It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Terrorist Fixation on Travel

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:00 AM
I grew up in the UK with the threat of terrorist attack on the mainland by the IRA. Over the recent years we have see a shift in almost only travel based terrorist strikes which has got me thinking. There are many many attack vectors which I will not detail for obvious reasons which could be more affective as in cause more fear in a wider group of people. I hope that anyone contributing to the thread tries to AVOID detailing possible targets as well please, we are a fairly intelligent bunch for the most part and maybe Joe terrorist is well, not so bright.

The object of terrorism is to cause fear in the target group yet what percentage of American’s regularly fly? Quite low I suspect, so the fear per person is low compared to the overall populace of the country. Are you afraid every time a plane goes overhead? Do you even think about it every time you hear a plane? No so why the fixation on air travel specifically? Logic would dictate that it is not that affective and constantly increased security measures make an attack harder when there are so many easier targets out there. So the desired outcome (terror impact of mass populace) versus complexity to perform act is out of balance. For the bad guys it is the risk versus reward equation simply put.

Why would a terrorist group want you to not travel specifically? I can understand a repressive government wanting that to be the case but what do they the terrorists get out of it? Fear impact is reduced to a small segment of the populace, whilst it might be dramatic to down a plane and get MSM attention so would any other terrorist attack get the same attention.

With increased “security” measures stacking up, we as a population have are freedoms and rights slowly taken away. We are being slowly desensitised to the rejection of direct and repressive control all in the name of security. With the horror we see on the news daily we are being dehumanised also, the mass genocide of WWII caused outrage yet genocide has occurred in recent years with hardly a blip on the radar in comparison. I find all this very disturbing and a great concern with regards to an indicator as to where we are all heading.

We will get to the stage very quickly where you will be monitored from door step to destination, be subjected to search and scanning and can be monitored without restriction constantly. If that situation is not already with us now.. How does that benefit a terrorist? A repressive government I can clearly see the plus side.
What is the goal of the terrorist? Actions taken just seem to build hate so they are actually making their situation or claimed end goal (foreign troops out of the Middle East) harder. I am interested in others thoughts on this topic, too me the logic is flawed. Please don't contribute with they are mad or evil type posts, I would like to try to break down the logic of the action and target of choice.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:05 AM
We Americans love our planes! and we love to able to quickly get where we need to go.Terrorist know this and they saw what an inpact 9/11 had on us. They just continue to "try what worked" in the past.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by alyosha1981

Worked as in how (aside from the blowing up bit) and for what benefit?

Do you still fly? Epic fail then really

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:00 AM
Most Americans don't fly. Most don't even leave their towns, let alone fly nationally, let alone fly internationally.

Targeting planes makes a lot of sense, as you don't have to do much to bring one out of the sky, and if you commandeer one, you've got a cruise missile at your disposal (for a price as low as, as we saw, some box cutters). That seems pretty good value to me.

Terrorists are aiming for, and please pardon the pun, the most bang for their buck. Planes are a great way to amplify expenditure. If you could take a train off its tracks and drive it anywhere you wanted to at hundreds of miles an hour, and have it mostly containing kerosene, I think we'd see a lot more terrorist attacks of trains.

The IRA had a easier time, as they were situated in the same country they were trying to attack, and materially supported by an adjoining nation. They could sneak around and do more devious things simply because they have the opportunity. Foreign terrorists attacking a country can do so far more easily by using planes than entering the country, settling, and then attacking at a later date.

So, basically, it's logistics.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:08 AM
OP is right on the money! The travel terror threat is fake. The news shows us black ops that are designed to induce fear and implement measures that invade our privacy. A real terrorist wouldn't fool around with such silly stuff. Have you ever wondered what the ''terrorists'' were hoping to achieve with 9/11? Think about it.... some guys sit around and come up with the ultimate plan to really get America. Right. They decide to crash some planes. Sure. That'll show those infidels!!! Oooops. Now the infidels are bombing us back to the stone age. Yeah right. The whole thing looks like a bad chess move on the part of the ingenious terrorists. This is just one proof of the hoax. There are many real proofs available. The TIMING of the event itself is the main proof, but I can't talk about that in detail. The road we are traveling leads directly to genocide, but nobody wants to talk about it. It is the ugly thing that actually hides itself. It is the nasty truth that is right out in the open and every human being averts their eyes and remains silent. The level of competition is rising even as Liberal politicians lie for paychecks and tell everybody that they are all created equal and that they all have rights in weakness. The Earth is moving quickly in the evolution of cold war technology. You can't hear the silent weapons. Nothing draws your attention to the 100 year slow motion explosion. You don't notice the glass bending. You can tell if the Sun is getting closer or farther away.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by davesidious

I won't break my suggested rule but I can think of one that is a far easier bang for buck for the would be suicidal which would cause mass panic for all, and it costs totally nothing so I don't see how that holds water.

There are plenty of options so why the fixation on air travel? Makes no logical sense to me as you said very few actually fly or move very far from home. If the objective is to cause fear and change the lifestyle / pattern of almost all the populas then it's a failure right?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:42 AM
I just don't buy these failed terrorist attempts to blow up an airliner, which always result in ever more security measures which, apart from hassling travelers, always seem to enrich those making the rules who coincidentally have shares in the corps making the new security equipment.

Working in the security industry I can, and have, identified many glaring and easy targets that would result in much more fear, loss of life and financial impact. Hell, one simple scenario could shut down an entire country's air travel immediately in a simple multi-target attack, without having to get any devices past any security checkpoints or even losing many operatives in the process. Some of these are so easy to accomplish it's laughable, and at minimal cost and martyrdom potential.
Yet, we are led to believe that the bad guys are cooking up these outlandish James Bond-esque schemes to get devices onto a plane - which will have a minimal impact if successful. Hell, more planes crash all on their own without the intervention of the supposed bad guys, so what gives?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by Britguy

Exactly! And I know exactly what you mean..

You can't have it both ways, either the terrorists are so smart that we need ever increasing counter measures to stop them running at the SAME target (really dumb) time after time or they are just so dumb as to not see the other options yet they keep coming up with new ways to get round security (clever) hence more draconian measures.

Does not add up at all and it kind of hit me this morning out of the blue. When you stop and think about it the stink on this one is mind blowing!

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:20 AM
Part of me thinks its all part of a plan to limit our movments to within our repective countries. Although on the other hand it might be a case of that they know it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it kinda thing.

I also imagine the bad guys work within there own comfort zones and dislike change as much as most people do.

Aagin though I seem to be more drawn to the latter, keeping the sheep in one pen instead of letting them run wild makes it easier to keep an eye on them

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:32 AM
Transport, be it planes, trains or automobiles, are a good choice. Their longevity in our lives is paramount, not just the attack itself. The bomb on Christmas day didn't even go off yet it is still in our news and discussed on boards such as this and down the pub. A successful attack, Lockerbie for example, has aftermath that extends well beyond the travel industry and stays in the public's mind for a long time, thanks primarily to the media.

Terrorism isn't just about disrupting the target industry, it's about publicity and nothing gets that like an airplane explosion. Two hundred dead, international uproar, diplomacy issues between nations, blame, the list goes on. People will still travel, there is no other way, air travel is a necessity in today's world, but they're weary of doing so following an attack...

I agree that there are "better" targets and more public ones, but for a one man operation, airplanes are the best. One man with a tiny device can boom (pardon the pun) into a much larger event.


posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by Sendran

I understand what your saying but it seems all about the planes, and one man with a device can cause more fear and mayhem to a MUCH broader group of people with almost zero risk of capture elsewhere.

Airports are crawling with armed security, you have all those checks to get through. Why go through all that when easier options exist? If they just follow the tried and tested route every time then we should have no security risk at all because it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

So where is the logic in going after air travel time after time, It's like wacka mole.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:18 PM
Any other thoughts on why planes seem to be the target of choice? And now I think it is fair to say that air travel is a much harder target than it was? Or it should be at least...

I am really struggling to see the logic in these "terrorist" attacks.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:34 PM
Well just take aircraft for instance, they are incredibly high profile targets considering their availability, they hold a deep seated fear that is probably quite instinctive (of course flying having nothing to do with out evolution and only being something we can do in modern times) it's unnatural to us, were confined and at the mercy of the laws of physics, pretty much helpless in some ways.

Now as we know aircraft disasters are actually very rare compared to say coach / bus crashes... Your far more likely to be involved in a road accident - but once in a road accident your chances of survival are actually pretty good if you look at the figures... But in a aircraft disaster, once your involved your chances of death are probably quite a bit higher.

Also every possible detail of every incident involving is picked over with a fine toothed comb, and I do mean everything! - This is why aircraft are so safe in this day in age, they will learn a lesson from everything - so basically should you (the bad guy) succeed in downing a plane you can guarantee it wont be hushed up, it will be in the news and your primary goal (spreading terror) will be achieved.

And then you have the symbolic side of things, transport is vital to capitalism, if that's what your attacking.

In short from a business point of view they would actually be getting a very high return for their expenditure.

new topics

top topics


log in