|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 23, 2010 6:46:01 GMT -5
I'll be the first person to admit I hate to deal with bag checks and metal detectors, etc. That said, am I the only person who would see a historic site such as the Alamo, as a target for a terrorist hell-bent on making a statement?
A local newscaster made the point last week, after that guy flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, that Texas is being targeted. I think he makes a valid point. Last September, an attempt to blow up a downtown Dallas building was averted with the arrest of a guy who thought he was buying explosives to do the job. A few weeks back, a couple was arrested with pipe bombs -- these were people who were already being watched after suspicious behavior a couple years ago around Love Field in Dallas. Then there was this guy who flew his plane in a building. It makes you think.
Nationally, there's been a heightened awareness by the feds that a significant attempt seems imminent. We've been fortunate to stop several previous attempts, but you have to wager that sooner or later someone will succeed.
Okay, detonating a bomb inside the Alamo will not kill thousands, but it sure would make a political statement, don't you think? And yet -- at least when I was there last fall -- you simply walked through the doors and into the shrine. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but when you have the battle's anniversary approaching, and with it a larger number of people in town and in the plaza because of it, you have to wonder about security.
Will it stop me from coming to town, touring the grounds and enjoying the day downtown? Hell, no. I also recognize I'm more likely to get run down by one of those San Antonio trolleys while crossing the street there than being a bomber's victim. However, it still makes you wonder ...
Any other thoughts?
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 23, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Well, I was there when the May Brigade people climbed up on the church and took down the Texas Flag, and when the guy set himself on fire and ran toward the front doors.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 23, 2010 13:05:04 GMT -5
Good grief, I guess I missed those. And I thought the only nut cases we had were Pee Wee Herman looking for the basement, and Ozzie Osborne urinating on the Alamo (or was it actually the Cenotaph that he did that on?).
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 23, 2010 14:30:30 GMT -5
Someone also set fire to the Christmas Wreath on the church doors.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 23, 2010 17:25:28 GMT -5
Yes, we (DRT employees) are extremely aware of the fact that we are a "soft target", meaning there aren't a lot of security areas to clear in order to access the compound. In fact, there are none to speak of.
The Alamo Rangers are commissioned (armed) and work for the DRT. They are vigilant and well-trained. All other departments contribute in some ways to the overall security by being aware of their surroundings and who is frequenting them. We are all trained to be sensitive to unusual activity and have received special training, I'm going to leave it at that since this is a public forum.
Having said that, we all understand that as Americans, we would rather die free than live in a state less than free, and because of that, there needs to be places such as the Alamo, open and accessible to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 24, 2010 6:20:40 GMT -5
Thanks, Hiram. I work for Homeland Security, so I understand that you can't reveal all, and I wouldn't expect you to. Despite security concerns, I will agree that one of the things that makes the Alamo special is that it is open and people can visit the site without charge. Having screeners, and metal detectors and all that would somehow take something away from the experience. One of the most common things said by folks in the aftermath of 9/11 is that we paid a price in the loss of certain freedoms, like freely going to certain places without bag checks and so on. In reality, I think we've seen that if someone is intent on doing evil, they will find a way to do it, regardless of what precautionary measures we try to take.
|
|
|
Post by Donald Hash on May 4, 2010 2:33:51 GMT -5
A couple of weeks ago, I was surprised (and thankful) that the Alamo had no security check points. There were Alamo Rangers everywhere, which was neat to see with their cowboy hats and guns.
I was surprised (in a bad way) that to visit the spot on the former north wall where Travis fell - inside the post office - I had to empty my pockets, walk through a metal detector, have my two Alamo books passed through the X-Ray... The guy behind me had to do the same, plus take his shoes off (steel toes) and also be passed over with the wand... Just to check his mailbox.
My wife was with me (not the history buff) and I appologized for the hassle. Then I said, "People have to go through this just to check their mail everyday?" And the next thing I said was, "I feel like a criminal. Travis didn't die on this spot for this hassle."
I understand it's a Federal building and all... But as stated in the previous post, "Someone intent on doing evil... will find a way to do it, regardless..."
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 4, 2010 5:02:37 GMT -5
That does seem to be overkill, but hardly unusual if other Federal offices share space in the Post Office Building. The last time I went to that building was a good six years or so before 9/11, so there were no checks. I can't imagine having a P.O. box there and having to go through that every time you want to check your mail.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 4, 2010 13:27:55 GMT -5
Would an attack on the Alamo even have to be an organized action?? Couldn't some crazy guy in a truck or van just fly down Alamo St., knock over those little barriers and head for the Alamo? The plaza entries also seem a bit weak in that I believe someone can merely drive around whatever planter / barricade and onto a sidewalk. Imagine the damage a van filled with explosives could do to the Alamo facade. Everyone thought the Texas Governor's Mansion was safe and look what happened in the dead of night. All it takes is one little hole, a destructive motivation and the opportunity that we give them.
* Grammar correction
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 6, 2010 14:20:13 GMT -5
Hope I didn't give any crazies any stupid ideas. I'm glad there's more of a police and cctv surveillance presence at the Alamo than other public targets.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 6, 2010 16:18:52 GMT -5
I agree that the Alamo is a potential target. However it would be a symbolic target. In the great scheme of things the destruction or damage of the Alamo is not a vital piece of infrastructure in this country. Should it happen it could be rebuilt/restored and the damage would be local and contained. This is a very clinical view and says nothing about the potential hundreds that would be killed and injured. In the end though the Alamo is just a building. Have I gotten everybody angry at me yet? ? Here's what I am getting at: Lets take two potential targets in New York City, the Stock Exchange and the Brooklyn Bridge. If the Brooklyn Bridge were blown up, hundreds of lives would be lost, the East River closed to traffic, vehicular traffic disrupted for a very long time, and the local economy in the s*** can. All of the damage though would be localized and contained. If the stock market were blown up confidence would either be destroyed or badly shaken in the economies of the world. Given the fact that in NYC alone there are hundreds of targets that fall in the Brooklyn Bridge catagory, and only a very, very few that would have the impact of the stock market destruction. Given finite security resources, what would you secure? The old adage applies here - He who would defend everything, defends nothing. I hope I have not upset anyone by this post but it is simply a matter of setting priorities. Then you allocate resources to your most vital potential targets, and you can only stretch yourself so thin with personnel and equipment. As all of you I am sure know if you lock your car it will not stop theft, but it helps. Security cameras, armed security personnel and even the illusion of security can be like locking your car. If someone is bent on theft or even destruction they will look for the most vulnerable target. A little highly visable security can go a long way. If you all have been following the news in the last few days you saw that the Times Square guy was two steps below moron as terrorists go. This my friends is a trend. You don't need a highly trained operative, all you need for this new wave is a moron with access. Nine out of ten of their operations will be a fiasco (from their point of view), but the tenth one is liable to be a Lulu. Lest you all dispair that I have gone over to the Alamo Dark Side. Let me say that It would break my heart. I made up my mind on 11 September 2001 at about 0900 hours local time that these people may indeed kill me, but I will be damned if they will scare me to death. Chuck
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 6, 2010 20:25:25 GMT -5
Yes, but outside of the 9/11 attacks, many of attacks that were thwarted, stopped or just failed were limited in scope -- local, in a way. Your analogy of the Alamo could apply to other very symbolic targets (Statue of Liberty come to mind). If they wanted to make a statement with large numbers of casualties look no further to those giant arenas in the US. Yankee Stadium still holds about 50,000 ... and the new Dallas Cowboy's Stadium can squeeze in 100,000. Oh, and where is the Super Bowl being played next time? Wouldn't that make a statement, both symbolically and involving large numbers of casualties? The only thing we can be sure of is to expect the unexpected. No place is safe.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on May 6, 2010 21:22:56 GMT -5
I bet most terrorists don't know where the Alamo is, and if they saw it, they'd say "Is that all there is? I thought it would be bigger" and they'd go home. Jesse
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 6, 2010 21:36:54 GMT -5
Jesse: You have been standing in line in the Plaza much to long and the tourists have gotten to you. Take two Excedrin, sit down in a nice comfortable chair, pick up and read Exodus From The Alamo. You will forget all about the comments of the great historic unwashed and have something to really get pissed about.
Paul: You are of course correct. We can stop these people but the only way to do it is convince our public that they must ever be watchful. There are no non-combatants, no Normandy Beacheads, and no peace treaties in this affair. The only way it will slow down, for it will never completely stop, is if we use every means at our disposal to make the prize not worth the price.
|
|
|
Post by clint on Oct 29, 2010 13:32:33 GMT -5
I along with other Alamo Rangers, find it a privelage and a honor to keep the safe place.
|
|