Hacker News Reader

     given the essentially unchecked flow of immigrants 
     coming across the Mexican border every day.

The words missing there are "poor Latin" (immigrants). Coyotes are not stupid and want to be left (more or less) alone and free to conduct their business. They "self-police" themselves by selecting who they carry across the border, choosing:

1. People they can trust not to create problems along the way

2. People that will try to stay out of trouble in the US (if you're successful, you're more likely to try to get your family in as well and recommend the same coyote. If you're caught (specially early on) you might turn them in.

3. People that don't look suspicious (that might be undercover law enforcement, for ex)

And above all, they KNOW that the day a terrorist attack within the US is traced back to them public outrage would make law enforcement come down on them with the heat of 1000 suns and the border would be closed tighter than Scrooges coin purse.

Smuggling in illegal aliens is illegal... but smuggling in terrorists is illegal, dangerous and extremely bad for business.

The same thing applies to drug smugglers as well. Collaborating with terrorism isn't in their best interest.

"poor Latin" immigrants have many disadvantages, which is why they depend on coyotes. Presumably, a terrorist organization could:

   * pay well enough that the coyotes would forget their principles
   * provision their agents well enough to cross on their own.

Or, leave Mexico aside. Why not Canada? Why not Cuba? via boat from Haiti, landing in some god-forsaken part of Louisiana? I can't accept the proposition that getting into the country presents any serious difficulty for someone with means and motive.

You should check out the borders sometime, both Canadian and Mexican. You're underestimating the difficulty of getting across, even if there were no border agents. It's miles of walking through harsh terrain. You start out in the middle of nowhere, get across, and you're still in the middle of nowhere. Most people are not Bear Grylls. It's far easier to just fake some ids and take a plane, which seems to be what most of the bad guys end up doing.

Hiking for a week or so while covering ~20-30 kilometers per day is hardly beyond a motivated individual. Especially if you have collaborators on the other end, and can arrange being picked up in some remote location.

>Hiking for a week or so while covering ~20-30 kilometers per day is hardly beyond a motivated individual.

In America there are lots of people who do this for fun; it's called backpacking.

Well, the Coast Guard has spent considerable time, money, and effort learning how to effectively detect and (if necessary) stop people in boats from getting into the US from Haiti and Cuba- at this point, they're pretty good at it.

Not to say that with sufficient funding and time it wouldn't be completely possible; just that it's not as easy as setting out from Havana and ending up in Miami.

Sneaking into the country's no picnic, no matter how you do it. I've always thought that this fact says a lot about what the places that people who do sneak in must be like.

I've read an article that states that there are total of 11 people patrolling Oregon shore. Just land in Oregon.

He probably means it's hard to sneak known terrorists into the United States. That much is true. Illegals coming across the border have a decent shot of getting caught, even if they hire experienced professional help, which terrorists might not have. Good luck going to Mexico with an Arabic accent and finding a coyote to smuggle you across the border. I'm sure there are plenty venal enough to take you, but there are also plenty who would recognize the prudence and possible intangible value of tipping off the cops. It's easier to train a new guy and get a tourist visa for him, but then you have to make sure the FBI never knew he was at a training facility, which is probably difficult these days. (With all the heinous stuff our country has done in the last ten years, do you really doubt we have a bunch of terrorists' wives and children living in custody somewhere, maybe in a very nice facility with schools and playgrounds, but still somewhere where we can send pictures from little Achmed's birthday parties as a warning to big Achmed of what might happen if he doesn't keep supplying information?)

Also good luck finding nine terrorist friends who wouldn't tip off police to a plot to kill children. True sociopaths are very rare; how rare are true sociopaths who are loyal to a group or a cause?

Either there are groups of terrorists who are willing to kill and die, or there aren't. My question is: why do they seem to prefer complicated plots involving heavily guarded airplanes instead of simpler plots involving lightly guarded [anywhere else].

The UK liquid terror plot resulted in 25 arrests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo... It was complex, required coordination, and failed utterly, resulting in 0 casualties.

In contrast, the Lod airport massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre ) was only 3 guys. It was a pretty simple plan, which would have been hard to foil completely, and resulted in 26 dead and 80 wounded.

The first plot you linked illustrates my point: they were able to get people into the UK easily, but failed because intelligence knew they were linked to known terrorists in Pakistan. One of the plotters was already under police surveillance, so the plan was doomed from the start.

I don't know why terrorists don't use guns for mass killings, but I suspect it has something to do with the psychological impact. You don't want the attack to be psychologically attributed to individual people who are captured or killed after the attack. It decreases the terror factor. You want the attack to be attributed to a group or a cause, which is much scarier because the force behind the attack is still out there operating. In a suicide attack, the perpetrators are seen as whatever force inspired and controlled the attackers, so there is a continued threat.

But part of the reason they were caught is that they were purportedly targeting airplanes, which are closely watched.

If they had 18 people willing to act as suicide bombers, why not cruise ships or trains, where security is much lighter?

But part of the reason they were caught is that they were purportedly targeting airplanes, which are closely watched.

I can't claim to have done any more research than simply reading the Wikipedia article, but it seems like the principle plotter was already under police surveillance, leading to a secret bag search when he came back from Pakistan, which kicked off a huge surveillance operation on the whole group. It was after the police already found a "bomb factory" (but decided to watch the group further) that they observed one of the men -- the same one who was already under police surveillance to begin with -- researching airline timetables. So, if the order of events as described in the article you linked is correct, the plot was busted wide open before the authorities realized they were targeting airplanes.

Just to raise a counter-point, I would contend that the UK liquid terror plot was successful in the terrorist's scorebooks. I bet the operation achieved what the upper level terrorists expected (realistically). The "mules" thought they would make explosions in the sky and I'm sure the upper level wished for that, but overall it achieved its mission:

1) They got tremendous publicity.

2) They substantially disrupted air travel. Heathrow was shut down briefly. The cost to industry (all industry) was substantial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...

3) The long term effects (carry-on restrictions and other added security hassles) lingered for a long time (even now).

By that criteria, the shoebomber and underwearbomber were fairly successful as well, albeit not nearly as successful as the UK liquid plot.

A good point. The obvious alternative to terrorists being stupid and/or scarce is that their motives are quite different from what's usually assumed.

That being said, I'm also not sure I buy the 'terrorists hate freedom, so they want more big-brother security' theory. That seems much more likely to be a combination of a frightened populace and opportunistic government.

What you're missing is that nothing occurs in a vacuum. People don't like being associated with terrorists, especially not people helping immigrants across the border. If you go to Latin America, they're often even more bigoted than Americans are - and I'm not talking about gringos. The level of hatred for blacks is positively revolting from a North American perspective.

So Mexico really isn't a great entry point for a dark-skinned Arab, unless he speaks Spanish with a flawless accent (though given the variety of Spanish accents, that's not necessarily that hard.)

>I also disagree that "small attacks aren't enough". If you and 9 of your friends coordinate to roll grenades into 10 elementary schools in 10 different cities, I can assure you that you'd make headlines, and bring daily life to a standstill as parents refused to send their children to school.

If you've managed to coordinate 10 different homicidal suicidal maniacs in 10 different cities to kill a bunch of people on the exact same day (and somehow managed to find 10 who won't tell anyone anything that suggests they're doing something suspicious,) aside from the fact that that is very hard, you've definitely evolved to a large-scale attack.

> If you've managed to coordinate 10 different homicidal suicidal maniacs in 10 different cities to kill a bunch of people on the exact same day (and somehow managed to find 10 who won't tell anyone anything that suggests they're doing something suspicious,) aside from the fact that that is very hard, you've definitely evolved to a large-scale attack.

I'll counter by saying that if no terror group exists that is capable of obtaining:

   * 10 people willing to kill for their beliefs
   * 10 hand grenades
   * 10 cell phones

Then we have been vastly oversold on the dangers presented by terrorism.

Forget the hand grenades. Just 10 suicidal guys with semi-automatic rifles. This seems stupidly simple to pull off and impossible to defend against.

What you're describing are essentially the same as what happened in mumbai 2 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2008_Mumbai_attacks

In the article the Indians claimed that up to 37 people were involved in organising it. That's a pretty massive operation.

You can't just have 10 guys who not only have convinced themselves or other to kill themselves but also people to do a variety of tasks, like: coordinate the movements plan, recruit the other 9, get them to the right places with minimal chance of intercept, make sure none bottle out at the last minute, house them until attack, buy the grenades, etc. etc.

And that's just a list off the top of my head and more pop into it all the time. Like they also need the right clothes to not look odd, make sure they attack schools which are easy to get into, have maps to find the school. I'm sure there's much much more to plan in such an attack.

It's like saying that a special forces attack isn't backed up by a massive logistical operation. If it wasn't they'd be nothing special about them as they'd all be dead.

Think of the drug trade, which manages to organize far larger groups in disparate cities who actually have to transport large shipments of physical goods, and have to do it _repeatedly_.

There are backwoods meth labs that display at least as much coordination as would be required for the type of attack I'm describing.

You're asserting that no terrorist organization has the resources to coordinate a group of 10 people to act in concert.

The alleged U.K. 'liquid explosives' plot resulted in 25 arrests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...

My core question is: why would terrorists choose such a complicated, risky, hard to execute method of terror when easier avenues are available?

Because as the article described they need to appeal to their sponsors as well. I completely agree with you that if the terrorist simply wanted to terrorize Americans the best way to do it is to attack suburban schools and small towns. However these types of attacks still require resources.

I think that the best comparison would be to American Universities: The best way to teach students is obviously to have the teachers focus on teaching. However many of the largest schools professors focus their efforts on complex new research and ideas that are difficult and expensive to pursue but that get the donors' attention, bringing the school prestige and money.

Attacking a school would probably be the easiest, most effective way to terrorize Americans, however simply because ti would be relatively easy (or at least seems like it would be) there would be no political or economic rewards for going that route.

If you believe people aren't acting rationally based on the information you have, shouldn't you first question your assumptions?

My own take would be that Al Qaeda is (generally) forced to import plotters, builders and attackers whereas the drug trade uses locals and thus enjoys innumerable advantages.

Simply: 10 lifers in a couple trailers in the back woods of Kentucky, buying, say, a few guns and cleaning supplies in bulk doesn't raise the same flags as 10 foreign guys, new to the area, with funny clothes and accents.

Further, there are plenty of people who know the tweakers are out there cooking meth or the local gang is pushing drugs. But they're such an ingrained regular presence, these people have normalized it into their life.

In any event, if it truly were easier to get 10 guys with guns to open fire in the US, I'd expect we'd have seen it by now.

those things are easy to obtain, but they are well-on near impossible to smuggle into the US without someone noticing.

Note that many people from the middle east can pass for Hispanic. My family is Egyptian and I occasionally get cab drivers who start talking to me in Spanish because I look Puerto Rican. But I agree with the rest of your comment.

This isn't just true for middle-eastern types. My girlfriend is Native American, and often has guys trying to hit on her in Spanish (especially true in Spain), even after telling them repeatedly that she doesn't speak Spanish.

I've entered the US several times without ever showing a passport or seeing a customs official. The US-Canadian border is pretty much open if you know the terrain. Officially you're required to report in but plenty of people don't bother, especially in winter when all the waterways that are open the rest of the year freeze over.

> Either terrorists are incredibly stupid, vanishingly small in number, or both.

Stupid for sure, if their stated goal is to bring down society, but they don't really want to do that, they are like petulant kids that crave attention.

9/11 was almost too successful in that respect, it could have easily caused the world to band together in to eradicating this once and for all.

Fortunately the Iraq war changed all that, everybody wins. The people that sell anti-terrorism equipment, the terrorists themselves and the media, the politicians too.

All those privacy violating laws that got passed in the last couple of years under the banner of 'anti-terror' wouldn't have stood a chance of passing if the general public wasn't kept in a continued state of anxiety.

Condition 'red' ...

Good thing we're not at war with Canada

Hey, they won the last one...

They don't seem so tough. They've still got the queen on their money.

Practically speaking, blowing up a plane is probably the most difficult option you could choose if you wanted to kill 300 people. Why not pick one of the other myriad unguarded 'soft' targets where people gather?

The point of terrorism is to terrorize and blowing up commercial jets is a force multiplier because many people already have deep seated anxieties about air travel. Most people don't know anything about aerodynamics or how jet engines work, so they don't naturally accept the notion that a tin can carrying them 8 miles above the ground is safe. But people grin and bear it anyway because our culture has created this social fact: airplanes are safe. But every time a plane blows up, all the nagging suppressed anxieties come back to the surface.

Hell, my wife almost became an aeronautical engineer and she still freaks out if I don't call her after landing even though she knows perfectly well that I'm far more likely to die walking to the subway that takes me to the airport than on the flight itself.

There's a reason that so many people drink both on planes and at airport bars. Many of them need to be liquored up to deal with their fear and anxiety about flying. And there's a reason why airlines never ever ever mention safety in competitive terms: they understand that a lot of the flying public are on edge and that even if taking a potshot at a competitor gets them a few extra customers, adding to the general fear will shrink the total number of flyers more than enough to cancel out any gains. A slightly bigger slice of a smaller pie is a bad deal.

IIUC the people who sneak across the Mexican border don’t just walk across; they hire guides who know the terrain and are constantly running back and forth. A terrorist from a third country, air-dropped into Mexico, wouldn’t know who to trust in this regard.

Even assuming they were incapable of finding their own way across, surely a copy of 'Rosetta Stone: Spanish' and a few thousand dollars would find them a guide.

Or why not Canada? Hundreds of miles of rural, unguarded border.

This would require them to get into Canada as well. Now instead of breaching one border, they're breaching two borders. Also, think of the states that border most of Canada...Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin. You think a few Muslim guys showing up near the border without transportation in these almost exclusively white areas isn't going to cause some suspicion?

Sure, they could find a guide. How could they find a trustworthy guide?