Re: But they helped us catch the suspects . . .

Eh, maybe, but I doubt it.

Actually, you're right. Just that I realized that I had misphrazed it after I posted it.

Islamists are the likeliest foreign terrorists to attack in American soil. But far likelier are domestic terrorists, as Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Cho, and, indeed, the Tsertaevs.

I knew you were going to say this. No, I don't buy it.

Osama had no reason to live in Afghanistan past the Soviet retreat. That he did does prove that he didn't have a very strong self-preservation. Even after 9/11, he could well have delivered himself to a third country with guarantees that he wouldn't be extradited to America - and didn't. So, no, he wasn't terribly afraid of dying.

Oh, they have to, do they? Is that a rule? Personally, I don't have access to terrorists and their organizations, so I wouldn't know.

The kind of attacks conducted today imply either such a high firepower that the perpetrator dies from it; or such an immediate impact that it's not realistic to think you can make it out alive.

Again, I am not as in the know about terrorist doctrines as you appear to be. Please, do go on. I am quite curious about your insight into the hierarchies and internal dynamics of these organizations.

Even if foreigner, an al Qaeda operative doesn't pass as a furriner in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria. But he does in the USA.

Well, be that is it may, why should citizens be concerned about cameras in public locations if they aren't breaking the law or planning to break the law?

Because no surveillance initiative ever devised in history has ever ended at that.

Anyway, cameras do not have to be placed out in the open. There are ways to hide and to protect them from destruction.

You don't have to know where they are. That's why there are EMP's.