[EmperorLiam]

Yes, the average American sees a box cutter laying on the ground and cower in fear, thats what I said.

Pseudo let me get this right, the scope of an operation is determined by its measured success in the end? So operations that failed, have no scope? I'm sorry but your thread of logic there is lacking. I would only consent that 9/11 was of greater scope, in the sense that it was 4 separate attacks on Americas homeland. But as far as funding and difficulty, it was way easier than a car bomb outside a heavily guarded embassy. The attack on the USS Cole was pretty impressive as well, an attack I honestly didn't even think they could pull off (I'm one of the few people that actually KNEW about Al Qeda long before 9/11)

[Psudo]

A violent thug is scary regardless of his weaponry.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Pseudo let me get this right, the scope of an operation is determined by its measured success in the end?

Two of my points were measures of sucess, the third was a measure of complexity. Thus, I disavowed that theory before before you asked the question.

I do think success has an effect on the relevancy of a terrorist act, though. An elementary student drawing airplanes dropping bombs on his school does not constitute a terrorist plan of any scope regardless of how much the student wishes the drawing were reality. Success (or at least potential for success) is a factor affecting scope, though obviously not the only factor.

How much explosive-grade fertilizer can you buy with the cost of travel from the Middle East to the USA, flight training, and plane tickets to a destination you'll never reach? I'm not sure the scale of funding for a car bomb is more than that of an airline crash.

EmperorLiam wrote:

(I'm one of the few people that actually KNEW about Al Qeda long before 9/11)

You must be so proud. However, that doesn't change the force, relevance, or validity of your arguments.

[EmperorLiam]

Quote:

However, that doesn't change the force, relevance, or validity of your arguments.

Well it shows how 9/11 wasn't shocking to me, because I had already been paying attention to the news, the idea of flying planes into buildings is not new at all, and the WTC being a target, HARDLY a surprise.

[Psudo]

Ahh, so the worldwide shock supports my view that 9/11 was unique, so you need to discredit it to defend your view. Thus, you claim foreknowledge and lack of surprise in any respect.

That same argument explains your total disinterest in body count, your rejection of success as a factor, your claim that it was less costly than other attacks and subsequent disinterest in my rebuttal to that claim, the assumption that typical American cowardice enabled the attacks... it explains it all. If all these arguments go your way, 9/11 is nothing special. If they all go my way, it was absolutely unique in history. And anything in between proves something in between.

These aren't arguments from fact, they're decisions. You have chosen to believe these things and do not back them up when confronted.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Pseudo let me get this right

I wish you would.

[terran1212]

Anything is unique when the US media jumps into overdrive talking about it. Paris Hilton is just as unique as 9/11 in our media's eyes.