I was wondering what the general feelings of this event are with other people.
Do any of you feel like there will likely be another attack or attempts of terrorism?

Any ideas what they may be? I think the airlines are too well prepared and on guard for a repeat. I think car bombs are likely.


Do you think attacks will most likely not be attempted?

Do you think attacks are likely to happen or be attempted and if so how?

In the most general sense, yes, I think there will always be attacks and terrorism.
I am fairly young and every generation seems to have their own doomsday spook but our political and financial systems here in the U.S.A. appear to be crumbling so it would not surprise me too much if we get attacked while weakened.

I think that Al-Qaeda is most likely going to try something. Hopefully it'll fail and hopefully nobody will die.

I suspect that they'll try to attack the White House or the Capitol. Both could be tricky to attack with a car bomb, but these are people who will attempt anything.

-Albatross

Honestly? I care very little. 10 years ago a pair of buildings among the most iconic in U.S. culture were destroyed and a shit ton of people were killed, all in the name of terror. I completely think that this event should never be forgotten, and that the memorial service is important for the country, but I'd be lying if I said I felt remorse for those who lost someone in the attack, or that I could begin to empathize for them.

New attack? Not likely I'd say.

But I think that the War Against Terror has been won by the terrorists. Either that, or it's purposely used as an excuse to degrade our civil liberties.

but I'd be lying if I said I felt remorse for those who lost someone in the attack, or that I could begin to empathize for them.

Why?

all in the name of terror

Not in the name of terror. In the name of International Sharia law.

Why? Because I don't know a single one of them, and I don't know anyone who died in the attack. I sympathize for them, but without having felt such a loss for my self it would be impossible to understand what they've been through or to feel for their loss.

as for your second comment, you're right, sharia law.

I wonder if instead of planning one massive strike they would be better off and more effective at doing lots of small attacks and staying on the move. Acting alone makes it difficult to pull off something big but staying hidden is much easier. Instead of striking heavily guarded Government buildings and major events start hitting smaller gatherings of people in hit and run type tactics. I think bringing the danger to the average citizen and not just the New Yorker would be more terrifying.

Even more effective would be to strike one town and quickly move to another random one. If several terrorists did this it would make it seem like there are far more of them than there really are as well.

Of course they would need to leave a mark behind so everyone would know who to fear.

Still remember that recording of 'oh my god, that plane just went into the building!'

pause for a few seconds...

and then the screams, the horrible screams, when they see people jumping/falling...

@stormy doldrums

I don't think the purpose of this thread was to provide advice to the terrorists

@xander337

Sorry, I misinterpreted your first post.

@quirkyusername

If I were a terrorist I would definitely be trolling a C++ programming website *Sarcasm*

Shopping malls would be great targets. Not huge malls but decent sized ones with less security. One gunman with a semi auto and a high capacity mag if they were a decent shot while jogging could take out about 50 people if they only reloaded once. In one door down the corridor shooting and out the other end to a getaway car. In and out in 3 minutes tops.

Plus they would live and be able to strike again. Bombs get great media attention but they're hard to make and it's hard to hit a good enough target. Plus you die.

@stormy doldrums
Make sure to avoid malls in Texas, Arizona or Utah. They have very liberal concealed carry laws in those states. People are not defenseless there. Some citizens might return fire!

EDIT: 9/11/2001 is a day which I remember completely, even though it was 10 years ago.
I was working in L.A. that day. The building I was in was evacuated (as a precaution since no-one knew where the next plane might strike, how many there were, etc...) and we were all sent home.

You know I didn't think of it much before but I think the reason terrorists go for the big suicide mission rather than several shootouts is everywhere in the US people have guns and freakin' know how to use 'em. And when you're trying to terrorize people, getting yourself gunned down has the opposite effect.

I honestly don't think several small gun teams roaming about, gunning down people at random, would last very long. Mainly because your average armed citizen, a more than competent police force and the worlds strongest military all in one place would likely outdo a few minute-men any day. Still, in the time it does last, the damage done and terror embedded in the hearts of the people would be tremendous.

Back on topic, I remember 9/11 very clearly, despite being only 5 at the time. I remember watching the first building burn, and still watching as the second plane hit... I lived in New Jersey at the time, a mere 9 miles away from NYC. After school, I remember seeing the aftermath, bodies without limbs being lifted by excavators... I will never forget those images. A few weeks later, I went with my family to Ground Zero and seeing the rubble and some still standing walls. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to be there...

I, for one, am completely against the "elevated" security measures--especially in airports. They are a vast inconvenience and stop very little. Take the security line, for example--hundreds of people packed in shoulder to shoulder without security. They can just strike that now...

ModShop wrote:
Mainly because your average armed citizen, a more than competent police force and the worlds strongest military all in one place would likely outdo a few minute-men any day.

Agreed, America has a history of beating guerilla fighters... As long as you ignore the Afghan war which is still going on ten years later, the Iraq war which lasted seven years (although the open warfare part only lasted 21 days), and the Vietnam war which spanned nearly 20 years and America actually lost.

The US Army is excellent at open warfare, but as soon as the other guys start digging tunnels and hiding in villages, beating them seems to take years. I'm inclined to think the same would happen if the guerillas were in America itself. I don't understand why they don't just do the same thing - if the other army digs tunnels and hides, then you do the same.

ModShop wrote:
I remember 9/11 very clearly, despite being only 5 at the time.

Could you possibly make me feel any older? =(

chrisname wrote:
Agreed, America has a history of beating guerilla fighters... As long as you ignore the Afghan war which is still going on ten years later, the Iraq war which lasted seven years (although the open warfare part only lasted 21 days), and the Vietnam war which spanned nearly 20 years and America actually lost.

All of which were fought against people fighting on their land, for their land. Our troops fighting overseas don't have as much inspiration/reason to fight than the natives do, but these roles would be switched if the territories were reversed. This can be seen both in the American Revolutionary war, when a bunch of outgunned, out manned rebels beat one the worlds finest armies of the time (Great Britain), and the American Civil War, when the Union was doing poorly in battle up until the war was brought to Northern soil. I think its fair to say that history would repeat itself were battle brought onto American soil again.

@Disch

I can! There is a user on this forum who isn't old enough to remember it. He was 2 at the time.