Printable View
Ouch -- glad you aren't working for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
By the way, I think there is no specific target in any nation whose destruction would truly destroy that nation's spirit. Alarm, despair and anger, yes. Paralysis, no - at least not after the initial phase of shock.
hmmmmm....what about St. James Gate Dublin ? ~:cheers: or not~:cheers: as the case would be .[/QUOTE]
:bow: :bow: Incisive analysis. You and I concur. :bow: :bow: ~;)
In Holland it would be something like the NS Central Station ( railway station in the center of Amsterdam )
Or Maybe our primairy broadcasting studios in Hilversum ( mediapark).
Now I don't think that bombing the Queens home would completely cripple our Nation, but destroying one of the above mentioned locations would, for a certain amount of time .
:balloon2:
Against the USA:
Long-term damage:
Take out the Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, the Oil Terminal at Grand Island, and the 6 Biggest fuel pipelines including the Trans-Alaska. Guaranteed to trigger at least 2 quarters of recession along with other problems.
Horror:
1. Nerve toxin gas dispensed from several crop dusters at one or two of the big college stadiums during rivarly weekend. 80-120k per stadium.
2. Pirate an LNG transporter, sail it into a port like Frisco or Boston (most others aren't close enough to the ocean to pull it off, and then make the Halifax incident look like a small-town fireworks show.
hmm what effect would bombing wallstreet have in the would you say ?
Central New York hit again, that would be devastating for the morale of hte people I would say.
Though seeing what kind of protection there is over there in NY since 9/11 , the chances of an attack like that would be slim.
:balloon2:
You Danes! ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
It's the only thing that you have that's worth anything and you defile it? GAH!
Perhaps it should be moved somewhere more safe, like here in Western Canada. ~D
I just can´t think of anything in Germany that could be destroyed to make me fear the destruction of my country or whatever. Not many would really miss our polititians in the "Bundestag" in the political sense I guess, though as being humans even they deserve not to be killed of course. Apart from that, who cares about a building?~:rolleyes:
An attack on our deltaworks would pretty much suck. Half of the Netherlands would be under water. But there is always a bright side, I would live at a coasttown.
For America just put a suitcase marked Biological Hazard in central park it doesent even need to be real just sit back and watch the panic. Pretty soon the media blows it all out of proportion a few people might actually believe that an attack took place nuff said
I have long said that the AQ strategy is a loser. It just won't work. Attack and terrorise the people in the hope that they will pressure their governments to act.
It's nonsense and totally counterproductive. Not only do governments not care what happens to a few civilians, but can in fact use such attacks to strengthen their own position and bring in the kinds of repressive laws they could only previously dream about. We are about to get imprisonment without trial or lawyers for 90 days!
Likewise it is a propaganda disaster for those groups. Their message becomes one of violence and all else can be swiftly ignored.
If I ran AQ I would change tactics radically. You want to have an effective propaganda arm producing leaflets and campaigning in the countries. That wing would have to be able to distance itself to some extent from the armed wing.
The armed wing would focus on expensive and difficult to insure infrastructure. Bombs in the city of London with warnings so no people are hurt. Oil pipelines, electricity generation, rail tracks (with warnings well in advance to avoid accidents but disrupt transport for weeks).
The expence and disruption to business will make them pressure the government. Now political parties know which side their bread is buttered and will listen and be forced to take action.
The public will be annoyed by the disruption but won't be unified against the terrorists as there isn't much actual terror. No-one is that afraid. They will have been softened by the propaganda wing - which will be convieniently in place when the government wants to start negotiating.
It is a campaign that works - the IRA used it well.
If i have to think a worst possible hit against my country Finland. It would be attack against our two nuclear plants in the middle of the Winter.First those reactors are very close to a population centers,so the direct conseguences could be devastating.Second it would have devastating effect on our industry and third very many people would simply freeze to death in Finlands Urban areas ,without electricity.~:(
I don't think the UK really does symbolism too much, but to the extent that we do, Mr Fawkes probably had it right. We may not like our politicians but blowing up the mother of parliaments would have to be the biggest possible symbolic attack on the UK.
For an easier symbolic attack, which would certainly be my first action as leader of the Whimsical Brigade, our non-English posters may not be aware of the legend that if the ravens ever leave the Tower of London, the Tower will fall, and if the Tower falls, England will fall. (I'm afraid I don't think this includes Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). Therefore the downfall of England could easily be brought about by smuggling a couple of sacks into the Tower of London, quickly stuffing all the ravens in them, and running out the gate.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking the Whimsical Brigade could never pull this off because ravens are hard to catch. Well, you are wrong, because the ravens in the Tower have their wings clipped to make sure they can't fly away (and thereby precipitate the downfall of England.) So the very measure adopted to safeguard England would be her downfall.
[Ming the Merciless Evil laugh]
Places where people are, sports events, concerts, malls, hospitals, police stations, courts, etc. places you would normally think would be safe but not too big because that would unite the entire nation. To hit the statue of liberty, white house, hover dam, TV network studios, etc. would piss off so many that there would be a rally of support to find and kill all terrorists.
Therefore the downfall of England could easily be brought about by smuggling a couple of sacks into the Tower of London, quickly stuffing all the ravens in them, and running out the gate.
No no no , sloppy work assassin .
Bring in a sack full of ferrets and let them go , that way you can make a quick getaway without being encumbered by a sack of ravens .~;)
The only thing is that AQ doesn't want change-they want to destroy the west.Quote:
It is a campaign that works - the IRA used it well.
Sounds like they'd be a bit inbred.Quote:
Well, you are wrong, because the ravens in the Tower have their wings clipped to make sure they can't fly away (and thereby precipitate the downfall of England.) So the very measure adopted to safeguard England would be her downfall.
Crazed Rabbit
This is a good example of the paucity of their propaganda machine. In the early days it was quite simple and relatively coherant. It wanted US troops out of Arabia and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. However they have allowed their propaganda to get taken over by the west and by fringe groups who both agree on some kind of vague holy crusade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Now everyone seems to believe, more convieniently for the west I might add, that AQ want some pan-world holy war (which some in affiliated groups no doubt do). However combine this with the targets and you get 'a group that can't be reasoned with' - which is a grave strategic error on their part.
Had this happened it would have served only to embolden them, and they would have picked something else. One of Osama's gripes is the Turk's defeat at Vienna - about 500 years ago.Quote:
It wanted US troops out of Arabia and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
After all, why are terrorists (nothing to do with the rioters) trying to attack the Saddam-friendly France? Or why French ships are attacked, and the terrorists say "We wanted to strike the US, but any infidel will do."
Nor was their 'propaganda taken over'. It was a concious and deliberate goal to destroy the west, even if they were smart enough to not claim it at first.
Crazed Rabbit
The Outback... if they dropped a couple of nukes in the middle there Australians would be devastated. :hide:
Because Saddam isn't linked in any way with terrorists and muslim extremists ? ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Or is that because France had some nasty stuffs going on with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia a few decades ago ?
??Quote:
One of Osama's gripes is the Turk's defeat at Vienna - about 500 years ago.
I bet that freak does not know a single letter of Ottoman history. Do you really support that idea ?
I don't want to get into an Iraq war discussion (and it's not like Saddam was a great guy even if he had no connection with AQ). I'm just saying that it would seem that the French have taken a postion very favorable to Osama's demands (not that they really had to give up anything, like move troops out of Arabia), and sentiment is, from what I can tell, pro-palestinian. They are doing all that Osama claimed he wanted them to do, yet terrorists still try and attack them.Quote:
Because Saddam isn't linked in any way with terrorists and muslim extremists ?
Or is that because France had some nasty stuffs going on with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia a few decades ago ?
Yes, France has had hard dealings with some North African countries, but that was a while ago, and the (attempted) terror attacks aren't by Algerian nationalists (since Algeria is already independent) but by fanatic Muslims in the name of Islam, though they may happen to be from Algeria.
Who's the freak? Me or Osama? I see now that the siege of Vienna was only a little more than 300 years ago. Truth be told, I cannot find the resource saying Osama's mad about Vienna, but I do remember hearing about it.Quote:
I bet that freak does not know a single letter of Ottoman history. Do you really support that idea ?
Crazed Rabbit
Yes, France has had hard dealings with some North African countries, but that was a while ago, and the (attempted) terror attacks aren't by Algerian nationalists (since Algeria is already independent) but by fanatic Muslims in the name of Islam, though they may happen to be from Algeria.
Perhaps you might want to view some news from Algeria and France from the past couple of decades .
I'm just saying that it would seem that the French have taken a postion very favorable to Osama's demands (not that they really had to give up anything, like move troops out of Arabia),
Perhaps you might want to view your French allies role in the post-USS Cole operations . I am sure Al-Qaida really loved that .
Not to mention Afghanistan .
Caution my friend, you are entering the realm of metaphysics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It amazes me that many Americans are blind to that fact they have so much in common with the French.
1. Cult of individualism. There is no more individualistic culture in the world than French culture. In the U.S. at least individualism has always been mitigated by social control and civil society, churches, sports clubs, etcetera. The French are actually the pure, unadulterated individualists that many Americans imagine themselves to be. If you give a German a gun, he will report it to the authorities. If you give an American a gun, he will take it into to woods to practice. If you give a Frenchman a gun, he will immediately use it to shoot his next-door neighbour.
2. Distrust of authorities. The French distrust, despise and hate their own government and politicians, their national and local authorities, their police, judges and lawyers, their tax collectors and their school boards even more than most Americans. And there is just as much local patriotism, with just as many deep historic roots, in France as there is in the United States.
3. Fixation on national interest. The French state is just as obsessed by the national interest and matters of national security as the American state. At its best, it works to spread (French) republican values around the world. At its worst, it lies, flip-flops and kills in cold blood in order to further French interests around the world.
Sound familiar? Two great nations with conflicting national interests, yet with a similar political outlook. Both have vested interests in the Middle East and act upon them. This has brought them into conflict more than once. For their own national reasons the French have been fighting islamism from the 1970's onwards, at a time when the United States was stimulating islamism as an alternative (and counterweight) against the influence of the Soviet Union in the Arab world and on the subcontinent. And it is hardly fair to say that the French are accommodating Osama bin Laden just because they took an opposite view on Iraq and were proven right. They made their own mistakes, i.e. in Vietnam and Suez, and were berated by the United States which took an oppositie view and was proven right.
I know this is only the Backroom, but it couldn't hurt to see some things in the proper perspective every now and then.
So basically you made it up. Like the bit about 'giving in with embolden them'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I think in the early post 11/9 days I think Bin Laden, suprised by being placed at the head of this group he previously didn't realise he was head of, decided to make a play for power in Saudi. I think he was hoping for a popular uprising there that he could lead.
He doubtless has fantasies about being the Caliph of Arabia - but I think that's as far as his ambitions went. All this world domination and kill all the infidel stuff is just played up by our governments to scare us into line.
If you want to hurt the Norwegians economically you could destroy the land based oil depot/refinery installations e.g. Mongstad, Sture, Kollsnes or Kårstø (the four main ones).
To hurt moral or incite shock would be to kill the entire royal family.
A political blow would be to destroy Stortinget (the great ting) when the entire political leadership were in session.
If you did all three… the effect would be devastating.
I will not be telling!
You tickle me and see! :charge:
I assure you CR, it takes harder for me to insult people :bow: Of course it is Osama freak I'm talking about..Quote:
Who's the freak? Me or Osama? I see now that the siege of Vienna was only a little more than 300 years ago. Truth be told, I cannot find the resource saying Osama's mad about Vienna, but I do remember hearing about it.
Not everything you heard may be true, as you may well agree.. What's more I'd like to share nothing with that freak - my history? No, not all..