re: #461 lawhawk

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

Places like Chechnya and Somalia are, though.

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.

Yes, and the smart ones have been effectively weeded out by the very nature of Jihadi culture. How many more do you think can fly a jetliner these days? They had to trim down the initial plan from 20 to 4. In all of Jihididom, they could only find a handful of men with the intelligence to fly an airplane. Not an ex-Pakistani jet pilot, a recruit from the Saudi Air force but some disillusioned men with university degrees.

The first WTC bomber was dumb enough to ask for his deposit back.

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.

See, I was on this boat for a number of years. Then it became clear that not only was the threat of mass casualties from a terrorist attack rather overrated, but I had more to worry about from a mentally ill person getting a gun and going postal.

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.

Oh, I’m sure they do. I’m also sure that if they had the ability, they would have been blowing stuff up to beat the band. They don’t attack infrastructure in any event. They attack symbols.

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.

No such thing as a lone wolf Jihadi. No such thing as a lone wolf Neo Nazi, either.

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.

That is flawed. They are planning smaller and less technical attacks. From the WTC and the Pentagon to a single car bomb? They went from flying planes, to backpack bombs, to giant car bombs with crappy trigger mechanisms.

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).

I suspect that this guy spent 5 months in Pakistan learning how to make bombs from “skilled” bomb makers and passed all the rigorous tests. Probably made a whole bunch of similar bombs. Still got it wrong.

It’s ok to be wary, but these aren’t a bunch of dedicated high tech supersoldiers. They are a bunch of dedicated religious whack-a-loons. The amount of damage they can do is overrated.