A few ideas on possible terrorist targets

[Finaject2001]

I started thinking about this when I heard that insurance companies are raising premiums for stadium insurance because of the possibility of a terrorist attack. Now, I might be wrong but Im pretty confident that when terrorists do hit again, it wont be a "direct" attack on civilians. I think the odds are much better that it will be on a target that has military, political or economic significance. An attack on a elementary school or a church would be a bad choice for them because it would enrage us more, and would compromise their goal of changing the minds of the public towards their political objectives. An attack on a military base, government building etc would serve their goals better in my opinion. Because if they wanted to wreak havoc on civilians directly, they could do so many things like boobytrapping payphones or blowing up movie theaters which would scare us and at the same time its a lot harder to catch them in "little" stuff like that. At this stage I think Im right, but things might change in the future. But I think that the next attack will be something symbolic like the Twin Towers attack was.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

No, in isreal these fuckheads just blow themselves up anywhere theres lots of people. Im sure they will do the same with us soon. We'll have to wait and see. More civilians will die.

 

[Doktor Bollix]

Well if we look at how other modern democracies have been targeted by terrorists, particularly Britain, the terrorists who just attack infrastructure and economic targets get more results than attacking military and civilian targets.

For example, when the IRA was blowing up British soldiers and civilians and shit, they just strengthened resolve against them, when the IRA noticed that much of Britain's financial institutions, and one of the world's top 3 banking and trading centers were concentrated in one square mile in London, they targeted that; when they blew up that stock exchange building in the early 1990's everything in the area was shut down, they closed a hefty part of the planet's financial trading for a few days, which caused billions in economic losses. The area was evacuated first, so human losses were just a couple of people, even though the scale of the destruction was pretty immense. This was just a couple of guys with a truck full of fertilizer soaked in diesel fuel.

Next thing the British and these guys are talking after 25 years of terrorism in which thousands of people were killed, and now senior IRA figures are government ministers in Northern Ireland.

I think terrorism is a very bad thing, and whatever happened in Britain is irrelevant to what happens here. I'm making the point that attacking civilians is really dumb and counterproductive, and that hitting your enemy in the wallet with as little loss of life as possible would be more effective from a political point of view. In 20 years of bombing London, less people were killed than in the Oklahoma bombing because the authorities were allowed clear the area first.

Al Qaeda and the various other Saudi terrorist organizations aren't interested in any political settlement, which puts the lie to those who say that our policies brought this on ourselves. If that was true, politics could fix this, but I'm afraid the only solution is military. They target civilians because they seek our destruction as a people.