Our Biggest Immediate Terrorist Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties. [/quote]

May not necessarily be there duty to gather intelligence and prevent, but it sure is there duty to respond. How do you think we should deal with the situation? [/quote]

Preventing such a scenario is only possible under a heavy handed autocracy. Joe citizen should not be conducting counter-terrorism operations in this scenario. Civilians’ role in such a crisis would be to bunker up and make themeselves hard targets.[/quote]

I would expect private citizens to conduct anti-terror ops, but I sure hope the government does and shares info with the local authorities. Bunkering up for joe scmoe works if your not at the scene. What if you do happen to be at the scene? gunman 10 ft away?[/quote]

I’m unsure what you mean by the government sharing information with local authorities. You’re conflating anti and counter terrorism. Run if they can. Fight if they must.

22

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t.

23

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.

24

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.

25

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.

28

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Frankly, I have no idea why it hasn’t happened yet.[/quote]

Is anyone here more concerned about this upcoming Sept 11 than any other ones from the past ?

29

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.[/quote]

Mitigated how? Responded to how?

30

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If I were an asshole terrorist this is how I’d do it.

And yes, a heavily armed civilian populace would be as effective a countermeasure as you could come up with.

The cops could NOT get there before hundreds of folks – at a minimum – died if it was planned and executed (no pun intended) properly. A dozen well armed terrorists in the Mall of America in December could literally kill thousands in just a few minutes.[/quote]

Thumbs up. We are lucky this hasn’t happened. It’s only a matter of time I think. I doubt it happens ins Arizona…

31

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.[/quote]

Mitigated how? Responded to how? [/quote]

The only realistic option is simply a timely response by counter-terrorism forces. Regardless, many will die. A good case study is the 2008 Mubai attacks, in which 10 attackers armed with assault rifles and fragmentation grenades killed 164 civilians and security personnel.

32

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.[/quote]

Mitigated how? Responded to how? [/quote]

The only realistic option is simply a timely response by counter-terrorism forces. Regardless, many will die. A good case study is the 2008 Mubai attacks, in which 10 attackers armed with assault rifles and fragmentation grenades killed 164 civilians and security personnel. [/quote]

So you propose that everyone bunkers down, runs and hides and accept that hundreds will die and wait until counter terrorism forces show up?

33

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.[/quote]

Mitigated how? Responded to how? [/quote]

The only realistic option is simply a timely response by counter-terrorism forces. Regardless, many will die. A good case study is the 2008 Mubai attacks, in which 10 attackers armed with assault rifles and fragmentation grenades killed 164 civilians and security personnel. [/quote]

So you propose that everyone bunkers down, runs and hides and accept that hundreds will die and wait until counter terrorism forces show up?[/quote]

That’s the only realistic course of action. A few civilians with handguns might be able to down a couple of shooters but they will be heavily outgunned and will quickly fall themselves. The terrorists would likely be wearing body armor from head to toe as well. Do you have a solution where many will not perish?

34

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene. [/quote]

Didn’t you just call them jackbooted thugs? Do you think the jackbooted thugs could get to multiple scenes before massive casualties have occurred? I don’t. [/quote]

It was sarcasm. Sorry.

They could be at the scene within minutes. The key is that every patrol member is properly equipped and trained to enter a building to kill the shooter(s). I’m not talking about tac teams; patrol members.
[/quote]

Could they be at 10 seperate scenes within minutes? I’m not talking about a lone shooter, but 10-20 in a well organized attack on multiple weak spots within the same city.[/quote]

It’s impossible to prevent such a scenario. It could only be mitigated.[/quote]

Mitigated how? Responded to how? [/quote]

The only realistic option is simply a timely response by counter-terrorism forces. Regardless, many will die. A good case study is the 2008 Mubai attacks, in which 10 attackers armed with assault rifles and fragmentation grenades killed 164 civilians and security personnel. [/quote]

So you propose that everyone bunkers down, runs and hides and accept that hundreds will die and wait until counter terrorism forces show up?[/quote]

That’s the only realistic course of action. A few civilians with handguns might be able to down a couple of shooters but they will be heavily outgunned and will quickly fall themselves. The terrorists would likely be wearing body armor from head to toe as well. Do you have a solution where many will not perish?[/quote]

You mentioned making yourself a hard target earlier. I would say that not only applies to individuals but the city and state as well. So for prevention, I would get rid of magazine capacity limits and restrictions on CCW for individuals as well as places where even those licensed can’t take a weapon into such as a movie theatre or school. When a place declares themselves gun free, they don’t do well to make themselves a hard target. If you wanted to shoot a lot of peple, would you plan to do it in California or Arizona? New York or Texas?

As far as response, the only reasonable cost effective and constitutionally sound response is to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves while they await for police assistance. People will die. But less so than nobody armed and running away.

Im curious and open to some other thoughts though*. Are there laws we could pass to help prevent or respond to this? Laws to get rid of?

*edit

35

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Frankly, I have no idea why it hasn’t happened yet.[/quote]

Is anyone here more concerned about this upcoming Sept 11 than any other ones from the past ?

[/quote]

Absolutely.

36

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If I were an asshole terrorist this is how I’d do it.

And yes, a heavily armed civilian populace would be as effective a countermeasure as you could come up with.

The cops could NOT get there before hundreds of folks – at a minimum – died if it was planned and executed (no pun intended) properly. A dozen well armed terrorists in the Mall of America in December could literally kill thousands in just a few minutes.[/quote]

I’m also surprised it hasn’t happened yet. It would be pretty easy and the bad guys have a good chance of getting away.

Another thing would to shoot planes out of the sky outside major airports. A small shoulder-launch SAM could be assembled from smuggled in parts (or take them in over the border from Mexico…) and utilized. Pick a dozen busy airports and strike at the same moment. Grab a plane coming in or one departing. Strike from an access road and you’d be on your way in seconds. If I were a terrorist, I’d be targeting domestic flights for sure.

37

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If I were an asshole terrorist this is how I’d do it.

And yes, a heavily armed civilian populace would be as effective a countermeasure as you could come up with.

The cops could NOT get there before hundreds of folks – at a minimum – died if it was planned and executed (no pun intended) properly. A dozen well armed terrorists in the Mall of America in December could literally kill thousands in just a few minutes.[/quote]

I’m also surprised it hasn’t happened yet. It would be pretty easy and the bad guys have a good chance of getting away.

Another thing would to shoot planes out of the sky outside major airports. A small shoulder-launch SAM could be assembled from smuggled in parts (or take them in over the border from Mexico…) and utilized. Pick a dozen busy airports and strike at the same moment. Grab a plane coming in or one departing. Strike from an access road and you’d be on your way in seconds. If I were a terrorist, I’d be targeting domestic flights for sure.[/quote]

No, escape would not be likely in the least. Look at the 2008 Mumbai attacks. 9 of the 10 terrorists were killed outright and the last captured and later executed. The U.S.’ law enforcement and intelligence communities are exponentially more capable than their Indian counterparts. Such an operation would require true believers willing to undertake a suicide mission.

Man portable SAMs are much more difficult to procure, opererate, and move transnationally than small arms. The gains derived from shooing down a commercial airliner wouldn’t be greater than a dozen heavily armed terrorists slaughtering scores of Americans face to face.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Frankly, I have no idea why it hasn’t happened yet.[/quote]

I’m assuming because most of the men trained to be able to do this are home fighting there in the ME and not here.

Plus… Getting rifles in America isn’t as easy as the news makes it out to be. Couple out of a trunk? Sure. 40 or 50? Much harder and then you need 10+ mags each…

A home made bomb is much easier, faster, takes less coordination and has a better pysh effect.

39

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Frankly, I have no idea why it hasn’t happened yet.[/quote]

I’m assuming because most of the men trained to be able to do this are home fighting there in the ME and not here.

Plus… Getting rifles in America isn’t as easy as the news makes it out to be. Couple out of a trunk? Sure. 40 or 50? Much harder and then you need 10+ mags each…

A home made bomb is much easier, faster, takes less coordination and has a better pysh effect. [/quote]

I disagree. It would be fairly easy for a terror cell to legally obtain a dozen rifles and sidearms, plus their respective accessories. This is especially true if the aforementioned lived in a state that is friendly to the second amendment. Learning to build effective improvised explosive devices has a much steeper learning curve than learning to shoot and perform small unit tactics proficiently enough to carry out a mass shooting.

IEDs are dangerous to construct and store, and require a fair amount of technical expertise to deploy effectively. Time wouldn’t be an issue as such an attack would be months in the making. As far as psychological effect, I believe the Boston marathon bombings would pale in comparison to a dozen heavily armed terrorist slaughtering scores of innocents and security personnel in a metropolitan area.

40

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I disagree. It would be fairly easy for a terror cell to legally obtain a dozen rifles and sidearms, plus their respective accessories. [/quote]

This is just not true. Not at all.

You’re talking faking identities, finding a gun shop that will sell this arsenal to people who “look like terrorist” (lmao) and thousands and thousands of dollars. Not to mention coordination, communication, etc etc etc.

Homegrown cell? Maybe. Foreign born cell? Nope… Not at all.

Again, you’re assuming federal laws don’t apply, and local shops are just going to sell an arsenal to random individuals they don’t know in that capacity. Leeland Ye maybe, but not your LGS.