Posted on 03/23/2016 8:50:47 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In a speech at Stanford University in California on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton mentioned specific lessons that could be drawn from the Brussels attacks, including a need to reevaluate the way that soft targets could be protected from similar attacks in the future.
“We need to take a harder look at security protocols at airports and other sensitive so-called soft sites — especially areas outside guarded perimeters,” she said.
That call was puzzling to some security experts, who said that the specific challenge of protecting soft sites was difficult to isolate from the larger problem of foiling terrorist attacks.
“If you sort of look at what terrorists do, they have always preferred to go after civilian soft targets,” said Christine Fair, a professor at the Peace and Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. “The whole point is to terrify a public.”
She added, “The definition of a terrorist organization or a terrorist attack is the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.”
William Braniff, the executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, agreed that it would be difficult to prevent such attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We could get rid of the progressive mass transit, which seems to attract terrorist atttacks as well as a gun free zone. Spread out a drive yourown vehicles.
Politicians, who have taxpayer-supported protection, think they’re immune to the terrorists strikes.
....another example of Hilda roaming around in an area where she has never been, REALITY
I wonder if Google has given any thought into how to prevent their autonomous vehicles from being used as homicide-bomber terrestrial cruise missiles?
Traitor politicians
i wonder who’s a$$ she is pulling this shite out of?
Clintons old hag is out of her mind.
Because she did such a great job with the Benghazi compound.
I have wondered about that too.
Perhaps her highness should first look at hard targets, you know, like...
consulates,
embassies,
Or maybe diplomatic residences.
She’s an airhead. Always has been.
What was the going rate for this one?
‘She added, “The definition of a terrorist organization or a terrorist attack is the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.”’
Well then the proper response is for us all to avail ourselves of our 2nd Amendment rights. Reduce the soft target areas. Be ready to kick butt. Lock and load.
She’s pulling it out of her own megacolon.
Yup! She will do a great job against ISIS.......just like she did against them in Bengazi.
She is so full of shite!
She must have had an oral-anal anastomosis done on her during childhood.
Even her lying lips are brown!
Like she was such an expert on security for Benghazi.
William Braniff, the executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, agreed that it would be difficult to prevent such attacks.
“Soft targets are soft targets for a reason,” he said.
Soft targets = Gun-Free Zones. They’re legislated into existence.
Wherever people enter guarded perimeters, there will be queues. You can move the guarded screening perimeter back, but that won't eliminate the lines of people waiting to enter. The only thing you would protect in this manner is the physical structure. The people are still soft targets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.