It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

terrorist targets

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
now..im not saying anyone should attack politicians..but during the attacks in india i sort of realized that...well...why on earth dont all these terrorists EVER attack the leaders of the countries they claim to hate...why are the people who the terrorists claim cause the things they despise never attacked directly?

why is it always the public..innocent people..who suffer?..i know that if i was radical/deprived/criminal enough..and hated someone enough to cause such suffering..i wouldnt attack innocent people..id try and get the person i think is causing the problem..

this..to me..would seem to support the idea that the attacks are not what we are told they are.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Because the public, public areas, public symbols are normally easier and softer targets and it makes a bigger "statement".

Making that "statement", sows fear and paranoia in the public....much like the fear and paranoia here on ATS.


Country leaders and officials are surrounded by layers of security along with the Big Brother-like entities looking and listening for the faintest sign danger or possible attack. Thus, are a much "harder" target to prepare for.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
cause it causes fear when the masses are attacked. they are easier to get to as well.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
i believe there are three main reasons.

the first is that a single high profile person killed on an ideological basis has a high chance of becoming a martyr for the cause, so it's counter productive.

the second is that it has less of a psychological impact. it makes everyone nervous if random public places are attacked. the more nervous people are, the more they change their behavior, the more successful the attack.

the third is that it is often not about a particular politician. it is about regime change or independence from a perceived oppressive regime.



[edit on 1/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
thanks guys...but i dont really agree on a few things...saying politicians are harder to get too isnt really true..in germany for example mrs merkel is often opening schools...visiting hospitals etc..i doubt it would be too hard to get to her if you really wanted too..and i assume most world 'leaders' also take part in such public relations activities..

i also dont agree that attacking a random hotel worries people more and causes more panic...the chances of me being in the very same hotel at the very same time a terror attack takes place are negligable...basically non-existant...if leaders were attacked on a regular basis it would cause chaos...



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

the second is that it has less of a psychological impact. it makes everyone nervous if random public places are attacked. the more nervous people are, the more they change their behavior, the more successful the attack.

the third is that it is often not about a particular politician. it is about regime change or independence from a perceived oppressive regime.



[edit on 1/12/08 by pieman]

The first i agree on that. Also believe that the goal is to make people negative about their goverment " now see what their are doing to us cause you're not giving in on their demands ect.)

You're second point brilliant !. Ironic that Gandhi, Rabin and Kennedy was murdered... Now i really wonder how it was possible. Each time one single lunatic !. Sure i also believe that if they would kill politicians, they could do it. But they get much better result by giving bullets out and wherefore creating conflits within the same "group". In the meantime they prepare the next attack...



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman


the third is that it is often not about a particular politician. it is about regime change or independence from a perceived oppressive regime.



[edit on 1/12/08 by pieman]


how many examples are there that this sort of terrorism works?..how often has a group got what they want by blowing up a hotel or a plane?



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
depends on what you mean by "what they want".

the aim of individual terrorist actions, as opposed to the campaign as a whole, is not to gain hard political objectives, but to effect change of behavior in a population. this change of behavior is then expected to effect the change that is desired.

by this standard, 911 was really, really successful.
america freaked out and turned itself from the leading light of peace and democracy to evil empire of oppression, in the minds of a huge portion of the world, inside a matter of months, by it's own actions.

what's more, it has destroyed the america that existed pre-9/11, that america no longer exists. it has moved western democracy away from a fundamentally freedom based society towards a fundamentally security based society. american people no longer trust their government. the war on terror plays a large part in the recent financial crisis, even if no-one's ready to admit it yet.

the palestinian actions draw isreal into oppressive behavior every bloody week it seems.

modern terrorism works as it draws the country it is aimed at into behavior that loses the propaganda war.

besides that, in terms of classical terrorisim, the afghan war aginst the USSR was successful, the american war of independence was successful, the irish war of independence was reasonably successful. the viet cong were successful in vietnam.

EDIT:for clarity of thought

[edit on 1/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
depends on what you mean by "what they want".

the aim of individual terrorist actions, as opposed to the campaign as a whole, is not to gain hard political objectives, but to effect change of behavior in a population. this change of behavior is then expected to effect the change that is desired.

by this standard, 911 was really, really successful.
america freaked out and turned itself from the leading light of peace and democracy to evil empire of oppression, in the minds of a huge portion of the world, inside a matter of months, by it's own actions.

what's more, it has destroyed the america that existed pre-9/11, that america no longer exists. it has moved western democracy away from a fundamentally freedom based society towards a fundamentally security based society. american people no longer trust their government. the war on terror plays a large part in the recent financial crisis, even if no-one's ready to admit it yet.

the palestinian actions draw isreal into oppressive behavior every bloody week it seems.

modern terrorism works as it draws the country it is aimed at into behavior that loses the propaganda war.

besides that, in terms of classical terrorisim, the afghan war aginst the USSR was successful, the american war of independence was successful, the irish war of independence was reasonably successful. the viet cong were successful in vietnam.

EDIT:for clarity of thought

[edit on 1/12/08 by pieman]


hmmm...the irish war of independence wasnt a success..the IRA demanded a united land...which they havnt got....as things stand they failed.

the american war of independence wasnt really 'terrorism' as i understand it...

the red army in germany failed...

the basques will fail..

the terror will not help the palestinians one bit in their cause...if anything its harming their cause..

if the attacks on india were indeed about kashmir then this too will not bring about the desired change..no state would bow to this sort of terror..and it would seem any sensible/intelligent radical who strives honest change would understand this..



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
i meant the irish war of independence, the actual war of independence, not the IRA bombing campaign. the success, or otherwise, of that campaign is debatable. nationalists certainly enjoy more of a role in determining the future of NI than they seemed likely to in 1965.

the american war of independence was certainly insurgency, but it isn't exactly the same as modern terrorism, no. sorry if i didn't make this clear enough.

the basque separatists may well find their cause becomes less relevant as federal europe expands its influence. they may also find their cause to be viewed more sympathetically by federalist europe, it's debatable.

the palistinian cause may not be helped in the west by the bombings in isreal, i believe the same couldn't be said in the middle east. success or failure depends largely on which audience you assume they are playing to.

the london bombings were totally unsuccessful, londoners got back on public transport the same day and inside a week it was almost business as usual. then again londoners have lived with the threat for decades now but the way they dealt with the attack determined it's success.

regarding the mumbai attacks, it's too early to determine motive, much less the level of success, however it may turn out that the attacks are meant to spark a full scale ground war in kashmir, which they may yet do.

as far as it goes, i don't think the bombing of civilians is a good way to wage a war at all, no matter who does it, it's always abhorrent. my point is that bombing civilians does the job terrorists want it to do if it causes terror. the act of terrorism has only one purpose, to cause terror.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
i meant the irish war of independence, the actual war of independence, not the IRA bombing campaign. the success, or otherwise, of that campaign is debatable. nationalists certainly enjoy more of a role in determining the future of NI than they seemed likely to in 1965.

the american war of independence was certainly insurgency, but it isn't exactly the same as modern terrorism, no. sorry if i didn't make this clear enough.

the basque separatists may well find their cause becomes less relevant as federal europe expands its influence. they may also find their cause to be viewed more sympathetically by federalist europe, it's debatable.

the palistinian cause may not be helped in the west by the bombings in isreal, i believe the same couldn't be said in the middle east. success or failure depends largely on which audience you assume they are playing to.

the london bombings were totally unsuccessful, londoners got back on public transport the same day and inside a week it was almost business as usual. then again londoners have lived with the threat for decades now but the way they dealt with the attack determined it's success.

regarding the mumbai attacks, it's too early to determine motive, much less the level of success, however it may turn out that the attacks are meant to spark a full scale ground war in kashmir, which they may yet do.

as far as it goes, i don't think the bombing of civilians is a good way to wage a war at all, no matter who does it, it's always abhorrent. my point is that bombing civilians does the job terrorists want it to do if it causes terror. the act of terrorism has only one purpose, to cause terror.


thanks for your great responses....i dont however think that these attacks cause terror thats long lasting....during the attacks obviously...but life moves on and a few weeks later people are not particularly scared...



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
there's no need to quote my entire post every time.

the length of time that the terror lasts is an academic matter, it's impossible to quantify. the feeling of terror may pass but the consequences can be long lasting.

some things, like the wars in afghanistan and iraq, have obvious consequences but there are other things which are less obvious like the level of inconvenience caused by airport security and the economic cost of all that extra time spent waiting and queuing is huge. all of this is to stop terrorists.



here's something for you to chew on, if china can do all this cyber espionage and some random guy in the UK can hack into american government networks for a jolly, why has their never been a serious cyber terrorism attack?

why don't the terrorists just bring the west to it's knees by shutting down all the air traffic control or screwing all the ATM machines in the country to spit out all their money like confetti or make wall street go nuts by shooting the dow up and down 5000 points a minute for ten minutes?

these actions all seem far simpler to execute than hijacking 4 or 5 planes. (i remember 5, everyone says 4 but i remember 5 being hijacked.)

[edit on 2/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
wrong button, meant to edit

[edit on 2/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

why don't the terrorists just bring the west to it's knees by shutting down all the air traffic control or screwing all the ATM machines in the country to spit out all their money like confetti or make wall street go nuts by shooting the dow up and down 5000 points a minute for ten minutes?

these actions all seem far simpler to execute than hijacking 4 or 5 planes. (i remember 5, everyone says 4 but i remember 5 being hijacked.)

[edit on 2/12/08 by pieman]


why indeed...and that is my point...

it seems to me that the terrorists are not what we are told they are..



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
well, we're told they're idiots, which seems self evident.

do you doubt the existence of terrorists totally? that seems rather unreasonable.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


no..not at all...the people who attacked india are terrorists...the IRA were terrorists...the basques separatists are terrorists...

the question is who controls these people...and that was the reason for my starting this thread...why are..in most cases..why are the people who it would seem cause the problems these terrorists claim are the reasons for their radicalization never attacked?

is it a coincidence that the only plane that didnt reach its destination was the one that was apparently going to crash into the white house for instance?..dont you find that a little odd?



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
ah, i'm following you now. yes it did seem odd, i've come to the conclusion that it was because it was the only one that they wanted stopped.

i've been interested in terrorist groups for years, i don't think they are centrally controlled in the sense that you mean but they are often linked with a proper government who pull the strings to an extent, but don't fully control the group.

researching terrorist funding throws up interesting results in this respect but there are hundreds of groups. (a list was compiled on ATS at one stage, i think) is there a particular group you're interested in? i might be able to help.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join