UK terror plot consequences

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:55:25 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

In article , Tom Peel
wrote:

mrtravel wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Jeff Hacker writes:


And Hezbollah started this by crossing over into Israel and
kidnapping Israeli soldiers. . . .



That's quite a retaliation for a couple of kidnappings. But I've
already pointed out how Israel always overreacts.


They crossed into Israel, kidnapped 2 and killed 8 soldiers.
What do you think the reaction of Syria would be if Israel did this?

What was the reaction of the world to the killing of 4 UN observers?
Personally I would have cheered if the UN effectively retaliated. A fuel
and weapons embargo against Israel would be a good start.


But only until the "Final Solution" can be achieved ?

Are all critics of Israel Nazi's?

No - some are self-hating Jews. What other alternatives could there
possibly be?

B;

James Robinson wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

What was the point of having the UN post there?
It doesn't seem like it served any peacekeeping purpose.


It was an observation post to monitor the truce. No active peacekeeping
role was intended.

Apparently Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel, then killed and
kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Did UN observers observe this and report it?

Ah ha! I see we're finally getting some sense over here (UK). There's
talk that they're going to just check the Paki's baggage and leave
white folks alone. (Surprised it's not illegal??) I expect there'll be
uproar from the love our Pakis do-gooders.
************************

wrote:
In article ,
(Mxsmanic) wrote:

*From:* Mxsmanic
*Date:* Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:21:03 +0200

writes:

In trucks, I imagine.

It is possible to reduce risk without eliminating it 100%.

Sometimes there's no point in reducing one risk if you don't address
the others.

Some risks are easier to manage than others. For example, you can
background-check a few thousand airside employees much more easily than
you can millions of passengers.

Harry writes:

Ah ha! I see we're finally getting some sense over here (UK). There's
talk that they're going to just check the Paki's baggage and leave
white folks alone. (Surprised it's not illegal??) I expect there'll be
uproar from the love our Pakis do-gooders.

That still won't work. The idea is not to check the baggage of
suspicious persons, but to interrogate them carefully. Virtually all
terrorists will give themselves away quickly enough when you ask the
right questions.

Deep questioning--wherein you ask related questions that delve deeper
and deeper into an initial line of inquiry--work extremely well.
There really isn't any easy defense against those.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

Mixi: Are you a terrorist?
Terrorist: Of course I am, how astute of you to guess.

That is not deep questioning, which is why it doesn't work.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Martin writes:

Mixi: Are you a terrorist?
Terrorist: Of course I am, how astute of you to guess.

That is not deep questioning, which is why it doesn't work.

Provide an example of this "deep questioning."
--
dgs

dgs wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Martin writes:

Mixi: Are you a terrorist?
Terrorist: Of course I am, how astute of you to guess.

That is not deep questioning, which is why it doesn't work.

Provide an example of this "deep questioning."

And tell us if it uses The Tones.

B;

dgs writes:

Provide an example of this "deep questioning."

Security: What is your destination?
Terrorist: Atlanta.

Security: Why are you going to Atlanta?
Terrorist: To see friends.

Security: Any special occasion?
Terrorist: No, just wanted to see them.

Security: Who are they?
Terrorist: Friends of mine.

Security: Yes, but how many?
Terrorist: Uh, five.

Security: Adults?
Terrorist: Uh, yes. Some.

Security: How many of them are adults?
Terrorist: Some ... three.

Security: How are they related to you?
Terrorist: My sister and brother.

Security: I thought they were just friends.
Terrorist: Uh, they are .. I mean, some are friends and some are
relatives.

Security: Are your sister and brother among the adults?
Terrorist: Yes.

Security: Who are the other adults?
Terrorist: My brother and sister in law.

Security: So that's four adults. You said there were only three.
Terrorist: I, uh, well there are more than that. It--it's a birthday
party.

Security: Would you come with me, please?

==

Every terrorist has a cover story. But cover stories can only foresee
one or two levels of questioning. There's no way to have answers
ready for every possible question. Someone telling the truth will
know the answers to any question, and will answer every question
consistently. Someone who is giving the interrogator a cover story
will not have enough detail to withstand multiple levels of questions
on an point, and will eventually mess up as he tries to imagine things
on the fly.

This method works with terrorists, criminal suspects, POWs, you name
it. Most people will also get much more nervous once they've
exhausted the details of their cover story.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

& explain why it didn't work.

Where? It works for professional interrogators. It works for El Al.

Did I forget the inquisition with their red hot irons, rack
and thumbscrews?

The Inquisition didn't use it. Furthermore, information gained from
torture is often useless. People say whatever is necessary to avoid
torture, but that may or may not actually be the truth. You can force
them to talk, but you can't force them to say anything useful.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Every terrorist has a cover story. But cover stories can only foresee
one or two levels of questioning. There's no way to have answers
ready for every possible question.

You have obviously never been trained as an undercover spy.