71% Say Another 9/11 is Likely To Happen

[Sherry]

While it may be much more difficult for them to plot another attack on a high profile target, there is still much damage they could inflict. A wave of simultaneous attacks on much smaller targets, such as McD's or WalMarts, would be devastating.

I hate to make it sound trivial, it's not, but random McDonalds and stores being shot up isn't exactly new in modern American life. It wouldn't attract enough attention to be appealing, most likely. Remember the goal of the terrorist. It's not just random mayhem, they want to get as much attention as possible for their agenda in order to affect policy that meets their goals. Or the person doing it is just plain loony with wild delusions of grandeur but probably is so paranoid he or she doesn't work well with others, take your pick.

If you're talking abut a coordinated effort, then you're again talking about a level of coordination and sophistication that makes it much more difficult to pull off and avoid detection. If you're talking about not just a shootout but blowing stuff up, you add the element of obtaining, manufacturing and placing the devices. The more complication and conspiracy you add, the less likely it will succeed. Especially in the post-9/11 environment. Not impossible, but insanely difficult IMO.

I don't doubt that they could recruit enough people to walk into such establishments with bombs hidden and blow themselves up at the same time. It really wouldn't be that complicated, and quite easy to go undetected. The impact psychologically, and then financially, would certainly be felt. For whatever reason they haven't attempted to undertake such operations, I'm still surprised we haven't had some sort of successful attack.

 

[goldcatt]

Again, I would doubt anyone pulling off an explosive type attack of the magnitude of McVeigh. However, it is easier for a McVeigh type to rent a van and acquire materials than someone with an islamic name.
I still see the greatest threat to be a single nut obsessed withabortion, taxes or thinking his guns will be taken away initiating an attack. I think a Columbine type terrorist attack is more likely than Oklahoma City

I think you're right, particularly about the nature of the next attack. There have already been indications of what to expect with the loonies like the one in the Pittsburgh police shootout. Calls for "revolution" are certainly legal, but not wise in an environment rife with ill-informed tinfoil hatters and pill-popping paranoids looking for a bogeyman to blame for their lot in life. Sad, but true.

 

[KissMy]

I flew to Florida on the day after the airport reopened from the 9/11 shutdown. We did not have or need any additional security. The only thing that changed was attitude. Passengers were not going to ever negotiate with a terrorist again. People discussed how when confronted by a terrorist they would do anything they could even if it meant killing terrorist or dying themselves to prevent another attack. That was all that needed to be done.

As long as American never again allow the government to lull them into a false sense of security this will not happen again. It was the PC appeasement rules from the government that allowed this to happen. The democrat assholes who told us to negotiate with terrorist in the first place. The Reagan Doctrine of never negotiate with terrorist is the way to keep us safe. Reagan may have broken his own rules but it does not discount their effectiveness.

Government sucks & cannot protect you, Attitude is Everything. Regular Americans have stopped most of the attempted attacks since 9/11. This trend will continue to keep us safe.

 

[chanel]

I think the next significant terrorist attack will probably come from domestic terrorism rather than international terrorism. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of anti-government rhetoric in the past few years.
I think a Tim McVeigh type attack has a better chance of success than one from outside the US, but there is much more vigilance in reporting suspicious activity making a major event more unlikely

Domestic loonies are more likely to fly under the radar, no pun intended. (Thinking of the Austin pilot here) People tend to trust their neighbors. I'm not sure even they would be able to pull off much in the way of "significant" attacks when compared to 9/11 though, that would require a level of planning and sophistication that would likely trigger an alarm in more vigilant times. It's possible any old goon squad could get lucky I guess, but do you honestly think a McVeigh would have been successful in the post-9/11 environment? I doubt it.

Again, I would doubt anyone pulling off an explosive type attack of the magnitude of McVeigh. However, it is easier for a McVeigh type to rent a van and acquire materials than someone with an islamic name.
I still see the greatest threat to be a single nut obsessed withabortion, taxes or thinking his guns will be taken away initiating an attack. I think a Columbine type terrorist attack is more likely than Oklahoma City

Discounting the threat of Muslim terrorism here in the U.S. despite the evidence? How fascinating. I mean predictable.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't doubt that they could recruit enough people to walk into such establishments with bombs hidden and blow themselves up at the same time. It really wouldn't be that complicated, and quite easy to go undetected. The impact psychologically, and then financially, would certainly be felt. For whatever reason they haven't attempted to undertake such operations, I'm still surprised we haven't had some sort of successful attack.

"Could recruit", I'm sure. But plan, coordinate and execute without detection in today's environment? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Which is exactly why we haven't had a coordinated attack of this nature yet, IMO. Smaller incidents with a lone crazy, yes. Depending on how you define "terrorism" there have been several that could qualify. But I think RW is right, a single Columbine-style attack using firearms and perhaps a few small and relatively crude explosive devices is far more likely to happen than a coordinated effort to blow up buildings and people.

 

[Modbert]

I find it interesting how the same people keep predicting there will be another 9/11...for the last 9 years. All they keep doing is pushing the date back. We as a country have to look at things in perspective. Pearl Harbor happened in December of 1941. It was another sixty years before we had another similar attack. (Not counting the OKC.)

I'm not saying that it is impossible for another 9/11 to happen in the future. Heck, with the way the question is asked, could happen tomorrow or a hundred years from now. My point is however that we as a country have allowed this fear to take over what we do overseas and what we do in this country domestically. To this day that Spectre of fear is still there, looming over our shoulder like a dominant parent figure.

 

[Sherry]

I don't doubt that they could recruit enough people to walk into such establishments with bombs hidden and blow themselves up at the same time. It really wouldn't be that complicated, and quite easy to go undetected. The impact psychologically, and then financially, would certainly be felt. For whatever reason they haven't attempted to undertake such operations, I'm still surprised we haven't had some sort of successful attack.

"Could recruit", I'm sure. But plan, coordinate and execute without detection in today's environment? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Which is exactly why we haven't had a coordinated attack of this nature yet, IMO. Smaller incidents with a lone crazy, yes. Depending on how you define "terrorism" there have been several that could qualify. But I think RW is right, a single Columbine-style attack using firearms and perhaps a few small and relatively crude explosive devices is far more likely to happen than a coordinated effort to blow up buildings and people.

It depends on how determined they were. Although most Americans consider themselves to be more "vigilant" these days, I doubt we are all so paranoid that we view each person with such a degree of suspicion as to assume that if they have a large jacket on, then we should alert the store manager to have them checked for bombs strapped to their body. Now if they did attempt to coordinate simultaneous attacks, and even a few were somehow thwarted, they'd still succeed in causing widespread destruction.

 

[chanel]

Ft. Dix Six. Shoe bomber. Underwear bomber. Times Sq. bomber. We got lucky. Period.

You should be grateful that a "dominant parent figure" is looming over you. I am.

 

[Sherry]

I find it interesting how the same people keep predicting there will be another 9/11...for the last 9 years. All they keep doing is pushing the date back. We as a country have to look at things in perspective. Pearl Harbor happened in December of 1941. It was another sixty years before we had another similar attack. (Not counting the OKC.)

I'm not saying that it is impossible for another 9/11 to happen in the future. Heck, with the way the question is asked, could happen tomorrow or a hundred years from now. My point is however that we as a country have allowed this fear to take over what we do overseas and what we do in this country domestically. To this day that Spectre of fear is still there, looming over our shoulder like a dominant parent figure.

I disagree. I think Americans have a strong resolve and determination NOT to live in fear. Being aware and taking reasonable precautions, while going about our daily lives, seems practical to me.

 

[Modbert]

It depends on how determined they were. Although most Americans consider themselves to be more "vigilant" these days, I doubt we are all so paranoid that we view each person with such a degree of suspicion as to assume that if they have a large jacket on, then we should alert the store manager to have them checked for bombs strapped to their body. Now if they did attempt to coordinate simultaneous attacks, and even a few were somehow thwarted, they'd still succeed in causing widespread destruction.

Deep down, I think many if not a majority are in fact. Though for many people, the person has to be Muslim looking. And the sad thing is that it has nothing to do with racism against Muslims in many cases. Rather it's a subconscious fear more than anything. I remember reading how people were worried that Afghanistan or Iraq would become our new Vietnam, the new spectre that haunts this country. In reality, 9/11 has taken it's place and continues to affect us as a whole to this day.

 

[MarcATL]

I flew to Florida on the day after the airport reopened from the 9/11 shutdown. We did not have or need any additional security. The only thing that changed was attitude. Passengers were not going to ever negotiate with a terrorist again. People discussed how when confronted by a terrorist they would do anything they could even if it meant killing terrorist or dying themselves to prevent another attack. That was all that needed to be done.

As long as American never again allow the government to lull them into a false sense of security this will not happen again. It was the PC appeasement rules from the government that allowed this to happen. The democrat assholes who told us to negotiate with terrorist in the first place. The Reagan Doctrine of never negotiate with terrorist is the way to keep us safe. Reagan may have broken his own rules but it does not discount their effectiveness.

Government sucks & cannot protect you, Attitude is Everything. Regular Americans have stopped most of the attempted attacks since 9/11. This trend will continue to keep us safe.

I ABSOLUTELY agree. This is why this nonsense that the Bush Admin and RepubliCON$ have been fond of saying that "Bush kept us safe" is poppycock. Firstly, he didn't. Secondly, there's no "safe" to be kept. Anything can happen in life...this is life. This nonsense about someone "keeping us safe" is for the weak...aka RepubliCON$.

I find it interesting how the same people keep predicting there will be another 9/11...for the last 9 years. All they keep doing is pushing the date back. We as a country have to look at things in perspective. Pearl Harbor happened in December of 1941. It was another sixty years before we had another similar attack. (Not counting the OKC.)

I'm not saying that it is impossible for another 9/11 to happen in the future. Heck, with the way the question is asked, could happen tomorrow or a hundred years from now. My point is however that we as a country have allowed this fear to take over what we do overseas and what we do in this country domestically. To this day that Spectre of fear is still there, looming over our shoulder like a dominant parent figure.

Again, this fear thing. Its the only way how the RepubliCON$ know how to operate, both internally and externally.

Damn shame.

*SHM*

 

[Modbert]

Ft. Dix Six. Shoe bomber. Underwear bomber. Times Sq. bomber. We got lucky. Period.

You should be grateful that a "dominant parent figure" is looming over you. I am.

I know you're a Big Government Conservative that would trade our civil liberties in order to feel more safe at night. However, you are more likely to die tomorrow by getting into your car and driving by far than a terrorism attack.

 

[Sheldon]

I guess my answer would depend on what is meant by "terror attack". A successful one on the magnitude of coordination and causalities of 9/11, or something like that fucktard who flew his tiny plane into the IRS building?

For the latter I think it's very likely to happen in the next decade. For the former I'd say it's not likely, not as long as we have Jack Bauer. The target would probably be a stadium, or several large shopping malls on the same day. Something "American". And what's more American than shopping and watching football? Not a plane, but maybe an eighteen-wheeler loaded with C4. Morbid as that is.

 

[goldcatt]

It depends on how determined they were. Although most Americans consider themselves to be more "vigilant" these days, I doubt we are all so paranoid that we view each person with such a degree of suspicion as to assume that if they have a large jacket on, then we should alert the store manager to have them checked for bombs strapped to their body. Now if they did attempt to coordinate simultaneous attacks, and even a few were somehow thwarted, they'd still succeed in causing widespread destruction.

Consider what you're suggesting and what's involved here. The first problem is recruiting, this would have to be widespread - preferably nationwide in seemingly random locations within or close to population centers - in order to garner the kind of attention they're looking for. The internet is a nice toy, and there are other methods of contact if an established organization is involved, but with the level of data mining that takes place it would be difficult to disseminate enough information to recruit reliably committed volunteers.

Second, there's the problem of training their recruits in obtaining the materials, manufacturing the devices and devising the method of wearing them undetected. Or else central manufacture of the devices and delivery of the finished product, which has its own complications. What materials are being used? How easy are they to obtain? How bulky are the materials? Is there an odor, noise, or other tip off to the neighbors that something isn't quite right here? If there are no neighbors, how will the devices get to the chosen population centers for use?

Then there is the inevitable question of funding. If nothing else the government does about security is all its cracked up to be, they do have excellent skills in data mining and forensic accounting. All that experience looking for tax cheats, you know. And if all that goes well, will the recruits have the commitment, training and luck required to pull it off? Or will the citizenry be vigilant enough to call in law enforcement or take down the would-be suicide bombers themselves prior to detonating the device?

No, it's not as easy as it sounds, and I'm sure I'm missing a step or two somewhere in there. Like I said, not impossible. But likely? Nah, why do it the hard way?

 

[Sherry]

It depends on how determined they were. Although most Americans consider themselves to be more "vigilant" these days, I doubt we are all so paranoid that we view each person with such a degree of suspicion as to assume that if they have a large jacket on, then we should alert the store manager to have them checked for bombs strapped to their body. Now if they did attempt to coordinate simultaneous attacks, and even a few were somehow thwarted, they'd still succeed in causing widespread destruction.

Consider what you're suggesting and what's involved here. The first problem is recruiting, this would have to be widespread - preferably nationwide in seemingly random locations within or close to population centers - in order to garner the kind of attention they're looking for. The internet is a nice toy, and there are other methods of contact if an established organization is involved, but with the level of data mining that takes place it would be difficult to disseminate enough information to recruit reliably committed volunteers.

Second, there's the problem of training their recruits in obtaining the materials, manufacturing the devices and devising the method of wearing them undetected. Or else central manufacture of the devices and delivery of the finished product, which has its own complications. What materials are being used? How easy are they to obtain? How bulky are the materials? Is there an odor, noise, or other tip off to the neighbors that something isn't quite right here? If there are no neighbors, how will the devices get to the chosen population centers for use?

Then there is the inevitable question of funding. If nothing else the government does about security is all its cracked up to be, they do have excellent skills in data mining and forensic accounting. All that experience looking for tax cheats, you know. And if all that goes well, will the recruits have the commitment, training and luck required to pull it off? Or will the citizenry be vigilant enough to call in law enforcement or take down the would-be suicide bombers themselves prior to detonating the device?

No, it's not as easy as it sounds, and I'm sure I'm missing a step or two somewhere in there. Like I said, not impossible. But likely? Nah, why do it the hard way?

Where there's a will, there's a way. However complicated it might be, they haven't even attempted it. It does not take rocket scientists to walk into an establishment, or pull in the drive-thru, and look at their watches. It's not about high population areas, or even significant casualties. I was living in a small town in SW Missouri during 9-11, and thought then that if the terrorists wanted to instill REAL terror, they would strike in small town America in a wave of attacks. Maybe their theory is "go big, or go home", but I don't pretend to know the minds of terrorists.

 

[Modbert]

I was living in a small town in SW Missouri during 9-11, and thought then that if the terrorists wanted to instill REAL terror, they would strike in small town America in a wave of attacks. Maybe their theory is "go big, or go home", but I don't pretend to know the minds of terrorists.

Consider all the reasons Goldcatt listed, it's not feasible for the terrorists to attack a small target and kill only several people when they can strike a big target and kill 10x as many. They're not looking for small targets to instill fear, no matter what they do fear is instilled here. What they're looking for is a body count, that way they can make better propaganda overseas.

 

[goldcatt]

I was living in a small town in SW Missouri during 9-11, and thought then that if the terrorists wanted to instill REAL terror, they would strike in small town America in a wave of attacks. Maybe their theory is "go big, or go home", but I don't pretend to know the minds of terrorists.

Consider all the reasons Goldcatt listed, it's not feasible for the terrorists to attack a small target and kill only several people when they can strike a big target and kill 10x as many. They're not looking for small targets to instill fear, no matter what they do fear is instilled here. What they're looking for is a body count, that way they can make better propaganda overseas.

It also wouldn't make sense for them to strike in an area more than a short distance from major media outlets. Attention is the key, preferably immediate and shocking.

Assuming as with any conspiracy that some dumb kid involved won't brag to his girlfriend and ruin the whole thing before it ever gets off the ground.

 

[Sherry]

I was living in a small town in SW Missouri during 9-11, and thought then that if the terrorists wanted to instill REAL terror, they would strike in small town America in a wave of attacks. Maybe their theory is "go big, or go home", but I don't pretend to know the minds of terrorists.

Consider all the reasons Goldcatt listed, it's not feasible for the terrorists to attack a small target and kill only several people when they can strike a big target and kill 10x as many. They're not looking for small targets to instill fear, no matter what they do fear is instilled here. What they're looking for is a body count, that way they can make better propaganda overseas.

Oh well, accuse me of overestimating their abilities. If we have succeeded in making high level targets nearly impossible, then I don't think it unreasonable to consider that they might attempt another alternative.

 

[MarcATL]

I was living in a small town in SW Missouri during 9-11, and thought then that if the terrorists wanted to instill REAL terror, they would strike in small town America in a wave of attacks. Maybe their theory is "go big, or go home", but I don't pretend to know the minds of terrorists.

Consider all the reasons Goldcatt listed, it's not feasible for the terrorists to attack a small target and kill only several people when they can strike a big target and kill 10x as many. They're not looking for small targets to instill fear, no matter what they do fear is instilled here. What they're looking for is a body count, that way they can make better propaganda overseas.

Also, if small targets were their thinking...then there would have been attacks already perpetrated on those place.

As she said, they are open season pretty much.

One must consider...when was there EVER an attack on a rural place or small town...in ANY part of the world in modern history?

People like Sherry need to start THINKING instead of FEELING.

 

[Modbert]

Oh well, accuse me of overestimating their abilities. If we have succeeded in making high level targets nearly impossible, then I don't think it unreasonable to consider that they might attempt another alternative.

That right there is what they want being said. They want people to once again think that high level targets are impossible to strike, which is why they are continuing to try and strike at these targets. They want to eliminate America's sense of untouchable not only at home but around the world.

Our thought process would then be is "If they can strike the Pentagon, or the CIA Headquarters, then what is stopping them from attacking little ol' me?"

That is how they instilled fear on 9/11, and how they try to continue so today. It's been proven to work, that's why they do it.