If you were a terrorist.....

If you were a terrorist..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

popeye1250 -> If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 2:54:58 PM)
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?

kittinSol -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? That you have sick fantasies, but whatever rocks your boat, man. Just... don't jizz on the walls.

tazzygirl -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:14:33 PM)
IF i were a terrorist... gesh man... lets give out flipping manuals now!

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:16:56 PM)
How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility?

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:17:44 PM)
mumbai quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? That you have sick fantasies, but whatever rocks your boat, man. Just... don't jizz on the walls. Think Mumbai. Warning enough?

mnottertail -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:18:03 PM)
again I would simply pound a fuckin nuke plant with a plane.

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:19:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IF i were a terrorist... gesh man... lets give out flipping manuals now! Yeah, like they really rely on manuals from Popeye!

Viridana -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:21:06 PM)
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? According to the British prime minister, I am already a terrorist. I don't feel all that terroristy and I don't have any sudden urge to bomb or attack any specific place or people. I guess I failed my terrorist exam.

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Clarify please, Panda. Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back?

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail again I would simply pound a fuckin nuke plant with a plane. Nah, we're catching on to that plane shit already. See how quickly we stopped the Nigerian from boardiing in Amsterdam.

luckydawg -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:23:26 PM)
Studies range from 800,000 to 2.5 million a year. But I agree it is not really a factor in targeting decisions. They need to be dramatic, not just a shooting. And handguns would do nothing to a car bomb or bio attack. I would expect they would try to blow up infrastructure (Transportation or Power Generation) disrupting millions of civilians daily routines and causing economic damage for years to come.

kittinSol -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML mumbai quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? That you have sick fantasies, but whatever rocks your boat, man. Just... don't jizz on the walls. Think Mumbai. Warning enough? Exactly. The ENORMOUS majority of victims of terrorist violence is NOT on U.S. soil - unless you'd like to include mass shootings, like Columbine, in the equation? Suicide bombers have been operating where, lately? Who's more likely to die, a Pakistani civilian attending a volley-ball game, or popeye?

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:25:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? That you have sick fantasies, but whatever rocks your boat, man. Just... don't jizz on the walls. Also kitten, Homeland Security is supposed to be planning for contigencies. Dept of Homeland Security. Remember them? The system worked just fine folks. [8\|]

EbonyWood -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? FWIW, you've introduced 'suicidal' there. That's not a given. I would think the target accessibility, 'value', impact, viability of success would come in before they thought about Steven Seagal emerging from a phone booth.

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:27:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML mumbai quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 What say you? That you have sick fantasies, but whatever rocks your boat, man. Just... don't jizz on the walls. Think Mumbai. Warning enough? Exactly. The ENORMOUS majority of victims of terrorist violence is NOT on U.S. soil - unless you'd like to include mass shootings, like Columbine, in the equation? Suicide bombers have been operating where, lately? Who's more likely to die, a Pakistani civilian attending a volley-ball game, or popeye? Depends how good a net defender is our Popeye.

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? FWIW, you've introduced 'suicidal' there. That's not a given. I would think the target accessibility, 'value', impact, viability of success would come in before they thought about Steven Seagal emerging from a phone booth. If you look at the history string since 9/11 don't you think "suicidal" might be presumed? Where does "value" lead you in your thinking, Ebony?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Clarify please, Panda. Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? I doubt it would be a go/no-go factor in their target selection. Why would it? In most states that have legalized concealed carry, far fewer than 1% of the citizens of the state are licensed to carry a weapon. The chance that a terrorist is going to run into one of those people is far, far less than their chance of being confronted by an armed law enforcement officer. If they think a target is juicy enough to warrant attacking, I can't think of any sensible reason they'd be deterred by the fact that some people in that state or city own firearms.

EbonyWood -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? FWIW, you've introduced 'suicidal' there. That's not a given. I would think the target accessibility, 'value', impact, viability of success would come in before they thought about Steven Seagal emerging from a phone booth. If you look at the history string since 9/11 don't you think "suicidal" might be presumed? Yes but to assume it universal would be a mistake too, vincent. I would say given the opportunity, or (dare I say) better planning, there are plenty of recent terrorists who would have loved to have gotten clean away. Various circumstances have prevented this in some cases, and it wasn't always armed citizens to the rescue.

vincentML -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? FWIW, you've introduced 'suicidal' there. That's not a given. I would think the target accessibility, 'value', impact, viability of success would come in before they thought about Steven Seagal emerging from a phone booth. If you look at the history string since 9/11 don't you think "suicidal" might be presumed? Yes but to assume it universal would be a mistake too, vincent. I would say given the opportunity, or (dare I say) better planning, there are plenty of recent terrorists who would have loved to have gotten clean away. Various circumstances have prevented this in some cases, and it wasn't always armed citizens to the rescue. Give account, Ebony, that the weapons carried by Joe the Plumber are totally ineffective against military style weapons used in Mumbai. I suspect the real get away problem would be the logistics of transportation. To what terrorist friendly country could they flee after the attack? Pakistan is too far away and inconvenient. Vermont perhaps? (oh lordy, just kidding)

popeye1250 -> RE: If you were a terrorist..... (1/5/2010 3:52:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How often does any crime of violence get interrupted by armed citizens? What are the percentages? Why would any terrorist make a strategic decision on target selection based (even in part) on such an infinitesimal possibility? Clarify please, Panda. Are you saying suicidal fanatics would not select a target if there were a small chance of someone firing back? I doubt it would be a go/no-go factor in their target selection. Why would it? In most states that have legalized concealed carry, far fewer than 1% of the citizens of the state are licensed to carry a weapon. The chance that a terrorist is going to run into one of those people is far, far less than their chance of being confronted by an armed law enforcement officer. If they think a target is juicy enough to warrant attacking, I can't think of any sensible reason they'd be deterred by the fact that some people in that state or city own firearms. Panda, if there's 3,000 people in a shopping mall then statistically there'd be 30 people who were armed then , right? Even if you were a terrorist who expected to die would you "want" people shooting back at you trying to kill you and prevent you from accomplishing your "mission?"

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125