Terror.

[lollardfish]

The British Terror Case.

Essential reading for, well, everyone.

Salient details include:

- There was a serious cash inflow from someone, presumably abroad.
- There was no imminent threat.
- The threat was real, and it's not clear to me whether current security systems would have detected it (i.e. whether the liquid would have left detectable residue).
- These people were radicalized by the war in Iraq, although one cannot say whether or not they might have been radicalized without it.
- They were caught through police work, having been under surveillance for more than a year.

Comments

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

That is good information. It answered several questions I had. But the bottom line really is that we in the west are vulnerable to all sorts of schemes to inflict terror on us.

The long term solution has to encompass global justice, reduction in wealth disparity, compassion, human rights, the rules of law, environmental protection, measured (reduced) consumption, reduction in our arrogance, global awareness and acceptance, including language, culture, and religion.

When people cite national security as a priority, they usually vote for a Republican. Security is important to me, and therefore I will vote for the Democrat.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

The long term solution also needs to involve shooting some people in the head, though, too.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Sorry, to clarify. I agree with all your points. But I also do think there's a place for violent military and police action in the broader solution. Sadly, it's not the current military action. I wonder what things would look like if we had devoted this many years, dollars, and soldiers to just trying to get Afghanistan right.

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but, how boring would that have been?

Much more exciting (especially in an election year) to march in and shoot up an army.

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

I agree about Afghanistan. I just heard a figure - we have spent $310 billion in Iraq thus far since 2002. It seems to me that that amount of money could have been used to build enough wind power to supply 41 million homes. (A 150 megawatt project costs $300 million and supplies 40,000 homes.) I also think that we'll be in Iraq for 10-15 more years, costing enough to equal the cost of building wind power to supply ALL of our current electrical needs. And of course, cheap electricity (assuming the capital expense was already picked up by the feds) would encourage choices such as heat pumps and electric vehicles. Can you imagine the freedom such a decision would have bought us?

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

The thing is - if we had taken down Saddam Hussein and built a multi-ethnic stable, hell, even semi-stable, democracy in Iraq, I'd be all for it. Not because it'd be good for America, but because it would just be good.

Instead, all those lives and all those dollars to make a place even worse than it was before. It makes me weep.

Or, it makes me go study the Crimean War. Or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hmmmm. History is tricky.