- Thread Starter
agree, but then as i said some thinks look inevitable , if not in the specific then in the general, if wilks booth had failed that night, would he or someone else have suceeded a fortnight later, AL had annoyed an awful lot of people, the presidents security right up to RR left a LoT to be desired, he was first the first of a few.
same with 9,11 the attack was amateur hour, which may be why it succeded, it was so badly planned and executed, that no stratgist in their right mind would have predicted it, a major terrorist act on america was however odds on, the 7,7 attacks on London conerned blowibg up packed tube trains, there no way to actually stop that other than intel, so theres a good chance that something a bit like 9,11 would have occured some time later, how much a change of venue would have effected thr big picture out come, is open to debate, clearly the twin towers were on top of the dreadfull death toll, an inconic target, would the invasions, wars and legal frame work have been greatly different if it had been a more mundane target
Good point they could have just taken Lincoln out the next night a week or month later if it had been stopped that night. Maybe the failed attempt may have caused them to increase security though and possibly prevented it from happening all together? Probaly not since Presidents even more then 100 years later were still getting targeted.
Interesting the point you brought up about 9/11 if it was a less iconic target would be have avoiding the invasions and wars in the middle east. I think it was more the number of people killed then the iconic target. If they had blew up a shopping mall and killed 3000 people I would think we would still have invaded and went to war. But maybe the iconic target and spectacular nature of the attack influenced the US response and made it more severe