Why Doesn't al Qaeda use guns?

[NakaNaka]

I don't think this is something for P/N but here we go. Another terrorist warning in NYC, something about they think al Qaeda might be using trucks to blow stuff up. Obviously, that would have a huge effect. But it comes with a ton of logistical problems. It seems to me if al Qaeda wanted to inflict as much damage, at least in the heart's of the people, they would use guns. Four guys, four M 16's, Grand Central Station, the American public would freak and dozens would be dead. Four guys with guns is not too hard to coordinate and doesn't seem like it would pick up as much chatter with the feds.

-Phil

 

[Atomicus]

What is easier to conseal and then use without being caught? Obviously the explosives ! :frown:

 

[her209]

Why not use a tank?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: her209
Why not use a tank?

Or all those WMDs they got from Iraq? If they use those it will be the Demoncrats and UN's fault because they hemmed and hawed, delaying Bush's invasion.

Zephyr

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: her209
Why not use a tank?

Or all those WMDs they got from Iraq? If they use those it will be the Demoncrats and UN's fault because they hemmed and hawed, delaying Bush's invasion.

Zephyr

I think they moved them into some other nation, i am not sure wich, it depends on who is next on "the list".

As soon as Bush get's told who by Cheney we will know, Cheney just can't agree with Ashcroft on which nation has more valuable assets yet, but patience, i am sure they can agree on something sooner or later.

 

[Taggart]

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are partial to huge, spectacular attacks, hence 911. You couldn't replay a gun attack over and over on the evening news like the attack on the towers. And even if you could it wouldn't have the same psychological effect.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Taggart
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are partial to huge, spectacular attacks, hence 911. You couldn't replay a gun attack over and over on the evening news like the attack on the towers. And even if you could it wouldn't have the same psychological effect.

You couldn't? The name Kennedy isn't one you have ever heard of, is it?

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Taggart
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are partial to huge, spectacular attacks, hence 911. You couldn't replay a gun attack over and over on the evening news like the attack on the towers. And even if you could it wouldn't have the same psychological effect.

You couldn't? The name Kennedy isn't one you have ever heard of, is it?

The OP described a gun attack in Grand Central Station. Someone might have a video camera, or they might not. There is no way you can tell me that some jumpy camcorder footage of a shooting in a train station will be as traumatizing as the footage from 911.

 

[XMan]

Anyone read The Teeth of the Tiger?

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Taggart
The OP described a gun attack in Grand Central Station. Someone might have a video camera, or they might not. There is no way you can tell me that some jumpy camcorder footage of a shooting in a train station will be as traumatizing as the footage from 911.

Security cam footage would suffice, and while it would not affect someone in Nebraska too deeply, for example, I think it would significantly affect anyone with a RTS in an urban environment.

I don't think you would end up with "dozens" dead though - certainly injured, but GC is pretty wide open with avenue for escape, not to mention having plenty of police.

If you wanted to prey on commuter fears ..

Well, I'll not go there, but let's just say there are fears of subways that greatly overshadow those of being shot at .. or chased by giant roaches for that matter.

 

[Michael]

They do in Saudi Arabia.

The theory on using explosives is that 4 guys driving 4 trucks will do much more damage than 4 guys with guns. In both cases the guys end up dead. There is a limited number of people that are willing to blow themselves up and this is an even smaller number in the USA. Suicie attacks are much harder to stop than other methods so they're preferred.

Michael

 

[Dimkaumd]

NakaNaka I think you should apply for an internship at the Al Quaeda Training Camp.

 

[Kadarin]

They have them in Pakistan/India, in the Kashmir region. Fedayeen, or suicide squads, which will take over, say, a government building and try to kill as many people as they can and create as much havoc as they can before being killed. Doing something like that to, say, the Capitol Building, would definitely create havoc. I hope we're prepared for it.

 

[Taggart]

Security cam footage would suffice

But would they release the security cam footage immediately? It would be like Columbine where they wouldn't release it for a year or more IMHO.

The media would go nuts over an al Qaeda shooting, but the effect would be a pin-prick compared to 911.

 

[judasmachine]

When you fight goliath, you bring your guerilla tactics, because you know you will never have a chance head to head.

 

[Dissipate]

My guess is that they might just park vans full of explosives in the parking garages of certain buildings ala "Fight Club" style. No suicide required even.

 

[sandorski]

Potential Dozens or Potential Thousands? I know what I'd choose.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Potential Dozens or Potential Thousands? I know what I'd choose.

IMO you have the right answer for the wrong reason:

The purported goal of terrorism is not to rack up the highest body count, but to instill terror.

The explosive route mentioned would likely cause more fear than a gunfight (i.e. someone in a random building will have to worry about being blown up with no warning, vs. thinking that they will a). be able to see the situation unfolding, b). be able to escape avoid it, or in the fantasy thinking of certain types, c). intervene and prevent it.