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…
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.
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
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.
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.
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?”
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’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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
