posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:01 PM
I don't have any feeling on the method; there are so many and the choice depends on what kind of aftermath pictures (i.e. affect) you want delivered
to the intended audience. Let's talk about the target first.
Whoever carries out the attack, as you know there are debates in other forums, wants us not to retreat into fortress America, but rather to become
blind with rage, to act irrationally, and rush straight into our demise.
Not just us, but our allies as well. Not our paper-only allies, but the ones who actually have some skin in the game.
The next attack will involve an elementary school in Middle America; lots of white victims (numerical majority). No one cries for dead minority
children anymore, not because we don't care but because we are jaded from the body count delivered to us on the nightly news.
If you want a live show, you will need to secure the school and wait for the television cameras. Then you will want witnesses to say they saw dark
skinned Muslim men doing the deed. However, therein lays the problem. For this to happen dark/olive skinned "terrorists" would have to get close
to the target. That way: we all saw who did it, we all know how they did it, and no one feels safe.
A better way would be to hit-and-run the target. Use white skinned Muslims for the job. That way: no one saw who did it, no one knows how they did
it, and no one is safe.
Either way should be easy to carry-out, easy to assign blame, and easy to create fear.
The weapon should leave the victims bodies bloodied but basically intact. This will have the most effect as emergency personnel break down, as they
bring out the victims, all on televison. Then we'll have no problem in meeting our armed forces' recruiting goals, we'll have no problem in
sending all the weekend warriors to fight, we'll have no problem in brain draining several generations, and we'll have no problem starting something
that could end us all.