|
popeye1250 -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/6/2010 2:30:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: numuncular
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Where would you attack the U.S. next?
The obvious places would be states that have restrictive gun laws, N.Y. N.J., Mass., Ill., etc.
And I don't think the next attack will be with airliners either as they're "expected" to do, these individual attacks on planes could be a cover or diversion.
I think there's a good chance that California could be the next target. In particular San Francisco where handguns are "outlawed."
Ten terrorists with automatic weapons could take out a lot of people and police as well. And they'd face no threat from an un-armed citizenry either.
I think that this administration needs to start "thinking outside the box" on this.
Although I don't know if they are capable of it.
What say you?
oooo look what he's done! you've meshed in (presumably) views on gun controls with the logical assumption that terrorists will most likely attack the large cities you've mentioned, as opposed to chickenshit, iowa where there is no gun controls in a backhanded way to say, LETS NOT CONTROL GUNS!
if i was bin laden and wanted to scare the shit out of americans I'd plan lots of small attacks on small american towns to give the message that you aren't safe *anywhere*.
but personally I'd attack shrewsbury, in revenge for a particularly harrowing cup defeat a few years ago.
additionally i think the bit about guns is a little off the ball anyway, since firstly, more damage can be done with bombs anyway and even if they did stage an attack with rifles, the mere fact that it happened in the first place causes the terror, not the statistics on how many got killed, and its fairly clear that al queda terrorists dont go on missions expecting to come back.
Num, have you seen a doctor about that?
If you were a terrorist would you want to attack San Francisco, California or Birmingham, Alabama with machineguns?
Knowing that in San Fran they *do* "control guns?"
|
|
|
|
