![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This, regarding the FAIR media alert re the purported planned-and-foiled terrorist plot against L.A. -- as posted and commented on at hyperlucidity:
Preceding post: [Actually, I thought it sounded rather trumped up when I read the story originally....seemed a bit too convenient an incident (and already "foiled," moreover) to bring up as evidence that the administration's carte blanche re civil liberties is working. There's also one major flaw in the official story as I read it.....but I'll bring that up later -- key idea though, ya gotta think like a terrorist convincingly if you're going to fake a terrorist plot. Details at 11...*snicker*]
Simple thing, really....do you honestly think that a pan-Islamic terrorist cell would target a building simply because it was "the tallest building in Los Angeles"? And this after successfully attacking the World Trade Center towers (symbol & center of American financial power) and the Pentagon (symbol & center of American military might)?
No. That's stupid. Actually, the only reason that that skyscraper would be a target for anything is that a lot of Americans have a decent amount of concern for Los Angeles and its environs because of the cultural/commercial reputation there. We like Hollywood, in short...and an attack on L.A. = attack on Hollywood, glamour, creativity, ambition, freedom of the arts....well, bollocks, that ain't a target that Al-Qaeda cares about, it's one that "we" care about. And that's why it's a red herring to make us all sigh in relief and trust our fates and civil liberties to the government, because they say that they thwarted a terrorist attack.
Terrorism by definition is the methodical intimidation of a populace through the infliction of maximum physical and psychological/emotional damage.
Here are the main things that you have to remember about planned targets for terrorism:
* They have to be prominent and/or relevant.
It does no good to attack somewhere that isn't going to be readily recognized by the citizenry. They must have a quality of instant and/or iconic identification, or of universal relevance to daily life and necessity. Airplanes, sports stadiums, skyscrapers that are well-known in and of themselves for the business that goes on in them.
* There have to be a lot of people in/around them.
Terrorism requires appreciable human carnage, so that it damages the emotions and morale of the populace. Much as I hate the arrogance of Mount Rushmore, it's not a useful target for terrorism. Grand Central Station at rush-hour, though...possible, but trains are not as likely as airplanes, which are far more dramatic and cause more lasting paranoia. Airport terminals, though they may have more potential victims, don't have as much velocity and impact to work with...:-|
* They have to mean something important as representative of the "enemy" as seen by the terrorist.
The targets on 9/11 made sense, because they were embodiments of U.S. dominance/imperialism in two areas, the military and the financial/economic sectors. Unless something can be seen as a real locus of power that is being destroyed/damaged by the attack, it is unlikely to be chosen as a target of terrorism.
So....in short, that's why I had a gut feeling that that reported thwarting was a tale full of crap and machination. Just like the whole purported biological warfare threat in mid-late winter before the start of the war, with the stocking-up on plastic-wrap and duct-tape.....and again I say unto you, bullshit (which is what I was saying then, too, actually).
Winter's a really bad time to attempt biological warfare as a terrorist weapon, because people aren't as likely to be congregated together out-of-doors or in large stadiums and such, they cover themselves more if they do, the air's much colder and/or drier and so contagion range is likely to be shorter and breathing passages less efficient to absorb what's in the air....in short, it's really not that effective a season for toxic gases and such.
It's a great season for fighting in Iraq, though, as compared to waiting until the desert warms up and the sand gets into everything and the heat fouls up your computers and navigational instruments and the metal of the tanks turns them into furnaces on treads...whether you're not used to fighting in the Middle East or you are, it makes sense to mount your technology-heavy offensives in the cooler season as opposed to the hot season -- and that's precisely what the U.S. administration was gunning for, in my opinion...getting the public anxiety/fervour strong enough over this to start attacking Iraq as soon as possible, while it was still easy going to start and maintain a desert campaign efficiently.
At least, that's the way I see it. Thinking like a terrorist has its advantages. So does thinking like a general or commander-in-chief who wants to get his war on already...strategy, people, strategy........
Preceding post: [Actually, I thought it sounded rather trumped up when I read the story originally....seemed a bit too convenient an incident (and already "foiled," moreover) to bring up as evidence that the administration's carte blanche re civil liberties is working. There's also one major flaw in the official story as I read it.....but I'll bring that up later -- key idea though, ya gotta think like a terrorist convincingly if you're going to fake a terrorist plot. Details at 11...*snicker*]
Simple thing, really....do you honestly think that a pan-Islamic terrorist cell would target a building simply because it was "the tallest building in Los Angeles"? And this after successfully attacking the World Trade Center towers (symbol & center of American financial power) and the Pentagon (symbol & center of American military might)?
No. That's stupid. Actually, the only reason that that skyscraper would be a target for anything is that a lot of Americans have a decent amount of concern for Los Angeles and its environs because of the cultural/commercial reputation there. We like Hollywood, in short...and an attack on L.A. = attack on Hollywood, glamour, creativity, ambition, freedom of the arts....well, bollocks, that ain't a target that Al-Qaeda cares about, it's one that "we" care about. And that's why it's a red herring to make us all sigh in relief and trust our fates and civil liberties to the government, because they say that they thwarted a terrorist attack.
Terrorism by definition is the methodical intimidation of a populace through the infliction of maximum physical and psychological/emotional damage.
Here are the main things that you have to remember about planned targets for terrorism:
* They have to be prominent and/or relevant.
It does no good to attack somewhere that isn't going to be readily recognized by the citizenry. They must have a quality of instant and/or iconic identification, or of universal relevance to daily life and necessity. Airplanes, sports stadiums, skyscrapers that are well-known in and of themselves for the business that goes on in them.
* There have to be a lot of people in/around them.
Terrorism requires appreciable human carnage, so that it damages the emotions and morale of the populace. Much as I hate the arrogance of Mount Rushmore, it's not a useful target for terrorism. Grand Central Station at rush-hour, though...possible, but trains are not as likely as airplanes, which are far more dramatic and cause more lasting paranoia. Airport terminals, though they may have more potential victims, don't have as much velocity and impact to work with...:-|
* They have to mean something important as representative of the "enemy" as seen by the terrorist.
The targets on 9/11 made sense, because they were embodiments of U.S. dominance/imperialism in two areas, the military and the financial/economic sectors. Unless something can be seen as a real locus of power that is being destroyed/damaged by the attack, it is unlikely to be chosen as a target of terrorism.
So....in short, that's why I had a gut feeling that that reported thwarting was a tale full of crap and machination. Just like the whole purported biological warfare threat in mid-late winter before the start of the war, with the stocking-up on plastic-wrap and duct-tape.....and again I say unto you, bullshit (which is what I was saying then, too, actually).
Winter's a really bad time to attempt biological warfare as a terrorist weapon, because people aren't as likely to be congregated together out-of-doors or in large stadiums and such, they cover themselves more if they do, the air's much colder and/or drier and so contagion range is likely to be shorter and breathing passages less efficient to absorb what's in the air....in short, it's really not that effective a season for toxic gases and such.
It's a great season for fighting in Iraq, though, as compared to waiting until the desert warms up and the sand gets into everything and the heat fouls up your computers and navigational instruments and the metal of the tanks turns them into furnaces on treads...whether you're not used to fighting in the Middle East or you are, it makes sense to mount your technology-heavy offensives in the cooler season as opposed to the hot season -- and that's precisely what the U.S. administration was gunning for, in my opinion...getting the public anxiety/fervour strong enough over this to start attacking Iraq as soon as possible, while it was still easy going to start and maintain a desert campaign efficiently.
At least, that's the way I see it. Thinking like a terrorist has its advantages. So does thinking like a general or commander-in-chief who wants to get his war on already...strategy, people, strategy........
