Failed terrorist attack in Detroit

[NorthSideSox72]

Both of those places load the almost all of the same people every day on to trains. You can also look at the other side of the picture. How many major cities have zero train transit? Blowing up a train in NYC does nothing to scare someone in DFW, because they have zero rail traffic. Blow up a plane in NYC, and you shutdown DFW airport too.

 

I already posted the numbers about how many individual people total flew per year, and I can't see the rail number being more significant. To spread fear, you need to affect the most of the general populace. For example, that is why AIDS was essentially ignored when it was a "gay" disease. But boy, once it hit the mainstream, it was a HUGE deal. Terrorism is the same way. You need something that puts fear into the most people for it to be the most effective.

I think you are really stretching to protect your point here. They choose planes for all the obvious reasons, and its not because more people fly (since they don't).

 

[Balta1701]

In terms of the damage train bombs do to a city...how long were London or Madrid's systems shut down after the train-bombings in those cities? Yeah, it did some security work, but it seems like at most the disruptions were a couple of days. Maybe longer if you can heavily damage or collapse a main line somehow but that's a pretty darn big blast.

[LittleHurt05]

I hate to be giving our government any credit, but does anyone think its possible that the reason they haven't tried any subway/train/mall/supermarket bombings is cause they have actually had a hard time setting up the bombers & explosives in the US? All the recent attempts have been based in foreign countries, and on 9/11 the only weapon was a box cutter. Maybe their opportunities to strike in the US are so limited that they have to make it something big to make it worth the effort? I could be completely wrong, it would require the feds to be doing a good job.

[Balta1701]

I hate to be giving our government any credit, but does anyone think its possible that the reason they haven't tried any subway/train/mall/supermarket bombings is cause they have actually had a hard time setting up the bombers & explosives in the US? All the recent attempts have been based in foreign countries, and on 9/11 the only weapon was a box cutter. Maybe their opportunities to strike in the US are so limited that they have to make it something big to make it worth the effort? I could be completely wrong, it would require the feds to be doing a good job.

I really don't believe that and the reason why is pretty easy. You don't even need explosives, all you need is firearms, and the U.S. is loaded with easily accessible firearms. Just ask the Tennessee sports teams. Or Gilbert Arenas. If all you want to do is kill people, pull out a gun and walk through any crowded place and you've got target after target, esp. if you're in a place with limited or unarmed security. You really don't need explosives to do it, all you need to do is get a person into the country with $1000 in their pocket.

 

IMO, the reason why it hasn't happened yet has more to do with Al Qaeda's ideology than anything else. They're something of a near-apocalyptic group. They believe that by staging large attacks, they'll shake things up so much that with the help of Allah, they'll be able to overthrow the infidels and create a new order centered around themselves. That by launching monster attacks, like 9/11, or the other large, coordinated incidents, they'll provoke the final holy war that they're looking for. Thus, they haven't, at least so far, been interested in the piecemeal attacks that they could launch easily on any number of targets.

[southsider2k5]

I hate to be giving our government any credit, but does anyone think its possible that the reason they haven't tried any subway/train/mall/supermarket bombings is cause they have actually had a hard time setting up the bombers & explosives in the US? All the recent attempts have been based in foreign countries, and on 9/11 the only weapon was a box cutter. Maybe their opportunities to strike in the US are so limited that they have to make it something big to make it worth the effort? I could be completely wrong, it would require the feds to be doing a good job.

 

No. Not for a second.

[southsider2k5]

I think you are really stretching to protect your point here. They choose planes for all the obvious reasons, and its not because more people fly (since they don't).

 

Actually you haven't proven that. You have proven that more people travel by train on any given day, but that was never my argument. More different people take planes over a year, than do trains.

[LittleHurt05]

I really don't believe that and the reason why is pretty easy. You don't even need explosives, all you need is firearms, and the U.S. is loaded with easily accessible firearms. Just ask the Tennessee sports teams. Or Gilbert Arenas. If all you want to do is kill people, pull out a gun and walk through any crowded place and you've got target after target, esp. if you're in a place with limited or unarmed security. You really don't need explosives to do it, all you need to do is get a person into the country with $1000 in their pocket.

 

IMO, the reason why it hasn't happened yet has more to do with Al Qaeda's ideology than anything else. They're something of a near-apocalyptic group. They believe that by staging large attacks, they'll shake things up so much that with the help of Allah, they'll be able to overthrow the infidels and create a new order centered around themselves. That by launching monster attacks, like 9/11, or the other large, coordinated incidents, they'll provoke the final holy war that they're looking for. Thus, they haven't, at least so far, been interested in the piecemeal attacks that they could launch easily on any number of targets.

 

Good point, didnt really think about the whole gun thing it all. Seeing all the constant bombings/attacks going on in Asia/Middle East made me think why it wouldnt be attempted here more often, but then again those are also different people fighting different battles.

 

I see what you are saying about their ideology. I personally think small attacks on soft everyday targets would do more overall damage to the USA than a plane or two, but then again I'm not the one trying to murder the infidels, so what do I know?

[Balta1701]

Actually you haven't proven that. You have proven that more people travel by train on any given day, but that was never my argument. More different people take planes over a year, than do trains.

I think this may be debating semantics at this point. Are you counting total ridership as "Total number of trips taken" or as "number of different individuals who use the service per year"? And are you counting both of them the same way? Or are you counting by miles traveled (where airlines will easily win because of distance/velocity factors)?

 

Here's official numbers from the government. July 08.

Scheduled System (Domestic and International) U.S. Airlines Total Passengers 70,233,341

 

Heavy Rail Ridership (million unlinked passenger trips) 299.9

Other Rail Mode Ridership (million unlinked passenger trips) 83.7

Motor Bus Ridership (million unlinked passenger trips) 451.8

Link 2

 

[southsider2k5]

I think this may be debating semantics at this point. Are you counting total ridership as "Total number of trips taken" or as "number of different individuals who use the service per year"? And are you counting both of them the same way? Or are you counting by miles traveled (where airlines will easily win because of distance/velocity factors)?

 

Here's official numbers from the government. July 08.

 

 

Link 2

 

the number of individuals who travel on trains vs the number of individuals who travel on a plane at least once during a year.

[Balta1701]

I see what you are saying about their ideology. I personally think small attacks on soft everyday targets would do more overall damage to the USA than a plane or two, but then again I'm not the one trying to murder the infidels, so what do I know?

I totally agree, and I think that's one way in which we've gotten somewhat lucky. If they were trying to fight a tactical war to destroy the U.S. economy or to get the U.S. to spend itself into oblivion, it's disturbingly easy. Combine a few D.C. sniper type events with some unabomber type work, and you can pretty much shut down commerce. They're just not interested in that.

[Balta1701]

the number of individuals who travel on trains vs the number of individuals who travel on a plane at least once during a year.

the problem is, I have no idea how you'd determine unique riders on light/heavy rail, since you're not presenting an I.D. That's a really unique piece of data you're asking for.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure why everyone is dismissing the idea that the gov't hasn't been able to prevent some things. Clearly they have. The combination of intelligence, military and law enforcement work dedicated to these sorts of things has, on numerous occasions we know of (and probably more we don't), prevented such acts.

 

That said, its not like they have a magic wand and can fix it all. Eventually, it will happen.

 

[Balta1701]

Not sure why everyone is dismissing the idea that the gov't hasn't been able to prevent some things. Clearly they have. The combination of intelligence, military and law enforcement work dedicated to these sorts of things has, on numerous occasions we know of (and probably more we don't), prevented such acts.

 

That said, its not like they have a magic wand and can fix it all. Eventually, it will happen.

Because of the level of attack that we're discussing and how nearly impossible it would be to actually prevent. The government certainly claims its prevented things and probably has. But the level of attack they always claim to be preventing is the big "Blow up the Sears tower" "Bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch" type of attack, where the target is always something big.

[BigSqwert]

Eventually, it will happen.

 

You really can't say that.

[Balta1701]

You really can't say that.

It would have happened 2x since the Anthrax attacks if these guys were better at preparing explosives and fuses.

[NorthSideSox72]

You really can't say that.

Alright, I'll edit - "there is a very high likelihood that eventually, these types of smaller scale attacks, possible on trains, will occur".

 

Better?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Because of the level of attack that we're discussing and how nearly impossible it would be to actually prevent. The government certainly claims its prevented things and probably has. But the level of attack they always claim to be preventing is the big "Blow up the Sears tower" "Bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch" type of attack, where the target is always something big.

I don't disagree at all. I disagree with some of you folks saying that the US gov't hasn't been able to prevent things. There is no doubt in my mind, that if federal and local agencies hadn't been working this stuff so heavily since 2001, we would have had a number of attacks here that fortunately, did not happen.

 

[BigSqwert]

Alright, I'll edit - "there is a very high likelihood that eventually, these types of smaller scale attacks, possible on trains, will occur".

 

Better?

I misread what that statement was intending to say. Carry on.

[NorthSideSox72]

I misread what that statement was intending to say. Carry on.

I am at a loss - what did you think I was trying to say?

 

[BigSqwert]

I am at a loss - what did you think I was trying to say?

Quickly skimming while at work I thought you were making the case that eventually we'll be able to catch all terrorist attempts.

[bmags]

Quickly skimming while at work I thought you were making the case that eventually we'll be able to catch all terrorist attempts.

 

ha, my quick skim created the same thought.

[NorthSideSox72]

Quickly skimming while at work I thought you were making the case that eventually we'll be able to catch all terrorist attempts.

Oh. Yeah, no.

 

[southsider2k5]

You really can't say that.

 

You don't think someone isn't eventually going to head out to mall with a grudge and an AK-47?

[southsider2k5]

You don't think someone isn't eventually going to head out to mall with a grudge and an AK-47?

 

Ah nevermind. I just saw your next post BS.

[Texsox]

Not sure why everyone is dismissing the idea that the gov't hasn't been able to prevent some things. Clearly they have. The combination of intelligence, military and law enforcement work dedicated to these sorts of things has, on numerous occasions we know of (and probably more we don't), prevented such acts.

 

That said, its not like they have a magic wand and can fix it all. Eventually, it will happen.

 

 

Credit should also be given that they are targeting the terrorists, not what the terrorists are trying to do.

 

Kind of adding to what 2K5 said earlier, and adding a twist, perhaps if a terrorist is planning on blowing up a train, that would get law enforcement's attention, because it seems possible and "real". Hearing that they want to crash four planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and ??, might sound too crazy to be "real".

 

Finally, We can shuffle the list of reasons for why and where they target. Either way, y'all are correct. And there are different groups, each with different ideas. 2K5 might have to rethink his position, I find myself agreeing with most of what he's writing.