View Single Post
Old 06-24-2004, 11:29 AM   #53 (permalink)
onetime2
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by NoSoup
Agreed. I am saying that the attack on the WTC was more for symbolism, if they simply wanted to cause death and destruction, (sticking with my earlier example) they could simply walk into a chemical plant, take a high powered rifle, and shoot one of the tanks. Or, they could take a truck with explosive and drive it in... or place a small charge on the tank...

I believe that although many civilian lives were lost, they aren't just doing their darndest to kill as many people as they can (like the media portrays) but specifically attacking symbolistic targets - with the intent to get their message across, not just necessarily kill Americans.
There are far too many fail safes in modern chemical plants for that to happen.

Terrorists like the symbolism because it portrays the image of fighting a noble fight. To spread terror they need to kill. The more they can kill the more terror created.

Let's look at some other examples. Richard Reid and his shoe bomb episode, killed no one so no real terror created. Had he succeeded, no doubt air travel would have plummeted even further.

Let's look at the Washington DC sniper. The first attack or two, scary yes but not exactly terror inducing. Attacks 3, 4, etc, etc, etc, the terror builds as the body count increases.

Let's look at the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. Pretty high death toll but it didn't cause much terror and didn't really impact air travel or the economy. Plane bombings were expected and the death toll wasn't beyond what we hear about in any "normal" air crash.

The first WTC attack. Inconvenienced a lot of people as many television stations were knocked out and there was a fair amount of damage but no significant death toll. No real terror and only a moderate amount of outrage.

The attacks of 9/11 combined several things to induce terror. One, they were widespread with multiple targets. Two, they were successful. Three, they killed thousands of people. Four, they used a seemingly harmless and very common means (air transport) to inflict the damage. Had they not killed thousands would the terror have been the same? I doubt it.

Why do they want to gain nuclear, chemical, or biologic weapons (assuming the stories are true)? Is it simply for symbolism or is it to kill lots of people?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Last edited by onetime2; 06-24-2004 at 11:32 AM..
onetime2 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360