Virtually no one in the US under the age of 33 has immunity.

I doubt it.

The attacks on the Twin Towers in New York were as much for effect - a media event - as anything else.

And, the Senate leader to the Bush opposition didn't run for election there.

I'm just not convinced that these guys are so apolitical as to not take this into consideration.

You think they would prefer a few hundred casualties in shopping mall to a nationwide panic?

Your understanding of the terrorist threat simply isn't shared at the national level. Maybe you should offer your services.

Because they aren't trying to eradicate us, they are trying to get us out of the Islamic world.

Unless the Islamic world you are referring to is the entire world. They want us and Israel to occupy the same place: no where.

but policing costs and security costs go way up.

This isn't so much about panic; it's about imposing costs.

Just imagine that you're the superintendent of a small school system somewhere in one of the bedroom communities surrounding Pittsburgh, with a high school, two junior high schools, and maybe half dozen elementary schools.  News reports are blaring that Al Qaeda sleeper cells have targeted and killed students and teachers at a dozen locations around the country.

You panic in the short-term; then you increase security, get the police to station not just one (because one cop can be shot by four guys with AK-47's) but a few patrol cars to each of your schools.  Maybe you get your mayor to create some rapid deployment teams, with some high-tech electronic alarm and surveillance systems to detect when Al Qaeda hit squad is driving near your school.  All of these things cost money that has to come from somewhere.

If you didn't do these things, what would parents do?  If you didn't do these things, and God forbid, one of your schools got hit, what would happen to you?  That's right -- reckless endangerment and criminal negligence charges are brought, not to mention civil suits from the families of all those victims.

That's just schools.  Now throw in every landlord of every office building, strip mall, shopping center.  Every company that is in a suburban office park, which, unlike major cities, isn't necessarily all that close to a police station.  Being an office complex with diverse tenants, you have all kinds of random people coming and going all the time.  Wow, hello, security costs.

Murder jaunts result in perps dead?  Do we not live in the same U.S. where the ACLU has gone to bat for illegal combatants picked up in the fields of Afghanistan?  Heck, some jihadi prepared to blow himself up should have no problems just surrendering when finally cornered by cops.

"Hi boys, you finally got me.  I want to see my court-appointed ACLU attorney, please.  Oh, and no shooting me -- my colleague over there is videotaping and we're on an open cell phone line to Ayman in Kandahar who is recording any possible violations of our civil rights.  Too bad the NSA can't be tracing that call, eh boys?"

There's something else to consider as well.  The American psyche is somehow trained to think of suburbia as safe and secure.  Crimes that wouldn't raise an eyebrow in cities are cause celebre in the burbs.  Terrorist attacks are something that happens in cities, like race riots, and gang rape of women by "Wilding" thugs.  Attack that psyche, and you do some real damage.  I believe that.

Sure, we'll all eventually get used to it, but life in the burbs would never be the same.

-TS

If you wanted to go after ag. production you wouldn't use bombs I agree, but you could use bacteria, fungi, and viruses to acheive far greater damage.  Many many of these pathogens are endemic to most parts of the world and released throughout the bread basket you could really gnaw on the American economy.  Some of these pathogens are extremely difficult to erradicate once they become established on farm land so there would be long-term economic effects in a wide release.

The agents are already highly evolved for their purpose, they are easy to get, and they are harmless to humans so anyone could handle, transport and release them.

is al Quaeda I think you are wrong about a billion or so people in regards to the US.

And if you did mean al Quaeda, I still disagree.  And even if that were their goal they would need a major nation-state to accomplish it.  It is the formation of that nation-state that OBL is trying to acheive.  If he had is caliphate in Saudi, Iraq, and Iran I'm sure he would be happy to sell us all the oil he could pump, at a slight price increase of course.

Rather than try to understand my point you try to trivialize it by suggesting I said something I did not.  Where did I say shopping mall?

But, since you brought it up, you don't think a half dozen explosions in shopping malls would create a nation-wide panic?

I don't think they would attack malls though because it does just the opposite of what they want, it gains us sympathy.  They know we are not going to intentionally attack arab street markets so our retaliation to such an attack would only sway people to our favor and not to theirs.

What OBL and al Q want is to keep fighting us in the  Islamic world.  I'm not saying I think he can do it, but he thinks he can defeat us the same way he thinks he defeated the Soviets.  A long drawn-out war that saps the economy causes us to retreat the stage in the ME and creates tremendous disincentive to get involved when the people on the street decide to overthrow Mubarrak, the Sauds, and Musharraf.

That is precisely why he attacked us from Afghanistan because he thought he could recreate history turns out he was head up his * wrong about that one,but Iraq begins to look like a more favorable venue.

Unless the Islamic world your'e talking about     is al Quaeda I think you are wrong about a billion or so people in regards to the US.

This makes no sense. You said they want us out of the Islamic world... so they want us out of Al Qaida? Last I checked we didn't have a membership there.

And even if that were their goal they would need a major nation-state to accomplish it.  It is the formation of that nation-state that OBL is trying to acheive.  If he had is caliphate in Saudi, Iraq, and Iran I'm sure he would be happy to sell us all the oil he could pump, at a slight price increase of course.

These people aren't reasonable. They blow themselves up and try to take as many people with them as possible, even if that includes Muslims. They don't have what it takes to wipe Israel off the map either, but it won't stop them from trying. Al Qaida is not a capitalist operation. Their goal is not to take over oil production so they can rake in the jack and buy new limos. Their goal is total domination over the entire world, in the name of Islam. Once the West ceases to exist and we all pray to the East and impliment Sharia law, they will be happy and we will have peace.

a trivial point. Accuse me of trivializing it. The refuse to defend it. This is deja vu all over again.

You said:

Because they aren't trying to eradicate us, they are trying to get us out of the Islamic world.

Spectacular attacks that invite a spectacular response, by us, make better press for them and sway more of "their people" to their side.

And when I offer up a "spectacular attack," one that we are actually concerned about - an attack on a shopping mall - I'm misrepresenting something?

I don't think they would attack malls though because it does just the opposite of what they want, it gains us sympathy.  They know we are not going to intentionally attack arab street markets so our retaliation to such an attack would only sway people to our favor and not to theirs.

Then what, pray tell, would be a spectacular attack since now you have pooh-poohed both a mass casualty exercise and pooh-poohed a bioweapon attack using a virulent disease? Are you proposing they outlaw Christmas?

But, since you brought it up, you don't think a half dozen explosions in shopping malls would create a nation-wide panic?

No. 9-11 didn't cause a panic. At least it didn't in DC and I visited the Pentagon wreckage on 9-12 so I had a chance to see panic if there was any. So bombs in shopping malls is not going to panic anyone.

Are not criminal masterminds with deep insight into the West. They are conducting an all out war. They will hit us where they can, however they can. There is not a lot of grand strategy here.

Why did they just hit the UK? Because they were trying to win friends? They thought the UK would cave and say "you know, you were right, we give up!" If so, they made another massive miscalculation.

Their end game is death and destruction. They are not trying to send a message to the UK, or get the UK to tweak a policy. They want the UK converted or destroyed. They are on the list along with anyone else who dares to refuse to see the one true way.

Serious question- do you think the timing of the 3/11 Spain bomings 3 days before the election was purely coincidental?

Seemed to me like a very successful action in achieving a strategic goal of influencing an election outcome that was favorable from their point of view.

Two US embassies in Africa, at the same time.

The USS Cole

Twin Towers 9/11

Pentagon 9/11

WTC 1993 (probably not al Q but spectacular and similar)

When was the last shopping mall they hit?

If they wanted to create mass panic in the US they would fill mini-vans with tinted windows full of explosives drive them up amongst all the similar mini-vans in front of every elementary school in the country each weekday morning and detonate them.

But such attacks would not win them the support of their fellow Muslims, the extremely vast majority of which are not currently disposed to participate in global jihad.  Getting us to attack Afghanistan, and invade Iraq creates plenty of opportunity to display portraits of "American brutality" every time a bomb kills a child, or a Civilian gets shot in a firefight.  Al Jazeera displays the devastation to the entire Arab world, result:

"Hmmm... maybe the US is an imperialist oppressor trying to subjugate the Arab world in order to get cheap oil."

Al Q blows up a shpping mall full of women and children and entire world watches, result:

"Al Quaeda are some nasty MFs.  They're creating a lot of headaches for Muslims.  We need to get rid of them."

"No. 9-11 didn't cause a panic. At least it didn't in DC and I visited the Pentagon wreckage on 9-12 so I had a chance to see panic if there was any. So bombs in shopping malls is not going to panic anyone."

Joe and Jane American don't spend too much time in the WTC or the Pentagon.  And I would say there were some panniced people after 9/11 even if they didn't go smashing windows and burning Arab shops.    Besides which, I don't think they want to create mass panic in the US, they want to attack us in ways that can be justifiable to a Muslim audience while provoking us into conflicts and retaliation that seem unjustifiable to a Muslim audience.  They are at this point, producing PR to recruit anti-US jihadis to fight the US presence in Muslim lands so that he, OBL, can liberate his people and reestablish the Caliphate beginning in SA, now probably Iraq, the site of Babylon and right next door to SA  makes a very attractive starting point.

I guess, I just think OBL is more sophisticated than a bloodthirsty mass murderer.  He's not trying to kill everyone he can, he's trying to convince Muslims that the US is evil and that it is out to get Muslims so they will support attacks on US interests in Muslim lands to drive the "infidel invaders out of the Holy Land" so that the corrupt regimes in Egypt, SA, Libya, etc. can be overthrown.

Don't read this as me thinking he can do it.  It is just my attempt to read his mind, and his statements.

Does not mean they wrote a computer program that randomly determines where and when they attack. If you attack any country right before an election it is bound to be more disruptive. But if the next election was a year or two away would they have held off? I doubt it. Did they target Spain over some other country because of the election? Again, I doubt it.

al Q was involved with London, certainly they were involved in Madrid on 3/11.

Such attacks are against a completely different country and have completely different motivations than attacks on the US.  They are part of OBL's strategy to bleed the US in a long drawn out war, as USSR was bled in Afghanistan.  This is clear from Spain's reaction, they pulled out of Iraq.  Leaving more of the burden on US soldiers and taxpayers.  The reasoning behind attacking England, or Poland, or Australia,... is the same:  Get them out of Iraq so the US bears the full blame, cost, and loss of life.

Unsupported, unqualified, amateur analysis formed without the benefit of any of the myriad bits of necessary data is fine. We do that here all the time -- but we shouldn't our input to be taken as serious policy analysis. It's fun, but ... it ... has ... no ... value. Your complaint that I ignored the "substance" of his post assumes that his post had some substance. It didn't.

Your coaching comparison isn't valid -- you have knowledge and skill (lesser skill, to be sure, but you know enough to form reasonable judgments). In contrast, none of us have access to the tiniest part of the classified intel needed to set the priorities or allocate the resources that DHS needs and has. If we did, we would be obliged to keep our mouths shut.

Balfour is entitled to his speculation, but he shouldn't expect anyone to give it any weight whatsoever.

That's all I'm saying.

Again, I'm sorry my highlighting of this fact offended you.

Does not add to our burden in any measurable way. They were far down the list of supporters in Iraq. Other places like Ukraine, Poland, and Italy committed more troops to the effort. Spain was a target of opportunity. If they were in the position to hit them again, they would do it. They are not off limits now just because they caved. It would also not surprise me if they had some assistance from the ETA, which would help to explain the timing.

Re: We stopped vaccinating for smallpox in 1972. Virtually no one in the US under the age of 33 has immunity.

Under the age 33-- yes, you are correct (except of corse that everyone of European, African or Asian ancestry does have some resistance to the disease simply because it spent two millennia culling the least resistant people from those populations). For people vaccinated in childhood the actual real-world experience during epidemics in the past suggests that considerable immunity does remain throughout life. Morover, just how catastrophic were smallpox epidemics in the past? I mean, among Old World populations, not the Aztecs? Far from being a doomsday scenario it seems like the outbreaks were unpleasant and, yep, some poeple even died but life pretty much carried on. About the only old bug that really has the potential to bring a society to its knees is good old Yersinia Pestis (plague) in its airborne variant.

Spain is a Western European Nato nation and was one of the key allies that backed us in the Security Counsel. And therefore, IMO, the moral support that we got from them standing shoulder to shoulder from us is much greater than for example Ukraine.

Also, regarding the London subway attacks, they did happen while Blair was hosting the G-8, and coincidentally(?) the bombings of the British consulate and HSBC bank in Turkey occured when Bush was visiting Britain. Timing of both seem to indicate A.Q.'s desire to tie the attacks to UK's relationship with US and send a message regarding the consequences.

Obviously we disagree, but seems to me you are discounting the fact that A.Q. does try to put effort into understanding how to exploit the weakness of the West- the airline security flaws exploited for 9/11 and the training manual guidelines telling them to claim torture if captured and put on trial, for example. Those are tactical actions, but why wouldn't they put the same thought into strategic actions?

Re: And there is still more bs here. Your position is that an enemy who sends its fighters out to fly into buildings cares about "blowback.

Yes, of course they do. Note that the flew into AMERICAN buildings. Not into the Grand Mosque of Mecca!

The idea that terrorists (at least the leaders) are totally irrational lunatics who will kill and destroy at utter random without stratetgy or calculation is what's BS of high order here. Their tactics and their targets are chosen deliberately. And they have a penchant for A) the spetactacular B) the physically Destructive and C) the Fear-inducing. One reason I think they have no real interest in bio weapons since people getting sick is neither spectacular nor physically destructive nor very frightening.

of course not! But look at their politics. I know everyone likes to pretend American politics is somehow the Alhpa and Omega of world politics, but it isn't. Does anyone really think al Qaida has a secret liking for the Democrats? From their perspective our GOP and the Democrats are two infidel Tweedledum and Tweedledee twins.

Re: That's right -- reckless endangerment and criminal negligence charges are brought, not to mention civil suits from the families of all those victims.

Except of course such lawsuits in the past (from crime victims who felt that police protection was not what it should be) have always been tossed out of court.

And I'm not prepared to say someone hasn't given such a Section 1983 a trial on the merits.

It's not good Jihad to just blow things up.. people need to die.. preferably Christians, Jews and other Unbelievers. I could think of 1000 better targets than the best target in Nevada. This makes sense.

Las Vegas is almost immune to natural disaster and nearly immune to international terror outside of the few meager international flights that come into its airport. The only place with a lot of concentrated people is going to be overseen by Casino security... and I expect being under their watch is one of the safest places to be.

Excellent points made above by others above on smallpox.

As to anthrax and the point you make about why the US and USSR invested:

Well I don't know if that's the end all in determining the usefullness of anthrax.

1.  The USSR also invested heavily in parapsychology (esp, etc).  Embarassingly enough, the US blew a lot of money on it too (Read one of Steve Emerson's old investigative works called "Secret Armies" which, among other things, discusses all the money blown on psychics by the US special ops community for issues such as the General Dozier kidnapping).  Today Steve is considered a terrorism expert and a frequent Fox News analyst.  He has had unprecedented access to covert military units considered "black" by DOD.
   
2.  On a more serious note, a lot of money has been blown (my opinion) in an attempt for a "promising" result that has not occured.  Anthrax is considered valuable from the military standpoint only because it doesn't spread (thus causing unintended consequences).  This however makes it less than desirable for terrorists.

But to continue, the effects are slow acting, and they don't tie up enough enemy resources (medical, etc) to make it erstwhile for the military either.  Both the Soviets and the US would have liked to determine a way to increase the lethality of anthrax (perhaps this is a major part of the spending), but to my knowledge it is considered (relatively) innefective to this date.

A small aside, the US military's "MOPP" mass produced chem/bio suits and gas masks of questionable value have no problem stopping the particulate anthrax.

I would add to your comments that some of the terrorists involved in Breslan balked at shooting children and had to be shot by other more committed (or sick) terrorists.

I also agree that their numbers may be down, but I'm not sure how many more are being grown.

Al Qaida likes multiple attacks (9/11, British subway system, African embassies), so I think the multiple school hits might be doable.  Just five or six different states would require five or six monsters.

One thought has come to me on this though.  If the gloves came off for 9/11, imagine the response if they went after our children.  Iran and Syria would have a McDonalds on every street corner in under a year.  Would even Saudi Arabia be safe?  Would Mecca?  I'm told the president has a soft spot for children (even to the point of tears).

The really wretched part of anthrax, AIUI, is decontamination: the spores are incredibly resilient, making it an excellent area denial weapon. Effective aerosolization may be difficult, but what of the Sverdlovsk incident?

But, IN MY OPINION, I doubt it, and you are slightly off the point.

The only Alpha-Omega aspect of American politics - I would guess - is internal to America . . . and therein lies the value to the Islamists.

Reid, his other leftists friends in the Congress and the MSM are significant assets to the terrorists if only in their witless, almost pathological, hate of the President of the United States; and their willingness to damage him regardless of cost. If part of that cost includes impeding or foreclosing upon the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq, the larger war against terror - or literally almost any path or program pursued by the president - then so be it.

I agree that otherwise they could not care less for our politics or their processes - except where they assist the Islamists in their cause.

Did you note earlier today the surfacing of a new video tape on (I believe) Al Jazeera wherein the terrorists are calling for the President to admit his failure in the war in Iraq?  Do you sincerely believe the timing of such a tape has nothing to do with the Democrat leadership's continuous bleating that the war is unwinnable?  That the timing has nothing to do with Murtha's recent public comments?

No.  These guys know exactly what they are doing, and exactly who are their friends in America.  Like them or not.

1. You disagree in every aspect.

Then you deny that there are people who have expertise in this area and others.  Brilliant of you.

2.  The implication of my statement wondering if you borrowed the motto.

If you like the motto that's just dandy with me.  My thought was that perhaps you had earned it (and I even assume/assumed you might have).  I was thus either appealing to your training to win hearts and minds, or to your respect for the motto and to follow its precepts.  If you are using it and didn't earn it that's fine, since you honor the motto by repeating it.  Streiff has a ranger background.  I served in Panama and Somalia.  I won't do the math for you on that because your right to an opinion doesn't hinge on my background.  But neither should you assume that everyone else posting doesn't know their A__ from a hole in the ground.

3.  "I'm not trying to win hearts and minds".

Well we can agree there.

4.  "I'm trying to make a point".  Your point is that no one, yourself included, has any expertise on this issue.  Fine.  Count yourself out.  The people on this site that know this issue more than you will ever understand it don't need for you to tell them what backgrounds they bring to the table.
   
5.  "Where did that come from?"

Reread your first sentence when you responding to other guys post.  The part where you point out that no one at RS has any expertise in this area.

6. "Facts...terrorist targeting and priorities".

This is a forum, not a court of law.  People here are entitled to state their cases and use either links or sound reasoning to further their points.

Should I be denied the opportunity to express my opinion on torture (I'm for it) because I've never engaged in it (per se) or because I'm not in the justice dept. or DHS?  Oh, but there are no experts here.  A background working with the army's SERE program doesn't buy me a seat at the table.  Likewise a military career related to the topic in the diary and a current civilian consultant career linked to the topic of the diary exclude me too.  More brilliance.

7.  "I would also add..."

Hey, you said you're not an expert.  I'm agreeing with you if that's what you want.  Just don't insult those of us who know a thing or two about the topic.  I might claim to know more about this than Streiff, but note my defernce to him because his points are valid and he does bring experience to the table.  But even without the experience his points are sound and his supports strong.  You just dismiss others opinions because you assume that are as unschooled as you (say you) are.

8.  I'm not an editor.  Post to Streiff and ask him to review our exchange.  You start with an advantage - he agrees with your view on this topic.  I have an advantage - Streiff is fair minded.  I'd enjoy his view on our little talk and would accept his verdict.
   
9.  Your most pathetic comment of all, in which after denying that you have any expetice in this area you now open a treasure trove of experience.

Make up your mind.  Either you have a background in terrorist targeting (in either direction) or you don't.  Which one are you NOW going to claim?

10.  The idea that my opinion has more credence.

Did you read my original coment to you?  I was defending a poster because he stated an opinion and you gave it no credence because no one could possibly be an expert.  My response to you was in two parts.

 A. I'm an "expert" (or at least I'm paid to be one".

 B. But that doesn't give me the right to make an argument from authority because that's still a fallacy.

 C. Nor does it give you the right.

 D. Therefore persons on this site whether "experts" or not, are allowed to give theri opinions so long as they can be backed by links or sound reasoning.

You failed to adress the poster's facts, and only claimed that he can't have a valid opinion because the government must know what they are doing.  Wow.  Sound reasoning there.

11.  Here's another tutorial for you about this site.  If you are going to make a sweeping statement (such as the one where you, I, and no one else has any expertise on this topic) do as you say and BACK IT UP.  You were wrong, I demonstrated it, that's that.

Follow your own rules and bring some facts to the table.  If you don't have any (or if you think no one is entitled to an opinion on this issue as you stated in the first paragraph of your original post) then be consistent and don't offer any of your opinions.  Enough sandpaper for you?    

Particularly the second paragraph.

Not sure why you decided to pick a fight with Yahuti.  Let me give ya pointer or two.

First of all, he's a long time poster on this site and has a great deal more cred than you, IMO.  And if he doesn't, he should.

Secondly, I think you misunderestimate his experience with respect to those that would do America harm.  While you may puff your chest with regards to your service in Panama and Somalia, my guess is you were but a twinkle in your mama's eye, or barely out of diapers when Yahuti was defending this nation.

That being said, he and Streiff are right on the money with respect to this.

I can agree with your point the way it is stated here.  We can agree it's fun or even without value (though I would hold that there is value in give and take on even impractical philisophical concepts).

By your admission though, the tiniest bit of experience is valid for forming an opinion unless we don't know the intell?  In the football analogy I don't know the playbook, unreported injuries of players active on the field, the oppo research done by the coaches etc.

Balfour's opinion was expressed with points (however uninformed they might be) that may be valid or not.  It would be reasonable to counter those points with opinions or with points supported by logical reasoning.  If you are looking for hard facts and absolute truth (and the evidence is not present) you can either be agnostic and say "no one knows" or take a side and say "here is why I don't agree".  I felt the approach you took was hard on the guy, kind of a dark agnostic "YOU don't know".  That's just what I took from it.  Your current post clears it up a lot.  Thanks.

No offense taken.  Party on.

For terrorism - You don't get the bang for the buck.  Low lethality, low transmission rate, etc.

For the military - You mention area denial.  I confess that I'm not aware of US miltary policy towards using anthrax as an area denial weapon.  My guess (and it's only a guess) is that to use either a chemical or biological weapon (or nuke for that matter) to deny an area to the enemy would be seen as over the top.  It would perhaps invite retaliation, or a loss in alliances.  Mines would be more simple.

The US has strongly opposed giving up mines because they are an effective area denial tool that can be cleared at a later date.  I'm not sure if anthrax is viewed in that context.

I don't like bullies no matter how much cred or time on a web site they have.  If those credentials give him a right to attack others (and me) I'm not the least bit impressed.

I doubt you fully know my (or Yahuti's) background.  In my opinion you are off the mark.  Anyone who has defended this country earns respect for that, and I never attacked his service.  I did point out that I have a counter terrorism background when he made the remark that no one on this site has any experience in these matters.  That's not puffing my chest.  As to his background (military, intell, or otherwise) it's hard to know that when he denies having any experience in his first post.  My assumption is that he has served his country honorably.

You are half correct on Streiff and Yahuti.  Steiff backed his comments up.  Yahuti just dismissed some poor poster as ignorant and left it at that.  If that's what you admire than he should be lucky to have you sticking up for him.

Another assumption.  Yahuti can take care of himself just fine.  If he's the fine individual you believe he is he either had a bad moment when responding to that poster and will realize it or it's just his style to be a little rough (he calls it sandpaper and padding) in which case I'm sure he's comfortable with taking some of his own.  Either way I wouldn't hold it against him.

with regards to Yahuti.  I know quite well of his background.  And you probably would to if you weren't such a newbie.

As for the bully...pot...meet kettle.  'Nuff said about that.

As for Yahuti sticking up for himself, he is quite capable.  Let's just say we've got bonds and we watch each other's backs.

I'm slaving over a hot PDF and don't have time to sort through this thread and determine who's in the wrong - but both you and Yahuti are very pretty, and I'm sure you can find it in your hearts to accept that without continually poking each other in the eye with sticks over this. My sincerest advice is to just take deep breaths and walk away from this discussion.

People around me getting sick and dying left and right frightens me.  Something in the air much worse than the common cold (ebola for example) scares me.  A nation of sick and dying people from an invisible attack would scare me.

Remember, "terror" is the name of the game.  And I think it is reasonable to assume that a terrorist inspired plague would terrorize people and get their attention.

If the bad guys get the stuff in the air I'm hanging out with you.  You seem pretty unafraid.

: )

I just reread my post that Yahuti was so upset about.  Not only was the tone friendly, but another poster and an editor (the diarist of the story no less) posted in agreement.

Not that I'm keeping score.

Good advice.  I accept.

I suppose it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Anthrax is probably best thought of as the biological equivalent of a "dirty" (radiological) bomb. While it's true that the transmission rate is low, pneumonic anthrax presents as a flu-like illness and a fairly high fatality rate if not treated early. Inducing pneumonic anthrax through an attack requires aerosol dispersion of the anthrax bacilli, which is a significant technical challenge. However, the incident in Sverdlovsk, wherein an accidentally unfiltered exhaust stream from a bioweapons facility was dispersed over an outlying suburb, killing 64 and sickening 30 others, suggests that it's not an insurmountable one, although perhaps it would prove so to a terrorist group without access to sophisticated research and manufacturing facilities.

Regardless of whether or not the initial release would be highly lethal, the resulting contamination would prove highly refractory to clean-up efforts. Unprotected individuals in the contaminated area would be at elevated risk for anthrax (mostly cutaneous) for decades, if not centuries. Not necessarily very lethal, but fairly devastating if it's a piece of real estate you happen to value.

I can't imagine that anthrax was ever planned, tactically, as an area denial weapon; it's very difficult to remove from an area under any circumstances. (I understand that the British were taken quite by surprise by the persistence of anthrax after their cursory attempt at decontaminating Gruinard by burning off the heather.) This persistence may, however, have made it attractive as a potential retaliatory weapon, the purpose for which it was stockpiled. (After the manner of Heinlein's Solution Unsatisfactory.)

I agree that an anthrax attack would probably not have a very high lethality. However, the long-term effects of anthrax contamination could have severe economic and psychological effects. Whether or not al-Qaeda would be willing to forgo the first for the second is a question I don't really feel equipped to speculate on.

Apropos of which, you mentioned something about the potential ineffectiveness of MOPP equipment upthread. Any cites on that?

I agree with the facts of your post.  We might differ on some conclusions (or not).

The only point I would make (an assumption I conceed) is that early detection and treatment would be the norm if an attack happened in the US.  I doubt that a closed society (much less one that can't control their bioweapons facilities) would react as well (as in your Sverdlovsk example).

The filter system on the standard issue "gas mask" used in MOPP gear has a charc filter system which is rated for particulates.  As the anthrax spore is a particulate the filter is rated for that.  I'm relying on training and do not have a cite for you and apologize for same.

Given your knowledge of medicine and/or biology (which I assume from your terminology in previous posts) you may be aware of the particulate nature of spores, and thus the effectiveness of charc filter systems on same.

Hope that helps.

I noticed that you termed MOPP gear "of questionable value," and I was curious as to why: the associated discomfort and limited lifetime upon unsealing, or actual failure of the garments to protect against certain agents?

I see.

For 2 of the three resons you mention.

1. The discomfort isn't an issue for me.  One can't reasonabley expect the military to provide every combatant with an air conditioned suit.  It is to be hoped that some contractor develops a low cost air conditioned suit someday though!
   
2. Limited lifetime.  I would like to see a suit that is more durable, yes.  Though one could say I'm inconsistent.  Cost to the government should weigh on this as much as point one perhaps.  We could now get into a discussion of whether such a (long lasting) suit is required in moden warfare.  On one side is the (valid) argument that it is unlikely troops will face more than 72 hours (if that) in any projected battles anytime soon.  In opposition (also valid) is the looming threat of China or N. Korea.
   
3. And yes, the suit doesn't protect against many agents one might expect from a Chinese arsenal (or would have against the former USSR).  Forgive me for a simplistic point, but that is why you don't see mopp suits as the suit of choice for those working with chem / bio on a regular basis.

Again, this is all opinion on my part.  Cost of more effective suits is the best argument against my view.  However, the acknowledgment that more cost means better suits demonstrates that mopp suits are a balance between cost and quality.

I might have been more accurate to stipulate that mopp may be the best for the cost that can be afforded.  That just isn't comforting either.

Unsupported, unqualified, amateur analysis formed without the benefit of any of the myriad bits of necessary data is fine. We do that here all the time -- but we shouldn't our input to be taken as serious policy analysis. It's fun, but ... it ... has ... no ... value. Your complaint that I ignored the "substance" of his post assumes that his post had some substance. It didn't.

Welcome to the blogosphere, my friend.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we all traffic in largely unsubstantiated, amateur analysis and opinion making.

That's what I do. That's what you do. That's what we all do.

Based on your concerns, it sounds like we should all just quit posting on issues of policy. Seeing as the vast majority of us (myself and presumably yourself included) have no particular expertise or deep analytical insight into issues of policy and government action.

You should send a memo to the kind folks who run RedState and suggest they wind the site down. Nobody's opinions or speculation has any "weight whatsoever!"

All is lost!

The ONLY concession you get (and I can see how you came to the conclusion) relates to my initial comment that I disagree with all of your points.

That was not - as I suspect you know - intended to question the bona fides of any one commenting here. In fact, you  first made an issue of 'qualifications; for reasons of your own - and have stuck with it throughout this exchange. I think I am as aware as you, perhaps moreso, of the background and experience of most of the longer term posters here.

It appears to me that you are attempting to manufacture an issue or issues where none exist. I suppose you have your reasons. For example, your sneer that I failed to address a posters 'facts'?  Which facts, exactly did I miss? And why is it you and not he making that claim and pursuing the argument. There is, you know, a difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion'. Responses and support  differ in each case.

Your claims to specific experiences and background, if accurate, are impressive - but irrelevant to the initial issue - which, by the way, you hijacked.

I acknowledge your right to trumpet whatever background and experience you might possess in order to underwrite whatever point you are attempting to make in your provocation about my exchange with a third party. However, I need to say that your having made this an issue in a completely unrelated exchange, does expose a surprising sense of fragility and sensitivity to opposing opinion.

So be it.

I don't have the same compulsion, and am underwhelmed with yor aggression on this entire point. Also, so far as concerns 'sandpaper.'  Learn the difference between that and a kleenex.

I would very much enjoy continuing bantering back and forth with you - if we were doing it upon my bandwidth - and if it provided something meaningful to the group - other than puffery. However, that isn't the case.

So, why don't you try to succinctly state your issues, so that I might succinctly respond to them. I'll assume you are 'qualified' to comment as you wish; and you are free to believe whatever you wish about me.  Then, we neither have to fear a Streiff sanction?

TPetey, whose snark I do enjoy, nonetheless appears to have dug himself a rhetorical hole.

Throw the man a rope, and help the fellow out.

I was trying to draw the distinction between this issue and the myriad of other issues we discuss here (matters of policy preference, political and military strategy, etc.) about which there can be much to learn from the particular expertise, perspective, or analysis of the commenters who frequent here.

What sets this issue apart (IMHO) is the degree to which the allocation of DHS resources to particular targets depends on a host of factors unknown to any commenter.

I never meant to make an issue of it -- speculate away!! When I responded originally to your post, I just wanted to recognize that it was nothing more than uninformed speculation (unlike many other substantive comments about different issues here on RedState).

I never expected the continuing rounds of scolding for making that minor point, but perhaps I should have.

Anyway, have a lovely day :)

See my response to your most recent but one post.

New!! Now Snark-free!!

Re: These guys know exactly what they are doing,

If these guys really knew what they are doing they would have left america completely alone.

9-11 was a colossal blunder, the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for them.

I shall try again to state my case.  Perhaps the temperature will go down with more understanding and the passage of time.

The original poster made two points in defense of his views.  At the time of my post to you, you had replied to neither point, but instead dismissed his post because of his lack of knowledge.  His points were:

A) The number of visitors that travel to Vegas.

   I disagree with his point.  If numbers are a reason to consider then Vegas is down the pole comparable to other cities as there are much more "touristy" cities.  This is a reasoned response to his point.  The fact that he has no intell has no bearing on his resoning nor mine.  They are just reasoned statements.

B) The "anathema" of Vegas to terrorists.

  I agree with his point.  A reasoned look at Vegas and Islam would make it reasonable to assume that Vegas could be targeted for this reason.  Again, access to intell has no bearing on his point.  Perhaps a background in Islamic terrorism would be helpful, but any reasonable person could reach this conclusion.

Note that I wasn't dismissive of his opinion because he has no intell or background in the areas mentioned.  He offered an opinion, and as forums go he also offered supporting points (reasoned arguments).

He then did something you have to admire.  He made the qualifier "It would seem..." which clearly imparts to the reader that he is drawing a conclusion open to criticism.  Humble, that.

Now to my initial post to you:

I'm sorry if what I posted came across as mean spirited.  Let me go over the post again in the hopes that you see it was not meant as an attack.

1.  You would have it that my first two paragraphs

were puffing myself up.  I meant nothing of the sort.  You will note that Streiff and another poster chimmed in with comments friendly to my post.  You stated in your post words to the effect that the original poster, you, and others couldn't have an opinion on this issue because we are all collectively uninformed.  You stated a point, and I only used two backgrounds as examples of why I would disagree with you.  

I replied (without malice) that I know of at least two posters (including editor/the author of the diary Streiff) who do have a background.  I stated that portion of my background that I could to make my point.  Given the two deployments I could list and the knowledge I would credit to you (your use of signature), I felt you could piece together my background without me getting puffy.  Two deployments and my current job are hardly bragging.  Never the less I feel qualifed to opine on the targetting priorities of terrorists.  I accept that DHS has current intell that I am not privy to, and thus has a better ability to make a better decision than I.  Perhaps we may agree that govt. agencies don't always get it right.  I don't think Vegas is the high priority that the commentator may think it is, but I wouldn't dismiss the appeal of a strike there to Islamo-facists either.  I'm somewhere between the poster and Streiff on this one.

More importantly I don't feel any "puffery" should have been infered since I was also making the point that those without such a background have a reasonable expectation to be respected with opinions on this matter and not to have their (two) points dismissed out of hand.

2.  I then went on to say we should adress the two points the poster made.  I've covered that earlier in this post.
   
3.  Then came the De Opreso Liber statement.  Assuming that you might have an SF background I appealed to your training.  As a commando "teacher" you win hearts and minds and use teaching as your prime force multiplier.  The comment that you may have borrowed it was because I don't know if it was a motto you earned or admire.  Either way it's to your credit to use it, and nothing else should have been implied.  It was not an attack.  I hope you didn't skip the conclusion of the paragraph, which was that we should stick together against liberals and trolls on this site, and not be attacking someone simply because they may not have acces to intell and thus can't make reasoned points.

Fwiw I never went through the SF program.  Most of my unit had (as did my father) and I have nothing but respect for the men that served in SF.  That goes for you if you have the training, and if not (given what I found out from one of your "fans") I can admire your service to your country at any rate.

3.  I also hope you didn't miss the final paragraph, where I expressed my agreement with you on Reid.  It included a light remark about Reid and should have further demonstrated that the post was not a rip on you.

I felt your response to that post was childish (as was my retort to that).  For my part I apologize for the ensuing anger I expressed and wish you well.

I appreciate your taking the time and effort to clarify your position.

I want you to understand that nothing I wrote was intended to impugne the background or experience of anyone here. Including you. Nor was it intended to flaunt my own versus any other's.

My intention in the initial posting was not to elbow the poster in the ribs, I simply tried to convey the notion that Homeland Security was doubtless a better judge of terrorist plans, capability and targeting prioroties than Harry Reid or the mayor of Las Vegas.  That's it.

I was perplexed by your argument that I was criticizing or trivializing anyone else's credibility and bonafides.  I still am puzzled by that. But, no matter. We seem to have gotten caught in our own crossfire here.

Further, I took exception to what I felt was a slightly imperious tutorial attitude toward my comments, and a misdirection of them, as well. If I was wrong in that view, I withdraw my related comments.

Nor did I feel I needed a RedState tutorial - having been scorched, abraised and dented more than a few times in this arena. I have great respect for most posters here, and almost always agree with those you yourself mentioned in this string.  Also, my 'fan' and I have more or less established a "Tight 360" type relationship - if that's possible with only two shooters.

At any rate, we seem to have learned a little more about each other than we might have otherwise - so have our patient friends here on RedState.

Your apology is laudable and would be accepted if I thought it necessary.  Please know I took none of your comments as personal assaults - thus no apology necessary.

Respect

Glad we checked our fire.  No need for blue on blue (er, red on red) on this site.    

Peace to you and yours.

Respect