It’s not my usual source for information, either, but the article was well-researched and very thorough. I have not seen any critcs who claim that the article contained factual errors. It may not be their usual subject area, but I have no reason, as of yet, to disbelieve it. It’s not like they’re * The Weekly World News, * after all. They do have some journalistic integrity.
It’s very difficult to tell if someone is being sarcastic through written word alone, but I agree somewhat.
September 11th was a daringly simple plan which worked, probably due to its relatively uncomplicated nature. With America on high-alert status, it might be difficult to smuggle in weapons, considering that a bomb would most likely be a bit sizable, and I doubt strongly that a terrorist would ever have the ability to launch an ICBM. A “dirty bomb” would have to be carried into the country by some means, and there are also logistical problems of international customs searches.
Biological weapons would be much easier to convey. A “suicide cougher” with a clean record could be sent into the country by a terrorist orginization, or could easily smuggle germs in an ordinary toiletry container. (It’s not like they check for biological contaminants at customs.) Terrorists could also infect an ordinary citizen with no ties to any terrorist organization, even unbeknownst to the citizen.
Germs are iffy, though. Buying a vial of germs that’s old enough to have been “lost” could be worthless. It could be that the stock is dead, or lacks sufficient potency to do the job. If it’s a known, curable, illness, such as bubonic plague, an outbreak could be contained with only a small body count. If the outbreak is successful, on the other hand, it runs the risk of killing the terrorists themselves, as well as innocent people in their own country. The majority of terrorists are not inclined to suicide. (“Martyrs” can be hired to do the job, while the top eschelon of terrorists remain safely at home, doing the planning. You don’t see top Al-Qaeda leaders running the missions themselves.) There’s no point in “victory” if there’s no one left to enjoy it.
At this point, there are difficulties to a terrorist attack that did not exist prior to 9/11. For an attack to be successful, the terrorists would most likely already need to be in the US, since it’s more difficult to obtain a visa these days. (But then again, with the recent INS shakedowns, even this is not a given.) The plan would need to be relatively simple, to reduce human error, and utilize as few people as possible to prevent leaks of the plan. A 9/11 attack would be highly unlikely to succeed at this point, because passengers have shown that they’re willing to fight back, instead of cooperating in the hopes of being unharmed. (Witness the various pummellings of would-be flight dirruptors.) Security is very tight, and phone-tap laws have been loosened to the point where any would-be terrorist must fear to use the phone in planning attacks.
For an attack to succeed, you must strike when your victim least suspects it. America is paranoid, and watching every dark corner for terrorist activity. It may be that the terrorists are waiting for us to go back to feeling safe and secure and less watchful before striking again.