If Al Qaeda really wanted to mess with us...

[suzzer99]

At one time it used to be a pretty controversial theory that Al Qaeda was leaving us alone on our own turf on purpose. I think by now you pretty much have to accept it as nothing has happened since 9/11 and possibly the anthrax scare. But signs seem to point to someone domestic on that.

I don't agree with the handling of the war in Iraq or the decision to invade. But I do worry that one of the administrations central tenets about needing to "fight an away game" will come true once we are out of Iraq. At that time I'm a little nervous Al Qaeda and other related groups might start focusing their efforts inside our borders or on our interests outside Iraq/Afghanistan.

Furthermore, I feel fairly safe that no one from Al Qaeda is going to get a brainstorm from this particular forum. So I thought it might be interesting/terrifying to think about the stuff they could be doing to us right now:

1) Forest fires in the west. These billion $ blazes are always being started by accident or by some local yahoo. Imagine what kind of damage a dedicated team could do.

2) DC-style sniper attacks. Again look at what those two losers were able to accomplish with a high-powered rifle and a car. I'm thinking of LA, where everyone is outside all the time. All it would take is to knock-off a few random people scattered around the metro area - including maybe a few kids at soccer games - to really bring down the quality of life for 12 million people. Many people will take the risks of getting shot themselves, but be reluctant to take even a ghost of a chance with their kids' lives. The key would be to make it clear kids aren't safe AND the whole metro area is at risk.

3) Dirty nukes. This has been discussed a lot, and I'm no expert on the subject. But I did have an interesting discussion with a guy who works at Los Alamos in NM about the feasibilty of a dirty nuke. He listed 5 incredibly simple ways you could basically make a 10-square block section of Manhattan uninhabitable. Some including off the shelf products. I won't go into any more detail on that.

Anyway, if this thread is dangerous somehow please delete it. But I feel relatively safe that from this forum we're not going to give anyone any ideas that they haven't already thought of, or I wouldn't post it.

BUT OBVIOUSLY NO FORMULAS OR SPECIFICS PLEASE!

[WLVRYN]

I have always thought that doing some small scale attacks in middle America would freak many people out: Blow up a mall in Iowa. Set fire to a movie theater in Michigan. Blow up a bus in Ohio. Attack a school anywhere. Just a bunch of little attacks in areas where people think they are safe (outside or in the suburbs of major cities). It also seems these would be easier to set off and less likely for law enforecement to foil with fewer people involved.

[goofball]

Well, like on 24 random suicide bombings. The reality is I don't think it would take much. This country has a culture of fear propagated by the media and sometimes the politicians.

I mean, how much fearmongering has been able to happen thanks to one incident that resulted in 5k deaths more then 5 years ago.

Also, I dunno how hard it would be to contaminate water supply but the resovoirs I've seen aren't guarded.

[NLSoldier]

Yikes i think this is an interesting topic but i dont wanna touch it.

[daryn]

the best thing they could do is just infect a ton of martyrs with smallpox and just put them on planes and fly them all over the country

[milliondollaz]

How hard is it to get a rocket launcher, you know, one of those shoulder mounted surface to air missiles? 60 minutes and BS like that tell me you just need to find the black market (locations everywhere!) in Russia and you're golden.

But I would guess that it would be possible to buy some in Mexico, and drive them back. Maybe live down there for a couple years, get involved with the Marijuana trade, go to Amazon and buy all the networking books you can, and put them into practice! Can't be too long till you find someone with weapons.

I see planes land all the time, and there are TONS of businesses, warehouses, and roads located by major runways.

I have also seen Air Force One land close up, but that's getting on the edge. (is it wrong that i'm scared of the government enough to not type more out about that??)

This is purely in theory, but I would probably mail a bunch of packages full of messages to all the major newspapers BEFORE any attacks, so they would be postmarked and have validity, but scheduled to arrive AFTER they have happened.

I would probably claim Israel, and the fundamentalist Jewish sect that is tired of "Christian Americans" trying to influence the world. Then we really all WOULD start to hate each other, PLUS Israel has nuclear weapons! BEAT!

Our society is soo vulnerable, that a bunch of really smart people could really do a lot.

[traz]

I think there's something to be said for the possibility that many terrorists really don't want mass hysteria. With enough people willing to sacrifice themselves, terrorists could obviously do all kinds of damage, but it's my thinking that it doesn't really serve a purpose for them.

What fuels terrorism? What causes it? A large part of it is a feeling of being disrespected and poorly treated, due to foreign policy etc. I think the acts of violence we see are the results of being pushed to the brink and simply not knowing how else to react. That's why they lash out occassionally. They don't want to decimate America, they want to just prove that they are not to be kicked around.

At least, that's what I think. I don't think terrorists are as "I WANT ALL AMERICANS TO DIE FOR THE SAKE OF IT" as things are being portrayed. Because as already outlined, it'd be relatively easy to kill mass amounts of Americans, and they don't seem to be trying all that hard.

[jgorham]

Smallpox is really hard to come by, luckily.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
If Al Qaeda really wanted to mess with us...

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd make aqua teen hunger force Mooninite LED art that actually are bombs.

[flatline]

They could get a water balloon launcher or something similar, some grenades, and lob a bunch of them into a big football stadium during a nationally televised game.

The attack middle america plan would also be really successful and easy. Shoot up/ blow up a few elementary schools and it would cause a decade of panic.

[suzzer99]

So lets say we pull out of Iraq in a few years, then Al Qaeda pulls some big crap over here. What would our action be? Invade Syria? Do we just end up making it one Arab country for every major strike on our soil?

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
the best thing they could do is just infect a ton of martyrs with smallpox and just put them on planes and fly them all over the country

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't smallpox hard to get ahold of? or do crazy scientist in third world countries have samples?

edit: nevermind, someone already asked this. but i supposed the concept holds with other infectious diseases.

[cbloom]

There aren't really any supergerms like that which are accessible to terrorists. They're kept under tight security.

They could pretty easily fill a U-Haul with a fertilizer bomb ala Oklahoma City and blow it up inside the Holland Tunnel or something like that. Not only would you do damage but you'd create panic in the city and freeze traffic for weeks.

[CORed]

Tank car full of propane + thermite. 5+ years after 9/11, and rail yards are still insecure. A tank car full of propane makes a hell of a bomb if you can get it all to blow at once.

Chlorine or anhydrous ammonia cars could cause a lot of disruption, too. It might or might not cause a lot of casualties, depending on where the car was ruptured, wind direction and speed, etc. but it would certainly force mass evacuations and cause a lot of disruption.

Actually if they were really serious about screwing us up, they could have followed up 9/11 with lots of bombs in airport terminals when the lines to get through security were ridiculously long I really thought we were leaving ourselves wide open when we started backing people up in the non-secure part of the airport. They could have created havoc either with suicide bombers or just by leaving suitcases with bombs in the unsecured part of the terminal, but for some reason they never did.

[CharlieDontSurf]

AlQueda isn't dumb.

Fighting the US and its allies in Iraq and Afg does far more good for them as an organization then launching multiple attacks in US does.

The attacks in US are simply symbolic nothing more.

[eviljeff]

what if they removed all the flavor packets from Top Ramen?

[Waterfall]

For the Big Dig in Boston they basically replaced all the above ground highways through the city with huge tunnels. These things are enormous, took years to build, cost billions, and are very important infrastructure.

There have been numerous cases of the walls and ceilings leaking water, and over the summer a ceiling panel fell right off and crushed a woman in her car. So they are certainly not indestructible. I have thought of how damaging it would be if one of those Truck bombs was able to detonate inside and cause a collapse.

[gusmahler]

I've read that if, instead of attacking the WTC, they attacked the nuclear plant just upriver of NYC, they could have killed a lot more.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nu...ower-plant.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant.html)

[Rearden]

You realize that by posting in this thread the NSA is watching you.....

Just kidding (I hope)

If they really wished to impact quality of life in this country.... widespread and planned attacks on the nations power grid. Remember that blackout in NYC and most of the northeast a while back cause by some transformer failure in like Canada?.... yeah imagine that... a whole summer of random rolling blackouts cutting power to factories, banks, etc, likely very very little to no loss of life but it would cripple the economy of the region and eventually the country. I know very little about the inner workings of our countries power system but Im sure its not so redundant that there wouldnt be pinch points where a well placed bomb or series of bombs would knock out power to millions.

Of course the ultimate version of this is an EMP impacting a large urban area..... welcome to the 1800s instantly

Ive always thought that smuggling in a few RPGs into the country (or Stingers... afghanistan has a few lying around I think) and setting up shop near a few airports at random would empty the skies.

Additionally, New Years Eve... Times Square... I have never been there then but with an incredible concentration of people in an outdoor area I worry that its only a matter of time until something happens at such a gathering (Im surprised it hasnt already).

[El Diablo]

All,

I thought we'd see some hot Persian HIV chicks by now.

[jbrent33]

I saw around that somewhere (Chicago maybe) around Christmas they caught a guy that was planning going into a mall with an assault rifle and unloading on the crowd.

I would think if this happened in multiple locations it could cause serious economic problems. It would also be easy to carry out and almost impossible to prevent. One guy two handguns w/15 round mags = 10-20 people shot. If it happened in middle America it would be all the more frightening.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
what if they removed all the flavor packets from Top Ramen?

[/ QUOTE ]

They remove the dessicates from every article of clothing in the country.

[xorbie]

... we wouldn't be able to stop them.

[mjkidd]

If I were in charge of Al Queda, I'd try to kill the president. I'd use a heavy mortar (120 mm). These are light artillery peices with a lot of power and decent range (max 3 miles or so). They are small and light enough to be transported by a normal car and a trailer (the modern US army 120 mm mortar is about 350 lb). I'd attack when the president is giving a speech to a crowd. Have an observer in the crowd with a GPS device who can estimate the position of the prez. The mortar crew (with it's own GPS) sets up at an appropriate site probably 2-3 miles away or so, and lobs 20-30 rounds on the president's position. The chance of killing the president is low, but the impact would be massive. After that, I'd try the same thing at open-air sports stadia. The casualties there, between the mortar bombs and the panic would be massive. The key to both operations would be having a robust enough security force around the mortar to give the crew a chance to do its work. This would be easy at the stadium and hard at the president's speech.

I wrote about specifics because I think that Americans need to think more about these subjects. Our enemies certainly are. As cryptogrophers say, security by obscurity does not work.

Edited to make the implied "if I were Al Queda" explicit.

[kipin]

I think a lot of you guys have it wrong.

Al Qaeda isn't really about inflicting the most casualties, they are about carrying out SPECTACULAR events that trigger an overreaction from everyone (Citizens, governmentt, media).

Al Qaeda would never want to send smallpox martyrs to America because it isn't a visible thing. Sure it would induce hysteria but no one would know it was Al Qaeda and they want the recognition more than anything else.

Terrorism is all about symbolism, not inflicting as much death as possible.

[kickpushcoast]

after the "success" of their 9/11 attack, the lack of further attacks on American soil definitely throws a red flag up and makes me skeptical as to how much they were behind the original attacks

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
after the "success" of their 9/11 attack, the lack of further attacks on American soil definitely throws a red flag up and makes me skeptical as to how much they were behind the original attacks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh lord.

Go post in ed's OOT thread please.

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd try to kill the president. I'd use a heavy mortar (120 mm). These are light artillery peices with a lot of power and decent range (max 3 miles or so). They are small and light enough to be transported by a normal car and a trailer (the modern US army 120 mm mortar is about 350 lb). I'd attack when the president is giving a speech to a crowd. Have an observer in the crowd with a GPS device who can estimate the position of the prez. The mortar crew (with it's own GPS) sets up at an appropriate site probably 2-3 miles away or so, and lobs 20-30 rounds on the president's position. The chance of killing the president is low, but the impact would be massive. After that, I'd try the same thing at open-air sports stadia. The casualties there, between the mortar bombs and the panic would be massive. The key to both operations would be having a robust enough security force around the mortar to give the crew a chance to do it's work. This would be easy at the stadium and hard at the president's speech.

I wrote about specifics because I think that Americans need to think more about these subjects. Our enemies certainly are. As cryptogrophers say, security by obscurity does not work.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot easier / less complicated methods of accomplishing the same thing.

For example, go to Texas, kill one of his hunting buddies or someone else with a significant relationship with the president. Or kill another politician. I just think attacking a civilian would be easier. Kill him in a car accident or something like that, although straight up murder would be workable I guess. I just think it would be less detectable / predictable if it appears to be an accident.

Of course, the president attends the funeral. Steal a tanker truck full of fuel or two or three. Drive it into the church during the funeral.

Someone above mentioned that our railways are unguarded. So are our highways. How hard would it be to off a driver and steal his truck?

[cbloom]

Taking out the power grid is a good one.

Also I always thought it's still pretty trivial to kill the president with a sniper rifle.

And yes, the NSA is surely seeing this thread since they filter all internet traffic for certain keywords which are definitely showing up here.

Also, the +EV for Al Qaeda attacking the US is pretty low at the moment. After 9/11 they attacked several of our allies to break the coalition and they succeeded. By causing problems in the middle east they are creating more and more grass-roots support for themselves.

Their best move might be something like a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia against the Sunni/Wahabi government. That would cause the monarchy there to crack down on the primarily Shi'ite population which would possibly lead to a revolt there and at least increase the already great support for Al Qaeda. (they're already doing similar things in Pakistan). These are the type of areas they want to be involved in, Somalia, Niger, etc.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of you guys have it wrong.

Al Qaeda isn't really about inflicting the most casualties, they are about carrying out SPECTACULAR events that trigger an overreaction from everyone (Citizens, governmentt, media).

Al Qaeda would never want to send smallpox martyrs to America because it isn't a visible thing. Sure it would induce hysteria but no one would know it was Al Qaeda and they want the recognition more than anything else.

Terrorism is all about symbolism, not inflicting as much death as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many things listed above would have a huge "spectacular" effect and a massive (over)reaction. If one day they blew up elementary schools in rural Nebraska, Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio people wouldn't go batshit crazy?

[mjkidd]

I think it would be a lot harder than you think to kill the president with a sniper rifle. Whenever the president goes, he is accompanied by the Secret Service Countersniper team. These are ten guys with binoculars and rifles who are trained to kill anyone with a rifle who comes near the president.

[El Diablo]

mj,

I don't think killing anyone, including the President, is really that tough for someone who is willing to get caught or die.

[BigPoppa]

High school sporting events, shopping malls, churches....

This country is one big soft target

[By-Tor]

I have nothing to add other then I get a decent laugh when people say "blow up a shopping mall".

We realize how large, and more importantly, spread-out shopping malls are right?

Hell...we have Cessna's crash into them all the time around here and they don't even leave a dent.

Maybe they will pipe in propane and then ignight it? Carpet suicide bombers? I don't know...but anything less then this is barely going to put a dent in a Jamba Juice, let alone an entire shopping mall.

[Bob Moss]

For those of you who haven't heard, Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
mj,

I don't think killing anyone, including the President, is really that tough for someone who is willing to get caught or die.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. I certainly don't think the president's security is ironclad, but I think it's probably tougher than most people would expect. I was responding to someone who said it would be "trivial" to kill the prez with a rifle.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing to add other then I get a decent laugh when people say "blow up a shopping mall".

We realize how large, and more importantly, spread-out shopping malls are right?

Hell...we have Cessna's crash into them all the time around here and they don't even leave a dent.

Maybe they will pipe in propane and then ignight it? Carpet suicide bombers? I don't know...but anything less then this is barely going to put a dent in a Jamba Juice, let alone an entire shopping mall.

[/ QUOTE ]

12 men with AK-47's and shotguns can blow up a lot of heads inside the mall (or school) though. I think the reason we haven't seen a follow up is that they want attack #2 to be "better" than #1. You can't follow up 9/11 by killing 3 retards with an IED.

[kickpushcoast]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after the "success" of their 9/11 attack, the lack of further attacks on American soil definitely throws a red flag up and makes me skeptical as to how much they were behind the original attacks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh lord.

Go post in ed's OOT thread please.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do people get so up in arms and exasperated when someone questions the status quo, and what we're being fed my the media? i didnt espouse any wild conspiracy theories, i just said im skeptical, is that not ok anymore?

[CharlieDontSurf]

We haven't had a followup because instead of having to fly to USA and spend lots of $$ they can now just go down the street to Iraq and cause massive longterm political and economic damage to the middle east while breeding new supporters.

Plus why go all the way across the Atlantic to kill Americans when u can just go to Iraq

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Al Qaeda really wanted to mess with us...

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd make aqua teen hunger force Mooninite LED art that actually are bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was funny and scary at the same time

[jl3969]

Well, as long as Jack Bauer is on the scene, I'm sure we'll be fine. Cept for LA, they're [censored].

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
We haven't had a followup because instead of having to fly to USA and spend lots of $$ they can now just go down the street to Iraq and cause massive longterm political and economic damage to the middle east while breeding new supporters.


[/ QUOTE ]

True 'nough. The primary goal of Al Qaeda has never been to destroy America. It's to restore the Caliphate and have a muslim empire in the middle east governed by sharia. If they can help extremists take over Iraq that would be a direct step towards their goal.

[suzzer99]

Supposedly there is a decent amount of dissent within Al Qaeda over the long term stratgeic implications of 9/11. Many in the organization felt it was a huge blunder, as it motivated the American populace and got an 800 lb gorilla breathing down their necks.

This could all be US propaganda. But it certainly seems plausible, and could explain the dearth of attacks here since.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Can't get the guy in the middle seat to shut up? Click this link on your laptop:

http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf

[guids]

Ive thought about this for awhile, imo, they dont want to do anything "widespread", nukes, smallpox, etc, are going to do nothing more than bring the wrath down on terror. If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo). The last thing Al Queda wants to do is mobilize the citizens of the US. Thier goal, imo, changed after 9/11. At first, ya, maybe they just wanted to blow up a great symbol of our economy, but once they realized that they did such a great job of fractionizing the country, the re-evaluated things.

[Howard Treesong]

I think our most vulnerable infrastructure point is our oil refineries. As I recall it, not a single new refinery has been built in 20+ years because of political/environmental concerns. They're full of flammables and one would think that a well-placed Stinger or RPG shot could really do some damage -- do this to three refineries and oil prices go waaaaaaay up.

It has the secondary benefit of shoveling more money to that lunatic Chavez.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is completely wrong. The idea that the "media" or a lack of "cohesiveness" has somehow hurt the war on terror is a fabrication of the Bush white house. Al Qaeda has made great gains by provoking an incorrect over-reaction. The US was almost completely cohesively in support of strong response after 9/11 and that support was irrelevant because the actions taken were not correct. The reality is that even a massive amount of force & support cannot fight terrorist organizations without lots of international support (eg. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. etc.), and using military force without also using diplomatic and developmental power is actually a negative thing because it just stirs up the factors that motivate & create terrorists.

If Al Qaeda was smart, they would avoid doing anything so rotten that it would turn countries like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia against them. Like, for example if they released a bio-agent that killed half the population of the whole world or something, they would become hated even by the states that tolerate them, and that would be disastrous. Anything they do which only angers America and doesn't really affect the rest of the world wouldn't really hurt them too badly, because America on its own can't ever do too much against them.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is completely wrong. The idea that the "media" or a lack of "cohesiveness" has somehow hurt the war on terror is a fabrication of the Bush white house. Al Qaeda has made great gains by provoking an incorrect over-reaction. The US was almost completely cohesively in support of strong response after 9/11 and that support was irrelevant because the actions taken were not correct. The reality is that even a massive amount of force & support cannot fight terrorist organizations without lots of international support (eg. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. etc.), and using military force without also using diplomatic and developmental power is actually a negative thing because it just stirs up the factors that motivate & create terrorists.

If Al Qaeda was smart, they would avoid doing anything so rotten that it would turn countries like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia against them. Like, for example if they released a bio-agent that killed half the population of the whole world or something, they would become hated even by the states that tolerate them, and that would be disastrous. Anything they do which only angers America and doesn't really affect the rest of the world wouldn't really hurt them too badly, because America on its own can't ever do too much against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you took it the wrong way. Yes, right after 9/11 we were cohesive, but over the last 2 years, that has changed, the reason for this is because of the "botched" war in the mid-east. The reason it was botched is because due to media coverage, and politicians, you can no longer fight a "real war" due to the fact that the savagery that is needed to win a war is no longer tolerated by the media/leftwing (whether we should have gone into Iraq, as far as this discussion goes is a moot point). War sucks, but to win one, you have to be ruthless, Bush botched the war, whether were should have fought it or not doesnt matter, it is because he wasnt savage enough. If Bush and co, get in, get saddam out, asap, its a whole different story. Things are ever-changing, they have evolved now, there is a ton of infighting in our country, it really doesnt matter what the reason is, now that the enemies have realized they are on to something, they are waging an all out war to keep us fighting ourselves. You say the reason America cant ever do too much against them, is because people like you wont let the people who have the ability to wipe them out do thier job.

[mntbikr15]

Im astonished that any of you are contributing real ideas on an internet message board. It was mentioned but the NSA and prob half a dozen other alphabet soup agencies that we havent even heard of are monitoring such things.

Just doesnt seem prudent to talk about it here, even if it is all "hypothetical"

Enjoy being flagged for the rest of time.

[RonMexico]

al Qaeda is not what 95% of you think it is. Only two posters in this forum have made reasonable posts. Stop watching so much TV and do some research.

[WhoIam]

I always thought the best thing terrorists could do would be to launch three simultaneous mall suicide bombings on December 20th, one in a city, one in a suburb, and one in a rural area. No one would feel safe shopping again and the economy would take a big hit. All this for the price of three operatives.

[DrunkHamster]

Based on what seems like the latest plot over here in England, (for those of you who don't know a group were planning to kidnap, torture and behead a Muslim serving in the army), the most scary thing a bunch of terrorists could do would be to kidnap and behead randomly chosen people off the street and put the videos on the internet. I'm fairly sure with solid preparation they could get through quite a few people before getting caught, and I can't think of anything which would question peoples perception of their own safety more.

[Velocity]

hijacking/exploding some of those oil tanker trucks that drive on the interstate systems seems like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

[mmbt0ne]

Bombing two warehouses outside of Harrisburg could shut down the entire supply chain for about 50 of the biggest businesses in the world. That would be their best bang for the buck if they wanted economic disaster.

If you want to cause a mess and scare the [censored] out of people then you blow up a plane, but you do it about 3 seconds after takeoff while it's still over the runway.

[Howard Treesong]

Elaborate, please. Random criticism without explanation isn't really so useful.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing to add other then I get a decent laugh when people say "blow up a shopping mall".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall anyone actually saying "blow up a shopping mall".

I, however, did say that a shopping mall is a great soft target. A food court at prime time will have a few hundred people in it and they're almost all set up so that you could drive a truck straight through the doors into the middle of it.

[PartyPooperGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the best thing terrorists could do would be to launch three simultaneous mall suicide bombings on December 20th, one in a city, one in a suburb, and one in a rural area. No one would feel safe shopping again and the economy would take a big hit. All this for the price of three operatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be misguided. It would only serve to speed the migration to online shopping, thereby increasing society's overall efficiency. The government should do this kind of thing to boost the economy.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
DC-style sniper attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely and at the time was wondering why Al Qaeda hadn't done this. Sending out 15 teams into random areas throughout the country could cripple the nation with fear. Then release a few videos taunting the US. I am genuinely surprised they haven't done something like this.

[Alobar]

It would be ridiculously easy for them to organize crippling terror in this country, it wouldnt take much money or many men, or much organization. Like some are saying. Just put a man in like 20 different cities and have him be the DC sniper. The country would be gripped by fear and it would go on for MONTHS.

I remember a thread like this a while back in OOT and someone said something to the effect that since this stuff obviously isnt happing, that they either dont either have the desire or the means, which was kind of a realization as I had never thought about it like that since all we hear on TV is about hieghtened terror alerts and what not. Which to me means a lot of this terror stuff is just fear mongering by our own government and media.

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember a thread like this a while back in OOT and someone said something to the effect that since this stuff obviously isnt happing, that they either dont either have the desire or the means, which was kind of a realization as I had never thought about it like that since all we hear on TV is about hieghtened terror alerts and what not. Which to me means a lot of this terror stuff is just fear mongering by our own government and media.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Terrorism" and "protect the children" are the two root passwords to openly violate the Constitution. It sucks that we live in a society that is so willing to give up freedoms for the appearance of security.

Just look at the statistics of terrorism and it is [censored] ridiculous that we spend that much money "preventing" something like 3,000 people from dying each year.

Security in the US is a joke and is just meant to make people feel better.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
Which to me means a lot of this terror stuff is just fear mongering by our own government and media.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it just means they are making a strategic decision to leave us alone on our own soil for now. It's hard to imagine Al Qaeda not having the resources for 2 dudes, a car and a rifle.

[Josem]

This seems like a good reason to not let Iraq (or Afghanistan) become a base for terrorists.

[Osprey]

It seems like it would be simple to get multiple suitcase sized bombs onto an Amtrak train and blow them up in central train stations in Boston, New York, or Washington- you might even get the whole train to blow if you did it right. You also don't need anyone to actually be on the train when it blows.

[ryanghall]

Careful guys. Suzzer has taken one too many bad beats and may just use some of these ideas when he finally snaps.

Ryan

[kutuz_off]

All of you need to look at Israel. Why did all those "random bombings" and "DC sniper in 15 cities" scenarios not shut down that country, but would so deeeeefinitely stop all life in the USA? Israel has been experiencing that for over a decade now.