Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
I think I was thinking about the reaction to a sustained terror campaign inside the USA - as described in the article linked by David above - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...rs-later/3659/

Thirty days of attacks on soft targets would make us crazy. I hope I'm wrong.
I am sure 30 days of attacks would drive a lot of people crazy, but that sounds like an implausible scenario. Israel is not a good comparison. Israel has occupied Palestinian land for 50 years, they live next door, they have been fighting for decades, they know each other's capabilities (more or less) and attacks and counter-attacks are all part of a given pattern that both sides can make sense of (even when they dont like it). Who would launch this sustained campaign against the US? You would pretty much have to be in Mexico to do that (Canada is presumably off the radar after yesterday's game) and what Mexican organization is working on any such campaign?
"lone wolf" actions by individual Muslims suddenly seized by the urge to practice jihad are certainly possible, but that's not the same thing as a sustained campaign.
LET (to take one example) could probably launch ONE well coordinated attack if they wanted to (meaning they have the ability, but not necessarily the motivation), but they are not crazy and such an attack would be a crazy undertaking (the US is not India and so on).
David, England (unfortunately) does have a bigger pool of Islamist nuts than the US does. An attack is more likely there than in the US, but even there, I dont think its very likely. My guess is that it is becoming LESS likely with every passing year. I firmly believe that "lone wolf" actions are not that important or that likely. The really serious threats always come from organizations and those are under pressure in Pakistan and too remote from the modern world in Somalia...