something I can't figure out about terrorism...

[SNOWBALL]

If it's really true that there are a really large number of people in the world that are part of terrorist organizations who are dedicated to killing americans, then why aren't there more terrorist attacks in the US? I mean, it's really not that difficult. The VT shooter acted alone and killed 32 people. If he did more prep and had a team, he should have been able to kill a lot more.

You could argue that there is a shortage of terrorists who don't have the balls to do VT style stuff or another 911 style attack, but what about less risky terrorist attacks? Like they could put aids needles in gas pump handles, phone booth change slots, hand out razor blade apples, adulterate store products with poison, etc. all the while contacting the media and bragging about all the people they killed.

I'm pretty sure if I wanted to I could kill at least 100 people. Here's a plan off the top of my head: Set off a molotov in a crowded club, and everyone will stampede eachother to death.

Here's another: Get a powerful machine gun into a movie theater. Half of the people will either get shot of stampede eachother to death.

I think the absence of attacks like this lends some credence to the false flag ideas that Nielso talks about.

An obvious counterpoint is that the lack of attacks on the US can be attributed to the war on terrorism. Is that plausible? Is it really believable that the US is able to stop every single terrorist? We can't keep out millions of illegal immigrants. How can we claim to keep terrorists out of the US?

edit: It should be possible to kill at least a couple hundred people a day almost risk free with the right poison. Just go from supermarket to supermarket and inject various foods with the poison. Preferably it would be something that doesn't kill you right away.

[SNOWBALL]

I think at the very least you have to conclude that we have greatly overestimated the number of terrorists in the world that are dedicated to killing americans.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I think at the very least you have to conclude that we have greatly overestimated the number of terrorists in the world that are dedicated to killing americans.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree. Either 1) virtually all terrorists don't know their ass from a hole in the ground or 2) there are very, very few terrorists out there. Possiblity 3) that our intel and war on terror is just that good seems rather implausible to me, since even tiny (3 people or less) organizations could cause tremendous damage with a modicum of creativity and planning.

[bobman0330]

There's a big difference between you or me going out and randomly killing a bunch of people and an al Qaeda terrorist doing it. You and I are, I assume, American citizens, never in close contact with radical Islamic or other terrorist linked groups, never been to Pakistan or other terrorist training locations, etc.

You or I killing a bunch of people would be, like the VT shootings, an inherently random act of violence, and by its nature hard to defend against. Terrorist acts are inherently unrandom. I'm talking out of my ass here, but I bet that gives law enforcement a pretty huge advantage.

Add to that the terrorist's desire to do something spectacular, and I don't see it as that much of a mystery.

[SNOWBALL]

more ideas:

I saw this one on law and order criminal intent. You replace pharmaceutical bottles with doctored ones. If you are good enough at sleight of hand, a video camera couldn't even tell you were doing this. Obviously, some of the pills, but not all, would be lethal, and the rest would be normal. This is a way for a built in stochastic time delay on people dying, so that the store won't just get shut down on the first day. That way more people buy your products.

If you vary the products that you sabotage, then it's even better. Do different sections of the store. Make some mayonaisse deadly but only the mayo on the bottom of the jar. Same with peanut butter, jelly, different spices, etc.
If you did this at a store like walmart, you would wreak havoc and cause terror. They might even have replace all the inventory and shut down the whole store for weeks or more.

If I can come up with half-decent ideas like this pretty easily, then some terrorists should be able to come up with much better ones, and execute some of them.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a big difference between you or me going out and randomly killing a bunch of people and an al Qaeda terrorist doing it. You and I are, I assume, American citizens, never in close contact with radical Islamic or other terrorist linked groups, never been to Pakistan or other terrorist training locations, etc.

You or I killing a bunch of people would be, like the VT shootings, an inherently random act of violence, and by its nature hard to defend against. Terrorist acts are inherently unrandom. I'm talking out of my ass here, but I bet that gives law enforcement a pretty huge advantage.

Add to that the terrorist's desire to do something spectacular, and I don't see it as that much of a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

bob,

Your argument seems to support the idea that there really aren't that many terrorists. If there were, then it'd be impossible to stop all of them and there would have been some kind of attack in the last 5 and a half years.

[Taso]

His idea is that the government is more able to unearth terrorist plans because they must be shared and spread around, and quite a few people know about them, eventually a mistake will be made. Whereas a random act like VT, hardly anyone knows about, just the VT guy and maybe 1 or 2 other people.

Your ideas are frightening snowball, I'm glad I grow my own food, and make my own medicine, and bring an automatic weapon to the movies with me. I don't for real, and yeah, anyone could do that stuff you said, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's already some agency checking out this thread :P

[PLOlover]

it was in the papers after 911 that the cia/fbi whatever had officially estimated the total number of alkida at some ridiculously small number like 100 or 200. worldwide.

you could extend your argument by pointing out that every single publicized case of stopping terrorists in the US, with the exception of things like the head of the JDL bombing congressmens offices and stuff, has been a government agent going out and paying a bunch of retards and/or juvenille street thugs to say they are going to carry out terrorist attacks. For example, a guy was gonna chop down the brooklyn bridge with a handheld "magic" chainsaw. And these are the cases that the government points to to pat themselves on the back on how good of a job they are doing fighting terrorism. So it's pretty obvious there arent any real terrorists in the 24 style.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
... your ideas are frightening, snowball... and [i] bring an automatic weapon to the movies with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Do you live in Baghdad, or are you trying to turn your area in a Baghdad like environment?

I had heard about the nutters in pseudo militias in the US, but bringing an automatic to go to the movies!!!

Your behavior is frightening!

[boracay]

agree. war on terror is a myth produced for other reasons.

certainly there are terrorist groups out there somewhere, but they always were.
the next question is - they know where AQ camps are - how much afford was put in destroying them in northern pakistan / afghanistan? how much afford was put on capturing no.1 state enemy? one gets a feeling that administration doesn't believe AQ is such a threat, otherwise actions would be somehow different.

another myth is war on drugs - it sounds funny, but afghanistan is now producing more amount opium than ever before. from 2005 to 2006 opium cultivation in afghanistan increased a staggering 59%, accounting for an estimated 92% of the world market! wouldn't one expect some actions in reducing the harvest if the war on drugs is a real agenda?

the question is - what's the purpose of those producing myths of wars by administrations, when it's clear that the same administrations doesn't fight against them? does they need myths of neverending wars for other reasons?