It's not the number of deaths, it's the degree of terror created....

[kentuck]

Rush Limbaugh and others have made the comment that the terrorist attack in London was not successful because "only" 40 people were killed. Chas Krauthammer has made a similar point on FOX-TV. But is that really the best way to determine whether an attack is successful of not.

A recent poll, since the bombing in London, shows that almost two-thirds of Americans believe there can be a similar attack in America. It is this believe that we too, are as insecure as the British in this type of attack. So, we cannot really judge the terrorist success by the number of deaths alone, contrary to what Rush and Krauthammer might say...imo...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Excellent point. Just shows once again, how ignorant those idiots are.

I would say that if a major landmark were destroyed, even if there were no loss of life, it would be a "successful" terrorist attack... if that is how one wants to measure these things.

[billbuckhead]

2. I think the "Beltway" snipers were as effective at terrorizing as 9-11

They actually changed behaviour of the millions of Americans for weeks.

[bigendian]

3. Just my 2 cents.

Symbols of economic and military power targeted to keep up the pressure.
After all it was the World TRADE Center and the Pentagon and the first transit bomb went off in the financial district.
Continued attacks may keep western economies off-balance. When the time is right, bin Laden will take out the Saudis and then bye-bye petrochemicals, hello world wide depression.
The "haves" will continue to have and the "havenots" on both sides flock to religious war.