Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Edited at 2014-10-27 11:56:45

At 10/25/14 07:25 PM, orangebomb wrote: There is no easy or guaranteed answer to mounting terror attacks on home soil, but by far the best options for civilians is a commitment to vigilance and zero tolerance towards obviously suspicious behavior, and from the military side is to find where the terrorist hub/base of operations and keep pounding them into submission, which is more or less what we've been doing with Al-Qaeda this whole time. While a few may slip through the cracks, the terrorists would have little, if any, organization to go towards and resort to going after softer targets. (i.e. Middle East or Africa)

The nightmare scenario in teh US doesn't involve a cell. They're too big and cumbersome to be able to quietly and discreetly pull off such a wave of attacks. The nightmare scenario involves acts akin to what happened in Canada, the NYC subway, and the Boston Marathon Bombers.

What makes these so difficult to stop is that when it comes down to it, there really is no such thing as an obviously suspicious act until it's well too late. A homeless guy acting odd on the subway? Not suspicious. A Canadian driving a rental car in Ottawa? Not suspicious. A couple Guys wearing backpacks watching the Boston Marathon? Not suspicious. It is not until they have begun to commit that final act that anything really becomes suspicious, and even then, it may not even be that suspicious. In Canada, it never got suspicious until the guy was running out of his car with a gun, too lte to really stop without force. In NYC, it wasn't suspicious until the homeless pulled out the hatchet and initiated hs attack. In Boston, it was NEVER obviously suspicious. Someone setting their backpack down and leaving it 9999 times out of 10000 is harmless, which means it's not all that suspicious. Even with McVeigh it wasn't suspicious at all before the act occurred.

At 10/25/14 07:25 PM, orangebomb wrote: There is no easy or guaranteed answer to mounting terror attacks on home soil, but by far the best options for civilians is a commitment to vigilance and zero tolerance towards obviously suspicious behavior, and from the military side is to find where the terrorist hub/base of operations and keep pounding them into submission, which is more or less what we've been doing with Al-Qaeda this whole time. While a few may slip through the cracks, the terrorists would have little, if any, organization to go towards and resort to going after softer targets. (i.e. Middle East or Africa)

The nightmare scenario in teh US doesn't involve a cell. They're too big and cumbersome to be able to quietly and discreetly pull off such a wave of attacks. The nightmare scenario involves lone wolf acts akin to what happened in Canada, the NYC subway, and the Boston Marathon Bombers.

What makes these so difficult to stop is that when it comes down to it, there really is no such thing as an obviously suspicious act until it's well too late. A homeless guy acting odd on the subway? Not suspicious. A Canadian driving a rental car in Ottawa? Not suspicious. A couple Guys wearing backpacks watching the Boston Marathon? Not suspicious. It is not until they have begun to commit that final act that anything really becomes suspicious, and even then, it may not even be that suspicious. In Canada, it never got suspicious until the guy was running out of his car with a gun, too lte to really stop without force. In NYC, it wasn't suspicious until the homeless pulled out the hatchet and initiated hs attack. In Boston, it was NEVER obviously suspicious. Someone setting their backpack down and leaving it 9999 times out of 10000 is harmless, which means it's not all that suspicious. Even with McVeigh it wasn't suspicious at all before the act occurred.