Gavin ([info]selfishgene) wrote,
@ 2008-05-08 14:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Al Qaeda Threat Overrated
"I reject the notion that Al Qaeda is waiting for 'the big one' or holding back an attack," Sheehan writes. "A terrorist cell capable of attacking doesn't sit and wait for some more opportune moment. It's not their style, nor is it in the best interest of their operational security. Delaying an attack gives law enforcement more time to detect a plot or penetrate the organization."
Terrorism needs to be put in perspective. Even the famous terrorist incident of 1914, wouldn't have caused WW1 if the great powers had not overreacted.

(Post a new comment)


[info]abyrneseyeview
2008-05-08 06:56 pm UTC (link)
Uh. Why not three planes on 9/10? Or one place on 1/1?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]selfishgene
2008-05-08 09:59 pm UTC (link)
There are many factors that enter into any military/terrorist operation. An enemy usually can only guess what those factors are. 9/11 may have been picked for a specific reason, or it might have merely been the first day everyone was ready to go.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Michael Sheehan, or Cindy Sheehan?
[info]phanatic
2008-05-08 11:17 pm UTC (link)
The first day everyone was ready to go....because they were willing to sit and wait for people to get ready to go. That's a "more opportune moment" than trying it before they had anyone who knew how to fly.

Seems to be a pretty significant overlook on Sheehan's part.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Michael Sheehan, or Cindy Sheehan?
[info]selfishgene
2008-05-09 02:41 pm UTC (link)
I doesn't take 7 years to learn to fly well enough to plow into a building. The terror created by the snipers with one vehicle and one rifle was pretty impressive. The point is, if there were dozens of willing terrorists in the US they could easily come up with a worthwhile target. Something as spectacular as 9/11 is probably beyond them, but they could cause a lot of panic in various ways.
You have an engineering mind. I bet you could come up with a dozen viable terror plots on short notice if you wanted to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Michael Sheehan, or Cindy Sheehan?
[info]phanatic
2008-05-09 06:01 pm UTC (link)
I doesn't take 7 years to learn to fly well enough to plow into a building.

That's right. So why did they wait that long?


Because Michael Sheehan's wrong. It's not only Westerners who possess things like patience and planning.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Michael Sheehan, or Cindy Sheehan?
[info]selfishgene
2008-05-09 06:43 pm UTC (link)
How long did they wait? They obviously had to recruit and train people. If we consider the 1993 bombing of the WTC as their big stroke. It then took 8 years to get organized enough for another big strike. Unless your theory is that they were organized after one year and then sat around for 7 years just to lull us into complacency. I can't see why they would do that, when our defenses were so weak.
Sheehan's idea is not that zero terrorist attacks will happen in the future. Nor does he advocate inaction. He specifically praises rigorous prosecution of Al Qaeda. His idea is that we overestimate the strength and danger of Al Qaeda.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Michael Sheehan, or Cindy Sheehan?
[info]jordan179
2008-07-23 12:55 pm UTC (link)
Sheehan's idea is not that zero terrorist attacks will happen in the future. Nor does he advocate inaction. He specifically praises rigorous prosecution of Al Qaeda. His idea is that we overestimate the strength and danger of Al Qaeda.

Perhaps, but Al Qaeda would be a lot stronger today if we'd held back.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…