>there was a story about how these papers targeted saddam and ObL through
>out the 90s. but that doesn't matter. you have to think like a terrorist
>todd! :) the point would be to make your next move one in which you attack
>piss pot organizations. you goal is to terrorize, right? we, the hegemon,
>terrorize with guns and bombs and policy which rewards and punishes with
>money. we seek to persuade populations with guns and butter.
>
>but the terrorist has neither guns nor butter. they need to use OUR guns
>and butter. a difficult task. resources are limited.they must be used
>efficiently. the goal isn't necessarily to kill a lot of people either.
>
>your task is to terrorize. your task is to persuade masses of people to
>support the policies you want them to or, at least, to encourage their
>government to stop pursuing policies you, the terrorist, wants to put an
>end to.
Well, thanks for stating the obvious, Kelley !{)> . I've been trying to "think like a terrorist" for some time now, on and off (over twenty years of refereeing role-playing games, and I like realism), and especially in the recent past. But I have to admit to being an "armchair terrorist".
I should have been a bit more precise in my post: I was referring to followers of bin Laden; why would they attack news agencies which are not in public view, such as what happened vs. the tabloid publisher. What happened at NBC sounds like a more likely candidate for a "bin Laden" hit; it's what I would have done: hit a well known media figure if you want to simply incite more terror. Note this also begs the question, once again, of bin Laden being DIRECTLY behind the attacks (9-11 and now anthrax).
>your task is to terrorize. your task is to persuade masses of people to
>support the policies you want them to or, at least, to encourage their
>government to stop pursuing policies you, the terrorist, wants to put an
>end to.
(Your first sentence could be interpreted as contradicting your second, BTW.) If I were a terrorist (Hmmm . . . "If I were a rich man . . ." Naaaah!!), I would probably have to husband my resources, even were I part of a cell, since I would expect money and materiel "drops" would be sporadic at best, especially after the authorities come after me. Also copy-cats might "dilute" the symbolic value of my acts. So I have to be careful about what I do. It would have to be something precise and indentifiably from my organization (assuming I'm not a "rogue") assumming there being no person to take responsibility for my act on behalf of the organization.
If I simply want to "terrorize" (and then get away) i.e. induce a mindless general panic (with an efficient use of scarce resources), I would go for large concentrations of people, and simply try to kill as many as suddenly as possible. Flying over a big city with a crop-duster or sky-writing plane or even a simple plane while dumping lots of stuff out the window (chemical, biological, or conventional load). Or I would biologically contaminate frequently used elements of urbania: mass-transit systems, mailboxes, grocery stores, etc. Hitting Wall Street at peak hours with an aerosol-vectored contagion would do wonders for inducing panic (assuming people there aren't so deadened by grief and pain). I wouldn't hit one office of an orgaization that is not in the forefront of the American conciousness.
Yes, Jeff(?), tabloids like the Inquirer might have great circulation, but if it gets disrupted by a terrorist attack it could still keep going with, I would expect, little interruption in the readership; mass print doesn't have a face (except for the occasional "well-respected" editorialist; hmf . . . wonder what the general public reaction would be if Hitch got infected with anthrax, probably not even a blip as he writes for a pretty restricted section of society). I used the term "piss-pot" since the pictues I saw of the building showed a pretty non-descript type of building. If the regular anchor(s) of a national or international TV news program were taken out, people would have it in front of their eyes every night they failed to see that familiar face. Mind you, terrorists, like any other group of people, aren't perfect; maybe they haven't thought of this stuff, maybe it's coming up, who knows.
>the anthrax attacks may be unrelated and it may be nothing to get upset
>about if it is part of a terrorist attack. the attacks certainly haven't
>been carried out especially efficiently, or so it appears right now. but,
>then, that may not be the point.
>
>in my business, we have to worry about cyberterrorism. it is not so much
>that bringing down a power grid or three will cause a lot of damage or that
>mucking with the NYSE stock tickers will be an act of cyberterrorism that
>will permanently destroy the operations of capital. what it will do is
>annoy and create small fires that people rush to put out. and what that
>will do is create a diversion while possibly more spectacular acts of
>terrorism occur. i would submit that this may be the case with anthrax
>cases. it's simply a diversion for worse to come.
>
>or, again, it could just be the point: anyone can be the target of terrorism.
Yes, I agree; the attacks so far haven't been done well. Unless you want to count the media frenzy. The anthrax story has been drowning out the attack on Afghanistan every time I turn on the tube.
Your "small fires" theory is plausible, but those fires are, so far, very scattered, and don't seem to be creating panic or mobilizing a sizable contingent of the authorities. I would start getting worried if a scenario such as I outlined above happened. As it stands now, the anthrax business merits concern, but not as much as should be given to the war. And paranoia, the constant worrying the media is stoking with talk of "it can happen ANYWHERE", should be countered with a cold bath of logic (Who is most likely to get attacked? Where are the areas most likely to get attacked? Etc). Saying simply "It can happen ANYWHERE" isn't terribly helpful not the least of which because it isn't true.
Todd