Terrorist Scenarios

[David Armstrong]

It was not stopped but it has stopped.

The terrorists were stopped. The attack was carried out, people were killed, terror was instilled in the populace, etc.

It a terrorist attack isnt stopped then why dont terrorist just kill millions of people at one time?

Because, again using raimus' term, we have mitigated the damage of the attack by stopping the terrorist. The Allies stopped Germany from taking over the world, they did not stop World War II. World War II happened.

Im pretty sure that it is physically impossible for a terrorist who has been "stopped" aka "killed" to carry on attacking people

True, but killing somebody is not the purpose of a terrorist attack. The purpose of a terrorist attack is to instill terror. Stopping the terrorist after the attack does nothing to stop that.

[David Armstrong]

What action(s) would you recommend to "mitigate the damage" of a Mumbai-like attack if you were consulted shortly after it began?

Haven't looked at Mumbai in any great detail yet, but I see no reason to think that the traditional contain, isolate, and control process wouldn't work.

[David Armstrong]

I am not asking you to answer my questions in a certain way, I just want you to answer them.

"So, I'm going to pose you the question, David, and I just want a simple yes or no:"

[pax]

This one's done. No more thread-jacking.

If you all want to go have an argument about who's got the biggest debating balls, go do it somewhere else. THIS forum is for discussing defensive tactics and training.

pax