[azcap]

Which is worse; one stadium attacked with 3000-5000 dead, or 50 smaller cities having malls and Wal-Mart's attacked killing 10K plus.

 

I doubt they could get enough operatives in a enough sites to kill 10K without at least some of them blowing their cover and the operation ahead of time - BUT I think you are absolutely right on the technique and the effect. If  Al Qaeda has been weakened and the their ability to carry out complex operations compromised what easier, low cost, low training, low tech way to strike out at the economy and psyche of Americans. A half a dozen guys walk across the Mexican border carring everything they need in a backpack.  2 days later at the exact same time they open fire in three rural Wal-Mart's and three high end suburban shopping malls. They kill a only a few hundred people but bring retail commerce to a halt.

 

[oceanview]

but that kind of attack could have occurred 100 times since 9/11, but it hasn't. why?

[Beck_isright]

Refer to #202. Worse is the thought of wiping out or destroying a small town (my definition is population 5000 or less). The effects would be devestating. Far worse than 9-11 because instead of just the major cities being terrorized, the heartland would come to a crawl. The economy would freeze and if the dollar dropped below 70 on the index, God help us. This is nut crunching time. I hope the authorities are ready to deal with this scenario.

[meyer]

2 days later at the exact same time they open fire in three rural Wal-Mart's and three high end suburban shopping malls.

Though rural-types tend to shoot back! I can't speak for suburban types, however.

[Aquinasfan]

They kill a only a few hundred people but bring retail commerce to a halt.

Fortunately, they seem to be too stupid to figure this out. The plus side is that thereafter everyone will be carrying, legally or not.