Org Mobile Site
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sinan:
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 ?
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.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 ?
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 
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
So, never.
Really? You surprised me with that.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.
So, never.
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.
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7164520.stm
hehe! They knew questions shall be asked.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I think if America continues down the path of Middle Eastern Imperialism..
I think if the rest of the world continue down a path of jealosy...I think if America continues down the path of Middle Eastern Imperialism..
Originally Posted by Boyar Son:
I think if the rest of the world continue down a path of jealosy...
Oh don't.I think if the rest of the world continue down a path of jealosy...
Voted never as well. From a terrorists view it was perfection, they could never organise something that makes a bigger impression.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
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?Voted never as well. From a terrorists view it was perfection, they could never organise something that makes a bigger impression.
Originally Posted by Beirut:
Really? You surprised me with that.
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..
It is of course, possible, but one has to consider the ability of the radicals to accomplish their aims.Really? You surprised me with that.
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..
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
).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.
Originally Posted by RoadKill:
Perfection? Impossible to make a bigger impression? Every heard of a nuclear bomb?
Way too flashy to risk, if they have one it will explode somewhere in the middle east or africa.Perfection? Impossible to make a bigger impression? Every heard of a nuclear bomb?
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
It is of course, possible, but one has to consider the ability of the radicals to accomplish their aims.
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 ).
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.
It is of course, possible, but one has to consider the ability of the radicals to accomplish their aims.
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
).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.
I forgot - never argue with a writer.
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.
Originally Posted by Sinan:
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.
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.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.
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?
Originally Posted by Beirut:
I forgot - never argue with a writer.
Indeed, verbosity will bore you out of the debate every time I forgot - never argue with a writer.
Originally Posted by Beirut:
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.
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.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.
But the OP was asking about a 9-11 style spectacular.
Originally Posted by Soulforged:
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.
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Indeed, verbosity will bore you out of the debate every time
Less bored than intimidated.Indeed, verbosity will bore you out of the debate every time
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
But the OP was asking about a 9-11 style spectacular.
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. 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.
But the OP was asking about a 9-11 style spectacular.
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".
Originally Posted by Beirut:
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.
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.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.
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".
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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
This does not mean however, that a bunch of nutters can't get fertiliser bombs onto [several] train[s] and blow several hundred souls to glory [in several different cities, simultaneously].
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. This does not mean however, that a bunch of nutters can't get fertiliser bombs onto [several] train[s] and blow several hundred souls to glory [in several different cities, simultaneously].
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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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.
I'd add at least the two Bali Bombings to that list: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.
2002 Bali Bombing
2005 Bali Bombing
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
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. 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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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.
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.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.
(Hey, wanna start a flame war? Could be fun.
)Single Sign On provided by vBSSO