Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?

[Denzark]

@leo9 - I oversimplified when I said infiltration. I did not mean James Bond so much as informers like those you alluded to on the outer circle. Although it is secret there have been statements that give us indications. In the USA it has been admitted there is high (almost total) reliance on electronic surveillance (and torture haha). In the UK (because we are poor haha) there is more emphasis on human menthods like informers.

My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.

That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what. For the people they want to know about the authorities will do it anyway legal or not. Hell the newpapers hack phones so lets not be surprised if the CIA do. Its not good I agree but sadly I see it as inevitable as technology makes it easier.

Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.

The sad truth is government doesn't really care about terrorism and if anything likes it. It means big fat contracts are given out in return for campaign contributions and directorships.

[thir]

My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.

So is the discussion going the UK at the moment, that you cannot actually protect 100% against terrorist attacks, but the government has to be seen doing something, they think, so they do what it best for them, and also what might make a show for the people.

That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what. For the people they want to know about the authorities will do it anyway legal or not. Hell the newpapers hack phones so lets not be surprised if the CIA do. Its not good I agree but sadly I see it as inevitable as technology makes it easier.

I do not think you can make too much of personal freedom. Not only is it a right not be looked over your shoulder or have all your personal information mined for commercial uses, but at some point it will be misused even more. Big brother is here, we are on a slide here. It is the faith that if you have done nothing wrong nothing will happen, but that is not true for one thing, and the wrong government will use it for their purposes to weed out people of a different conviction but theirs.

Here the government has tried to go after the human rights laws already, and are doing their worst to get at whatever rights we have left.

Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.

You are dead right here. And it is amazing how little is said about why terrorist do what they do. The MPs where are very busy telling everybody that the fugitives are of course not any of their doing, although they were quick enough to vote for bombing in a time when they say they have no money for hospitals. However bad, they can always find money to bomb someone.

The sad truth is government doesn't really care about terrorism and if anything likes it. It means big fat contracts are given out in return for campaign contributions and directorships.

I fear you are right there too..

[leo9]

In the USA it has been admitted there is high (almost total) reliance on electronic surveillance (and torture haha). In the UK (because we are poor haha) there is more emphasis on human menthods like informers.

You may well laugh. The spooks insisted for years that yes, they had learnt important things through "enhanced interrogation," but they were so secret they couldn't tell anyone, not even the high government officials who asked. But it now transpires that they're so secret they can't even give the President an example of anything of value they've learnt at the cost of trashing America's reputation.

My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.

But again, this is clearly of value politically, but counter-productive for security, since it amounts to glorifying the terrorists to their sympathisers, giving them an importance out of all proportion to their real power. Western governments have done more to make IS look big than all the jihadists' own efforts.

That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what.

Personally, I agree. Since CND was regarded as dangerously subversive when I was growing up, I was fairly sure I was on the security services' files before I left school, and I hoped it kept them amused. But you and I are not typical in this. It has long been argued that political debate is silenced, even in a realtively benign state like this, when people believe they are being watched by the authorities: and this has now been tested empirically in one of those sociological experiments that are of value in proving that common sense is correct. (I can't be arsed to google the reference, but I will if anyone really cares.)

Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.

While I'm the first to say that we have not been a force for good, even with hindsight people disagree over what we did wrong, and certainly there are as many theories as there are experts for how to do better now. Even Blair has admitted, in a muttering ok-maybe-I-screwed-up way, that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq; but it seems to me that if we'd left Sadaam's regime alone it would probably by now have crumbled just like Assad's into the same kind of everlasting civil war, which would be no big improvement. And when people talk of Syria it's to argue that we should have intervened sooner and harder, like that worked so wonderfully in Libya.

It's important to remember that while anti-Western rants are effective in stirring up converts in Europe, for the men at the top attacks on the West are only a tactical move in a strategy that is really about one Muslim faction versus another in the Middle East. Bin Laden talked about Israel and Crusaders for his followers, but it's an open secret that his real issue with the US was that they had backed the other side in a feud between branches of the Saudi royal family. IS are not primarily interested in Europe: their goal is to stamp out every Muslim sect but Wahhabites, Europe and the US are only enemies insofar as they keep supporting Sunnis and Shias and Kurds. Terrorism in Europe is what we used to call a proxy war, in the days when we did it to Third World countries.

IMHO, the place where we can really make a difference to the causes of terrorism is right here at home, by doing more to make all communities feel that they have a stake in the country where they live, and that the authorities are on their side if they appeal for help against the dangerous nuts that every group has. Unfortunately, that involves doing pretty much the opposite of what recent government initiatives have done.