[Ed]LIHIC

[Calcas]

We've all heard the terms MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) and LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) as two terms bantered around for what our Govt did on 9-11. I now bring you a new, even lighter version.

LIHIC (let it happen by incompetence and complacency.)

You see, that seems to be where LC;FC has gone. There are no more bold accusations in the film. There is simply two hours of "how did THIS happen" kind of moments. That's right, we should have done a better job with INTEL before 9-11 and that would have prevented it before the hijackers could pull of their plan.

Who woulda thunk it?

I don't know who coined the term LIHIC but I just saw it used by a poster TomBombadillo at lcfc so I'll credit him for now.

BTW, the early returns from the hardcore truthers on the latest version are not exactly glowing. In a poll ON THEIR OWN FORUM only 58% so far say they either 'loved it" or that that it was "good."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=19173

[Anti-sophist]

I consider "LIHIC" to be a relatively mainstream position, to be honest.

[DGM]

They still argued CD didn't they? CD would be kind hard to squeeze into the LIHIC mold wouldn't it?

[Good Lt]

I consider "LIHIC" to be a relatively mainstream position, to be honest.

Well, it's the LIH part that's the problem.

'Letting it happen' implies that somebody knew what was going to happen and let it happen on purpose.

I would think mainstream is closer to IHIC - It Happened by Incompetence and Complacency.

[Disbelief]

I like this quote from the thread (bolding mine):

I'm a little more disappointed than elated. Where is the Perry Mason Moment we were all waiting for?
the things I thought we Perry Mason class questions are watered down to ineffective. someone decided to sstop leading the charge for a court date - me thinks ... who got to you guys Dylan?

[GreNME]

I'm not sure "incompetence" is the best word, but "complacency" fits well enough.

I tend to go with "not enough attention paid to warning signs and the inherent competitive nature between intelligence agencies" as the failure that led to 9/11 happening. In that, putting the blame on any agency or specific political group (aside from outside forces who actually took part in executing the attack) is just looking for heads to chop off.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

DIDIC (Didn't Inhibit it Do to Incompentency or Compacency)?

[Mr. Skinny]

DIDIC (Didn't Inhibit it Do Due to Incompentency Incompetency or Compacency Complacency?
Fixed speeling. :)

[David Wong]

I'm sorry, but this drives me freaking crazy.

If they had put the kind of Patriot Act measures in place that would have been needed to prevent a 9/11, before 9/11, there would have been ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE and cries of "GESTAPO" and "POLICE STATE."

If Bush had taken to the podium in spring of 2001 and said he wanted to introduce a lot of new wire-tapping and interrogation measures meant to stop arabs from stealing airliners and flying them into skyscrapers, he would have been laughed out of office. The idea was in the realm of a Tom Clancy paranoid fantasy.

"Let it happen?" People scream when they tighten airport security. Imagine a pre-9/11 Bush talking about how he wants to implement new airport checks to make everybody take off their shoes, to make sure nobody make a shoe bomb. He would have been removed from office and checked into a mental health institution.

This is exactly the kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" stuff that ruins political discourse. They tighten security, we scream "Big Brother." They loosen security, we get attacked, we scream, "They let it happen."

BS. And evil BS, at that.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Fixed speeling. :)
Danke. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning, so I'm not yet firing on all three cylinders.

[Mr. Skinny]

Danke. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning, so I'm not yet firing on all three cylinders.
Don't feel bad. Took me three edits to my post to get it right.:D

[eeyore1954]

I have it through insider information that Mr Bombadillo would like to change his little saying to It happened through complacency and a belief that it won't happen here.

IHTC and BTIWHH

The point there was supposed to be what is new in the final version of loose change to cause any rational person to believe either the LIHOP or MIHOP

[GreNME]

I'm sorry, but this drives me freaking crazy.

If they had put the kind of Patriot Act measures in place that would have been needed to prevent a 9/11, before 9/11, there would have been ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE and cries of "GESTAPO" and "POLICE STATE."

If Bush had taken to the podium in spring of 2001 and said he wanted to introduce a lot of new wire-tapping and interrogation measures meant to stop arabs from stealing airliners and flying them into skyscrapers, he would have been laughed out of office. The idea was in the realm of a Tom Clancy paranoid fantasy.

"Let it happen?" People scream when they tighten airport security. Imagine a pre-9/11 Bush talking about how he wants to implement new airport checks to make everybody take off their shoes, to make sure nobody make a shoe bomb. He would have been removed from office and checked into a mental health institution.

This is exactly the kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" stuff that ruins political discourse. They tighten security, we scream "Big Brother." They loosen security, we get attacked, we scream, "They let it happen."

BS. And evil BS, at that.

Um, except the whole problem is that the extra steps at airports and greater degree of federal monitoring has shown no measurable change in our government's ability to detect and prevent disasters. All we have is their word that it's working. Politics aside, from a purely security perspective those things don't seem practical as preventive measures in the first place. Additionally, being ticked off about people not liking those things is a bit of a straw man, because there is nothing to indicate that those measures would have prevented 9/11 (the FBI and other agencies have dry-ran tests bypassing airport security a number of times over the years, all successfully).

The problem wasn't in detection, it was in communication. The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA all not only have legal separations between them (individually, as well as between them and local law enforcement), but there are long-standing rivalries between agencies that I am sure anyone who has worked for those agencies could describe to you in better detail than I can. These agencies didn't run under the same banner, were not meant to run under the same banner, and were estabished and are operated with separate management and administration specifically because they shouldn't overlap (for reasons pertaining to Constitutional rights and private liberties). I've had it related to me that, in some ways, it was a lot like separate fraternities with rivalries between each other, and working inter-agency was a huge pain in the behind.

That 'huge pain-in-the-behind' is where the hijackers managed to slip under major notice until they were fully committed, and word of questionable activities didn't get high enough in the chain fast enough to prevent it.

Aren't there people who post here who have stated they work for or have worked for government intelligence? Would they like to corroberate or disagree with the experiences related to me and described to me by other sources?

[LastChild]

I'm sorry, but this drives me freaking crazy.

If they had put the kind of Patriot Act measures in place that would have been needed to prevent a 9/11, before 9/11, there would have been ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE and cries of "GESTAPO" and "POLICE STATE."

If Bush had taken to the podium in spring of 2001 and said he wanted to introduce a lot of new wire-tapping and interrogation measures meant to stop arabs from stealing airliners and flying them into skyscrapers, he would have been laughed out of office. The idea was in the realm of a Tom Clancy paranoid fantasy.

"Let it happen?" People scream when they tighten airport security. Imagine a pre-9/11 Bush talking about how he wants to implement new airport checks to make everybody take off their shoes, to make sure nobody make a shoe bomb. He would have been removed from office and checked into a mental health institution.

This is exactly the kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" stuff that ruins political discourse. They tighten security, we scream "Big Brother." They loosen security, we get attacked, we scream, "They let it happen."

BS. And evil BS, at that.

The fact of the matter is we don't need additional security we need people who would have utilized the present security and Intel in place at the time of 9/11. The BS is to say we need more security and fewer freedoms when they weren't even using the procedures we already had in place that should have stopped 9/11 from happening.

[GreNME]

The fact of the matter is we don't need additional security we need people who would have utilized the present security and Intel in place at the time of 9/11. The BS is to say we need more security and fewer freedoms when they weren't even using the procedures we already had in place that should have stopped 9/11 from happening.

Okay, that's just incorrect.

[T.A.M.]

LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence/Ignorance) is what I use to describe your LIHIC. Yours does appear to be easier to roll off the tongue, but mine is closer to the LIHOP notation...lol

TAM:)

[Trakar]

Well, it's the LIH part that's the problem.

'Letting it happen' implies that somebody knew what was going to happen and let it happen on purpose.

I would think mainstream is closer to IHIC - It Happened by Incompetence and Complacency.

I think this is closer to my perceptions, IHIC.
Though I might not see a case being made for "a few attempted hijackings might give us a little more leverage on some of the things we want to do, particularly if we can pin them to ME badguys," as being totally unbelievable, but again would require compelling evidence of such to credit it as more than speculation.
I believe that would still fit under LIHIC, but it would be a "that isn't what we thought was gonna happen" varient.

[Trakar]

Okay, that's just incorrect.

Sounds correct to me, do you have any specifics that support your objection?

[GreNME]

Sounds correct to me, do you have any specifics that support your objection?

Do you want me to explain, or to you want me to present a court case?

See the post of mine just prior to that one if you want some expansion on what I mean. Hell, read all of my posts in the thread so far to have an even better idea. There were operational problems and hurdles, but to charge that nobody was doing anything is an asinine thing to claim.

[qarnos]

I prefer to keep it simple:

IH

[LastChild]

Do you want me to explain, or to you want me to present a court case?

See the post of mine just prior to that one if you want some expansion on what I mean. Hell, read all of my posts in the thread so far to have an even better idea. There were operational problems and hurdles, but to charge that nobody was doing anything is an asinine thing to claim.

Bureaucracy and incompetence isn't an excuse to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of citizens.

Things like this were the problem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/national/nationalspecial3/21moussaoui.html
F.B.I. Agent Testifies Superiors Didn't Pursue Moussaoui Case

That has nothing to do with being hampered by civil liberty concerns or rivalries between agencies. It's just bureaucracy and incompetence. That and possibly criminal behavior.

[HyJinX]

I prefer to keep it simple:

IH

agreed.

[Undesired Walrus]

delete

[David Wong]

Um, except the whole problem is that the extra steps at airports and greater degree of federal monitoring has shown no measurable change in our government's ability to detect and prevent disasters.

There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.

[Sabrina]

TAM, I thought you liked LIHOIA? (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance and Arrogance) Did I misspeak those couple of times I credited you with that? If so, I apologize to both you and whomever did coin the term. *grins sheepishly*

[LastChild]

There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.

Can you name the last US hijacking before 9/11? Anyway we are not any safer as far as airport security goes. Just more bureaucracy and incompetence.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/18/airport.screeners/

Airport screeners failed to find most fake bombs, TSA says
By Jeanne Meserve
CNN
October 18, 2007

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1005tucson1005.html?&wired

Loaded gun makes it past security at Tucson airport
Associated Press
Oct. 5, 2007

[SDC]

Can you name the last US hijacking before 9/11? Anyway we are not any safer as far as airport security goes. Just more bureaucracy and incompetence.

Wait a moment. Who was it who went on and on citing post-2001 security and airline failings as proof of 9/11 criminal negligence by the government and airlines? I don't think it was LC, here. Not Terral... oh, who? Someone who had difficulty with the difference between "past" and "present."

[GreNME]

Bureaucracy and incompetence isn't an excuse to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of citizens.

Since I have not claimed that, you need to pick another effigy if you're not going to actually respond to what I say.

That has nothing to do with being hampered by civil liberty concerns or rivalries between agencies.

No to the first, you're wrong about the second.

It's just bureaucracy and incompetence. That and possibly criminal behavior.

Yes, maybe, and probably not.

[GreNME]

There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.

"There has been a 100% change of blue invisible llama (call him Bill) activity in my backyard since I instituted the nightly procedure of turning my lights on-off-on-off-on (and vice-versa) at home. I know this procedure is effective because since I began it there have been no sightings of Bill, not by me nor by anyone else in my home. Therefore, my counter-Bill-measures are completely effective."

Yes, that's how ridiculous your post sounds.

[pomeroo]

I'm sorry, but this drives me freaking crazy.

If they had put the kind of Patriot Act measures in place that would have been needed to prevent a 9/11, before 9/11, there would have been ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE and cries of "GESTAPO" and "POLICE STATE."

If Bush had taken to the podium in spring of 2001 and said he wanted to introduce a lot of new wire-tapping and interrogation measures meant to stop arabs from stealing airliners and flying them into skyscrapers, he would have been laughed out of office. The idea was in the realm of a Tom Clancy paranoid fantasy.

"Let it happen?" People scream when they tighten airport security. Imagine a pre-9/11 Bush talking about how he wants to implement new airport checks to make everybody take off their shoes, to make sure nobody make a shoe bomb. He would have been removed from office and checked into a mental health institution.

This is exactly the kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" stuff that ruins political discourse. They tighten security, we scream "Big Brother." They loosen security, we get attacked, we scream, "They let it happen."

BS. And evil BS, at that.


On the subject of evil BS, when I was very new to the debunking business, I asked Les Jamieson if the same people who were bashing Bush for not shooting down the hijacked airliners would not have screamed for his impeachment if he had. Can you seriously imagine an American President assuming that planes were going to be flown into buildings--in the absence of a precedent-- and ordering them shot down over heavily-populated areas?!?

And people object to labeling them conspiracy liars.

[PhantomWolf]

TAM, I thought you liked LIHOIA? (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance and Arrogance) Did I misspeak those couple of times I credited you with that? If so, I apologize to both you and whomever did coin the term. *grins sheepishly*

TAM seems to have coined the term LIHOI back on the 17th September, 2006. I have a feeling that LIHOIA comes from a mix of TAM and me when I added Arrogance to the mix back in May this year.

[PhantomWolf]

Can you name the last US hijacking before 9/11?

It was on the 14 August 2001, a couple hijacked a light plane and demanded to go to Cuba, the ensuring struggle resulted in the plane crashing into the ocean killing those on board.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, I thought you liked LIHOIA? (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance and Arrogance) Did I misspeak those couple of times I credited you with that? If so, I apologize to both you and whomever did coin the term. *grins sheepishly*

Actually, I use to refer to it as LIHOI/LIHOA, but found it too confusing. A while ago I pretty much stuck to LIHOI.

LIHIC sounds like a frenchman making fun of a redneck...lol

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

TAM seems to have coined the term LIHOI back on the 17th September, 2006. I have a feeling that LIHOIA comes from a mix of TAM and me when I added Arrogance to the mix back in May this year.

This is probably the case. it was so long ago, I cannot remember ( I believe we were tossing around arrogance versus ignorance).

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

This is probably the case. it was so long ago, I cannot remember ( I believe we were tossing around arrogance versus ignorance).

TAM:)

I had to use the search function myself. ;)

I do believe I can totally claim total credit for BBIAI though. :)

[T.A.M.]

ok, I'll bite...

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

ok, I'll bite...

TAM:)

BBIAI = because Bush is an idiot. ;)

[Brainache]

Usama's Fundamentalist Fanatics Using Commercial Craft Made It Happen?

UFFUCCMIH?

[GreNME]

Usama's Fundamentalist Fanatics Using Commercial Craft Made It Happen?

UFFUCCMIH?

Yeah, but can you put it to a song with hippie lyrics?

[Sabrina]

Usama's Fundamentalist Fanatics Using Commercial Craft Made It Happen?

UFFUCCMIH?

:jaw-dropp

Did you try pronouncing that phonetically before you thought it up?

If so, bravo. If not... worst Freudian slip in the history of ever.

[Brainache]

Nothing Freudian abou tit.:duck:




(yes, I need a girlfriend)

[AMTMAN]

Can you name the last US hijacking before 9/11? Anyway we are not any safer as far as airport security goes. Just more bureaucracy and incompetence.

Yet the truthers think this same incompetant bureaucracy pulled off 9-11.

[TheGrunion]

"There has been a 100% change of blue invisible llama (call him Bill) activity in my backyard since I instituted the nightly procedure of turning my lights on-off-on-off-on (and vice-versa) at home. I know this procedure is effective because since I began it there have been no sightings of Bill, not by me nor by anyone else in my home. Therefore, my counter-Bill-measures are completely effective."

Yes, that's how ridiculous your post sounds.
A 100% change? Does this mean that you were seeing continuous blue invisible llama activity in your backyard before you started flicking the switches?
Because if so, then yes, your counter Bill measures are completely effective. On the other hand, if you weren't seeing continuous blue llama activity before flicking your lights, your example above doesn't work.

[PhantomWolf]

A 100% change? Does this mean that you were seeing continuous blue invisible llama activity in your backyard before you started flicking the switches?
Because if so, then yes, your counter Bill measures are completely effective. On the other hand, if you weren't seeing continuous blue llama activity before flicking your lights, your example above doesn't work.

Why not, 200% of 0 is still 0....

[GreNME]

A 100% change? Does this mean that you were seeing continuous blue invisible llama activity in your backyard before you started flicking the switches?
Because if so, then yes, your counter Bill measures are completely effective. On the other hand, if you weren't seeing continuous blue llama activity before flicking your lights, your example above doesn't work.

I'm sorry, how many commercial airliners were hijacked and run into buildings prior to 9/11?

Beyond that, you are still wrong. You see, not having had an attack since is not proof of effectiveness. By the logic used to defend that statement, since 9/11 didn't happen during the Clinton administration then 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton would have been in office at the time. After all, a 9/11 attack didn't occur during Clinton's administration (or even Bush Sr.'s), so obviously we should have kept them in office.

But, you see, that's just stupid. There have been terrorist attacks, just not on US soil, and not the size and scope of 9/11. The Brits had more public suveillance than the US did even before 9/11, and yet the 7/7 bombings occurred. If you want a good example of how the 'security' measures have not been effective and are not inclined to believe that numerous examples from our own government agencies have shown the ineffectiveness, then look at July 7th of 2005.

After X occurs, Y is instituted.
Since X does not occur again, that doesn not necessarily prove Y's effectiveness outside of a vaccum and without a control to compare with. The UK is pretty comparable to the US (actually, there is more ubiquitous surveillance), and yet there have been attacks anyway.

Care to give it another try?

[TheGrunion]

I'm sorry, how many commercial airliners were hijacked and run into buildings prior to 9/11?

Beyond that, you are still wrong. You see, not having had an attack since is not proof of effectiveness. By the logic used to defend that statement, since 9/11 didn't happen during the Clinton administration then 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton would have been in office at the time. After all, a 9/11 attack didn't occur during Clinton's administration (or even Bush Sr.'s), so obviously we should have kept them in office.

But, you see, that's just stupid. There have been terrorist attacks, just not on US soil, and not the size and scope of 9/11. The Brits had more public suveillance than the US did even before 9/11, and yet the 7/7 bombings occurred. If you want a good example of how the 'security' measures have not been effective and are not inclined to believe that numerous examples from our own government agencies have shown the ineffectiveness, then look at July 7th of 2005.

After X occurs, Y is instituted.
Since X does not occur again, that doesn not necessarily prove Y's effectiveness outside of a vaccum and without a control to compare with. The UK is pretty comparable to the US (actually, there is more ubiquitous surveillance), and yet there have been attacks anyway.

Care to give it another try?

I don't need to. You have made the same mistake twice. Read what you wrote:After X occurs, Y is instituted.Your example is absurd.......unless you actually have seen blue invisible llamas prior to flicking your lights.

[Slayhamlet]

There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.

Wouldn't you need information on all attempted hijackings since the implementation for it to be meaningfully measurable? I guess you could say the additional monitoring and checks have deterred terrorists from attempting new hijackings (though that's almost impossible to prove), but you cannot say that they have been necessarily effective in themselves.

[GreNME]

I don't need to. You have made the same mistake twice. Read what you wrote:Your example is absurd.......unless you actually have seen blue invisible llamas prior to flicking your lights.

What you are doing is called a regression fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy), which tends to be a favorite type of argument for faith healers and paranormal hucksters. At this point your use of logic (or glaring lack thereof) puts you in esteemed company.

Once again, care to rethink your position?

[TheGrunion]

What you are doing is called a regression fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy), which tends to be a favorite type of argument for faith healers and paranormal hucksters. At this point your use of logic (or glaring lack thereof) puts you in esteemed company.

Once again, care to rethink your position?

No. I'm still correct. I'll recap this one more time for you.

You took issue with the following statement:


There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.


and posted the following in response:


"There has been a 100% change of blue invisible llama (call him Bill) activity in my backyard since I instituted the nightly procedure of turning my lights on-off-on-off-on (and vice-versa) at home. I know this procedure is effective because since I began it there have been no sightings of Bill, not by me nor by anyone else in my home. Therefore, my counter-Bill-measures are completely effective."

Yes, that's how ridiculous your post sounds.


Now my whole point, which you have seemed to miss, is that your example stinks. Why? Because in order for your example to parallel the original one, as some point in time you were seeing blue invisible llamas. I assume that you really haven't seen blue invisible llamas.

Do I understand your point? Yes, I do now. I probably would have two posts ago if you were more careful with the conditions of the example you gave.

I understand the regression fallacy. I also understand that the appropriate way to measure the success of the additional airline security measures is to quantify the terrorist incidents that have been prevented because of them. I don't believe that that information is readily available though.

[David Wong]

And it's not possible for it to ever be available; that's the thing with prevention. That's also why it's ridiculous to say that there's no proof the measures are working and use that as a criticism of the measures. How could there ever be proof that a preventative measure is working?

OTHER THAT THE FACT THAT THE THING ITS MEANT TO PREVENT HASN'T FREAKING HAPPENED.

The blue llama example is both idiotic and insulting, because the reality is 180 degrees different. You think Al Qaeda is a "blue llama" and doesn't exist, and thus that it's just as foolish to protect against it as it is to protect against the llamas. You need to read the news a little more closely. Google "9/11." It's interesting stuff, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

You'll find out that we do know that terrorists have targeted airliners and continue to. They've always been a favorite target. To assume that the only reason there have been no further hijackings is purely because the terrorists have chosen, on their own, not to do it, isn't realistic.

I think you know that, and I think you just have a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of suggestion that anything the Bush administration has ever done, ever, has ever actually worked. Well regardless of what mistakes the administration has made, you can't pretend that terror prevention has been a failure. It hasn't. If you'd told any of us on 9/12/01 that six years later we'd be completely untouched by any further attacks, we'd have called you crazy.

[Trakar]

There has been a 100% change. There have been no hijackings since the checks and monitoring were implemented.

That is measurable. If that does not fit your definition of "measureable" then no action meant to prevent anything, ever, is "measureable" in its success. You can only show that the thing it was meant to prevent hasn't happened.

I believe what was intended, was that there is not much (security-wise) with regards to air transport being done now under the auspices of the Patriot Act, that could not have been done under the existing statutes prior to 9/11. We did not need all the enhanced potential for authoritarian infringement and abuse in order to achieve what has been achieved.

[T.A.M.]

I'm sorry, how many commercial airliners were hijacked and run into buildings prior to 9/11?

Beyond that, you are still wrong. You see, not having had an attack since is not proof of effectiveness. By the logic used to defend that statement, since 9/11 didn't happen during the Clinton administration then 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton would have been in office at the time. After all, a 9/11 attack didn't occur during Clinton's administration (or even Bush Sr.'s), so obviously we should have kept them in office.

But, you see, that's just stupid. There have been terrorist attacks, just not on US soil, and not the size and scope of 9/11. The Brits had more public suveillance than the US did even before 9/11, and yet the 7/7 bombings occurred. If you want a good example of how the 'security' measures have not been effective and are not inclined to believe that numerous examples from our own government agencies have shown the ineffectiveness, then look at July 7th of 2005.

After X occurs, Y is instituted.
Since X does not occur again, that doesn not necessarily prove Y's effectiveness outside of a vaccum and without a control to compare with. The UK is pretty comparable to the US (actually, there is more ubiquitous surveillance), and yet there have been attacks anyway.

Care to give it another try?

I see where you are coming from on this. Allow me to explain.

While it is possible, and perhaps likely that the efforts post 9/11 has kept the USA safe on its soil, it is not an absolute. The factors that have gone into no attack since are multiple, and not limited to security efforts alone.

Factors helping:
1. Security Efforts
2. Al-Qaeda on the run and/or laying in wait
3. Luck

Factors against:
1. Perception of America and the invader leading to terrorist recruitment.
2. Independent "Cell" mode of operation employed by Al-Qaeda.

I am sure you get the picture, but I agree it is not as simple as "no attacks since on USA soil is strictly due to security efforts".

TAM:)

[GreNME]

And it's not possible for it to ever be available; that's the thing with prevention. That's also why it's ridiculous to say that there's no proof the measures are working and use that as a criticism of the measures. How could there ever be proof that a preventative measure is working?

If you don't know, then perhaps you shouldn't be making judgments on the efficacy of such.

OTHER THAT THE FACT THAT THE THING ITS MEANT TO PREVENT HASN'T FREAKING HAPPENED.

BOLDING AND ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR FALSEHOOD ANY MORE TRUE.

The blue llama example is both idiotic and insulting, because the reality is 180 degrees different. You think Al Qaeda is a "blue llama" and doesn't exist, and thus that it's just as foolish to protect against it as it is to protect against the llamas. You need to read the news a little more closely. Google "9/11." It's interesting stuff, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

Funny thing: since 9/11, membership to terrorist cells has gone up, not down.

You'll find out that we do know that terrorists have targeted airliners and continue to.

Then it should be easy to prove.

They've always been a favorite target. To assume that the only reason there have been no further hijackings is purely because the terrorists have chosen, on their own, not to do it, isn't realistic.

There have been other terrorist attacks. Don't you get it? There have not only been other terrorist attacks, but our own intelligence and defense agencies have shown TSA's ineffectiveness. They've literally gotten test 'bombs', devices made to look and seem like a real bomb, through TSA checkpoints. Our own government has done this, the very same government that instituted the heightened security in the first place.

You see, one of the tests for security efficacy is whether it can withstand penetration testing by groups whose goal is to analyze, attempt a penetration, and provide an assessment of the measures in place. TSA has failed numerous times, over and over.

Do you want to know an example of incredibly stupid and inefficient security practice? Taking bottled liquids from people. Every rube who has fallen for the practice thinks it's justified because someone could bring a bomb on to a plane in a bottle, but that whole justification assumes the ignorance of the rube. Even ignoring the fact that any liquid explosive powerful enough to do real damage to an aircraft would set off bomb sniffers (even from a distance), the methods used are ludicrous. Here's an example of Philly's airport:
http://image.grenme.com/thread/bwibottles.jpg

That was taken by my camera phone while in line for the security checkpoint. If someone wanted to cause damage, kill people, and severely disrupt flights, all the hypothetical terrorist needs to do is place one bottle of a volatile enough liquid close enough to the edge that it will eventually get jostled or knocked off the table. A number of other airports have similar table setups or a trash can that gets emptied regularly-- the same practice applies, where sufficient placement for someone else to accidentally set off a volatile liquid is not only easy, but it's pretty much a certainty.

Want more evidence that your claims are asinine? Start here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11863165/): "In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials." Emphasis mine. It's not just small airports, either: it includes results like 75% getting through at LAX and 60% getting through at O'Hare (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/18/airport.screeners/), two huge airports. Still not enough? Here's a GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04544.html). Not only is the TSA managed poorly, but the report actually mentions the TSA hiring people who failed background checks and had to later be fired because of that 'oversight'. The report also covers how there are many offices who are either poorly staffed or poorly equipped because the TSA isn't communicating between offices efficiently. Still not convinced? This link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/over_half_of_ts.html) describes one of the piss-poor practices put into place since 9/11 after the FAA decided to castrate the Red Team security testers for airport security, which not only shows a 50% failure rate for screeners but actually risks costing airports millions of dollars when the tests go wrong. The worst part about it is that, on the whole, the TSA is either lying about it or keeping their mouths shut to their inequities. Another link (http://www.infosecnews.org/hypermail/0611/12436.html), another quote: "Whatever can be said of the TSA itself, some TSA employees do care about transparency and security. An airport screener at Newark Liberty International Airport leaked information to the press about how undercover Red Team agents recently succeeded in smuggling an array of fake bombs and guns past security." Emphasis mine. I could go on with link (http://www.infosecnews.org/hypermail/0509/10927.html) after link (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070620/NATION/106200083/1001) after link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238697,00.html), but all of these links are just scratching the surface of the operational failures and methodologies because they don't address security concepts that are wrong and are just pointing out the myriad failures. The problem with TSA is that almost all of its practices are faulty from the approach that they are trying to catch an offender at a point where it's already mostly too late, a huge post-hoc 'security' system that can only be reactive, which does little to prevent anything.

As for the warrantless wiretapping: care to name a single case that has been successfully documented showing where the warrantless wiretapping played a role in catching the offender?

I think you know that, and I think you just have a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of suggestion that anything the Bush administration has ever done, ever, has ever actually worked. Well regardless of what mistakes the administration has made, you can't pretend that terror prevention has been a failure. It hasn't. If you'd told any of us on 9/12/01 that six years later we'd be completely untouched by any further attacks, we'd have called you crazy.

"We" are not untouched by further attacks, and that you can claim such a piece of BS is ridiculous and ignorant. You tell everyone who knows a person either killed by a roadside bomb or who knew someone in one of the al Qaeda-related attacks (including 7/7) that they are untouched and see for yourself what a dimwitted assumption you are making. You are completely arguing from ignorance, making the same faulty kind of argument that faith healers and homeopathic medicine sellers make as their primary argument for efficacy.

Do you want to have a serious discussion as to exactly why your comments are wrong David Wong? Or are you just reacting in a knee-jerk fashion after having it pointed out just how stupid your argument was? I can go into the actual security concepts to explain not only why the current measures are ineffective, as well as continuing to give you examples where even government agencies are pointing out how TSA is leaky like a seive. If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion then I'm all for it. If you're going to simply keep repeating the same old tired regressive fallacy like TheGrunion can't seem to stop repeating, then all you're doing is the rhetorical equivalent of yelling "nuh uh!" at the flaws in your original statement.

[GreNME]

I understand the regression fallacy. I also understand that the appropriate way to measure the success of the additional airline security measures is to quantify the terrorist incidents that have been prevented because of them. I don't believe that that information is readily available though.

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. The appropriate measure for the efficacy is penetration testing, and so far the testing has greater than a 50% failure rate, through multiple types of tests from more than one agency. Claiming there is no known measure is pure ignorance on your part, and exactly why your constant claims are simple regressive fallacy.

[GreNME]

I see where you are coming from on this. Allow me to explain.

While it is possible, and perhaps likely that the efforts post 9/11 has kept the USA safe on its soil, it is not an absolute. The factors that have gone into no attack since are multiple, and not limited to security efforts alone.

Factors helping:
1. Security Efforts
2. Al-Qaeda on the run and/or laying in wait
3. Luck

Factors against:
1. Perception of America and the invader leading to terrorist recruitment.
2. Independent "Cell" mode of operation employed by Al-Qaeda.

I am sure you get the picture, but I agree it is not as simple as "no attacks since on USA soil is strictly due to security efforts".

TAM:)

TAM, the issue of things like the wiretapping and stuff are currently being discussed in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98378) over in the politics section. I was hoping the discussion would go further there, and I really don't know how deep it can go here before being off-topic, but I'm serious when I say I am willing to go into a detailed argument of exactly why and how a lot of the 'security' measures by the US government today are either inefficient and superficial.

It's not that there shouldn't be security, it's that there are security concepts that pass across all different types of fields, and to almost everyone who has worked with security in one form or another looks at our current measures and shakes their head in disapproval (to put it lightly).

[TheGrunion]

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. The appropriate measure for the efficacy is penetration testing, and so far the testing has greater than a 50% failure rate, through multiple types of tests from more than one agency. Claiming there is no known measure is pure ignorance on your part, and exactly why your constant claims are simple regressive fallacy.

Good grief. Why do you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth after I agree with your general point?

Please show me where I have made the claim that there is no known measure (whatever it is that you mean by that).

[hellaeon]

My 'theory' from the evidence is IHIC if anything. None of the L comes into it. Easy in Hindsite.

[GreNME]

Good grief. Why do you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth after I agree with your general point?

Please show me where I have made the claim that there is no known measure (whatever it is that you mean by that).

I also understand that the appropriate way to measure the success of the additional airline security measures is to quantify the terrorist incidents that have been prevented because of them. I don't believe that that information is readily available though.

No, you didn't exactly say the exact words, but you were so far off the mark you weren't exactly admitting there are real and existing bits of information available even to the public about the inefficacy of the current measures. The FAA, the FBI, and even the TSA themselves have internal groups (as well as private contractors) who perform penetration testing and evaluation for specifically this reason. The fact is, almost all of our 'security' measures instituted on a civilian-facing basis fallen short of passing evaluations. The reality is that while the complexity and inconvenience to the average person has gone up, the actual security is no different than it was prior to 9/11. If you need, I can always go checking some of the archives of interviews on the subject to give you quotes from long-time Red Team-ers who have basically said that very same thing.

You're wrong. You don't even have to admit it any more. At this point, you're just backpedaling.

[CptColumbo]

Theory With Overwhelming Offerings From Experts Reporters and Scientists Analyzing the Recovered Evidence and Supporting the Commision's Undisputed Missive.

[TheGrunion]

At this point, you're just backpedaling.

Yes, but only from the words that you insist on putting in my mouth. ;)