re: #445 PAUL_MACDONALD

Because even cities in places like Pakistan aren’t out of some dystopian future of bombed out buildings.

The number of terrorists who are prone to carrying out these kinds of attacks isn’t large, but they are dedicated. There’s a much larger feeder population that generally condones such behavior (and isn’t likely to turn them in), but getting the means to carry out mass casualty attacks isn’t as easy as it is portrayed in the movies.

The risk of a terrorist attack in the US is low (compared to say getting killed while driving or from lightning), but the potential casualties from such attacks is quite high. It’s the mass casualty nature of the terrorist tactics that is worrisome - and having been in NYC on 9/11, knew people who were in the WTC during the 1993 attacks, and who regularly uses mass transit and the tunnels and bridges targeted by multiple terror plots, those threats and plots are quite real - and troublesome.

The terrorists had it in for the WTC - and weren’t going to stop until they took it down. They might harbor the same sentiments for the bridges and tunnels and other landmarks.

So, even if it turns out that this was a lone-wolf jihadi, he’s still focusing on landmarks like all the rest of those plots that are tied to major terror groups.

Also, you’re ascribing failure to the terrorists because they didn’t carry out their mass casualty plans. They failed because they’re attempting ever larger and more audacious bombing threats - not merely content with a standard bomb, they’re looking at FAE/thermobaric weapons that are larger and more deadly - but are also far more complex to detonate properly to achieve their deadly aims.

I suspect that had the placement of the explosives and gas canisters been slightly different, the outcome would not have been what it was (a fizzle).