World's most dangerous terrorist ?

  • News
  • Thread starter jedione12
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolved around the discussion of who is the most dangerous terrorist in the world. At first, the general consensus was that Bin Laden held this title, but after reading an article in Playboy's June issue, the opinion shifted to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. It was noted that he was the mastermind behind numerous terrorist attacks, including 9/11. However, there were differing opinions on whether Bin Laden or Mohammed was more dangerous, with some believing that Bin Laden's health issues made him less of a threat. The conversation also touched on the use of weapons of mass destruction and the belief that national leaders hold the most power and influence. Some also argued that the most dangerous terrorists are those who are able to manipulate
  • #1
jedione12
I used to think the answer to this was Bin Laden, but after reading an article called "The Brain" (playboy's june issue), I switched my opinion to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. Does anyone else agree with me? This guy was the mastermind behind so many terrorist attacks (incl. 9/11) that it made my head spin. It was also surprising to read that he received his bachelor's degree here in the States, with classmates describing him as a "class clown". Simply crazy, and scary when you think about it.

Thoughts or opinions?

Steve
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know some guy who was a class clown in high school... i think we should kill him just to be safe ;). I still think Bin Laden is ... well he's dangerous... but not necessarily a threat. I heard about him well before 9/11 and his list of terrorist acts was just mind-boggling. I don't think he's a threat though because of his health issues.
 
  • #3
I didn't catch that issue. (So it's true, there are articles and not just pictures?)
 
  • #4
jedione12 said:
I used to think the answer to this was Bin Laden, but after reading an article called "The Brain" (playboy's june issue), I switched my opinion to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. Does anyone else agree with me? This guy was the mastermind behind so many terrorist attacks (incl. 9/11)
I guess its really a matter of perspective, since they are leaders of the same organization.
 
  • #5
"W"
he has more H-bombs under his control then any other person

he has more other WMDs
and delivery systems
and followers

he belives GOD is on his side

he has killed over 100 people before he started the two most resent wars
directly killing thousands more people thru his actions
has no real plan to stop the killing
maybe planning other wars right NOW [iran , syria, NK , others??]

state terror is still terror
what is an H-bomb other then a terror device??
 
  • #6
Wow that was a horrible post. Might as well call clinton, reagen, carter, jfk, ford, etc. the worst terrorists in the world because they had thermonuclear weapons under their control.
 
  • #7
nothing but disinformation for naive american masses.
 
  • #8
Yah, i don't know where ray_b gets his rant from. Sounds like he's as uninformed as the Europeans who get their facts from fahrenheit 9/11.
 
  • #9
Pengwuino said:
Yah, i don't know where ray_b gets his rant from. Sounds like he's as uninformed as the Europeans who get their facts from fahrenheit 9/11.

what facts?
do you dispute?

"W" had over 100 people killed when he was gov of texas FACT
capital punnishment or a form of state terror call it what you will
the people are still dead
and "W" ordered the deaths

he has started a war in IRAQ that had no rational reason
no WMDs
no connection to 9-11 or any other terror threat
his intent to start other wars is widely reported

what fact do you think is false??
 
  • #10
ray b said:
what facts?
do you dispute?
...what fact do you think is false??
I count seven in between there. :rolleyes:
 
  • #11
It's not just Bush. National leaders had always been the most inflluential people who have a great military might and millions of brain washed masses ready to do their wishes. Some have more guilts than others, but at the end of the day, they are all guilty of something.

Most dangerous terroists in my opinion would be some computer nerd who can hack our national defense system and use our own WMD's and deilivery system against us.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
I count seven in between there. :rolleyes:
what are you talking about ?
 
  • #13
Pengwuino said:
Might as well call clinton, reagen, carter, jfk, ford, etc. the worst terrorists in the world

I think I have to jump on the "Carter" bandwagon, and label him as the World's most dangerous terrorist. While we all think he's just farting around in developing Democracies, insuring "legitimacy" of the elections, I have reason to believe that he's really installing explosives, poisons, radioactive substances and pathogenic microbes into every election booth he sees, so that one day, when Democracy has spread to enough places and voter turnout is high enough, that maniacal bastard can kill hundreds of thousands of people all at once.
 
  • #14
The most dangerous is the one the people will follow.

I am not doubting that whoever is behind the planning is dangerous. However, if you plan something you need peole to carry it out. This is why Osama is dangerous. He can lead people to take their own lives for a cause, that's dangerous. If Someone makes a plan but can not get someone to carry it out, what good is the plan? How many people will disappear without someone to lead the recruitment process? It took years for 9/11 to be planned out. If the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. were working with each other instead of being rivals, 9/11 would have never happend. So what good is it to plan something that can easy be stopped if two forms of government learn to work together? (which hopefully they will.) NOw you take Osama, and that guy can say," Hey, I may not have a plan, but I got plenty of people, and I got more where they came from." So in essence the person who can get more people to die for him is more powerful and more dangerous. The reason is America will keep messing up and people will join Osama. Look at that Newsweek story. Look at those photo's of that jail in Iraq were a woman held a prisioner with a dog lesh. If these things didn't happen people would have had second thought about dying for some dude's cause. I mean there are moderate Muslims who don't want to go back living life like it was in the 9th century. There are Muslims who are like , " and what's the reason I should hide in a cave sharing space with Scorpions ?" So yeah, you can have the best plans and carry then out, but without the people, your not going to get far. Osama, he's got the money, the dues paid in the Afganistain wars agaist the Soviets and the Speeches. Sure One day he'll get caught, but it depends on how hmany people he has gotten into that Organization of his, before he does. Then we have to stop messing up. I mean I hate to think what could be worst than flushing a muslim holy book down the toliet, wieither it's true or not. This doesn't mean I want to see someoen one up that stunt. It just means just when you thought our image could not get any worst, some hack news magazine has to tell lies and say it's the truth. As long as we keep messing up, they will get more die hard's. If we can stop messing up, and catch Osama and the dude that makes all the plans, then we will get ahead on this war...That is If.
 
  • #15
ray b said:
"W"
he has more H-bombs under his control then any other person

he has more other WMDs
and delivery systems
and followers

he belives GOD is on his side

he has killed over 100 people before he started the two most resent wars
directly killing thousands more people thru his actions
has no real plan to stop the killing
maybe planning other wars right NOW [iran , syria, NK , others??]

state terror is still terror
what is an H-bomb other then a terror device??

that is the most misguided post i have ever read.

The US did not start the war, the US is finishing what was started by terrorists.

and iran and NK need to be stopped from having nukes, especially iran. iran is a theocratic, rogue state, and should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

And the war on terrorism is not a terroristic act!
we have yet to use a H-bomb, i hope you knew that!
Does the US not have the right to defend itself?!
If someone punched you, would you run to the UN for help, or would you stand up for yourself?!

you need to think for yourself, not do what others tell you is right.
 
  • #16
Anubis said:
It's not just Bush. National leaders had always been the most inflluential people who have a great military might and millions of brain washed masses ready to do their wishes. Some have more guilts than others, but at the end of the day, they are all guilty of something.

Most dangerous terroists in my opinion would be some computer nerd who can hack our national defense system and use our own WMD's and deilivery system against us.

do i get 100 dollars if you have ever read a tom clancy book, seen a tom clancy movie, or played a tom clancy video game?
 
  • #17
(0_o) anyway
If the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. were working with each other instead of being rivals, 9/11 would have never happend.

that single sentance provoked me to not even read the rest of your post, because that's a royal load of crap there...

i mean sure the CIA FBI and NSA arent buddy buddy, but they do combine data and have mutual analysts take care of it, the real problem is between our intelligence agencies, and all of the military, and coordinating that information to the executive branch, which was why 9/11 happened so easily, i think everyone ignores that many senators canceled there 9/11 flights because of a security briefing, which our president and much of his cabinet failed to attend

but anyway

i wouldn't say "W" is a terrorist, sure he's a dangerous man, but even though i don't like him or his policies, i will say he's smart enough not to just crap around with his power, that when he uses it, he at least doesn't randomly use it, i don't think anyone can say iraq was a peaceful nation and that its leaders should not have of been ousted from power...

and to me it sounds as if you have no idea about NK syria or Iran, as the guy with a lot of numbers in his SN said, iran is a theocratic leadership led by i believe, ayatollah khameini(or is it khomeini, i mix them up alot) which considers the US the "Great Satan"...and considering Syria has a wide reputation for harboring...well every terrorist who comes knocking at there doors...and NK, well the man is psychotic...if you read his profile youll drop a load in your pants...the man uses severe cult of personality, and kidnapped a cook from italy just to teach his chefs how to cook pizza, of which he installed a 100k+$ kitchen to make his pizza, and spends over 70% of his countries funding on military, meanwhile there's been about a 10 year famine going on

also does this have to be a current most dangerous or can we include ones throughout history...because polpot and milosevich come to mind then...
 
  • #18
TsunamiJoe said:
i think everyone ignores that many senators canceled there 9/11 flights because of a security briefing, which our president and much of his cabinet failed to attend.
Do you have a source for that? I think you are mistaken.
 
  • #19
cnn.com - search there news reports they had one on it around that time

also go to any of the intelligence websites and look at there news reports, they have briefings usualy monthly, and during times of stress weekly
 
  • #20
good post pap.
hmm i wonder who has more people willing to die for their cause...binladen, the chinese or the americans.

and doesn't america have nucs?

Fibonacci:
"And the war on terrorism is not a terroristic act!" That is a perspective...are you not terrorizing the countries in their eyes? You think what's best for them but do you actually have to live throuhg it?

"we have yet to use a H-bomb"..."Does the US not have the right to defend itself?!"
hmmm sounds a bit one sided so americans are allowed to develop weapons for defence but does not allow others to do the same...or rather the americans look at those weapons as acts of terrorism or a threat. Whilst looking at it from the other side, why can't we build weapons to match the americans, americans are threating to take over the world so we must defend ourselves. Basically america needs to be on top of the world in arsenal.

Its great to see an american bashing american weapons...gj rayb
 
  • #21
jedione12 said:
Thoughts or opinions?

Don't believe everything Bush tells you.
 
  • #22
Don't believe everything Bush tells you.

*nods*

but yes if we perhaps would have a SALT treaty with the world, that would be efficient, or perhaps not let theocratic and one party dominated countries have them would be nice, because i haven't seen a good one party rule since good ole josip
 
  • #23
TsunamiJoe said:
cnn.com - search there news reports they had one on it around that time

also go to any of the intelligence websites and look at there news reports, they have briefings usualy monthly, and during times of stress weekly
That's not good enough. That's a pretty serious charge you make and it really requires substantiation.
 
  • #24
1 said:
that is the most misguided post i have ever read.

The US did not start the war, the US is finishing what was started by terrorists..
What acts of terrorism did Iraq perform in the USA

1 said:
and iran and NK need to be stopped from having nukes, especially iran. iran is a theocratic, rogue state, and should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons..
Why should the US maintain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons whilst calling it terrorism when others try to attain them?

1 said:
And the war on terrorism is not a terroristic act!.
It is if you are one of the terrorised civilians watching US bombs rain down on you

1 said:
we have yet to use a H-bomb, i hope you knew that!.
I doubt the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really knew or cared about the subtle difference between fission and fusion

1 said:
Does the US not have the right to defend itself?!
Of course but apart from a couple of isolated terrorist attrocities when has it actually been attacked?. Does this right of defence not extend to other countries such as Iraq which has been invaded. Do the Iraqi people not have a right to try to expel the invaders without being labelled terrorists?

1 said:
If someone punched you, would you run to the UN for help, or would you stand up for yourself?!
The USA uses the UN as an 'a la carte menu', when it suits them it's rulings are above question when it doesn't it ignores them

1 said:
you need to think for yourself, not do what others tell you is right.
Exactly how many countries feel when America tells them how they should be structured, governed, behave etc..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
That's a pretty serious charge you make and it really requires substantiation.

well I am sorry but its not my job to educate you


Of course but apart from a couple of isolated terrorist attrocities when has it actually been attacked?

i think that's the point, we haven't been attacked, because we are doing this preemptive stuff and because of our massive military
 

1. Who is considered the "World's most dangerous terrorist"?

The answer to this question is subjective and varies depending on different perspectives and sources. Some may argue that it is Osama bin Laden, the former leader of Al-Qaeda, due to his involvement in numerous terror attacks. Others may consider Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the former leader of ISIS, as the most dangerous terrorist due to his brutality and expansion of the organization. It is important to note that there are many other individuals and organizations that can also be considered as the most dangerous terrorist.

2. What makes a terrorist the "most dangerous"?

The term "most dangerous" can be interpreted in different ways. Some may consider the number of casualties and impact of their terror attacks as a measure of danger. Others may look at their influence and recruitment capabilities, as well as their ability to inspire and carry out attacks in different parts of the world. It can also be based on the level of threat they pose to national security and global stability.

3. Is the "World's most dangerous terrorist" still active?

Again, this answer can vary depending on the individual or organization in question. Some may have been killed or captured, while others may still be actively planning and carrying out attacks. It is important to note that the threat of terrorism is constantly evolving and new individuals or groups can emerge as the most dangerous at any given time.

4. How has the concept of the "World's most dangerous terrorist" changed over time?

The concept of the most dangerous terrorist has evolved over time as new organizations and individuals emerge and tactics and strategies change. In the past, the focus may have been on specific groups or individuals, while now the threat is seen as more diffuse and spread out among different organizations and individuals. Additionally, the definition of terrorism itself has also evolved, leading to a broader understanding of who can be considered a dangerous terrorist.

5. What is being done to combat the threat of the "World's most dangerous terrorist"?

Numerous measures are being taken to combat the threat of the most dangerous terrorists. This includes international cooperation and intelligence sharing, military operations, and counterterrorism strategies and policies. Governments also work to disrupt funding and recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations. Additionally, efforts are being made to address the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty, political instability, and religious extremism, in order to prevent individuals from turning to violence and extremism.

Similar threads

News Bush Administration: My Indictment
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
109
Views
54K
News Downing Street - New memos released
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top