It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Terror attacks that should have happened.. but have not..

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM

Start forest fires through out the west in the middle of summer. Cheap to accomplish. Seriously taxes our resources to fight the fires. 10s of thousands of acres of land would be devistated. Many people displaced, many structures lost.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:29 PM
Great more moronic comments, what is this some sort of terrorist brainstorming session? Have you actually wondered what side your on for god's sake?
Some of you people are so damn irresponsible it's beyond belief.
You might feel better by hiding your umbrella of ignorance thinking that nothing you could say could possible give someone an idea they won't have thought of themselves, but you damn well shouldn't if you do.

Who needs enemy's with people like you on the home team?

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:37 PM
Mr Smith,

Is it not just as bad to underestimate the 'enemy' ?
Does it not seem to be rather arrogant perhaps to assume that this site provides ideas that would otherwise go unthought in the mind of the enemy?

I understand that there are perceptible risks in the level of detail that people provide, but some of the high level ideas being put forward are pretty hard to pull off - plus it ultimately comes down to trust, how much stuff online do you trust after all?

Is it not possible the some of those posts over which concern exists are deliberate misinformation, or just plain and simply unreliable - and the beauty of that of course, is there is just no way of telling.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:43 PM
It gives people ideas, the enemy may or may not have thought of the ideas but what better source of them than from the mouth of the people you are attacking?
Is it really worth the risk for no point whatsoever?
People underestimate their actions and words online.
It's damn right irresponsible to publish information for no reason that has the potential of causing harm with nothing to be gained.
You all whimper that the intelligence agencies don't do enough to protect us, but you all happily act as little spies and brainstormers for the enemy without even realising it.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM
Ok, I think that we can agree that there is at least a question of maybe / maybe not in this now, rather than absolutes on either side. I'd prefer it to be that way, I seek no conflict here, rather to just explore the issue from all angles.

I accept the point entirely that posting specific detailed and localised information may very well compromise someone 'Careless talk costs lives' after all - but is not a considerable amount of (albeit perhaps more generalised) information already publicly available and online anyway, and a few hours poking about will turn up all sorts of things if one is focused enough.

Beginning to go OT perhaps, so forgive me if it is, but hypothetically, what if the publication of 'information' was part of a managed honey-trap ? In which case, taking the "little spies" comment ... does that not now go both ways ?

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:53 PM
yeah, i'm sure USA haters (not just guys who disagree with US policy but ones who would actually take up arms) are really going to be posting on this forum

and terrorists, oh yeah they are all too common round these parts

as far as other methods,

they could just set off bombs around a stadium. or crash a plane into one side of a pretty big one (guarenteed few thousand deaths)

if they really wanted to they could detonate bombs on buses or trains every week. really how hard would it be?

not every guy with a rucksack is going to be stopped and one will finally get through.

same with the stadium scenario.

i'm sure terrorists have thought of a thousand and one ways to gain maximum shock, destruction and loss of life. but thankfully, they've only been able to carry it out very occassionally so far.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:18 PM
i knew this thread would deteriorate into this kind of bickering.....

basically, if we put snipers or bombers in the right place at the right time we can kill thousands of people. everybody knows that.

does anybody remember the soviets?

those guys with all the ICBMs aimed at us and their quivering fingers inches from the red button? we all dealt with the ongoing threat that someone would go from THINKING about launching a first strike to actually DOING it.....yet, we got through it. we were braver then, more self-confident, and LESS PRONE TO REPRESSING EVERYONE BECAUSE OF ONE OR TWO LONE NUTJOBS.

consider the possibility that we've warned "them" if any mass-casualty event occurs with one fingerprint of theirs on it, that we'll retaliate in a way that makes that look like a sunday school picnic.

it might just be the reason we haven't had any post 9/11 attacks.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:33 PM
Sorry to say I think this thread is out of order too.

The only limit on terrorists' destructive powers is their imagination - don't use your knowledge of your country (better than theirs!) to help them get a bigger 'result' from their actions.

Loose Lips Sink Ships


posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:55 PM
They get enough "new" ideas from the movies, they would be boring movies if all they had was one method of destruction and death. Just watch "home alone"!

I'd expect some people to say: why are you giving these animals new ideas, you know they all live in mud huts and can only learn new things from the "media". These people come from places that have schools, money and power, the only difference is that they use extreme tactics to control and twist our freedom using our own govt. . Many times warnings of impending terror attacks have been ignored, active scapegoats?

Who gave them the idea of cell phone ignition or planes?

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:10 AM
... was looking for it for awhile too.

The point I was trying to make (while hopefully starting a good thread chock full of examples of why my point is strong) was that if there WAS Islamic Fundementalist Terrorists (IFTs) out to get people scared and aware of the fact that they hate us for our freedoms then they'd have done it.. multiple times over. There is an easy list of ideas I just came up with out of the blue (or have been mulling over for awhile like "How long before someone does X"?) and I have NO INTENTION of actually killing anyone.. IMAGINE IF YOU WILL NOW, someone who is paid to actually think up these things and is dead set on actually hurting people.

Okay so why haven't they happened?

TheShroudOfMemphis: One of the few on ATS worth their salt, gets it right again. Thanks buddy.

FatherLukeDuke: Are you even MINORLY aware at what a VERY SMALL percentage of muslims that actually want (or perhaps wanted to - things have changed since 1000s of them have been killed in the last 6 years - which was sort of the point anyways - create terrorists if even they didn't exist) to kill and hurt people, mostly brainwashed dumbasses for the most part. Not a SERIOUS THREAT anyways! Thats the problem with this whole "terrorist" thing.. if you use common sense; anyone so unstable enough to actually want to kill and hurt people in a terrorist attack doesn't have their "head" together enough to actually pull it off. This is why terror is such a nobrainer non-threat to begin with and why things like "boarder security" aren't such serious topics that anything is actually being done about it. ITS WHY Bush wasn't moved out of the elementary school on 9-11.. because the only terror attacks that do happen are always "under control". They only happen because they were "allowed to happen". And there is always a pile of conspiracy theories surrounding them because there are always so many suspicious events surrounding them BECAUSE of the level of control that is in place that gives the fact that its an engineered event away.

My point is that if they really wanted to get us, they could. They can. And in most cases, no one would know anything was going to happen until it was too late.

(except maybe in the extreme case of the nukes for blackmail idea - but still why nuclear blackmail hasn't occured I don't know - you ONLY NEED ONE NUKE and they won't want to wait to see if you have a second, they'll assume that you do after one of their cities goes missing)

"Where is the terror?"

McGrude: PERFECT EXAMPLE MAN! Actually I wanted to include that one in mine but forgot it. YES! FOREST FIRES! SO EASY TO DO! In THIS HEAT, that we are having THIS YEAR TOO?! It would be a long time before anyone even started to suspect "terror" too. The HEAT and SMOKE you'd put up in the sky over the US too!? Now there is a SIMPLE TERROR ATTACK, I DO wait to see happen every single year in the US and Canada, and IT NEVER SEEMS to start up. You could put a ciggarrette in to a pack of matches and drive away.. before long the smoke burns down to the match heads, they ignite.. and the dry brush catches fire and you could do that for days.. all the way up the country and not get caught.

To everyone who was worried about terrorists and writers getting ideas: THAT is the point... first of all they SHOULD HAVE already thought of these ideas... never mind me having to point them out.. AND the only reason I point them out is because they are NO BRAINER terror attacks.. just SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS (for the most part) ... IN FACT... what YOU SHOULD be worried about is HOLLYWOOD stealing YOUR IDEAS from these message boards... NOT TERRORISTS! Don't believe me?

Read the first example again, and go watch the end of "THE SYRIANA"!

Should I sue or what?

Maybe I should go write for hollywood?


posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:30 AM
Agent Smith man; Chill out guy. You are SOOOO missing the exact point I was trying to make.. if a guy like myself (or McGruder) who spends all of 0.0001% of his time thinking up ways to kill a lot of people and strike fear in to the hearts of innocent people can come up with something so simple then why can't a terrorist? And the other point being, since I can come up with a simple enough attack and I don't care to do so, why hasn't someone who actually wants to bring pain and suffering down on people done so? And seriously, that IS the point.. they don't NEED to read internet message boards for ideas.. but SINCE these attacks haven't happened, and I'm sure (like McGruder pointed out) there are 100s of more clever types of attacks one could pull off and YET THEY HAVE NOT HAPPENED, doesn't this seem to indicate that there is NO REAL THREAT?!

Thats the point man.

And as to whos side am I on? The side that doesn't want to kill anyone at all.

Hows that?


posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:59 AM
Scenario (No bombs required)

1) Take 80-100,000 1/2 inch nails and weld into caltrops which should give 20-30,000 finished spikes.
2) Convert the boot space of two or three vehicles into hoppers with a hopper-release mechanism activated by switch in the cabin.
3) Choose a busy fast-moving commuter motorway route, and co-ordinate the attack-vehicles so they are abreast the motorway lanes and moving at the speed of the surrounding traffic.
4) On command, the vehicles empty their hoppers of caltrops all over the motorway, and continue driving whilst blending in with the rush-hour commuter traffic.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of vehicles hit the caltrops at 40-50mph and suffer multiple blowouts causing a catastrophic pile-up.

If there were several co-ordinated 'attack teams' driving down other busy highway routes into the same city, the impact would be devastating.

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:04 PM
heres a few of my theories as to why we havent had another major terrorist attack yet

1: thats just it, it hasnt happened yet. its been 5 years since 9-11, if i remember correctly 9-11 took something like 5 years to plan. so perhaps if they are planning something bigger it will take longer to plan. they are vigilant, look how long they fought the soviets in afghanistan. 5+ years of planning to achieve theyre goals probably doesnt matter to them as it takes time to plan these things.

2: this theory sorta relates to my first theory. but i think that the reason its taking so long is because the next attack will be REALLY big. the terrorists know that everytime they attack us will result in more wars in theyre middle east countries and much more security here at home, thus making it increasingly harder for them to pull off another attack. so the next time they do, they want it to be huge because it may become very difficult for them to do it again. not to mention a small attack like the london subway bombings probably would affect us as much as it did the british, in other words, not very much.

and seriously people please stop being so specifics with your ideas of the next terrorist attacks this isnt a videogame i wouldnt be the least bit surprised if theyre are people with terrorist ties who read ATS and all you are doing is giving them ideas. you may think they already thought of everything you discussed, but remember they come from completely different cultures/backgrounds than us and may have completely different ideas about our vulnerabilities UNTIL they read what you wrote. although im sure the next terrorist attack will be something that will totally hit us off guard and be something we never even thought of [like 9-11] anyway, thats my 2 cents

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:23 AM
How about this,
I think the best way to end this war on the little bitch terorists would be to have a unrelenting assault of horrific scale on them. Since they only have reasoning enough to understand viloence..give it to them in spades.
Day one: Unannounced nuclear attack on Damascus,Teheran and Pyongnang
in this attack a total of 3 mega tons per city should be used in order to erase these cities from existance.
Day two : Announce to the Al-qaeda network that they have 36 hours to surrender
Osama bin bobbin cocks or something bad is going to happen.
Day three point five: If bobbin cocks has not been produced then use a neutron weapon to dust Mecca with radioactivity and demand his turn over again.
This time giving the little bitches 24 hours to respond.
If they do not then do a one mega ton ground burst on Mecca and Medina and continue to use nukes until the terrorists stop or are all gone. Inflict enough casualties and they will be unable to keep up their little gambit.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:27 AM
Irontyrant, Thats more of a irony rant. Little bitches? The War on Female Chihuahuas?

Are there any attack scenarios in this thread that haven't already been CGI'd by Hollywood?

As far as the neocons are concerned, the next most likely terrorist attack will be US voters giving Democrats control of the Senate. The WOT may become the war within.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:25 AM
I hope the Republicans do lose in November. I am not one of them. I am a Libertarian. I did not vote for Bush or his daddy. I would support Hilary in the next election particularly if she ran against Jeb Bush. Think of the slogan " Hilary will lick Bush in 2008". Never hate lesbians they eat the same things we do......

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:06 AM
Ha. You lip licking devil! But it only may be Hillary and it can't legally be Bush in 08. It will be...?

Will there be sex scandals if Hillary is Pres from '08? Hillary and Billary bang a gong in the Ovum office? The Repub's will choke on their depleted morals.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Soulstice]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:25 PM
kind of like the terrorists that pulled of Project Northwoods? aka our govt.

The Whole WOT is BS.. if there was a real Jihad against us there would be explosionjs at every school, gas station, mall, police office, and everything else they could detonate. well kind of like what is happening in Iraq, for example.

Big fat LIES all of it!!!!!!!!!!!

And not for anything.. but if there are real terrorists that were smart enough to fool the American govt. and pull off the most diabolical scheme ever concocted... then why wouldnt they think of the little things like what was put up in this thread?

Its like one second they are mega genious and the next they are too stupid to think of the ideas like what was posted in this thread?

talk about having your cake and eating it too... hmmph


[edit on 30-7-2006 by TONE23]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:34 PM

Terror attacks that should have happened

I don't think any terror attacks should happen. This type of speculation is just wrong.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:41 PM
Vis Mega has made a very solid point.

If Islamic support for fundamentalist terrorists was anywhere close to what the whole "kulturkampf" pushing neocon right was claiming, we would certainly be seeing attacks on the US far more often. There are somewhere between two and seven million Muslims in the US.

All the scenarios Vis Mega proposes are simple enough for even a small group to pull off (except maybe the one with the nukes). Despite all the BS about "terrorist brainstorming sessions", these are all things any random sampling of people commited to a terrorist campaign could come up with in a few minutes.

Yet none of them have happened. Why?

Could it be that the Islamist menace is not nearly the threat it's cracked up to be?

[edit on 7/30/06 by xmotex]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in