I think he is mostly argueing that NYPD cops are not completely useless like the cops in Mumbai.

Yeah, so when they take over the Waldorf, or just a random Marriott, the cops will do what, exactly??

Attack the Waldorf or indeed attack 7 targets at once? Whilst parts of the response in Mumbai did at times seem shambolic (no plans of the Taj for instance), most security / anti terrorist experts that I heard seemed to agree that such an attack would be a stretch any city's defences.
I was amazed when the head of Mumbais anti terrorist unit was killed in the thick of the action apparently wading in with just a pistol. Theres no doubting the man's courage and heroism but I couldn't imagine such a response in the West. I am sure the response in NY would better organised, but we can only speculate on how may lives this would save. If the unthinkable does happen we can only hope that Mr Foreman is correct.

It can't happen in New York because all of the Jews make narrowing down the targets impossible.

What a putz.

This is a stupid article. The point of terrorism isn't to kill people - that's only the means. The point is to sow terror. So to be successful the police have to thwart the attack before it starts. Once you have AK-47 fire in NYC people will freak out even if nobody dies.

And the idea the cops would be right there at the start of an attack is just silly. A well-planned attack would have hundreds of people dead before law enforcement even arrived.

really, michael vick, really?

Not to mention it's rather, um, simple to get AK armor-piercing ammo. You think the NYPD is going to wade in really quickly after the first few officers get lit up? How about when the SWAT van catches an RPG?

I'm pretty sure if someone decides to come to an American city they're going to plan accordingly. Texas, the heavily armed citizenry might be a problem. Most other red states, they would probably still be a problem. The laws of attrition and folks deciding they ain't going to curl up in the fetal ball when you kick in their door would make a Taj style raid problematic.

NYC with its "let's disarm most of the citizenry"-mindset on the other hand? Not so much.

I stopped at a restaurant along the interstate in Ohio a couple of years ago, when it was still red, at a home style place I used to know quite well. By the cash register, there was a sign stating that it was unlawful to carry a concealed weapon on the premises. This was in response to the recent codification of the right to carry in the state. My gut reaction? LOL, good luck corksuckers, you've just made yourself a soft target. I'll never stop there again.

Archie Bunker was right. If you want to stop highjackers, make sure everyone on the plane is armed.

An attack in New York City would be different than Mumbai, but we're hardly immune.

I think we've just been really lucky with good intel foiling a lot of attacks.

20 guys in a few teams, with foreknowledge of how to take down a high rise could really fuck this city up and kill thousands before the NYPD could really react fast enough.

Attack at 4:00 AM, wait long enough for all the networks to get their cameras in place, and take the buildings down.

Sad, but true.

I was amazed when the head of Mumbais anti terrorist unit was killed in the thick of the action apparently wading in with just a pistol. Theres no doubting the man's courage and heroism but I couldn't imagine such a response in the West.

Yes, it's impossible to imagine firemen and police rushing into a flaming terrorist-planned disaster, risking and losing their losing their lives to save thousands of civilians. That would never happen in the West.

My uncle, who works in the courts system, has often noted that, despite rabidly anti-gun law, many New Yorkers are (legally or illegally) carrying concealed weapons. Even in downtown Manhattan, terrorists would have no guarantee that civilians would be unarmed.

Taking down high rises would probably be more effective in NYC, but, instead of figuring out all the ways that we're vulnerable, it would be a good idea to notice where the terrorists are vulnerable. If someone did launch a terrorist attack, where would they plan it? The Mumbai attackers were part of a well-known Pakistani Militia, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Were India's intelligence agencies monitoring this group at all? Were they monitoring, or doing their best to disable, Pakistan's intelligence agency, which is responsible for training this group and the Taliban?

Monitoring local Islamist militias, and their local sponsors and disabling their organization is probably the best defense.

Really?

I wonder if he thinks it could happen in Columbine, CO? Or at Virginia Tech in Backsburg, VA? Or at any large post office for that matter?

"Yes, it's impossible to imagine firemen and police rushing into a flaming terrorist-planned disaster, risking and losing their losing their lives to save thousands of civilians. That would never happen in the West."

You know full well that's not what I meant.

You know full well that's not what I meant

I don't know full well what you meant. What did you mean to say?

Well for a kick off, I imagine that the equivalent of the NYPD anti terrorist unit would be more occupied with assessing the situation and working out the best way to deal with it - as the position demands.
I would also assume that the NYPD would be much better armed and protected, not to mention much better trained - not that it makes them any less brave.
Brave as he was, the Mumbai chief was killed in part of an overall response that at times seemed disorganised and niave by Western standards.
How you could take a comment on specific situation as an attack on the firemen of 9/11 beats me.

"The point of terrorism isn't to kill people" that's correct. In fact, the place that gets the most threats of attacks is the "Statue of Liberty". In regards to NYPD being ready - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081118/ap_on_re_us/nypd_security;_ylt=AtvT7PrrjZ5.5AEApvzLEBfZn414

How you could take a comment on specific situation as an attack on the firemen of 9/11 beats me.

I didn't take it as an attack on the firemen of 9/11, I just assumed that it was part of an habitual tendency for most Brits to denigrate Americans and western civilization whenever they can.

But maybe I've been reading too many Guardian and Independent articles..

Or maybe you're paranoid. Or maybe you're just being obtuse because you have "an habitual tendency" to "denigrate" teh Brits. The phrase "wind your neck in" springs to mind.

One thing the attack in Mumbai showed is that specific people will be targeted, so the man who would head up the anti-terrorist response would be the first target in order to facilitate the confusion. Chief of Police, and high powered city officials would also be in the crosshairs. Not a new plan.

Or maybe you're just being obtuse because you have "an habitual tendency" to "denigrate" teh Brits

Brits aren't all bad. As Theodore Dalrymple said, "Britain is performing a valuable service, by setting such an obviously bad example for others to avoid." For that reason alone, they're worth paying attention to.

Urbane's a scot, and I'm a Brit because my parents came over from Dublin, where most of my relatives still live (Melbourne is a poor third to my British home town). For these reasons, and for the fact that actually having a critical opinion of a country doesn't immediately mean you hate it (quite the reverse), you won't see me disputing that quote; I found it quite funny, because it's true. Nobody ever moved forward by being heaped with undeserved praise. A country which does not acknowledge when it has erred is gonna end up like Britney Spears or Mariah Carey (in 2001).

True, undeserved praise don't help. Even Britney has regrets. As she said:

"I never wanted to become one of those prisoner people. I always wanted to be free."