[billybudd]

These scenarios don't make any sense. A terrorist act isn't a terrorist act if it can be confused for a natural event (such as forest fires). Terrorists *want* to be able to claim credit for their attacks. Otherwise, the attack is worthless. A terrorist act must also be unusual, not something that can happen every day by accident (such as chemical leaks). The attack must reveal some fundamental flaw in the security structure of the nation (again, not something that could easily happen by accident). Otherwise, the terrorists cannot hope to affect our behavior, which is the aim of terrorism. No single attack could do any real physical or economic damange to our nation, short of a nuclear or radiological detonation in one of the major cities.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

Over on another thread this one...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1541389/posts?q=1&&page=1701

You will find tons of evidence that instruct terrorist on small attacks such as setting fires, taking pictures at nuke plants, turning over tanker trucks etc. to keep personal busy and wear us down.

[rwfromkansas]

Exactly. The whole premise of this article is beyond stupid. It is ludicrous.

[Fruitbat]

These scenarios don't make any sense. A terrorist act isn't a terrorist act if it can be confused for a natural event (such as forest fires). Terrorists *want* to be able to claim credit for their attacks. Otherwise, the attack is worthless. A terrorist act must also be unusual, not something that can happen every day by accident (such as chemical leaks). The attack must reveal some fundamental flaw in the security structure of the nation (again, not something that could easily happen by accident). Otherwise, the terrorists cannot hope to affect our behavior, which is the aim of terrorism. No single attack could do any real physical or economic damange to our nation, short of a nuclear or radiological detonation in one of the major cities.

Interesting post!