How do you think AQ will hit the USA ? Methods.

[Rashak Mani]

With Bush's ratings slowly slipping Bin Laden needs to get an attack on the USA going before the election. How do you think they will manage to do so ? What methods ? Civilian airliners again ? Ship ? Truck ?

I'd warrant that ship borne will be the chosen means of delivery... and that it will be regular explosives mixed with either flammable stuff or cheaper explosives. I expect they will go for big casualty figures and not to demolishing landscapes and monuments.

[Sunspace]

Shhh! Don't give them ideas!!

[qcomdrj]

Do we really want a group of the smartest people in America debating where Al Qaeda should attack next? Regardless, I feel that you are likely correct in the sense of waterborne, as the airways are too securely defended now. However, the logistics of it is a little difficult, so I tend to think they would try and attack a cruise ship or something of the like, which, while being foreign boats, typically have mostly American passengers. This ranks highly on the bad-o-meter for me.

[BobLibDem]

This is one of those cases where I would prefer not to speculate, for fear of providing a fresh idea to those that might do such a thing.

[BrotherCadfael]

I recently had lunch with an old friend who has been working with FEMA and his state emergency managment department on possible terrorism and other disaster scenarios. I won't go into detail, but, Man!, did he have some nasty thoughts!

[GorillaMan]

Does anybody seriously think that Al Qaeda trawl message boards looking for ideas? :rolleyes:

IMO, the US is safe for a while. 9/11 happened because, at that time, the US was a soft target (remember the boxcutters?). Now, America is a much tougher target to hit. Far better go for the easier ones, in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Spain, Turkey,.... Bin Laden, and his supporters, have little care who wins the election. Their hatred will remain undimmed.

[rjung]

Well, Michael Moore did reveal in Fahrenheit 9/11 that there's 100 miles of Oregon coastline patrolled by one part-time state trooper...

[Duckster]

Variations of this thread have been debated before. FWIW, I believe there are simple, low-tech methods AQ could use that would achieve its goals.

Is discussing potential methods a bad idea? Perhaps that is worthy of a debate. For me, I see nothing wrong with it. The government already has the best Hollywood types developing disaster scenarios for them. How is that different from ordinary folks doing the same thing? From friends and relatives in the airline industry, it is still very simple to implement terrorist attacks via commercial aircraft. It is not too difficult to apply the same principles to less secure areas such as trains, buses, shopping malls, tourist attractions, etc.

Besides, discussion of possible methods is one thing; putting them into action is quite another. What may be a more critical discussion is what ordinary folks are doing in being more vigilant in their everyday lives.

[El_Kabong]

With Bush's ratings slowly slipping Bin Laden needs to get an attack on the USA going before the election.

I have contended before, and continue to do so, that if bin Laden's organization could have mounted an attack on US soil before now they most certainly would have done so. I don't personally believe that the risk of an attack is that much higher right now than it has been since 2001, and I course I hope I'm not just talking out my bottom here.

Re: the propriety of discussion of this nature, I seriously doubt that anyone is going to come up with something that hasn't already been considered by potential terrorists; not because board members are necessarily unimaginative, but because the terrorists themselves obviously spend a lot of time thinking about these things. Also, as others have said, the idea of terrorists monitoring this message boards for ideas on where and how to strike next seems frankly ludicrous.

Since, even after 9/11, major terrorists events remain fairly rare in the US, just about anything would serve to seriously spook the American public. Despite all the talk of possible radiological, biological or chemical attacks, however, to date bin Laden's organization has not yet demonstrated that they can actually mount such an attack anywhere. OTOH, materials for crude bombs are relatively easy to acquire and big bangs in places where do not normally occur always attract plenty of attention, so this seems the most likely scenario for anything that might happen in the near future. So far the most popular method of attack, if simple destruction and mayhem is the aim, seems to be a series of coordinated bombings of public ground transport, as seen in Paris in the mid-90's, Spain this year, and Israel/Palestine for a number of years. Second would be destruction by bombing of symbolic targets; either government or business-related.

There are plenty of other possibilities, but I'll leave others some room to chime in.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

5 gunmen go into 5 schools and kill as many children as possible. Next day 5 more gunmen enter 5 different schools and kill as many children as possible. The next day every school in the country is closed. Parents will not send children to school. Parents have to stay home. Economic chaos for weeks.


When the schools re-open start with the suicide bombings in schools. If the schools are too secure bomb parks, bus-stops, or any place with children.

[Yeticus Rex]

Well, Michael Moore did reveal in Fahrenheit 9/11 that there's 100 miles of Oregon coastline patrolled by one part-time state trooper...
Ever try landing a boat on the Oregon coastline?

[alaricthegoth]

5 gunmen go into 5 schools and kill as many children as possible. Next day 5 more gunmen enter 5 different schools and kill as many children as possible. The next day every school in the country is closed. Parents will not send children to school. Parents have to stay home. Economic chaos for weeks.


When the schools re-open start with the suicide bombings in schools. If the schools are too secure bomb parks, bus-stops, or any place with children.


uh-uh

trivial and lacking symbolic value.

I'm lookin for a well placed slug of c-f. about one third up the washington monum,ent.,

upon detonation, instant broke down dick for dub.

[Atticus Finch]

Do we really want a group of the smartest people in America...
Smartest people in the world, ya damn yankee.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

uh-uh

trivial and lacking symbolic value.

I'm lookin for a well placed slug of c-f. about one third up the washington monum,ent.,

upon detonation, instant broke down dick for dub.

You think killing hundreds of American children is trivial and laking symbolic value? This action would show everyone in America that our children are not safe. An action like this is almost completely indefensible. With just 30 guys and 30 guns and some bombs a reign of terror could be unleased on American for weeks that would bring this country to a hault.

[AHunter3]

Republican Convention, NYC.

Would simultaneously administer a slap to the face of "can't get fooled again" NYC and the Republican Party while making martyrs of Republicans (some name-brand types would no doubt be in attendance), and as long as they don't accidentally get Georgie himself, his party, being specifically wronged and attacked, gets the reactive anger-vote.

America goes wild-eyes bugshit to see that our most concentrated security efforts can be breached with massive American casualties and that our very political system looks so vulnerable and begs for Patriot Act III.

Probably wouldn't be all that hard. You've got a few zillion out-of-towners and all their support staff descending on NYC from all over, and all of them authorized to go into the Javits Center. You probably only need to win one heart & mind.

[Brutus]

You think killing hundreds of American children is trivial and laking symbolic value? This action would show everyone in America that our children are not safe. An action like this is almost completely indefensible. With just 30 guys and 30 guns and some bombs a reign of terror could be unleased on American for weeks that would bring this country to a hault.

More effective yet would be those 30 guys with 30 guns each shooting up one school (or any public place, really) a day for 30 days. If they did it all in one day, sure there would be impact, but it it starts to diminish right away. Look at 9/11, and people now arguing that AQ isn't really that big of a threat to us, et cetera.

String them out, all over the country. Each attack doesn't have to amount to much, but as quintessential 'middle-aged white male in a white box van' John Allen Mohammad has shown, they don't have to. They just need to keep occurring and occurring and occurring. After just a short while, then a true sense of helplessness would set in for many.

And such a plan requires jack shit for specialized training or equipement; Just some coordination and 30 willing Jihadists.

[Splanky]

I don't think that there will be routine bombings and attacks like in Iraq currently or in Israel. I think that if Al Qaeda ever does get going, they will with assassination attempts and strategic bombings. Maybe they won't go for the top, but trying to kill people active in the War on Terror- Rumsfeld, Powell would be a poignant message to the country. Also bombings at monuments (Lincoln Memorial seems to be an easy target), or at/near political institutions (anywhere in D.C.).

I don't know if Al Qaeda is cabable of another massive attack in the U.S.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

More effective yet would be those 30 guys with 30 guns each shooting up one school (or any public place, really) a day for 30 days. If they did it all in one day, sure there would be impact, but it it starts to diminish right away. Look at 9/11, and people now arguing that AQ isn't really that big of a threat to us, et cetera.


You just use 5 for the first two attacks. After, that it is all singles. Sorry if I wasn't clear. You also probably don't want to do it everday. More of an impact if there is some surprise.

[BytopianDream]

You think killing hundreds of American children is trivial and laking symbolic value? This action would show everyone in America that our children are not safe. An action like this is almost completely indefensible. With just 30 guys and 30 guns and some bombs a reign of terror could be unleased on American for weeks that would bring this country to a hault.

I completely agree with this. I think the psychological value of random violence at schools, restaurants, malls and public venues would really hit the US hard. But after a few tries at this though, I think the terrorists would find us seriously taking off the gloves both at home and abroad. Which would mean bad things for America and the world. Which is why I am glad it hasn't happened. When I worked at a very busy restaurant, I had contingency plans made out in my head about what to do in case of a bomb blast. Since I worked in the kitchen, well separated from the crowded part, I figured I was partially safe.

[qcomdrj]

Sorry Lambchops, patriotism was running high. I didn't know the rest of the world would jump into the fray on this kind of thread, seeing as how we are trying to figure out how they would attack the US. But yes, I edit my statement to include the smartest people in the world as well.

[MEBuckner]

The thing about al Qaida which most shocks and impresses Americans is that they aren't just willing but eager to die. To be willing to die for a cause is one thing; look at our own legends of the Alamo, or Thermopylae. But to court death for its own sake is so alien to us that just seeing it tends to weaken our resolve.

Now, suicide attacks are for that reason very effective, but their effectiveness is still somewhat limited by the fact that they're still partially pragmatic. The suicide terrorists are, after all, infliciting death and destruction upon "the enemy" as well as giving their lives.

What would be far more shocking to Americans, for more corrosive to our willingness to fight, would be pure martyrdom operations. Imagine if al Qaida operatives began going to public places and simply killing themselves, without even harming anyone else--say, blowing themselves up in parking lots. We couldn't even console ourselves with the idea that they were simply trying to inflict death and destruction on us--we would be brought face to face with their martyr's courage, and would have no other alternative than to realize the strength of their righteous convictions.

Of course, the American military-industrial complex is very strong, as is the influence on this country of Israel and its supporters. We probably wouldn't crumble right away from the first wave of pure martyrdom operations, but if they just kept trying....

[MEBuckner]

Shhh! Don't give them ideas!!
Do we really want a group of the smartest people in America debating where Al Qaeda should attack next?
Ooh, I hadn't even thought of that!

Perhaps I should just delete that last post of mine.

[Brutus]

What would be far more shocking to Americans, for more corrosive to our willingness to fight, would be pure martyrdom operations...

The only thing that would be more effective than that would be if they sold popcorn and cold beverages beforehand, offered comfortable seating, and the audience a sheet of plexiglass to hide behind. Oh, and if they changed their names to 'Al Ghalli'ghar'.

Such things are probably best left undiscussed, though.

[Declan]

5 gunmen go into 5 schools and kill as many children as possible. Next day 5 more gunmen enter 5 different schools and kill as many children as possible. The next day every school in the country is closed. Parents will not send children to school. Parents have to stay home. Economic chaos for weeks.


When the schools re-open start with the suicide bombings in schools. If the schools are too secure bomb parks, bus-stops, or any place with children.

Geeze louise

You know how many soccer moms would be screaming for genocide ? That would garuntee the middle east turned into a giant parking lot , with a wallmart stuck on it.

How many threads are there , with some people screamin bout over reaction with regards to nukes.

Heres a hint to any nefarious types reading this ,lol

Bad idea

Declan

[Spoke]

We are all familiar with the Acme Company of course-- purveyors of a wide array of destructive, mayhem-causing devices.

I shudder to think what would happen to us if the terrorists managed to get hold of any Acme products.

[Cisco]

Pure genius MEBuckner. You had me going for 3/4th of your post.

"What the hell is he talking about? People would just laugh!...Oh." :D

[Zagadka]

Not to give anybody any ideas or anything, but I've always been amazed that no one has just bombed the people in line at security checkpoints at airports. I mean, just a backpack, soe C-4, throw it in, and run. Not only would this kill a lot of people who are completely defenseless, it would shut down the entire air industry (again) and leave us scratching our heads about how the bloody hell to possibly defend against something like that. I mean, bombing people in line for security checkpoints? You can't exactly set up more security checkpoints and call it a day.

[vibrotronica]

The sniper thing would be quick, easy, and wouldn't need very much manpower. One sniper at a time would be enough. Say you have ten, two-man sniper teams spread all over the country. On D-Day -1, all of the sniper teams (none of whom know each other) recieve a message: "You are sniper team #(X). When you see on the news that sniper team (X-1) has been killed or captured, begin operations and do not stop. If capture is emminent, blow yourselves up, taking the police with you." That should be good for several weeks of trouble, and damned near impossible to stop. In fact, I think the lack of such attacks in the United States means that they don't have the manpower on the ground to pull it off!

Then there's the old "hijack a Liquid Natural Gas ship and detonate in a busy port" routine. Or the Texas City ship-full-of-ammonium-nitrate-goes-boom gag. That seems more up al Q's alley.

[Doug Bowe]

Hmm.

Why don't we let Al Qaeda tell us what they want to hit? If you know what they want then it's easier to figure what they'll need to use.

After all, they were obsessed enough with the WTC to keep going back(Ramzi Yousef, the guy who planned the 1993 bombing was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who planned the 9/11 airplane attack).

According to the 9/11 report they were also obsessed with the Pentagon and the White House.

From time to time we get reports that at least a few of 'em show an interest in LAX.

Khalid seems to be big on bombing U.S. jets over the Pacific.

Are there any other specific targets other than "the tallest buildings in California and Washington?"

[Metacom]

As many in this thread have pointed out, causing massive amounts of terror in the US wouldn't be particularly difficult, given the abundance of soft targets, guns, and porous borders.

And yet, there hasn't been a single attack on the US mainland since 9/11.

I wonder if Bush is doing something right....

[Iridium]

(I'm new, please let me know if I'm breaking any rules)

My impression of al-Qaeda now is that they have plenty of recruits, but tighter domestic security has lengthened planning phases for large operations. It would be a lot easier to hit US interests in foreign countries (like Saudi), but the psychological impact of attacks on US soil is pretty obvious.

Since coordinated attacks appear to be their strong point and public transportation (i.e. subway) is very difficult to protect, a 10-city rush-hour bombing spree might work. It would probably be a winter operation, since local police are invariably watching for people wearing parkas and other bulky clothing in public places. The downside of subway targets is that they lack the symbolic value of hitting economic and political centers.

I'd agree that AQ is still jet-happy, but domestic flights might be a real problem now. Do chartered/private jets require the same security clearance?

[duality72]

As opposed to all those terrorist attacks that were taking place in the U.S. pre-9/11?

Widespread train derailments are another option. Same security problems we can't cover with pipelines in Iraq and could mix massive casualties (passenger trains) with a lot of economic damage as shipping grinds to a halt.

[ozonelover]

The problem with waiting for an expected attack is that, as with waiting for earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, the longer the wait, the more destructive one fears the expected attack will be.
They're probably busy with other things right now, hopefully.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

And yet, there hasn't been a single attack on the US mainland since 9/11.

I wonder if Bush is doing something right....

Would you like to buy this rock?

[Metacom]

Would you like to buy this rock?
Are you saying that terrorists who would like to attack the US are as rare as prowling tigers? If not, would you care to try and make a lucid argument? Or is implying that I'm stupid satisfying enough?

[Zagadka]

Are you saying that terrorists who would like to attack the US are as rare as prowling tigers? If not, would you care to try and make a lucid argument? Or is implying that I'm stupid satisfying enough?
Do you happen to have any evidence for your claims? Like a bevy of prevented terrorist attacks? All those solid cases and convictions made?

[Agent Cooper]

First, as to the danger of offering suggestions ... blame Hollywood not SDMB.

I agree with Kel. Attacking schools would really screw people up. (Which has already been done in the movies of course.) Randomness and consistency would just compound it. Even shopping malls, buses, whatever. But going after kids would really blow this country away. Then of course there would be The Reaction ... oh boy.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

Then of course there would be The Reaction ... oh boy.

The reaction would be the best part as far as al Qaeda is concerned. What are we going to do? Bomb random cities in the Middle East? This would create more terrorists.

Are you saying that terrorists who would like to attack the US are as rare as prowling tigers? If not, would you care to try and make a lucid argument? Or is implying that I'm stupid satisfying enough?

Terrorists are more active today than before 9-11. 9-11 was planned for years. You have no evidence that al Qaeda has planned anything major in the US since 9-11. But the maybe the reason there hasn't been any attacks is all thanks to Bush or possibly this rock. However, there is no evidence for either of these conclusions.

[Metacom]

Do you happen to have any evidence for your claims? Like a bevy of prevented terrorist attacks? All those solid cases and convictions made?
Those cases and convictions haven't been made because our administration is wrongly trying to make the prosecution of terrorists an extralegal affair carried out mostly in secrecy (although the Supreme Court is finally calling them out on that...)

No matter how misguided you think Bush is, he has dramatically increased domestic surveillance. Do you really think that none of Bush's policies have had a positive impact in this one area?

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

Do you really think that none of Bush's policies have had a positive impact in this one area?

Do you have any proof that they did?

[Metacom]

You have no evidence that al Qaeda has planned anything major in the US since 9-11.
Of course I don't have any evidence, but I believe the government when they say they have it. They've issued numerous warnings and have even made arrests. I'm not cynical enough to believe that those warnings are all the product of political manipulations.
But the maybe the reason there hasn't been any attacks is all thanks to Bush or possibly this rock. However, there is no evidence for either of these conclusions.
Wow.

On the one hand, we have an elected president who's responsible for setting broad policies and choosing the people in charge of the government departments most responsible for domestic security (the Attorney General, etc.). These policies and appointees have overseen the arrest and prosecution of numerous people living on US soil who have gone to terrorist training camps and done other illegal and highly suspect things.

On the other hand, we have a rock.

And you truly think that there's no more reason to give the rock credit for preventing more terrorist attacks then the president. Huh.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

Of course I don't have any evidence, but I believe the government when they say they have it.

Did you also believe the government when they said they knew exactly were Iraq's WMD were? Or when the government said you could protect yourself from a chemical attack with plastic wrap and duct tape?

[Metacom]

Did you also believe the government when they said they knew exactly were Iraq's WMD were?
Yes, I did, and they were obviously wrong. But I think that's the exception rather then the rule.
Or when the government said you could protect yourself from a chemical attack with plastic wrap and duct tape?
I believe plastic wrap and duct tape would provide some protection from a chemical attack. As good as a full-body suit and a respirator? No. But they're a bit more affordable.

[Zagadka]

No matter how misguided you think Bush is, he has dramatically increased domestic surveillance. Do you really think that none of Bush's policies have had a positive impact in this one area?
Nope.

F-9/11 had some glaring examples of stupidity.

Bush has done almost nothing to guard the sea lanes, or the borders with Canada or Mexico. He made token gestures with airport security that haven't been demonstratably effective, and which any moron would have done (he proves this case quite nicely).

[Broomstick]

(I'm new, please let me know if I'm breaking any rules)
Not yet :D

Since coordinated attacks appear to be their strong point and public transportation (i.e. subway) is very difficult to protect, a 10-city rush-hour bombing spree might work.
Does the US have 10 cities with subways?

Anyhow - hitting just New York and Chicago would do the job. groan... I ride the train in Chicago.... Add in DC, San Francisco, and... does LA have a subway?

It would probably be a winter operation, since local police are invariably watching for people wearing parkas and other bulky clothing in public places.
Who needs parkas? Everyone carries backpacks and bags on the commuter trains. Or leave stuff in tunnels.

The downside of subway targets is that they lack the symbolic value of hitting economic and political centers.
Um... about 400,000 people a day pour into the Chicago Loop, an economic center, and most do so by train and bus. Make people afraid to take the train and Chicago's economy tanks. DC - a political center, yes? - has a subway. New York City - ditto, a LOT of folks depend on the trains.

No, we don't have many mass transit systems... but where subways/el's exist they are a major tranport network. Knock it down you cause real pain.

I'd agree that AQ is still jet-happy, but domestic flights might be a real problem now. Do chartered/private jets require the same security clearance?
Charter and private planes have different security -- this has been covered in a couple different threads. You can't use a two-seat Cessna to knock over a skyscraper like the World Trade Center - what threat it represents is a different kind of threat. They're used in different ways, have different capabilities.... one size fits all security isn't a good fit, you need to fit the security to what the threat is, or could be.

Some places are off limits to private airplanes. In some places those who are using private airplanes DO have to pass through the same security as used by the airlines. Different sized airports have different needs and requirements.

Yes, there has been an improvement in aviation security across the board. Is it enough improvement? Probably not.

[Duckster]

The sniper thing would be quick, easy, and wouldn't need very much manpower. One sniper at a time would be enough. Say you have ten, two-man sniper teams spread all over the country. On D-Day -1, all of the sniper teams (none of whom know each other) recieve a message: "You are sniper team #(X). When you see on the news that sniper team (X-1) has been killed or captured, begin operations and do not stop. If capture is emminent, blow yourselves up, taking the police with you." That should be good for several weeks of trouble, and damned near impossible to stop. In fact, I think the lack of such attacks in the United States means that they don't have the manpower on the ground to pull it off!

Then there's the old "hijack a Liquid Natural Gas ship and detonate in a busy port" routine. Or the Texas City ship-full-of-ammonium-nitrate-goes-boom gag. That seems more up al Q's alley.

As I said in an earlier thread, sniper teams all over the country shooting ten people a day and moving on to a different location to do it all over again. Day after day. Shopping malls. Schools. Train stations. Mix and match. Do it in the six weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas -- the most important retail/consumer spending period of the year -- and in no short order the psychological fear and economic collapse will tumble the Bill of Rights like a House of Cards. The Domino Theory at its best.

They don't need the big bangs and spectacular incidents to do the job. Those merely feed upon the excess egos of Americans. Besides, we are looking for the big stuff under the small rocks.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. America has so many weak links there is no point to go after the big stuff.

Think David and Goliath. No matter how big and muscled Goliath might be, if David is willing to die for his cause, Goliath will lose. Just enough Davids going after the balls of Goliath will topple the big guy. Works every time.

[Rashak Mani]

No matter how misguided you think Bush is, he has dramatically increased domestic surveillance. Do you really think that none of Bush's policies have had a positive impact in this one area?

Well with the amount of money he is spending I can say that the "positive" impact isn't comparable. Just putting police in higher alert is an improvement from before.

So did he increase "homeland" security ? Yes
Did he increase expenditure ? Yes
Did he spend it well... no way.

Sea lanes and some borders are being neglected... police underfunded... there are many problems that even a part of the US$ 100 billion wasted in Iraq would have been a major boost to security.

Finally I think most are thinking of how invading Iraq for example worsened overall security for americans worldwide.

[Loopydude]

The only thing that makes me wonder about attacking children is, contrary to popular belief, I think some of these Islamist terrorists do have some standards defining what is and is not an appropriate target. For instance, Hamas actually came out publically against the hostage beheadings in Iraq. I'm guessing some things make even AQ squeamish. Specifically targeting children may cross a symbolic line even with them. Of course, they'll blow things up with children in them, but that's a very random kind of thing. It could be argued children are collateral damage, just as they are when we bomb Afghanistan or Iraq to take out insurgents.

If AQ have no scruples though, I agree, targeting schools would be cheap, easy, and probably among the most bang-for-the-buck terrorist attacks I can think of.

Another idea: Liquid natural gas tankers, when their cargo spills out and is set alight, could immolate everything in a quarter-mile radius. I remember, around 9/11, there being a big to-do about a LNG tanker trying to dock in Boston Harbor, and what that thing could level if somehow breached and ignited. Since that was plastered all over the media, I have no qualms about discussing such a scenerio further.

Fill up a small but relatively fast aeroplane with explosives. Maybe a private jet. Fly it into a docked LNG tanker in a big city...actually, I think Boston is the only candidate that fits this bill, so poor us. Or maybe you just paddle a small boat filled with said explosives up at night, or construct a small submersible. Whatever, just get the explosives close enough to the tanker. Chances are you'll kill a few thousand people at the least, destroy a good-sized portion of a harbor and anything nearby, make a hell of a big flaming statement, and scare the crap out of the nation. Billions in property damage. Ugly, ugly footage of those who died, and worse, those who didn't but were too close. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people who wind up surviving third-degree burns over large percentages of their body. Thousands more with second-degree burns. And so on. Right here in the cradle of the Revolution.

Getting my asbestos-lined tinfoil hat now...

[Rashak Mani]

Hamas did speak out against the beheadings ? Wow... didn't get that news.

Well Tim McVeigh thought children were collateral damage, the US govt. too.

[alaricthegoth]

The only thing that makes me wonder about attacking children is, contrary to popular belief, I think some of these Islamist terrorists do have some standards defining what is and is not an appropriate target. For instance, Hamas actually came out publically against the hostage beheadings in Iraq. I'm guessing some things make even AQ squeamish. Specifically targeting children may cross a symbolic line even with them. Of course, they'll blow things up with children in them, but that's a very random kind of thing. It could be argued children are collateral damage, just as they are when we bomb Afghanistan or Iraq to take out insurgents.

If AQ have no scruples though, I agree, targeting schools would be cheap, easy, and probably among the most bang-for-the-buck terrorist attacks I can think of.
-lined tinfoil hat now...

alas, this has become horribly timely

I think I said somewhere that such attacks were "trivial"

I don't know what I was thinking...

[SentientMeat]

Threads like this are just what the government likes. They like a bit of panic and uncertainty, since they can show they are “in charge”, that they are spending money wisely, that they are essential to your security.

The fact is that if AQ really wanted to target American citizens on their home soil again, they could do so fairly easily: a forged/stolen passport, a plane to Mexico, a hop over the border, steal a van, buy fertiliser, diesel fuel, fireworks and a mosquito coil, pack in scrap metal, drive to a major sporting, musical or political gathering, light the coil and leave. Repeat as necessary.

Car bombs are so incredibly simple that we must ask the question: why no car bombs? The answer, I contend, is something which the government would prefer you not to believe:

That AQ no longer poses much of a threat any more.

Osama Bin Laden was, or is if he still lives, a Messianic psychopath who wanted one big show-stopper. He tried and failed with 1993's WTC bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing). He tried again and failed with 1995's Operation Bojinka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka).

September 11th was AQ’s magnum opus. It was successful beyond their wildest dreams, took years to plan, and they know they will never be so unbelievably lucky again. A few Wahabbi-Wannabe’s might try a few bombs or snipes, and could do so pretty easily despite what the government say, but I believe that terrorism is actually now a pretty minor issue in America. If anything, the greater danger comes from paranoid loons in the mould of McVeigh who would seek to pin their crimes on AQ.

[Aldebaran]

The thing about al Qaida which most shocks and impresses Americans is that they aren't just willing but eager to die.

That is a misconception. They are not "eager" to die anymore then anyone else, but they are made "eager" to become a warrior for the cause of God, Islam and the Umma. This is not new in Islamic history at all and it is no surprize that such a concept can still appeal to Muslims worldwide. (Compare it with US nationalism. Because of this nationalism - often combined with idealism - US soldiers are called heros and find a broad public support while they themselves volunteer to defend what they perceive as worthwile even if that causes their death.)

What is new in this suicide-fighter concept is that in order to fight against the perceived ennemies/threats of Islam and the Umma, they managed to create of a theological defense for the use of suicide as a method of war.
This created theological defense is the whole trick to recrute Muslims into doing things that normally only open the door to damnation.(Explaining how they came to that is an other issue.) Suicide is not permitted and condemned by the sayings of the Prophet himself, who warned that if you kill yourself you shall be tormented in hell with the same tool you used for comitting suicide.

What would be far more shocking to Americans, for more corrosive to our willingness to fight, would be pure martyrdom operations. Imagine if al Qaida operatives began going to public places and simply killing themselves, without even harming anyone else--say, blowing themselves up in parking lots.

While it would have most certainly a shock effect, I don't see how they ever could find a way to defend theologically such pure suicidal actions = Without any other reason then to kill yourself to cause a shock effect instead of destroying the enemy in defense of Islam and the Umma. Shock effects do not destroy the enemy, they cause the enemy to reflect on the conflict which then eventually could provoke a willingness for striving towards to peaceful solutions.
Striving for peaceful solutions is command of Al Qur'an, but that is something these people have excluded on forehand as a possiblity to even ponder about.


Salaam. A

[sinical brit]

"Car bombs are so incredibly simple that we must ask the question: why no car bombs? The answer, I contend, is something which the government would prefer you not to believe:

That AQ no longer poses much of a threat any more"


Absolutely bang on SentientM ( pun indended) . If there are Islamic fundamentalists everywhere ( dont they live next door to YOU ?) and they are hell bent on destroying America - you'd have thought that at least 1 of them would have got their ass out of bed and had the common decency to blow him/herself up by now.

I think we were sold a lemon.

sin