Greetings All !
I guess everyone is aware that the probability of at least one more 9/11 occuring on US soil is very high. So what's your guess to when it will happen ?
Please NOTE: I am referring to the scale of the attack. Not the methods.
Printable View
Greetings All !
I guess everyone is aware that the probability of at least one more 9/11 occuring on US soil is very high. So what's your guess to when it will happen ?
Please NOTE: I am referring to the scale of the attack. Not the methods.
Umm, where's the "I have no freakin' clue" option? 'Cuz frankly, I have no freakin' clue.
I would disagree with your premise. I think the probability is vanishingly small, not least because 9-11 resulted from a "perfect storm" of incompetence and bad luck that is unlikely to be repeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
So, never.
I think the probability of a successful attack on the scale of 9/11 is very small for the next 2 or 3 decades at least, so I voted never :shrug:
I was thinking along the same lines. It's absurd to think that there will never be another attack, but within the timescale? No.
Well that would be great! Let's hope so.
Only problem is that this kind of attack is necessary to galvanise a population, unfortunately I think it will happen again. Simply because there's hardly any annual progress against Al Qaeda. How about this year ? What was achieved ? Asolutely nothing, they are still operating perfectly sound.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Let's face it, using airliners as weapons was a one-shot trick. Passengers and airline staff were prepared for hijackings, so they were all schooled to sit back, make no threatening moves and generally wait for professionals to handle the crisis. That will never happen again. I guarantee you that passengers, pilots and stewards/esses will fight like rabid wombats if someone tries to take over a plane.
But that doesn't mean AQ-inspired groups can't strike at the west. By my count, they've already done so twice, with much success.
Oops, by 9/11, I am referring to the scale of the attack. Not the methods.
I kinda doubt AQ will have another diabolically clever scheme like the airliner attack. Unless they get their hands on some nuclear material in their home base, Pakistan, that is. And as far as scale goes, the Madrid bombing killed 191 people and wounded 2,050. The London bombing killed 52 people and injured 700. Not exactly small-time.
Also, a point about the two city bombings. Unless they strike a city with such a rail system (NY, Chicago), they'll have to try on the interstate or bridges, both of which cause fewer deaths than Madrid or London.
Really? You surprised me with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The American borders are as porous as ever. The technology available to nasty people increases every day. Complacency, ignorance, corruption, and human error plagues the US government (as it does all governments at all times). Worst of all, Bush's policies have increased hatred towards the US, not just amongst radicals, but all levels of people.
That perfect storm will come out of the blue, just like 9/11. In the place and at the time you least expect it, through methods you might never have considered..
Bang! keyword there => complacency.
Let me introduce another one => complicity.
I think if America continues down the path of Middle Eastern Imperialism (Call it whatever else you want...) that they seem to be going down then it will occur in the very near future (I didn't vote because there is no "Depends..." option). However, if America tries to actually help the area, rather than strengthening the terrorists by displacing civilians, then I would hazard a guess that it would be a long time off.
Here we go, New Year's propaganda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7164520.stm
hehe! They knew questions shall be asked.
I think if the rest of the world continue down a path of jealosy...Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Oh don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Voted never as well. From a terrorists view it was perfection, they could never organise something that makes a bigger impression.
Perfection? Impossible to make a bigger impression? Every heard of a nuclear bomb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It is of course, possible, but one has to consider the ability of the radicals to accomplish their aims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Al Quaeda (let's treat it as an "organisation" for the sake of this argument, as the premise is another 9-11) has a strategic flaw as a terrorist organisation. In attempts to strike the West, it seeks only the spectacular.
The primary goal of the terrorist is to strike terror. This is best done through small scale, random and unpredictable events. One-off spectaculars are remarkably difficult to pull off, and every failure loses a whole group of skilled operatives (because the spectaculars require skill and teamwork, not just the odd dullard prepared to blow himself to glory).
As I have noted before, it would be relatively easy to paralyse any western democracy with constant small-scale attacks. If al Quaeda was any good, it would have had sleepers across the US in place long before 9-11, and these would have continued sniper and bomb attacks for years afterwards, capitalising on the raw fear and undermining administrations unable to do much to stop them. It would be remarkably easy to bomb a mall or two every two months, alongside random shootings, utility and transport attacks. The materials (such as fertiliser, chemicals, high-power weapons and so on) are readily available. The biggest challenge would be the lack of a supportive community, but the USA is a big place and easy to hide in - or as you note, cross the borders into/out of. This kind of campaign would be very difficult to stop.
In reality, al Quaeda is a loose knit, very fractious collection of groups with no central agenda beyond a kind of incoherent, quasi-religious platform. They actually resemble the disparate terror groups of Monty Python's Palestine (splitters!) more than anything else, especially in their tribal hatreds for each other. Most of their objectives are actually focussed on their immediate locations - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and such, as these provide much more wish-fulfilment and real opportunity than their leaders' hopes for the big spectacular.
Western governments have given this bunch of amateurs way too much credit and boosted their numbers by this demonisation, and by strategic blunders like Iraq. The latter however has the advantage of being, to use Divinus Arma's eloquent phrase, a roach motel, keeping the jihadists happily occupied with their very own western forces easily to hand. That resentment you speak of is certainly there, and unhelpful, but the angry Afghan peasant is not interested in the abstract that is the Bush administration - beyond a convenient flag to burn and dance upon - but will be very interested in the local Taleban's offer of succour. We are undermining those who would be our allies, not endangering ourselves.
Lemur set out the other leg of my argument - since 9-11, security services have become much better at their jobs. Or rather, they have learned that their job is no longer the Cold War, but dealing with largely random nut-jobs. Civilian police forces have been integrated more fully into the intelligence networks. We could have done much more to co-opt civilian groups too, but we have tarred all Muslims with one brush and managed to alienate our best sources. Intelligence knows pretty well what is possible and knowing that, it is much more likely to detect the building of a spectacular and disrupt it. Indeed, the development of a team of skilled persons needed to bring off a spectacular gives a lot of opportunities for infiltration and thus really robust intelligence.
Where I would disagree with my prosimian colleague is in placing Madrid and London in the same frame as 9-11. Madrid is closest, but both are classic examples of terror - really soft targets, no real skill involved in co-ordination, timing equals casualties. If we faced a really intractable terrorist threat, we'd be seeing those kind of attacks every few months. In London, they tried and failed two weeks later - largely because they were clowns.
For those concerned about a nuclear attack, be comforted by the knowledge that it is all but impossible. Smuggling such a device into a country like the USA is pretty much beyond the capability of these groups and so-called suitcase bombs are the stuff of silly films. What would be very easy to do is to set off a dirty bomb - which wouldn't do much damage but would be a terrorist's wet dream because of the irrational panic that would ensue. Give me a month, and I could detonate three across Europe/USA (note to Echelon, still just a theoretical discussion, old fruit) and so could anybody familiar with the set-up. Why hasn't this happened? (Not me doing it, of course, but the ubiquitous Them :wink3: ).
The best test is to look at what has changed since 9-11. The casualties in the West from terrorist attacks are a fraction of those killed on the roads, for example. The real losses have been inflicted on us by our own governments through curtailment of civil liberties and terrorisation by those governments for their own ends. That is the radicals' victory, and they accomplish it with minimal cost to themselves.
Way too flashy to risk, if they have one it will explode somewhere in the middle east or africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadKill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I forgot - never argue with a writer. ~:smoking:
All your points are valid, but using history as a teacher and example, I have a hard time accepting that people cannot do a thing when that thing requires mostly, or only, the will to do it, as opposed to overcoming a technological barrier. And even then...
The tools and methods, along with the capability and opportunity, for a large scale terrorist attack, be it physical and/or psychological, are far too varied and accessible in an open country like the US for an attack to be seen as anything more than difficult at best.
I don't worry (much) about the fifty guys highjacking a fleet of 747s scenario; I worry about the five guys with handguns, a gallon of gasoline, and a Bic lighter, using their imagination and will power to do something unexpected and all out of proportion to their numbers and perceived capability.
Sorry to interrupt your entertainment but, is this supposed to be a bet...Are you betting on souls Sinan? For some reason I find this thread in a terrible bad taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
If the terrorists are clever, they won't make another 9/11 in a long time, because if they did, there's a risk that American troops would withdraw from Iraq, and that is something that the terrorists really don't want to happen, after seeing how effectively the Iraq war undermines American economy and diplomatic strength while China, Russia and India are getting stronger. The next attempt at a 9/11 will probably happen when American troops withdraw from Iraq, whenever that withdrawal happens, to try and provoke another war as costly as that in Iraq. What will be crucial then is whether the security forces will be prepared or not. In the long run, what is crucial is whether the opposition towards extremists within the affected countries grows or decreases. If the war in Iraq is fought by Petraeus' support-gaining strategy there's a decent chance of repairing the damages caused by the strategy that was used earlier in the war. The question is, what ideology will a rising anti-fundamentalistic population in the affected countries choose? Pro-western capitalistic, and repress the poorer layers of their society, which would create a large and strong recruitment layer for terrorist organizations? Or anti-western, which would obviously do the same? Or neutral and socialist-capitalist - the probably best possible scenario?
Indeed, verbosity will bore you out of the debate every time ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
That's my point. The latter scenario is relatively easy to pull off, and if al Quaeda was half the organisation it is made out to be, this would be happening all the time in downtown USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
But the OP was asking about a 9-11 style spectacular.
It may be a problem in translation. When Sinan uses the word probability, he means the likelihood of a similar occurrence, not in the betting sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I read it to mean that he agrees with many analysts that an attack on a similar scale is almost unavoidable, and if this is accepted, whether that is likely to be sooner rather than later.
Subsequent posters are debating whether this is an accurate analysis, or if they agree, offering their views on the likely timescale.
:bow:
No, no problem with translation I just sensed a tone of gambling, the title is pretty suggestive too. The title bares an striking similarity to economic crysis, when you presume it will happen once in a while, doing the same with tragedies such as this is insensible at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Less bored than intimidated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The latter scenario I referred to would be a 9/11 style spectacular. Who ever thought a dozen guys with knives could bring down the Twin Towers? Imagine what a few handguns a a gallon of gas could lead too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It was the stunning surprise and the scale of destruction achieved with so little equipment that made 9/11 so surreal. The next 9/11 could be be just as surprising and destructive, and could still be achieved with "minimum requirements".
Honestly, in terms of organisation the 9-11 attacks was extremely complex. It was not a couple of dozen guys with knives that happened to jump on some planes. Investigations have shown that the preparations took so long and involved so many threads, that if we had the level of intelligence awareness we have now, it would have been detected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
As Lemur pointed out, the likelihood of hijacking planes for suicide bombs is remote now. We have a much better idea of the modus operandi of our enemies. Not having aerial bombs reduces the targets available dramatically.
This does not mean however, that a bunch of nutters can't get fertiliser bombs onto a train and blow several hundred souls to glory. It does mean that if they are directed at all, and involve more than two or three close relatives, we are likely to rumble them first.
If our Intell guys are to be believed, that would be the hallmark of an AQ attack, no? The "message" being sent: "You are helpless to stop us attacking you anytime and anyplace we choose.", thus terrorizing the populace and goading them into spending their fortune, their manpower, and their freedom, in a fruitless attempt to quickly and definitively eliminate the threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
If I were ObL, I'd 'schedule' the next spectacular for Friday, 31 October 2008, when secular america 'celebrates' evil witches and devils and goblins, and kids are running around cities gobbling up america's extravagance - and 4 days before our general election.
I'd add at least the two Bali Bombings to that list:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
2002 Bali Bombing
2005 Bali Bombing
Indeed. The attacks required planning, communications, intelligence, and practice. But in the end, it was exactly that, a few guys with knives, who brought the whole thing to a close. You cannot disregard or underestimate an organization or enemy who managed to pull off an attack like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Agreed. But so many wars have begun so badly for people who were fully prepared to fight the last war. The next attacks, God forbid, could come from the other end of left field, and be just a surprising and just as destructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Agreed. But again, if they fought against the rules last time, odds are they will fight against the rules next time. I agree that the US has improved its defence against this sort of attack, but to say that this sort of attack, a strategic attack (which 9/11 was), cannot happen again is being very optimistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
(Hey, wanna start a flame war? Could be fun. :evil:)
Wow, I thought I'd read some bad jokes on this forum, specially in the back room, until I read this. Then I realised you weren't joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Of course it's not a bet.
:dizzy2:
Well all the points are not valid. BGs post assumes that paralysis or major disruption over time, is the objective of a 9/11. It is not, it is publicity. It's a big public victory is all that it is, for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
dbl post, consolidated above.
Indeed. The question is, since attacking soft targets this way is very easy, why it hasn't happened? (On the US mainland).Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I'm not contending that a terrorist attack against the USA cannot happen again. I'm saying that a 9-11 style spectacular is extremely unlikely. Since 9-11 is used as the benchmark to scare us into believing the War on Terror hype, we are making strategic errors in prosecuting that "war" and overestimating the abilities of the jihadists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I may well be proven wrong. I want to make it clear however, that I am not advocating complacency because of my view, but vigilance against the correct enemy. Far from re-fighting the last war, urging us to realise the true nature of what we face - not what is politically expedient for frightening the populace.
Publicity is certainly an element, but there are many ways to achieve the publicity. And the victory is only granted by our own over-reactions to "terrorism". I repeat, the function of a terrorist is to cause terror. Publicity is a means to that end, but most acts of terror, large or small will generate disproportionate levels of publicity in societies with a free press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
OK. But we'll have to stop all that agreeing nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Here, I'll adopt the Celtic Tiger Method:
Bollox. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Can I join too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
:scastle:
:tongue:
:furious3:
:playingball:
:smg:
Only if you're makingQuote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
https://jimcee.homestead.com/23047944.jpg
Shrimp Flambe' for everyone.
WOW ! That looks delicious !
I'm sorry, but my short attention span with regards to this thread has left me amazed at the speed with which it changed from discussion about predicting the next terrorist attack to shrimp flambe...
Don't worry, the tangent is just a flash in the pan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
I think its because the soft targets have been brought to them in afghanstan and Iraq. While we're no meeting bushes goal of wiping them out there we are instead doing the equivilent of sticking our head into the hornets nest to try to find the best way to stop those random stings. Instead we are meraly giving them easy targets and a better recuriting goal, but making it so that the most cost effective way is for them to fight on the home feild advantage.Quote:
Indeed. The question is, since attacking soft targets this way is very easy, why it hasn't happened? (On the US mainland).
You and me both:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
To get us back on topic I offer up this little blog post from Freakonomics and the subsequent replies from the readers.
Enjoy
I don't think that there will be a 9/11 scale attack in the US as long as we are in Iraq and for at least a year or two afterwards. After that it's anyones guess.
Too bad I'm not much of a chef ~:shrug: Besides, who can flame and argue when there's nice food around ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
a single dirty bomb should do it. In fact, I'm suprised we haven't seen one yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
American Al-Queda:
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/...opydiapft5.jpg
(those are diapers)
The FBI is actually quite good if they're allowed to stop bad guys.
If extremists in Pakistan come to power then they will have a nuclear arsenal in their command. I'm sure the US and the whole world actually do everything they can to stop them. Maybe the extremists cannot use nukes on American soil but countries like India and Israel would be under great threat. Ironic, considering the fact that Islamic extremism was funded by the US back in the 70's and 80's in order to counter Soviet threat. Now they are out of control, here in Turkey as well. Bhutto's and Musherref are American allies even though they compete with each other. It was Condaleeza Rice who encouraged Bhutto to return. The US would like Bhutto to take the power from Musherref but since Bhutto is no more then US will have to back the military government otherwise the scale of the next 9/11 will be catastrophic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Dude how do you guys achieve to post pictures or whatnot like that? I tried a few times but couldn't do it. Okay I admit I can barely use the mouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda are strongly bound to local Islamic conflicts due to the local nature of their recruits. Sure, they may have an ultimate goal of somehow spreading Islamist hegemony and taking down the perceived abstract obstacle in the form of the US in the process, but ultimately they're far more interested in taking political control of their homeland, or creating turmoil there in the process. In that sense Afghanistan was a risk as a safe haven, but it has been shown quite clearly how easy it is to remove fundamentalists from political power. In that sense I find the developments in Pakistan, and to some degree also Iraq worrying; and also the lack of attention given to conflicts in Africa, though that is a slightly different matter.
A problem is the so-called homegrown terrorists, to the attacks of whom Western nations are probably most vulnerable. Yet in those cases, far more control and surveillance can be exercised over the limited amount of mosques where recruitment takes place, and almost all large-scale attacks require assistance from more experienced Jihadists, often from outside or already monitored and greatly increasing the chance of detection. As has been said, the small group with homemade explosives can be a threat but they do not have the level of organization or skill to achieve something like 9/11, certainly not without detection.
So no, I don't think there'll be another 9/11 for quite some time. It'd require another combiniation terrorist safe haven (or also, a sympathetic governmental sponsor, of which there are still enough) and a number of screw-ups by intelligence services (which at least for the next decade I think they've learned from rather well). And I don't think any terrorist attack can ever have quite so much impact anymore on our civil liberties.
Yeah, lkie Iran?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
At least you can still negotiate with Iran, unlike the Taliban when they were in power. In the first place the Iranian leaders are very cunning politicians rather than crazed fundamentalists basing everything off some perverted ideology, and when push comes to shove they'll go for preservation of their own (and their nation's) power rather than gambling on a fruitful afterlife.
Continue to screw the world, and eventually, the world will screw back...
It really is only a matter of time. Rise and fall and all that.
The west and the USA in particular will be hated anyway no matter what it does. This is a war.
On the contrary ten years ago USA was worshipped in Turkey but now majority of the population dislikes USA. There are some factors which effects this. Back in the 70 the US was again hated in Turkey but after the military coup in 1980's there was great pro American propoganda. After the collapse of Soviets things started to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Two years ago, I would have said "Any day now". But an honest consideration of the facts has me following the same line of thinking as Banquo. The simple fact that it hasn't come means that its unlikely to anytime soon. There's been no reason terrorists couldn't have struck us on the same magnitude as 9/11. Even one simple car bomb, in a crowded tunnel like the Holland Tunnel, would have us all whipped up into a frenzy. Maybe the FBI really are that good, but when I see just how easy it is for the hordes from Central America to cross the border, I have a hard time believing that the government is fully aware of each of their's crossing and making a choice to allow them in.
I said 4-6 years. I suspect that right now, Al-Queda is consumed with managing their affairs in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. It makes me believe that they actually want the fight that they have, which I find surprising. The only aim they've accomplished is to diminish the USA's reputation in the Muslim world. In exchange, they've lost large numbers of personnel at all levels, infrastructure, and even some influence of their own. They could have accomplished their goals with much less self-toxic methods.
However, eventually, the USA will withdraw from Iraq. Sometime after that, we'll withdraw from Afghanistan. And the cycle will begin anew. In many ways, Al-Queda (or Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in general) are like borderline sociopathic children. They act out and act out, craving attention, even negative attention, each incident worse than the last. Ignorning them just increases the intensity of the next outburst. And when we finally give them what they want, attention, in the form of an invasion, they're satisfied. But then we tire of the exchange and go back about what we were doing, and they're left feeling ignored all over again, which leads to...
Like I said, 4 to 6 years.
To exist in an unstable world you will have to hurt others, just a matter of who is on the receiving end and you can't please them all. That is the continious reality for a power like the USA. Turkey is a funny place because it's so differemt from other islamic countries with it's secular history and religion is a factor, it's also fiercily nationalistic and will support whatever supports them, can never be more then a one night stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mete Han
Whens the next 9/11 on U.S. soil? That would depend how long we intend to play games with the extremeists. Mr Bush and his cronies seem to think that indivdual liberties is the key to moderating Islam.
That may work for the majority, but Mr Bush's war on terror is against the minority and thats why the war will go on and on unless more force is used.
That being said its a matter of opportunity, who knows the actual time frame. The key component is there is a desire to have another 9/11 by extremists, could be tomorrow or next week, or 2015.
Generally I agree with your post, but here I wonder. How much damage has actually been done to Al-Qaeda, or similar terrorist organizations? Where the greatest damage appears to me to have been done is on a local level, among individual cells and Taliban or Iraqi insurgents rather than the more international-oriented terrorists who instigate conflict. I think they've lost a lot of communication options between the higher levels of organization, though not their ability to reach followers lower down the pecking order, but those they can pick up again if (when?) the pressure is lightened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I think it will be 11th Septermber EACH YEAR :P
There will always be targets. There will always be plots. The truth is that the intelligence will be one step ahead. 9/11 was the turning point, security has tightened up now.
That has to be the only correct post in this thread. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Yes, and alarmingly it came from Krook. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Excuse me. The question is "when" is the next 9/11, not if it's going to happen. I think last year it was on a Tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You have to do something in order to be hated. Kicking up mud will get you dirty.
Otherwise there's a hurricane going on, mud tend to lay still. I think I'm onto something here. :deal2:
Or existing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You don't have to actually do anything, just be perceived as doing something.
If someone perceive you as doing something negative when you in fact do nothing, then you probably have done something negative earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Not necessarily. A subjective perception is enough to hate someone. Mere emotion and belief could do the trick already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Therefore the term 'probably'.